Federalism and Multilevel Governance in Tobacco Policy: The European Union, the United Kingdom, and Devolved UK Institutions

Most studies of tobacco control policy focus on the central level of national governments. Yet within the European Union, three levels of government have responsibilities for tobacco control: the EU; the central governments of member states; and provinces or devolved levels of government. This article examines the role of each in the formation of tobacco policy in the United Kingdom. It compares the theory of regulatory federalism with multilevel governance as explanations for tobacco regulatory policy within the EU. While executive-legislative fusion in the United Kingdom leads to the practice of discretionary federalism, the EU provides mixed support for the theory of regulatory federalism. There is significant policy innovation in the UK and its devolved territories as well as limited policy authority for tobacco control in the EU. Overall, multi-level governance (MLG) may be a superior, albeit incomplete, explanation of tobacco control within the EU and the UK

The UK: A Case Study

First paragraph: Tobacco policy in the UK demonstrates a period of rapid legislative change following decades of policy continuity. Tobacco advertising was banned in the UK in 2002 and bans on smoking in public places in the UK and devolved territories were introduced from 2005-6. These measures, combined with others already in place, such as smoking cessation services and health education, make the UK the most active tobacco control member state in the EU. It now ranks number one in the Tobacco Control Scale discussed in Chapter 4. Yet, for most of the post-war period, tobacco policy was marked by a relative lack of regulation. Tobacco control measures were often voluntary rather than legislative, while public health arguments often came second-best to those based on individual choice and the economic benefits of tobacco (Cairney, 2007a). Indeed, it is little over 20 years ago that Baggott's (1988) study of UK and Norwegian policy sought to explain why the former was such a laggard compared to the former. The UK therefore represents one of most fruitful case-studies of tobacco policy change because it seems to have engaged in radical policy change in a relatively short period of time. Our aim is to explain this shift in policy direction. A complementary aim is to consider the issues in relative depth (compared to the broader comparative chapters), identifying the substance and nature of policy (considering, for example, the nature of voluntary agreements), and considering the forces for change, in greater detail

Syntheses and Crystal Structures of Three Chiral Oxazolidinones with Different Ring Conformations

Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: We thank the EPSRC National Crystallography Centre (University of Southampton) for the X-ray data collections.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

What is the 'dominant model' of British policymaking? Comparing majoritarian and policy community ideas

The aim of this article is to help identify the fundamental characteristics of the British policymaking system. It highlights an enduring conflict of interpretation within the literature. On the one hand, most contemporary analysts argue that the ‘Westminster model' is outmoded and that it has been replaced by modern understandings based on ‘governance'. On the other, key ideas associated with the Westminster model, regarding majoritarian government and policy imposition, are still in good currency in the academic literature, which holds firm to Lijphart's description of the United Kingdom as a majoritarian democracy. These very different understandings of British government are both commonly cited, but without much recognition that their conclusions may be mutually incompatible. To address this lack of comparison of competing narratives, the article outlines two main approaches to describe and explain the ‘characteristic and durable' ways of doing things in Britain: the ‘policy styles' literature initiated by Richardson in Policy Styles in Western Europe and the Lijphart account found in Democracies and revised in 1999 as Patterns of Democracy. The article encourages scholars to reject an appealing compromise between majoritarian and governance accounts

Is Scotland a Westminster-style Majoritarian Democracy or a Scandinavian-style Consensus Democracy? A Comparison of Scotland, the UK and Sweden

Peer reviewedPostprin

Fracture toughness testing using photogrammetry and digital image correlation

Digital image correlation (DIC) is an optical technique commonly used for measuring displacement fields by tracking artificially applied random speckle patterns, which can sometimes be a problem for tracking small-scale displacements. DIC is particularly useful for tracking the crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) of a notched metallic specimen subjected to three-point bending for fracture toughness determination because the edges of the notch provide the required textural features for DIC without the need for speckle patterns. This simplifies the set-up process as the specimen and stage geometries do not need to account for the placement of a strain gauge. To enhance the accuracy of DIC, this study then successfully downscaled a photogrammetry technique commonly used to track crack propagation in large scale concrete tests so that the pixel coordinates of the captured images can be automatically related to their real-world coordinates, allowing for small scale displacements to be accurately tracked.ARC Linkage Project LP130100111, ARC DECRA DE15010170

Turning psychology into policy: a case of square pegs and round holes?

This paper problematizes the ways in which the policy process is conceived in published psychological research. It argues that these conceptions of the policy process fail to ade- quately reflect the real-world dynamism and complexity of the processes and practices of social policy-making and implementation. In this context, psychological evidence needs to be seen as one type of evidence (amongst many others). In turn this requires researchers to take account of broader political processes that favour certain types of knowledge and disparage others. Rather than be regarded as objective and scientific, policy in this characterisation is regarded as a motivated form of politics. This multi-layered, multi-level hybrid structure is not immediately amenable to the well-intentioned interventions of psychologists. While the tendency of many psychologists is to overestimate the impact that we can have upon policy formation and implementation, there are examples where psychological theory and research has fed directly into UK policy developments in recent years. This paper draws on the recent Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) initiative and the work of personality researcher Adam Perkins on the UK’s social security system to ask whether psychology has a sufficiently elaborated sense of its own evidence base to legitimately seek to influence key national areas of public policy. The article cautions against dramatic changes to policy pre- dicated upon any one reading of the variegated and, at times, contradictory psychological evidence base. It concludes that, in order to meaningfully contribute to the policy develop- ment process in a way which increases equality and social justice, psychologists need to be more strategic in thinking about how their research is likely to be represented and mis- represented in any particular context. Finally some possible directions for psychologists to take for a more meaningful relationship with policy are suggested

Developing reading-writing connections; the impact of explicit instruction of literary devices on the quality of children's narrative writing

The purpose of this collaborative schools-university study was to investigate how the explicit instruction of literary devices during designated literacy sessions could improve the quality of children's narrative writing. A guiding question for the study was: Can children's writing can be enhanced by teachers drawing attention to the literary devices used by professional writers or “mentor authors”? The study was conducted with 18 teachers, working as research partners in nine elementary schools over one school year. The research group explored ways of developing children as reflective authors, able to draft and redraft writing in response to peer and teacher feedback. Daily literacy sessions were complemented by weekly writing workshops where students engaged in authorial activity and experienced writers' perspectives and readers' demands (Harwayne, 1992; May, 2004). Methods for data collection included video recording of peer-peer and teacher-led group discussions and audio recording of teacher-child conferences. Samples of children's narrative writing were collected and a comparison was made between the quality of their independent writing at the beginning and end of the research period. The research group documented the importance of peer-peer and teacher-student discourse in the development of children's metalanguage and awareness of audience. The study suggests that reading, discussing, and evaluating mentor texts can have a positive impact on the quality of children's independent writing

Has Devolution Changed the 'British Policy Style'?

The term ‘policy style' simply means the way that governments make and implement policy. Yet, the term ‘British policy style' may be confusing since it has the potential to relate to British exceptionalism or European convergence. Lijphart's important contribution identifies the former. It sets up a simple distinction between policy styles in majoritarian and consensual democracies and portrays British policy-making as top down and different from a consensual European approach. In contrast, Richardson identifies a common ‘European policy style'. This suggests that although the political structures of each country vary, they share a ‘standard operating procedure' based on two factors - an incremental approach to policy and an attempt to reach a consensus with interest groups rather than impose decisions. This article extends these arguments to British politics since devolution. It questions the assumption that policy styles are diverging within Britain. Although consultation in the devolved territories may appear to be more consensual, they are often contrasted with a caricature of the UK process based on atypical examples of top-down policy-making. While there may be a different ‘feel' to participation in Scotland and Wales, a similar logic of consultation and bureaucratic accommodation exists in the UK. This suggests that, although devolution has made a difference, a British (or European) policy style can still be identified