Alleged 55 million adults in the European Union drink at harmful levels. Undoubtedly abuse of alcohol is insanitary. Therefore the European Commission set out a strategy in October 2006 to reduce the numbers of drinkers. Among the measures is a recommendation to ban advertisements for alcohol. Drinking is unhealthy - so is smoking. Thus the Tobacco Advertising Directive is finally implemented in the summer of this year by the last member states. But the story of this achievement reaches back nearly a decade: due to implementation deficits the process of banning advertisements for tobacco products cannot be regarded as a fast and efficient process. It started in 2003 when finally the directive 2003/33/EC was passed by the Council and the European Parliament that prohibits any kind of advertising for tobacco products in print, internet and online media. It should have been implemented by each member state until the 31stof July 2005. But two countries - Luxembourg and Germany - failed to implement up to that date. Germany sued the Commission, because they argued that the directive exceeded its legal base concerned with the internal market and competition rules. Those were the reasons the Commission had claimed to justify its directive. Germany took the directive to the ECJ, and the Commission - as the last step of the infringement procedure - sued Germany for not implementing. While both cases were pending the German government finally agreed to implement the directive in July 2006 - but only at the time where it was quite likely that they would loose their case at the court.
In total it took the Commission nearly ten years to achieve their aim. Now, with the discussion about banning advertisements for alcohol a similar process starts again. If the Commission could or should learn something from its former experience is the question that should be answered in this paper.
In the second part of this introduction necessary remarks about lesson drawing in general will be made. A vital part for lesson drawing is - obviously - a similarity between the two cases that shall be compared. That this applies to the chosen examples will be shown in the first part after the introduction. Furthermore in this second part of the paper the emergence of the Tobacco Advertising Directive will be shown. A model will be developed that describes the real-life deficits of the implementation process.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Two unhealthy Habits
II.1. Alcohol Abuse in the European Union
II.2. The Tobacco Advertising Directive
II.2.a. Tobacco Consumption in the European Union
II.2.b. The Emergence of the Ban
II.2.c. Results: The Problems of the Ban
III. Policy Implementation
III.1. The Theoretical Problem
III.2. The Structural Problem: Infringement Procedure
III.3. Results: Inherent Problems of Implementation
IV. Drawing a Lesson: Problems to avoid!
IV.1. A multiplicity of interests: Tobacco Lobbying
IV.2. Learning a Lesson?
V. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the implementation of the European Tobacco Advertising Directive to determine if the challenges encountered during this process can serve as a lesson for future EU initiatives, specifically the proposed ban on alcohol advertisements. The primary research question is: In what way can the Tobacco Advertising Directive be a suitable lesson to be drawn to achieve the similar goal of banning advertisements for alcohol?
- The policy implementation process in the European Union.
- Comparative analysis of tobacco and alcohol consumption as unhealthy habits.
- Legislative hurdles and the role of the European Court of Justice.
- The influence of interest groups and lobbying on EU policymaking.
- Identification of process-inherent problems in policy implementation.
Excerpt from the Book
IV.1. A multiplicity of interests: Tobacco Lobbying
The two-time initiative of the German government indicates that they have been under pressure to act - and not only out of the idea to define the competences of the Community. European Policies are made under pressure from various sides, so are national policies. “It is broadly agreed that interests and self-interests have repeatedly played a crucial part in determining the outcomes of EU policy-making” (Wallace, 2000: 58) However, this paper shall not elaborate on the influence of lobbyists in general, but on tobacco lobbying in particular. Although - additionally to interests by the tobacco industry - the advertising industry must be opposed to a ban as well.
The tobacco industry combines some of the most powerful companies in the world. They own other industries and/or companies and merge together. Thereby huge monopolies are created, see Annex 4. “Philip Morris is the world’s largest transnational tobacco company, whose Marlboro brand is the world leader; in 1999 the company had sales of over US$47 billion” (WHO, 2004). A huge variety of countries are involved in the production of tobacco products, either as growers, producers or sellers. Also the European Union gives subsidies to tobacco farmers, but those shall fade out. “However there are several hundred thousand tobacco farmers and their families who currently depend on theses subsidies” (European Commission, 2005). This short paragraph shows that albeit the noble goal of reducing the number of smokers, strong interest groups are opposed to this, which is not just a conspiracy theory.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Outlines the research problem regarding the delayed implementation of the Tobacco Advertising Directive and establishes the research goal for future alcohol advertising policy.
II. Two unhealthy Habits: Compares alcohol abuse and tobacco consumption as major health issues, detailing the emergence and regulatory challenges of the Tobacco Advertising Directive.
III. Policy Implementation: Analyzes the theoretical and structural difficulties within the EU implementation process, specifically focusing on infringement procedures.
IV. Drawing a Lesson: Problems to avoid!: Discusses the role of tobacco lobbying as a barrier to effective policy and evaluates whether lessons can be derived for future EU governance.
V. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, noting that while the Tobacco Advertising Directive was a difficult lesson, it provides a pathway for managing future dynamic EU legislative processes.
Keywords
European Union, Policy Implementation, Tobacco Advertising Directive, Alcohol Abuse, European Commission, Infringement Procedure, Tobacco Lobbying, Legal Base, Public Health, Historical Analogy, Legislative Process, European Court of Justice, Governance, Regulation, Integration.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on analyzing the implementation process of the Tobacco Advertising Directive to draw lessons for potential future regulations regarding alcohol advertisement bans in the EU.
What are the central thematic fields addressed?
The research covers EU policy implementation mechanisms, the influence of tobacco industry lobbyists, the role of member state governments, and the function of the European Court of Justice.
What is the primary research question?
The study asks: In what way can the Tobacco Advertising Directive be a suitable lesson to be drawn to achieve the similar goal of banning advertisements for alcohol?
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The paper uses the historical analogy method as described by Richard Rose to compare past policy implementation experiences with current legislative challenges.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body examines alcohol consumption statistics, the timeline of the Tobacco Advertising Directive, theoretical problems of EU policy implementation, and the impact of organized interests.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include European Union, Policy Implementation, Tobacco Advertising Directive, Lobbying, and Infringement Procedure.
Why did Germany oppose the Tobacco Advertising Directive initially?
Germany argued that the directive exceeded the EU's legal competences and lacked a sufficient basis concerning internal market and competition rules.
How does the author characterize the role of the European Commission?
The author argues that the Commission should not be seen as a "toothless tiger," but notes that its power is constrained by member state interests and the complexity of multi-level governance.
- Quote paper
- Hannah Cosse (Author), 2006, Policy Implementation: Banning Advertisements for Tobacco Products - A lesson to learn from?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/70290
