Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Step Four: Ensure That Drug Policy Innovations are Evaluated, and Evidence on Their Effectiveness is Shared Widely

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Towards More Effective Global Drug Policies

  • 618 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter argues that drug policy innovations are only useful in a system that also allows for their evaluation, and which has the resources to disseminate the results widely. It begins by critically exploring the rise of evidence based policy debates in general, and their applicability to the complex or ‘wicked’ field of drug policy in particular. The second section explores the extent of cross-national comparative drug policy data collated around the globe, outlining the problematic nature of undertaking comparisons in this area. It further elaborates on the difficulties of defining success in the drugs field. Finally, it makes suggestions about how we could develop better metrics for evaluating drug policy efforts, and emphasises the important role that soft policy transfer, lesson-drawing and civil society can play.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akgul, A., & Gurer, C. (2014). The European Union and emergence of a drug policy institution in Turkey. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 21(6), 460–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be Sydney. Australia: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backstrand, K. (2004). Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 3(4), 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. J. (1991). Review article: What is policy convergence and what causes it? British Journal of Political Science, 21, 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, D., & Jordan, A. (2011). What have we learned from policy transfer research? Dolowitz and Marsh revisited. Political Studies Review, 9, 366–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berridge, V., & Thom, B. (1996). Research and policy: What determines the relationship? Policy Studies, 17(1), 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bewley-Taylor, D. (2016, April). Towards metrics that measure outcomes that matter (Policy Brief 10). Swansea, UK: Global Drug Policy Observatory. https://www.swansea.ac.uk/gdpo.

  • Black, N. (2001). Evidence based policy: Proceed with care. British Medical Journal, 323, 275–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boaz, A., & Pawson, R. (2005). The perilous road from evidence to policy: Five journeys compared. Journal of Social Policy, 34(2), 175–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer, S., & Padgett, S. (2004). Policy transfer in the European Union: An institutionalist perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatwin, C. (2011). Drug policy harmonization and the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatwin, C. (2015). Mixed messages from Europe on drug policy reform: The cases of Sweden and The Netherlands. Washington, DC: Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu.

  • CND. (2014, March 13–21). Proposed strategic framework on 2016–2017 for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Fifty-seventh session, Vienna, E/CN.7/2014/CRP.4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, P. (2010). Looking at the UN, smelling a rat: A comment on “Sweden’s successful drugs policy: A review of the evidence”. Amsterdam Law Forum, 2(4), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom? A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44(2), 343–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy making. Governance, 13(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duke, K., & Thom, B. (2014). The role of evidence and the expert in contemporary processes of governance: The case of opioid substitution treatment policy in England. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25, 964–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EMCDDA. (2011). European drug report 2011. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu.

  • EMCDDA. (2017). European drug report 2017, 26–7. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu.

  • EMCDDA. (2018). Mission. http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/mission-en.

  • European Parliament. (2016). A review and assessment of EU drug policy. Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizens’ rights and constitutional affairs, Civil liberties, justice and home affairs, PE 571.400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felbab-Brown, V., & Trinkunas, H. (2015). UNGASS 2016 in comparative perspective: Improving the prospects for success. https://www.brookings.edu.

  • Galtung, J. (1990). Theory formation in social research: A plea for pluralism. In E. Oyen (Ed.), Comparative methodology. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Commission on Drug Policy. (2011). War on drugs: Report of the global commission on drug policy. http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org.

  • Greenwald, G. (2009). Drug decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for creating fair and successful drug policies. Washington, DC: The Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org.

  • Grund, J. P., & Breeksema, J. (2013). Coffeeshops and compromise: Separated illicit drug markets in the Netherlands. New York: Open Society Foundations. http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org.

  • Hakim, C. (2000). Research design: Successful designs for social and economic research (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harm Reduction International. (2016, January 23). Harm Reduction International has serious concerns with draft UNGASS outcome document. https://www.hri.global.

  • Head, B. W. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, R. (2005). Policy transfer and the internationalisation of social policy. Social Policy and Sociology, 4(4), 417–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, N. (2003). A review of the evidence-base for harm reduction approaches to drug use. Release. http://www.forward-thinking-on-drugs.org/review2.

  • Knoepfel, P., & Kissling-Naf, I. (1998). Social learning in policy networks. Policy and Politics, 26(3), 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, K. (2016). Performing the evidence-based drug policy. Contemporary Drug Problems, 43(2), 142–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, S. (2011). The impact of research on policy in the drugs field. Methodological Innovations Online, 6(1), 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M. (1997). Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 738–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, M. (2008). Appreciating cannabis: The paradox of evidence in evidence-based policy making. Evidence and Policy, 4(2), 209–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muggah, R., & de Carvalho. S. (2015). How new metrics can reset global drug policy. World Politics Review. https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com.

  • Muggah, R., Aguirre, K., & de Carvalho, S. (2015, January). Measurement matters: Designing new metrics for a drug policy that works (Strategic paper 12). Brazil: Instituto Igarape.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, G. (2004). Government, knowledge and the business of policy making: The potential and limits of evidence-based policy. Evidence and Policy, 1(2), 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, E. J. (2016). Reconsidering the “idea” of evidence in evidence-based policy and practice. European Journal of Social Work, 19(3–4), 310–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naughton, M. (2005). “Evidence-based policy” and the government of the criminal justice system—Only if the evidence fits! Critical Social Policy, 25(1), 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, D., King, L. A., & Phillips, C. D. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet, 376(9752), 6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, D., King, L. A., Saulsbury, W., & Blakemore, C. (2007). Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. The Lancet, 369(9566), 1047–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, E. (2000). Future governance and the literature on policy transfer and lesson drawing (Future Governance Papers). Swindon, UK: ESRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, W., Wasselink, A., & Colebatch, H. (2014). Evidence and meaning in policy making. Evidence and Policy, 10(2), 161–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto Coelho, M. (2010, February 2). Decriminalization of drugs in Portugal—The real facts! Stockholm: World Federation Against Drugs. http://www.wfad.se/latest-news/1articles/123-decriminalization-of-drugs-in-portugal–the-real-facts.

  • Reinarman, C., Cohen, P., & Kaal, H. (2004). The limited relevance of drug policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 836–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, A. (2009). How do drug policy makers access research evidence? International Journal of Drug Policy, 20, 70–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, A., & Bammer, G. (2010). Models of policy-making and their relevance for drug research. Drug and Alcohol Review, 29, 352–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, M. (2014). Making drug policy together: Reflections on evidence, engagement and participation. International Journal of Drug Policy, 25, 952–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (1991). What is lesson-drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roumeliotis, F. (2015). Politics of prevention: The emergence of prevention science. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26, 746–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, I. (2009). Intelligent policy making for a complex world: Pragmatism, evidence and learning Political Studies, 57, 699–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Standring, A. (2012). An ever closer union—Towards the “soft” convergence of European drug policies. Drugs and Alcohol Today, 12(1), 12–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, A. (2007). Survival of the ideas that fit: An evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence. Social Policy and Society, 6(1), 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, A. (2011a). Drugs, crime and public health: The political economy of drug policy. London: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, A. (2011b). Telling policy stories: An ethnographic study of the use of evidence in policy-making in the UK. Journal of Social Policy, 40, 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2001a). Think tanks, global lesson-drawing and networking social policy ideas. Global Social Policy, 1(3), 338–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2001b, April). Learning lessons, policy transfer and the international diffusion of policy ideas (Working Paper No 69.01). Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation.

    Google Scholar 

  • TNI. (2016). The UNGASS outcome document: Diplomacy or denialism? https://www.tni.org.

  • TNI. (2018). Mission. https://www.tni.org/en/page/mission.

  • Transnational Institute. (2015). UNGASS 2016: Background memo on the proposal to establish an expert advisory group. https://www.tni.org.

  • Uchtenhagen, A. (2014). Some critical issues in cannabis policy reform. Addiction, 109(3), 356–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNODC. (2007). Sweden’s successful drug policy: A review of the evidence. http://www.unodc.org.

  • UNODC. (2011). World drug report 2011. http://www.unodc.org/documents.

  • UNODC. (2016). Outcome document of the 2016 United Nations General Assembly Special Session on the world drug problem. Our joint commitment to effectively addressing and countering the world drug problem. New York: United Nations. http://www.unodc.org/documents.

  • UNODC. (2017). World drug report 2017, 26–7. http://www.unodc.org/documents.

  • Valentine, K. (2009). Evidence, values and drug treatment policy. Critical Social Policy, 29(3), 443–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Review, 33(3), 880–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1977). The enlightenment function of social science research. Policy Analysis, 3(4), 531–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1986). The many meanings of research utilisation. In M. Bulmer (Ed.), Social science and social policy. London: Allen Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werb, D., Kazatchkine, M., Kerr, T., Nutt, D., Strathdee, S., Hankins, C., et al. (2016a). A call to reprioritise metrics to evaluate illicit drugs policy. The Lancet, 387, 1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werb, D., Wood, E., Strathdee, S., Kazatchkine, M., des Jarlais, D., Hankins, C., et al. (2016b). Open letter to the United Nations: A call for a reprioritisation of metrics to evaluate illicit drug policy. Tornto, Canada: International Centre for Science in Drugs Policy. https://www.icsdp.org.

  • Wood, E., Werb, D., Kazatchkine, M., Kerr, T., Hankins, C., Gorna, R., et al. (2010). Vienna declaration: A call for evidence-based drug policies. The Lancet, 376, 310–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, K., Ashby, D., Boaz, A., & Grayson, L. (2002). Social science and the evidence-based policy movement. Social Policy and Society, 1(3), 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    Caroline Chatwin

Authors
  1. Caroline Chatwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Chatwin .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chatwin, C. (2018). Step Four: Ensure That Drug Policy Innovations are Evaluated, and Evidence on Their Effectiveness is Shared Widely. In: Towards More Effective Global Drug Policies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92072-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92072-6_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92071-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92072-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation