7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Public support for European cooperation in the procurement, stockpiling and distribution of medicines

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The COVID-19 outbreak has heightened ongoing political debate about the international joint procurement of medicines and medical countermeasures. The European Union (EU) has developed what remains largely contractual and decentralized international procurement cooperation. The corona crisis has broadened and deepened public debate on such cooperation, in particular on the scope of cooperation, solidarity in the allocation of such cooperation, and delegation of cooperative decision-making. Crucial to political debate about these issues are public attitudes that constrain and undergird international cooperation.

          Methods

          Our survey includes a randomized survey experiment (conjoint analysis) on a representative sample in five European countries in March 2020, informed by legal and policy debate on medical cooperation. Respondents choose and rate policy packages containing randomized mixes of policy attributes with respect to the scope of medicines covered, the solidarity in conferring priority access and the level of delegation.

          Results

          In all country populations surveyed, the experiment reveals considerable popular support for European cooperation. Significant majorities preferred cooperation packages with greater rather than less scope of medicines regulated; with priority given to most in-need countries; and with delegation to EU-level rather than national expertise.

          Conclusion

          Joint procurement raises delicate questions with regard to its scope, the inclusion of cross-border solidarity and the delegation of decision-making, that explain reluctance toward joint procurement among political decision-makers. This research shows that there is considerable public support across different countries in favor of centralization, i.e. a large scope and solidarity in the allocation and delegation of decision-making.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of Public Opinion on Policy

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments

            Survey experiments are a core tool for causal inference. Yet, the design of classical survey experiments prevents them from identifying which components of a multidimensional treatment are influential. Here, we show howconjoint analysis, an experimental design yet to be widely applied in political science, enables researchers to estimate the causal effects of multiple treatment components and assess several causal hypotheses simultaneously. In conjoint analysis, respondents score a set of alternatives, where each has randomly varied attributes. Here, we undertake a formal identification analysis to integrate conjoint analysis with the potential outcomes framework for causal inference. We propose a new causal estimand and show that it can be nonparametrically identified and easily estimated from conjoint data using a fully randomized design. The analysis enables us to propose diagnostic checks for the identification assumptions. We then demonstrate the value of these techniques through empirical applications to voter decision making and attitudes toward immigrants.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Mass support for global climate agreements depends on institutional design.

              Effective climate mitigation requires international cooperation, and these global efforts need broad public support to be sustainable over the long run. We provide estimates of public support for different types of climate agreements in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Using data from a large-scale experimental survey, we explore how three key dimensions of global climate cooperation--costs and distribution, participation, and enforcement--affect individuals' willingness to support these international efforts. We find that design features have significant effects on public support. Specifically, our results indicate that support is higher for global climate agreements that involve lower costs, distribute costs according to prominent fairness principles, encompass more countries, and include a small sanction if a country fails to meet its emissions reduction targets. In contrast to well-documented baseline differences in public support for climate mitigation efforts, opinion responds similarly to changes in climate policy design in all four countries. We also find that the effects of institutional design features can bring about decisive changes in the level of public support for a global climate agreement. Moreover, the results appear consistent with the view that the sensitivity of public support to design features reflects underlying norms of reciprocity and individuals' beliefs about the potential effectiveness of specific agreements.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Eur J Public Health
                Eur J Public Health
                eurpub
                The European Journal of Public Health
                Oxford University Press
                1101-1262
                1464-360X
                17 January 2021
                : ckaa201
                Affiliations
                Amsterdam Centre of European Studies, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                Amsterdam Centre of European Studies, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                Faculty of Social Science and Behavior, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                Amsterdam Centre of European Studies, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                Faculty of Political Economy, University of Ghent , Ghent, Belgium
                Amsterdam Centre of European Studies, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance, Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                Amsterdam Centre of European Studies, University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                University of Amsterdam , Amsterdam, Netherlands
                Author notes
                Correspondence: A. de Ruijter, Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance, Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1000BA Amsterdam, Netherlands, Tel: +31 (20) 525 3445, Fax: +31 (0)20 525 1400, e-mail: A.deRuijter@ 123456uva.nl
                Article
                ckaa201
                10.1093/eurpub/ckaa201
                7928975
                33454782
                9764e763-a589-4058-9426-220109499fd3
                © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Funding
                Funded by: University of Amsterdam, DOI 10.13039/501100001827;
                Categories
                Original Manuscript
                AcademicSubjects/MED00860
                AcademicSubjects/SOC01210
                AcademicSubjects/SOC02610
                Custom metadata
                PAP

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article