THE DESIGN OF THE PLASTIC CARRIER BAG POLICY - SUCCESS OR FAILURE?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
THE DESIGN OF THE
PLASTIC CARRIER BAG
POLICY
- SUCCESS OR FAILURE?
Nina Lovering
Master thesis, 30 hp
Master’s Program in Political Science, 120 hp
Autumn Term 2020Abstract The choice of policy design has crucial implications for a policy’s efficiency. Plastic as a material is an important issue because of its fossil origin and because it often ends up as litter and spreads microplastics. Consequently, policies regarding plastic are vital to examine to understand how we can reduce the environmental consequences of plastic. This study has examined the design of the plastic carrier bag policy and especially focused on the choice of policy instrument, the actors involved, and if the desired change in behaviour occurred. By utilising Schneider and Ingram’s policy design theory, and Howlett and Vedung’s works on policy design and policy instruments, the study built an analytical framework to examine the plastic carrier bag policy. The result showed that the design of a policy was largely dependent on who governed, reflecting the government’s political culture, aims, and goals. The outcome of the policy showed that tax as an economic instrument was efficient in changing the public’s behaviour in the use of plastic carrier bags. Keywords: policy design, plastic carrier bag, policy design, policy instruments, plastic, circular economy.
Table of contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Aim & research questions ................................................................................................ 6
1.2 Delimitations .................................................................................................................... 6
2. Literature review ............................................................................................... 6
3. Theory................................................................................................................ 9
3.1 Policy design .................................................................................................................. 10
3.1.1 Policy goals, problems & underlying assumptions
............................................................. 12
3.1.2 Tools
.................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1.3 Target population & implementation structure
.................................................................... 14
3.2. Policy instruments ......................................................................................................... 15
4. Method & material .......................................................................................... 17
4.1 Research design .............................................................................................................. 17
4.2 Thematic analysis ........................................................................................................... 18
4.3 Material .......................................................................................................................... 20
4.3.1 Policy documents
................................................................................................................. 20
4.3.2 Interviews
............................................................................................................................ 22
5. Results ............................................................................................................. 24
5.1 Background to the Policy ............................................................................................... 24
5.2 The Memorandum .......................................................................................................... 28
5.3 The Referral Bodies ....................................................................................................... 31
5.4 The Proposition .............................................................................................................. 36
5.5 The Debate ..................................................................................................................... 38
5.6 The Implementation ....................................................................................................... 40
5.6.1 The Stores
............................................................................................................................ 41
5.6.2 The Customers Behaviour
................................................................................................... 44
5.7 The Outcome .................................................................................................................. 46
6. Analysis ........................................................................................................... 47
7. Concluding discussion..................................................................................... 51
8. References ....................................................................................................... 53
1List of tables
Table 1. Theory and operationalisation .................................................................................... 14
Table 2. Policy instruments operationalisation ........................................................................ 17
Table 3. Policy documents. ...................................................................................................... 21
Table 4. Overview of referral bodies answers. ......................................................................... 34
Table 5. The political parties and their preferred policy instrument. ....................................... 40
Table 6. The Swedish Tax Agency’s numbers on the plastic carrier bag tax. ......................... 47
List of figures
Figure 1. Timeline from idea to implementation. .................................................................... 24
Abbreviations and acronyms
CE – Circular Economy
SEPA – the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
FORMAS – the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development
FAR – The Institute for Accountancy Profession in Sweden
IKEM – Chemicals and Innovation Companies in Sweden
NIER – The National Institute of Economic Research
21. Introduction
Humans have utilised fossil fuels such as coal and oil to create all sorts of products since the
beginning of the 19th century (Pirani 2018, 9). We have known for a long time that this practice
is harmful to the planet we live on. The extensive and increasing use of oil accelerates climate
change, contributes to the loss of biodiversity and the pollution of oceans (IPCC 2018, 8). Oil
has been used to manufacture plastic since the beginning of the 20th century and is found in
almost every product we use (Thompson et al. 2009). Consequently, our use of plastic not only
impacts the environment because of its fossil origin, but it is also a problem what we do with
the plastic we no longer use (Jambeck et al. 2015). Thus, there is an urgent need to reduce our
use of fossil fuels, such as plastic products made from fossil oil. One product made from oil is
plastic carrier bags, which has been in focus in the political debate recently. Plastic carrier bags
are products that we use on a daily basis, and such products tend to end up in the ocean and
become microplastics; thus, plastic carrier bags are recognised as a global issue (Xanthos and
Walker 2017).
Several studies have found that the most common marine and land debris is plastic, and one of
the most common items found are plastic bags (Barnes et al. 2009; Rothäusler et al. 2019).
According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017, 22), if we continue to increase our use of
plastic, by the year 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the sea. Therefore, researchers
say that the most useful thing we can do is use less plastic and, consequently, produce less waste
(Jambeck et al. 2015).
While recycling is vital to use less natural resources, only 31.1% of plastic used in the EU was
recycled, and 27.3% ended up in landfills in 2016 (European Environment Agency 2019).
Plastic recycling is increasing in Europe, but only 6% of plastic demand was for recycled plastic
(EEA, 2019). Consequently, the EU is concentrating on waste prevention to reduce plastics’
environmental impacts and use resources more effectively. The question of how to effectively
reduce the use of plastic and plastic carrier bags has thus become a central political issue.
A literature review shows that countries are employing different approaches to reduce the use
of plastic carrier bags, such as bans, taxes and voluntary initiatives, all with varying degrees of
success. In Asia and Africa, several countries have banned plastic carrier bags. South Africa
introduced a charge on plastic carrier bags in grocery stores in 2003 which, in the first three
months, showed a large decrease in plastic carrier bag use (Dikgang, Leiman & Visser, 2012a).
However, a rise in plastic carrier bag consumption was noticed soon after because of a failure
3to maintain the level of the charge. Therefore, the South African policy was deemed a failure
due to plastic industry actors failing to keep up the agreed-on charge and lack of information
from the government to the public (Dikgang, Leiman & Visser 2012a; Dikgang, Leiman &
Visser 2012b). Furthermore, studies show that countries with voluntary initiatives to reduce the
number of plastic carrier bags are, in fact, among the highest in plastic carrier bag use per person
(Kasidoni, Moustakas & Malamis 2015, 424). In contrast, public policies that use market
instruments such as taxes and charges have appeared to be more capable of reducing the use of
plastic carrier bags than other policies according to some studies (Dikgang, Leiman & Visser
2012a; Lotspeich 1998). There is, however, no conclusive evidence for this.
The European Union has a goal of no more than 40 plastic bags per person per year by 2025,
and the Union is enforcing it through directive 94/62/EC (Regeringskansliet 2020). The
directive leaves it to the member states to choose what measure they take to cut plastic carrier
bag consumption, as long as the state meets the goal. In 2019, Swedes used an average of 74
thin plastic carrier bags (Naturvårdsverket 2020a). The directive on plastic carrier bags is part
of the Union’s Circular Economy Action plan which aims to generate a sustainable, low-carbon,
resource-effective and competitive economy (European Commission 2015). The basis of a
circular economy (CE) lies within the idea that a sustainable society needs to use resources in
a way that are beneficial for the planet and reuse and recycle, hence, to have goods in circulation
for a longer time (Mellquist 2018).
CE’s main idea is to change how we think about the economy and how it flows, from linear to
circular. For instance, a linear economy implies that products are made to sell as much as
possible. Contrary to a circular economy where products are made to last as long as possible,
which can lead to a reduced amount of waste (Mellquist 2018, 01:50-02:05). The EU’s CE goal
implies that even though a plastic carrier bag is made of renewable resources, it is not circular
if it is used only once. However, the plastic carrier bag can be symbolic for the throw-away
consumer culture we live in, and actors such as governments and businesses, therefore, want to
modify consumer behaviour (Ritch, Brennan & MacLeod 2009). Consequently, it is crucial to
reduce the use of plastic carrier bags to fit the circular economy plan.
Plastic as a material has been subject to debate when discussing a CE and is recognised as a
prioritised material by the EU Action plan for a Circular Economy (European Commission,
2015). The material is vital in many fields, for instance, for medical supplies and for food
packaging to extend durability. However, plastics longevity is hundreds to thousands of years
4(Barnes et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2016), and when it breaks down into microplastics, it is likely
to be ingested by animals (Andrady 2011; Barnes et al. 2009; Wang et al. 2016).
Policy instruments can mould consumer behaviour to more sustainable behaviour, for instance,
by introducing sanctions on actions which are damaging for the environment. A sanction can
also demonstrate that a resource is worth more and should be more expensive (Mellquist 2018).
The European Commission urges the member states to use incentives and disincentives “[…]
to ensure that product prices better reflect environmental costs” (European Commission 2015).
Hence, there is an urgent need to make virgin materials, i.e. material that has not been used or
consumed before, more expensive. It cannot, however, distort international competition;
consequently, global changes are needed. Lower prices on virgin materials than recycled
material and ineffective policy instruments are considered obstacles in the recycling industry
(Återvinningsindustrierna 2019).
As a member of the European Union, Sweden is obliged to implement the circular economy
policy and directive through directive 94/62/EC, i.e., to reduce the number of plastic carrier
bags.
In 2017 the Swedish government had an information campaign to reduce the number of plastic
carrier bags. The results showed that between 2017 and 2019, Swedes reduced their use of
plastic carrier bags from 83 to 74 per person per year (Naturvårdsverket 2020a). Nevertheless,
the information campaign was not sufficient enough to meet the EU target, and the government
eventually decided to progress with a different policy instrument, namely a tax. This,
nonetheless, was not uncontroversial as several opponents to the tax suggested that the policy’s
effect on the environment was questionable or even harmful as consumption of substituting
bags were thought to increase. Some argued that the tax could be perceived as more of a
symbolic act than a real policy.
There is a knowledge gap in this field since there have not yet been studies on the policy
instrument and consumer behaviour of the plastic carrier bag tax in Sweden. There are studies
from other countries, but no Swedish studies have yet been made because the tax is new. In this
thesis, I will address how the Swedish government designed the policy, why the government
choose the specific policy instrument, and if consumers’ behaviour has changed.
51.1 Aim & research questions
Considering Sweden’s goal of introducing a circular economy, this study aims to, from a policy
design perspective, analyse the introduction of a tax on plastic carrier bags. More specifically,
the thesis will focus on the policy ideas that formed the basis of the policy, the choice of policy
instrument(s), to what extent the policy has led to the desired impact and if it has had any
unintended consequences.
- What discussion preceded the decision, what actors were involved, and how is this
demonstrated in the policy?
- What goals and underlying assumptions are prevalent in the policy?
- To what extent has the intended behavioural change occurred?
1.2 Delimitations
The thesis will not investigate which bags are better for the environment (i.e. plastic carrier
bags versus paper or textile bags). Therefore, the study will not do a life cycle analysis on the
plastic carrier bag, as this falls outside the field of political science. Additionally, the thesis will
not investigate the policy’s results or evaluate the policy (i.e., if littering and spreading of
microplastics has been reduced).
2. Literature review
Similar to Sweden, the British government aimed to reduce plastic pollution by changing
consumer behaviour, by taxing plastic carrier bags and banning certain products (McNicholas
& Cotton 2019, 78). To appreciate how stakeholders viewed the British government’s actions
to reduce plastic pollution in the ocean, McNicholas and Cotton (2019) employed Q-
methodology to understand stakeholder perspectives on the government’s policy. Although
small, the study found that certain stakeholders believed the problem with plastic pollution
needed to focus on reducing the use of plastics instead of solving it through waste management
(McNicholas & Cotton 2019, 83). Thus, three out of four stakeholders believed that a consumer
tax on selected products could aid the problem with plastic pollution. In comparison, a tax on
retailers was thought to be more favourable by other stakeholders. The stakeholders were to an
extent against changing consumer behaviour and more for retailers taking responsibility for
6plastics pollution. The examined discourses agreed that there was a need for more substantial
international laws to reduce marine plastic pollution, demonstrating a traditional view that the
problem is more severe in countries far away (McNicholas and Cotton 2019, 85).
Clapp and Swanston (2009) suggest that an anti-plastic bag norm lies behind the large increase
of policies against plastic carrier bags. Therefore, they examined the anti-plastic carrier bag
norm and the impacts it has had on policy. They found that the anti-plastic bag norm started in
the global South (Clapp and Swanston 2009, 318), which is unusual. Furthermore, what was
unusual with the anti-plastic bag norm was that it started as a response to local concerns on the
environment instead of the traditional movement that other issues often stem from (Clapp and
Swanston 2009, 318). Regarding the polices that follow the anti-plastic bag norm, Clapp and
Swanston (2009, 323) observed that the kind of policy instrument chosen was related to what
role industry actors had in the policy formulation. Consequently, the industry actor’s strength
was significant; for instance, the US had a strong plastic industry, and regulations were only on
a regional level, mostly in municipalities. In contrast, Bangladesh had a weak plastic industry
and a nationwide ban on plastic bags (Clapp and Swanston 2009, 324). Hence, not only
governmental actors play a role in designing policies, but also industry actors from the affected
sector have much say in negotiations.
The Irish tax on plastic carrier bags has many similar traits to the Swedish tax and is, therefore,
useful to examine. The Irish tax on plastic bags aimed to reduce plastic carrier bags in nature
and make the public more aware of littering, similar to the Swedish tax (Convery, McDonnell
& Ferreria 2007, 2). According to Xanthos and Walker (2017, 22), who reviewed policies
aiming to reduce plastic use, the introduction of a tax on single-use plastic carrier bags in Ireland
in 2002 reduced the number of plastic bags used per person by approximately 90%. However,
twice during the period up to 2014, the tax was increased as the plastic carrier bag use had a
surge. Xanthos and Walker (2017, 22) observed a lack of studies examining the environmental
effects of bans and charges on plastic carrier bags and if the policies’ goals were fulfilled. The
levy was favoured by the public to the extent that it would be “politically damaging to remove
it” (Convery, McDonnell & Ferreira 2007, 2). The tax level was not based on the environmental
consequences; instead, it was set at a level that would make the consumer choose alternative
bags, namely six times higher than consumers were willing to pay (Convery, McDonnell &
Ferreira 2007, 3). Retailers were first sceptical to the tax, but with concessions and
supplemental information from the government, the problems were solved (Convery,
McDonnell & Ferreira 2007, 6). For a favourable implementation of the Irish tax, two things
7were vital. Firstly, to involve relevant stakeholders such as industry actors and citizen
representatives, to ensure that they endorsed the tax; secondly, that the public was informed
about the tax, e.g. the environmental benefits of it and that the income would go to an
environmental fund (Convery, McDonnell & Ferreira 2007, 5, 10). Thus, a policy mix of tax
and information rendered the plastic bag tax successful and perceived favourably by the public.
Results from the tax regarding litter showed differing results but concluded that the amount of
plastic carrier bags in nature had been reduced.
Black, Kopke and O’Mahony (2019) stated that for policies regarding for instance regulations
on plastic to be realised, there was a need to understand how and what stakeholders thought
about the policies and a circular economy so that those interests could be considered. As
mentioned above, the Irish involvement of stakeholders led to a favourable policy, both for the
public and for industry actors. However, there are also examples in which the government did
not involve relevant stakeholders, which had a negative impact on the reduction of plastic
carrier bag use. In South Africa, the government did not involve industry actors in the decision-
making process in the formulation of the policy, and industry actors eventually decided to lower
the prices of the plastic bags which ultimately led to an increase in plastic bag use (Dikgang,
Leiman & Visser, 2012a).
In 2009, the state of South Australia banned single-use bags made of polyethene. The ban was
pared with an information campaign that ran during a four-month period when the single-use
bags were phased out (Sharp, Høj & Wheeler 2010). Sharp, Høj and Wheeler studied the change
in consumers’ behaviour when forced into what they call “anti-consumption behaviour”. The
ban, states the authors, could result in voter backlash because citizens are typically against
changing behaviour (Sharp, Høj & Wheeler 2010; Wall 2005). The study found that women
were more likely to bring a shopping-bag than men and the information campaign was
successful in the sense that many people knew about the impending ban (Sharp, Høj & Wheeler
2010, 480). However, the information campaign was not enough; rather, negative
reinforcements were needed to change citizens’ habitual behaviour. Thus, a public policy was
deemed necessary (Sharp, Høj & Wheeler 2010, 480). Furthermore, the study suggests an initial
resistance to the ban before its effects were known, and the public had time to adjust to it.
Studies show that public policies on plastic carrier bags tend to be most successful on those
who already bring a shopping bag to the store (Rivers, Shenstone-Harris & Young 2016; Sharp,
Høj & Wheeler 2010). A study on the plastic bag levy in Toronto, Canada, suggested that social
norms had a more substantial impact on public behaviour than a charge on plastic bags and that
8the effects of public policies on plastic bags have been overstated (Rivers Shenstone-Harris &
Young 2016). Policies that aim to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags can be reliant on social
norms that favour using reusable bags, which can affect the agenda-setting of the policy (Rivers
Shenstone-Harris & Young 2016, 155).
Relating to the single-use nature of plastic carrier bags are disposable coffee cups, which both
pose a littering problem in England, being in the top ten littering items (Keep Britain Tidy
2015). Poortinga and Whitaker (2018) did a field study on the use of disposable and reusable
coffee cups at several universities and businesses close to universities, intending to understand
what measures change behaviour. The tested measures were, among others, environmental
messaging, a charge on disposable cups and a discount for customers who brought a reusable
cup. The study found that a charge on disposable cups was an effective measure to reduce the
number of disposable cups and signalised that bringing your own cup was the expected
behaviour (Poortinga and Whitaker 2018, 7). However, the most effective measure to change
behaviour was a combination of free distribution of reusable cups under a limited period and a
charge on disposable cups. The least effective measure was a discount for those who brought a
reusable cup, indicating that a charge had a more significant effect than a discount (Poortinga
and Whitaker 2018, 7).
Ritch, Brennan, and MacLeod (2009) discuss the connection between plastic carrier bags and
sustainability. The authors suggest that changing our behaviour regarding the plastic carrier
bags, while seemingly little compared to other behavioural changes concerning sustainability,
can have long-term positive effects for the environment. This implies that a change is on the
way and that the public is capable of changing its behaviour.
3. Theory
To comprehend how policy is conceived, one can study the policy cycle, which classifies the
process into five stages: agenda-setting, policy formulation, decision-making, policy
implementation, and policy evaluation. Although every stage in the policy cycle matters for the
design of a policy, this study will focus primarily on policy formulation and decision-making
and to a lesser extent, policy implementation and evaluation.
Policy formulation is about finding potential solutions for public problems and defining those
actions (Howlett and Ramesh 2003, 143). Thereafter, decision-making refers to choosing
9between the solutions which were formulated during the policy formulation process, to solve
public problems (Howlett and Ramesh 2003, 162). Implementation puts the decided measure
into practice by government decided actors and activities (Howlett and Ramesh 2003, 185-187).
Lastly, policy evaluation signifies assessing how the policy has worked. The evaluation can be
carried out both by the government and the public (Howlett and Ramesh 2003, 207).
The policy cycle not only simplifies the understanding of how policy-making is done, but it can
also be seen as an aid to build an analytical framework “[…] by allowing the results of
numerous case studies and comparative studies of different stages to be synthesised” (Howlett
and Ramesh 2003, 14). To closely examine the selected stages for the plastic carrier bag policy,
the study will utilise Anne Larason Schneider and Helen Ingram’s theory of policy design and
Michael Howlett and Evert Vedung’s works on policy design and policy instruments.
3.1 Policy design
As stated above, this thesis will use Schneider and Ingram’s theory for policy design as its
starting point and apply Howlett and Vedung to construct an analytical framework for this
study. The purpose behind Schneider and Ingram’s (1990a, 99) theory is to strengthen
democracy through understanding which policy instruments work and to provide predictable
outcomes of policies. The public is the one who attaches meaning to a policy by interpreting it,
both in a social context and social construction of reality (Schneider and Ingram 1997, 71).
When policy design is questionable, it becomes a hindrance for the publics full involvement in
democracy. Hence it becomes a democratic crisis when policy problems persist (Schneider and
Ingram, 1997). Although policy instruments are included in the theory, its core is around social
constructions and democracy of a policy, which in its own way is essential – just not in the
centre for this study. Instead, it is the implications and effect of choosing a tax as a policy
instrument that this thesis builds on.
Howlett, Mukherjee and Woo’s (2015, 291) definition of policy design is that it “[…] involves
the deliberate and conscious attempt to define policy goals and connect them to instruments or
tools expected to realise those objectives”. For a successful and effective policy design, the
intended change in behaviour must occur (Howlett 2017; Weaver 2015; Winter & May 2001).
When policy-makers create policies, they choose from various designs, e.g., policy instruments,
to solve the policy problem. These choices reflect the regime in ideological, political, and
cultural aspects (Schneider and Sidney 2009, 105). However, new policies can, unintendedly,
10impede on older, historical policies as the policy instruments clash with each other (Howlett,
Mukherjee & Woo 2015 (299); Howlett & Rayner 2007 (6)). Therefore, policy-makers must
balance different goals within a policy with each other as well as observe if the outcome of a
policy can affect other polices (Schneider and Ingram 1990a, 83). Hence, the context in which
the policy was designed has crucial meaning and should be considered. Furthermore, policy-
makers’ power should be examined for the power relationships they hold and how this is evident
in policies.
According to Vedung (1998, 21), choosing policy instruments is difficult and challenging for
policy-makers as it is the means intended to lead the public in the desired direction. Therefore,
policy instruments are a crucial part of policy design and must be chosen strategically. The first
step in choosing a policy instrument is the justification of governmental intervention (Vedung
1998, 30). Thereafter, the policy-maker chooses between, what Vedung (1998, 30) classifies as
carrots, sticks, or sermons, i.e., regulation, economic means, and information. Dividing the
policy instruments into carrots, sticks, and sermons is “the degree of constraint intended by the
policymakers” (Vedung 1998, 51). Furthermore, Lemaire (1998, 61) argues in Carrots, Sticks,
and Sermons that the choice of policy instrument depends on the greater institutional context
in which the policy resides, e.g., the relation to other policies, as well as the issue itself. Hence,
the policy context decides which policy instruments are appropriate and possible (Lemaire
1998, 61).
A policy has various levels of meanings and consequences; thus, the beliefs and ideas behind
policy design are of significance to examine to understand the effects of the policy (Schneider
and Ingram 1990a; 1997). Additionally, Schneider and Ingram (1990a, 78, 83) find it essential
to study policy design to understand why politicians design policies in certain ways and why
specific instruments are preferred before others and what consequences this has for the outcome
of the policy. Social constructions that lie behind knowledge and target populations in policy
design are not always easy to unveil. However, they are essential to examine since they can
impact the design of a policy (Schneider and Ingram 1997, 67). Likewise, how the policy is
socially constructed by the public, i.e., what meaning the public gives to the policy, determines
what the public sees as reasonable action for the policy problem and the public’s attitude also
determines if the problem will be solved (Schneider and Ingram 1997, 79, 81). Furthermore,
the design of a policy can reveal implicit assumptions about the problem and the target
population. The theory “[…] explain[s] the kinds of design flaws produced by each of these
issue contexts and interpret their implications for democracy” (Schneider and Ingram 1997, xi).
11Moreover, the authors state that policy design in the framework is regarded as purposive and
that “[…] policies are not simply the random and chaotic product of a political process, as some
other perspectives assume” (Schneider and Ingram 1997, 3).
The theory is not absolute; instead, an aim with policy design theory is to combine it with other
elements of policy theories. Therefore, policy design theory is an appropriate theory to include
other theories to obtain a greater understanding of policy through considering the history and
the future of a policy. By doing this we can better understand the conception of a policy, for
instance grasping design elements like which instruments work with which policies and the
effects policy design can have for the policy’s outcome (Schneider and Sidney 2009, 112).
Likewise, examining the purpose of a policy thoroughly will lead to a closer investigation of
the problem it aims to solve and the impact the policy has on social, economic, and political
life (Schneider and Sidney 2009, 114).
The framework, consisting of Schneider, Ingram, Howlett, and Vedung, is useful in this study
because of its adaptability and the focus on policy design effects on policy. The combination
of policy design theory and Howlett and Vedung’s works on policy design and policy
instruments will lead to a framework that will competently aid the analysis of the plastic carrier
bag policy. Roch, Pitts, and Navarro (2010) successfully utilised policy design theory in their
study on how racial and ethnic representation influences policy-makers on the choice of policy
instrument when designing policy. However, they found that the claim made by Schneider and
Ingram that the social construction of target populations can affect the use of policy tools to
lack empirical evidence (Roch, Pitts and Navarro 2010, 58). Furthermore, a drawback of policy
design theory for this study is the focus on policy instruments from a democratic point of view.
Therefore, the framework includes Vedung to get the perspective of policy instruments and
Howlett to get the policy design perspective. Moreover, policy design theory contains elements
deemed irrelevant for this study; thus, those elements are not included in the framework.
3.1.1 Policy goals, problems & underlying assumptions
Policy goals refer to what the policy-maker intend to achieve with the policy, i.e. the policy
objective. The goals can be one or several and can be conflicting within the policy or with other
policies; thus, it demands balancing between the goals. A closer examination of policy goals
can reveal that the goal of a policy is to reward, compensate or punish an actor (Schneider and
Ingram 1997, 83). A policy’s objective can be implicit or explicit, realistic, or symbolic, and
goals may be connected to relevant public values and interests. Although political goals of
12policies are significant, Schneider and Ingram (1997, 83) state that pronounced policy-goals are
a social construction of the problems from the policy-makers’ point of view and thus expressed
in objective and technical terms, rather than in normative terms. Hence, the objectives need to
be credible, and those set too high can endanger the public’s trust.
Moreover, together with the problem and goal of a policy is the underlying assumptions. An
underlying assumption about policy is that citizens do not change their behaviour unless there
is some benefit or disadvantage pushing them to act (Schneider and Ingram 1990b, 513). The
underlying assumption in a policy can be technical, behavioural, or normative (Schneider and
Ingram 1990a, 87). Policy design theory centres around behavioural assumptions. This implies
that a citizen’s actions change when a policy instrument is implemented, e.g. fewer books are
sold if a tax is added to the price. The motivations for establishing the policy must be analysed
through policy elements to discover the underlying assumptions (Schneider and Ingram 1997,
100). This will detect the social context in which the policy was made, power relations and how
the target group is perceived (Schneider and Ingram 1997, 100).
3.1.2 Tools
Policy tools entail changing the behaviour of citizens with policy means to solve public
problems. Schneider and Ingram (1997, 93-95) use the term tools, in which they include for
instance negative and positive incentives, hortatory tools (using symbols and images, e.g. a
picture of a bird whose stomach is full of plastic bags), capacity building tools (training and
information to change behaviour) and learning tools (the actor decides which means to use to
fulfil a goal). Hence, the definition of tools by Schneider and Ingram is broader than just policy
instruments.
Nonetheless, policy design theory has benefits concerning the significance of the connection
between the choice of policy instrument and the target group. “Tools reflect the underlying
motivations and send messages to the broader public about the characteristics of the target
group” (Schneider and Ingram 1997, 96). Hence, there is a critical understanding with policy
instruments: how the policy-makers perceive the citizens who behave in an undesirable way.
The different kinds of policy instruments can signify the way authorities perceive the citizens
and how citizens perceive authorities, as the authors state “[f]rom a behavioral [sic] perspective,
the choice of tools reflects assumptions and biases about how different people behave”
(Schneider and Ingram 1997, 93). If a policy-maker believes that a ban is the only way to change
behaviour, this signifies the policy-makers underlying assumptions of the target population.
133.1.3 Target population & implementation structure
The design of a policy can impact the target group differently; hence the key to a successful
policy is to design the policy to connect and motivate the target group with the goal (Schneider
and Ingram 1990a, 86). Thus, when choosing a policy tool, the policy-maker needs to appreciate
what kind of public participation is wanted, who the target population is and how it will react
to the tool (Schneider and Ingram 1990a, 95). The chosen target group demonstrates how
authorities and society perceive that group and how it values it (Schneider and Ingram 1997,
85). “Which target is chosen […] sends a message about who matters and who does not, […]
and whose behavior [sic] will damage society unless closely controlled” (Schneider and Ingram
1997, 85).
The idea behind a policy is to change public behaviour. However, for it to be successful, it is
essential to understand who the target population is, why it is behaving problematic, and why
it has not changed the problematic behaviour by itself (Schneider and Ingram 1990a, 89).
According to Schneider and Ingram (1990a, 95), the explanation is that the target population
gains on behaving that way, hence why a payoff is needed to make it more valuable to follow
the policy.
The implementation structure is a blueprint of the design of a policy, for instance, the target
group, policy instrument, and goals. Therefore, the process can be evaluated by comparing the
design of a policy with different actors’ implementation (Schneider and Ingram 1997, 89). The
implementation is stated either in absolute or imprecise terms to set the level of autonomy for
the actors who implement the policy (Schneider and Ingram 1997, 90). This can, for instance,
be a question of an actor deciding the policy instrument but not changing the overall goal with
the policy. Below (table 1) explains how policy design theory will be operationalised in this
study.
Table 1. Theory and operationalisation. Adapted from Schneider and Ingram (1997) and Schneider
and Sidney (2009).
Theory Operationalisation
What is the policy’s goal, and Goals should be broad and including, more including rather
what are the problem definitions? than less (Schneider and Ingram 1988, 70). Policy goals are not
Which underlying assumptions always expected to be achieved; rather, the policy is guided by
can be found in the policy? these goals and, therefore, show direction. Questions to ask
are: How was the problem regarding plastics formulated? How
was the problem with plastic carrier bags formulated and in
which social construction? Which values regarding the
14environment and plastics are conveyed? Underlying
assumptions about the environment, how plastic bags are
consumed, made of, recycled? Are there any implicit
assumptions about how the public behaves?
Who is the target population, and Who will gain and who will lose on the policy? (Schneider and
what is the implementation Ingram 1988, 70-71). Who is the target population, and what
structure in the policy? underlying assumptions can be found regarding who buys
plastic carrier bags as well as litters? How did discussions
proceed between stakeholders? What kind of positive or
negative valued elements are there in the policy? Are there any
power relations? What context was the policy designed in and
in what context is it acting in? Did the policy intend the shop-
keepers to develop new ways for customers to hold their
products?
Tools What policy instruments have been used and why?
3.2. Policy instruments
Howlett (2014, 193) observes a shift in how policy is studied, from formulation and
implementation to more focus on policy design and instruments and stresses that the study of
policy instruments is vital when examining policy design as these instruments are the tools
which governments choose from when creating public policies. Additionally, Howlett,
Mukherjee and Woo (2015) discuss how the field of policy design has developed since its start,
from studying single policy tools to ‘toolkits’, combinations of policy instruments, to solve
problems. However, not all policy instruments work together in policies; instead, they can work
against each other. Hence, recent studies focus on how policy instruments work together or
against other policies, how to maximise the positive effects and decrease the adverse effects on
other policies (Howlett, Mukherjee & Woo 2015 (297); Roch, Pitts & Navarro 2010).
When deciding on policy instruments, the empirical research behind the policy is often not the
only factor the policy-maker considers, political consideration of if the instrument will allow
political gain or loss is also reflected upon. There is, however, no evidence that the political
consideration outweighs the choice of policy instrument in terms of efficiency (Howlett,
Mukherjee and Woo 2015; Hood 2010). Nonetheless, Schneider and Ingram (1990b, 523) note
that different regimes use different tools for the same problems, hence the choice of policy
instrument reflects the political culture.
The choice of policy instrument reveals the aims and strategies of the government and the
means it uses to achieve them. It also reflects the stakeholder perspective on the subject
15(Bemelmans-Videc 1998, 4). Hence, there is significant complexity in choosing policy
instruments, as consideration on old policies must factor in, as well as what kind of government
is governing.
In Carrots, Sticks & Sermons, Vedung (1998) classifies all policy instruments into carrot, stick
or sermon, implying that policy instruments always falls into the category of respectively
economic means, regulation, or information. Hence, Vedung’s characterisation is narrower and
more specific than that of Schneider and Ingram. Vedung defines a public policy instrument as
a “[…] set of techniques by which governmental authorities wield their power in attempting to
ensure support and effect or prevent social change” (1998, 21). The three categories are
understood by the level of coercion from an authority, from prohibition to recommendation. An
economic policy instrument leaves the choice of behaviour to the citizen, in contrast to a
regulation where the citizen has no choice. However, the economic instrument punishes or
rewards the citizen’s behaviour, based on their choice of action (Vedung 1998, 32). Hence, a
carrot can be subsidies, charges or taxes depending on the nature of the policy. A favourable
objective of the economic instrument is that it “leave the subjects of government a certain
leeway within which to choose by themselves whether to take an action or not” (Vedung 1998,
32).
Moreover, a regulative policy instrument implies that certain acts are prohibited and that the
citizen must abide by these rules or directives. The regulation does not have to be connected to
punishment. Instead, the essential part of the regulation is the relationship to the authority and
that the citizen acts according to authority rules (Vedung 1998, 31). A regulation can correct
market failures, however “[…] it sometimes leads to results which may not be the “best” from
society’s point of view”, especially regarding the environment (Lemaire 1998, 64).
Finally, information as a policy instrument is characterised as information from the authority
to recommend the citizen to act a certain way. The information can be objective but can also
include judgements about how to act the recommended way (Vedung 1998, 33). Similar to an
economic policy instrument, there is no obligation involved to act in the manner the government
desires.
The policy instruments are frequently used collectively to create a policy package. Information
is used together with the two other policy instruments to ensure the functioning of the policy;
however, a distinction should be made between the policy instrument information and
information in connection to another policy instrument (Vedung 1998, 48-49). It is considered
16that policy instruments are used in a particular order by authorities, by way of the least coercive
to the most coercive (Doern and Wilson 1974; Schenider and Ingram 1990b; Vedung 1998, 40).
van der Doelen (1998, 132) believes that the outcome of this practice is that authorities
successively try to break down resistance from societal groups to regulate the action eventually.
A tax can be used to differentiate between two products, with the one with environmental
impact getting a higher tax. “The higher price induces users to substitute other products, thus
reducing emissions of the related pollutant” (Lotspeich 1998, 89). Economic policy instruments
like taxes do not necessarily aim to terminate the action altogether, rather control the action and
punish those who exceed their allowance (Schneider and Ingram 1990b, 515).
Below is a table of how policy instruments are operationalised in this study.
Table 2. Policy instruments operationalisation. Adapted from Vedung (1998, 39).
Theory Operationalisation
Would the policy have a different design Were other policy instruments brought up or
depending on the political party – right, left, suggested by opposing parties or actors? Has the
centre? choice of a tax any correlation to the
culture/character of governing and collaborating
parties?
What kind of effects did the choice of policy Could other policy instruments have been more
instrument have on the effectivity of the policy? effective in reaching the goals of the policy?
What kind of effects did the choice of policy How has the public reacted to the policy? Has this
instrument have on citizen approval of the had any perceivable effect on the legitimacy of
policy and government legitimacy? government?
4. Method & material
4.1 Research design
This study will employ a case study and a qualitative method to analyse the plastic carrier bag
policy. A qualitative study entails using text to discover the whys and hows of a question, in
this study, a policy, rather than numbers as with a quantitative method. A case study goes in-
depth to a single case and retains extensive information on the subject (Vromen 2018, 243).
The consequence of a single case study is, of course, a lack of generalisation. Nonetheless, the
benefit of using a qualitative method is the capacity to go into details in a few cases, which is
17not afforded by a quantitative method. In this study, the small details are of greatest importance
to understand how the policy came about; thus, textual analysis and interviews with relevant
actors demands a qualitative method.
Since the developed analytical framework drives the study to examine the plastic carrier bag
policy through the empirical findings, it will employ a deductive approach.
To examine the purpose of the thesis, i.e., to analyse the plastic carrier bag policy’s introduction,
it demands a versatile method to bring contrasting perspectives and questions to the material.
Hence, there is a need for a method that can aid the analysis of the policy with a structure to
unveil underlying assumptions. While there are methods that focus on finding, for example,
underlying assumptions in a policy, to employ them would mean to expand the theory of the
study to questions that do not necessarily belong in this study. For instance, discourse analysis
could have been used in this study because of its focus on language and power; however, this
would entail both theory and method to utilise discourse analysis. The problem with that would
be to exclude critical parts of the study’s purpose, such as how the policy-makers decided on
policy design and the perceived change in behaviour from the public.
To solve this challenge, the method will use the questions posed in the theoretical section and
apply them to the empirical material. Furthermore, a thematic analysis will be used to provide
a structure for the analysis of the policy. The benefit of using a thematic analysis is that it allows
the researcher to design the investigation around the theory’s questions whilst providing a
framework for the analysis. In addition, it requires the researcher to ask questions such as what
underlying assumptions and implications are prevalent in the material, which corresponds
adequately with the study’s analytical framework.
4.2 Thematic analysis
Analysing policy entails studying policies closely, consequently, to read and reread the selected
text to find underlying assumptions. Thematic analysis involves “[…] discovering, interpreting
and reporting patterns and clusters of meaning within the data” (Spencer et al. 2014, 271).
Hence, thematic analysis is focused on what the text states, in contrast to discourse analysis that
concentrates on what the text does (Spencer et al. 2014, 272).
When studying the design of a policy in policy design theory, textual analysis can be used to
find, for instance, underlying assumptions and goals (Schneider and Sidney 2009, 115). “Policy
18design refers to the content or substance of public policy – the blueprints, architecture,
discourses, and the aesthetics of policy in both its instrumental and symbolic forms” (Schneider
and Ingram 1997, 2). Furthermore, quotes from the examined material are often used to
demonstrate a particular theory or illustrate an incident (Johnson, Reynolds and Mycoff 2008,
267–268).
Braun and Clarke (2006, 78) claim that thematic analysis is the first method that should be
taught in qualitative analysis because of its versatility, flexibility, and theoretical freedom.
Together, these characterisations can entail “a rich and detailed, yet complex, account of data”
(Braun and Clarke 2006, 78). Consequently, thematic analysis is a favourable method for this
study because of its theoretical freedom as well as that it can be used with a range of materials,
such as policy documents and interviews. Hence, the study will employ a thematic analysis, but
in combination with the analytical framework’s operationalised questions.
The thematic analysis entails reading the material and creating a set of codes. The codes can
occur on different levels, signifying different degrees of concepts and analytical themes
(Spencer et al. 2014, 272). The theme is then employed to the summarised data to answer the
research questions (Spencer et al. 2014, 273). Braun and Clarke (2006, 82) say that it is essential
to state which themes emerged from the data. Furthermore, according to Braun and Clarke
(2006, 83), a study can focus exclusively on one theme to give a comprehensive account on that
issue. The thematic analysis is theory-driven in this study; hence, the theme(s) was formed with
specific questions in mind.
The thematic analysis process is divided into six steps and starts with familiarising oneself with
the data through reading and rereading the material (Braun and Clarke 2006, 87). Material such
as interviews should be transcribed at this stage to ensure familiarisation. After that, the
researcher searches to find common patterns and produce initial codes through, for instance,
colour-coding the material. Step three entails searching for themes via the initial codes to form,
for instance, mind-maps. Sub-themes and relationships between themes can be formed at this
stage. The fourth step is to review the themes and examine if they belong as themes or should
be discarded. Step five requires defining the themes through a detailed analysis and naming the
themes. Lastly, step six entails producing the report by analysing the researcher’s data from the
thematic process.
Braun and Clarke (2006, 86) state that as thematic analysis is a very flexible approach; it is not
steered by rules that must be followed. Hence, this study has utilised thematic analysis’s
19flexibility and has not followed all rules described above. Rather, the study has adapted the
method to fit the theory and idea of the study while at the same time following the basic
procedure of thematic analysis.
Policy design was identified as the central theme since it was the policy’s design which the
material encircled. Furthermore, the operationalised questions in the theoretical framework
were used to tie the theory to the material. Hence, this study’s methodological process was a
combination of thematic analysis and the questions posed in the operationalisation. The results
from the study are presented in chronological order, from the beginning of the policy to the
outcome of it.
4.3 Material
4.3.1 Policy documents
For material, relevant policy documents have been chosen because of their role in the legislative
process. Additionally, policy documents on sustainability from the businesses that have been
interviewed will be analysed. By studying these documents, e.g. propositions, motions and
public inquiries, the thesis aims to understand how the policy was designed. “The texts
(provisions) of policy are part of the design as are the practices that reveal who does what,
when, with whom, with what resources, for what reasons, and with what kinds of motivating
devices” (Schneider and Ingram 1997, 2). Quotes have been used to obtain a greater
understanding of what is said in the documents and link it to the study’s purpose. Since all
documents are in Swedish, I have, as the author, translated the quotes to English.
Since the policy does not have an official report by an inquiry body (SOU), it was essential to
find what the policy was built upon to understand its background. Two official reports about
plastic and single-use items have been published in the last two years, SOU 2018:84 It is
possible if we want to – Proposals for sustainable plastic use (Det går om vi vill – förslag till
en hållbar plastanvändning) and SOU 2020:48 Tax on single-use items (Skatt på
engångsartiklar). The study chose to analyse the official report SOU 2018:84 because of the
focus on sustainable use of plastic which plays a vital part in the plastic carrier bag policy.
Although one can argue that the investigation on single-use items is also vital background for
a plastic bag policy, SOU 2020:48 was published more than one year after the government
published the memorandum on the plastic carrier bag tax.
20Through the Swedish principle of public access to official records, much material is open to the
public. This is, of course, something that this thesis has had great use of. The thesis has worked
with the committee directive (dir. 2017:60) and official investigation SOU 2018:84 It is
possible if we want to – Proposals for sustainable plastic use. The official report and the inquiry
that prompted SOU 2018:84 has been used to get a background to the plastic question.
Moreover, the proposition to the policy on plastic carrier bags, 2019/20:47, refers to SOU
2018:84 regarding the effects of different plastics on the environment. Therefore, the
investigation and its conclusions are of relevance for the study.
Furthermore, grey literature has been used to get a “shallow” but a broader understanding of
plastics and plastic carrier bags, for instance, reports from the Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency.
Table 3. Policy documents.
Type/name Description
Kommittédirektiv 2017:60 Inquiry
SOU 2018:84 Investigation on sustainable plastics use
Fi2019/02465/S2 Memorandum on the plastic carrier bag policy
Referral bodies See table 4.
Proposition 2019/20:47 The proposition for a tax on plastic carrier bags
Protocol 2019/20:65 Protocol from the debate on the plastic carrier bag
policy
Motion 2015/16:3223 Centre Party Budget motion for 2016
Motion 2016/17:3494 Centre Party Budget motion for 2017
Motion 2017/18:3716 Centre Party Budget motion for 2018
Motion 2018/19:2610 Centre Party Budget motion for 2019
Motion 2018/19:2988 Liberals Budget motion for 2019
Budget proposition 2019/20:1 The government’s budget proposition for 2020
Motion 2019/20:3447 Moderate Party Counter motion to the plastic carrier bag proposition
from the Moderates
Motion 2019/20:3448 Sweden Democrats Counter motion to the plastic carrier bag proposition
from the Sweden Democrats
Beräkningskonventioner 2021 How public finance effects are calculated and reported
21You can also read
