IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v119y2015i6p743-748.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

English obesity policies: To govern and not to govern

Author

Listed:
  • Vallgårda, Signild

Abstract

Problem definitions constitute a crucial part of the policy process. In 2008 the Labour Government presented a plan to reduce the obesity prevalence in England. Only three years later the Conservative–Liberal Government introduced a plan on the same topic, which it presented as new and innovative. The aim of this study is to analyse the respective governments’ problematisations of obesity and to identify similarities and differences. Despite the different hues of the two governments, the programmes are surprisingly similar. They seek to simultaneously govern and not to govern. They adhere to liberal ideals of individual choice and they also suggest initiatives that will lead people to choose certain behaviours. Both governments encourage the food and drink industry to support their policies voluntarily, rather than obliging them to do so, although Labour is somewhat more inclined to use statutory measures. The Conservative–Liberal plan does not represent many new ideas. The plans are characterised by the paradox that they convey both ideas and ideals about freedom of choice as well as about state interventions to influence people's choices, which could be seen as incompatible, but as the study shows in practice they are not.

Suggested Citation

  • Vallgårda, Signild, 2015. "English obesity policies: To govern and not to govern," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(6), pages 743-748.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:119:y:2015:i:6:p:743-748
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.02.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851015000664
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.02.015?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:119:y:2015:i:6:p:743-748. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.