The atlas network: a “strategic ally” of the tobacco industry

21Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Amid growing academic and policy interest in the influence of think tanks in public policy processes, this article demonstrates the extent of tobacco industry partnerships with think tanks in the USA, and analyzes how collaborating with a network of think tanks facilitated tobacco industry influence in public health policy. Through analysis of documents from tobacco companies and think tanks, we demonstrate that the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a network of 449 free market think tanks, acted as a strategic ally to the tobacco industry throughout the 1990s. Atlas headquarters, while receiving donations from the industry, also channeled funding from tobacco corporations to think tank actors to produce publications supportive of industry positions. Thirty-seven per cent of Atlas partner think tanks in the USA received funding from the tobacco industry; the majority of which were also listed as collaborators on public relations strategies or as allies in countering tobacco control efforts. By funding multiple think tanks, within a shared network, the industry was able to generate a conversation among independent policy experts, which reflected its position in tobacco control debates. This demonstrates a coherent strategy by the tobacco industry to work with Atlas to influence public health policies from multiple directions. There is a need for critical analysis of the influence of think tanks in tobacco control and other health policy sectors, as well as greater transparency of their funding and other links to vested interests. © 2016 The Authors The International Journal of Health Planning and Management Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Smith, J., Thompson, S., & Lee, K. (2017). The atlas network: a “strategic ally” of the tobacco industry. International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 32(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.2351

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free