PART III: THE FIRST GENERATION

When drug use among young people had landed in the focus of public
discussion, the governments had to respond to demands from the public
opinion and members of parliament to act. The modern drug problem
was on its way to becoming acknowledged and legitimised as a social
problem.


The committees

In order to enable a governmental stand on drug use and the drug-
related harm to the individual and society, the first step in both
countries was to appoint a committee to examine the situation.34 The
committees were to map the extent of the problem, investigate its
nature, and recommend countermeasures. This might appear a very
rational process of policymaking but, as will be shown, the conclusions
from the committee were just one part in a struggle for which problem
definition would be perceived as legitimate and guide further actions.
The committees may be positioned as actors on the drug policy arena
but of a different kind. They were officially assigned to produce
knowledge on which a political course could be based. However, just
like other actors, the committees did not work in a vacuum but were
encompassed by a context.
A description of both committees is of special importance because
they prepared the first official problem definition. As Bosso (1994: 190)
has suggested, it is in the early period of the controversy that policy
experts and professionals play a central role in discussions. Therefore,
the chapters start by addressing the composition of the working groups.
The professional background of the members might indicate how the
government perceived the problem (and the solution). Secondly, the
problem as defined by the committees as well as their proposals for the
action programmes are focused upon. Thirdly, the problem definition
and the action programme as adopted by the governments and
parliaments will be analysed. A comparison and discussion of the
problem definitions and the action programmes closes part three.
An aspect of the context that has not been discussed so far concerns
the procedures of policymaking. A brief depiction of the procedures in
Sweden and the Netherlands is necessary to understand the
chronological description of the process of developing a drug policy in
the next two empirical parts.
In Sweden, a state-appointed investigator or committee collects
information on a subject and recommends actions usually precede a
governmental policy. The investigation is published in a state public
report (SOU) that is sent out to authorities and non-governmental
organisations for comments. After the closing day of this "referral
round" officials of the responsible department prepare a bill in which
the comments are taken into account. Next, the government puts the bill
before the parliament (Riksdag). Then the bill is discussed in a standing
committee. The most important standing committees in which drug
policy matters are discussed are those for Social Affairs and Justice.
MPs can react to the bill by tabling motions that are adopted or rejected
by the committee. If committee members do not make any reservations
against the committee decision on the bill and the motions, a debate and
vote in the plenary session of the Riksdag are a formality.
In the Netherlands, a bill or memorandum is prepared by civil
servants within one or several departments under the authority of the
responsible minister(s). Usually departments have their own expert
councils that provide the data and knowledge needed to underpin a bill.
If necessary, a special committee can be appointed to provide
knowledge to the government. After the government has proposed a bill
or memorandum, the parliamentary procedure can begin. MPs
representing their parties in the standing committee discuss the bill with
the responsible minister(s) until it has been debated thoroughly and
ready for voting in a plenary session in the Lower House. Motions and
amendments by MPs to the bill are also voted on during the plenary
session. If a bill/memorandum involves more that one ministerial
domain, which usually is the case in drug policy issues, the standing
committees could merge into one single special committee that would
attend to the bill. When needed the committee can hold a hearing with
organisations or experts to ascertain their opinions (since 1988 a
standing committee in Sweden can also do this). When approved by the
Lower House the bill is sent to the Upper House and the procedure is
repeated. In case of a memorandum, in which the government reports
on the state of affairs or discusses a policy, a plenary session and vote is
not necessary.
Another difference concerns the governmental institutions that were
liable to deal with the drug problem. In Sweden, the implementation of
a governmental policy is a task for central administrative authorities,
e.g. the National Board of Health and Welfare, that operate relatively
free-standing from the government and departments. The government
appoints the Director-General of these central authorities. Furthermore,
the influence of politicians is ensured by MPs, which are among the
members of the Board. A minister is not allowed to interfere directly in
the daily activities of authorities but steers the work of authorities by
propositions (not least by budget propositions). The minister, however,
can influence a central authority by informal contacts. This is a specific
Swedish construction (paralleled only in Finland). As we will see, some
of these central authorities became important actors in the problem
definition as well as in the implementation of the policy.
In the Netherlands, different sections within departments play an
important role in supervising the implementation of a governmental
policy by lower authorities and organisations. Departments in the
Netherlands perform the tasks that in Sweden are performed by central
authorities and are large and influential compared to the Swedish ones
(Hague, Harrop, and Breslin, 1992: 344; 351). Consequently,
departmental officials also played a profound role in the problem
definition and the action programme.

34 The same was step was taken in other industrialised countries such as Canada, the
US, and the United Kingdom. Governments in France and Germany, however, held
the view that already existing knowledge did not need to be re-examined (Scheerer
1982: 145­146).

next