3.8 Article

The revolving door between government and the alcohol, food and gambling industries in Australia

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH & PRACTICE
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

SAX INST
DOI: 10.17061/phrp2931921

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC) [LP130100046]
  2. Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education (FARE)
  3. Cancer Council Victoria
  4. Centre for Social and Early Emotional Development (SEED) at Deakin University
  5. ARC [DE160100307]
  6. National Heart Foundation of Australia [102035]
  7. Australian Research Council [LP130100046, DE160100307] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To explore the incidence of the 'revolving door' phenomenon, whereby individuals move between positions in government and positions in the Australian alcohol, food and gambling industries. Methods: This exploratory study was composed of two substudies: 1) an analysis of existing Australian Government Register of Lobbyists databases and related social network content: and 2) a series of 28 in-depth semistructured interviews with key informants discussing industry tactics for influencing policy, of which 15 interviewees explicitly discussed the revolving door phenomenon. Results: More than one-third of people registered on the Australian Government Register of Lobbyists were previously government representatives. We report on several examples of government employees going on to work directly for alcohol, food or gambling industries, some taking employment directly related to their previous employment in government. Key informants highlight the potential risks this poses to good governance. Conclusion: This study suggests that the revolving door that sees people move between roles in the Australian Government and alcohol, food and gambling industries is commonplace, creating a range of ethical and moral problems, and posing a risk to public health.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available