‘“It’s very Uruguayan”: Exploring the development of Uruguay’s cannabis regulation through hybridisation’

As far as domestic presentation and wider international perspective, Uruguay is often portrayed as a trailblazer for its distinctive approach to cannabis regulation, which avoids the mistakes and failures of other cannabis supply precedents. The dominant explanation for the model’s distinctiveness is Uruguay’s long-standing state interventionist culture, which served to constrain the transfer of more libertarian features of cannabis policies found in other jurisdictions. Yet, since the direct transfer or imitation of one international model to another context is rarely feasible or desirable, some form of adaptation is likely to occur, as policymakers attempt to make international precedents compatible with global pressures, domestic institutions or a combination of the two. To fully understand the extent of international distinctiveness of Uruguay’s cannabis regulation, it is critical to investigate not only the content of the new policies but also the ways in which the transfer process came about or was constrained. In this regard, to what extent can international pressures explain Uruguay’s distinctive model of state regulated cannabis supply?

Drawing on analysis of documents, fieldwork observations and 43 semi-structured interviews with policymakers, advocates, health professionals and the commercial sector, this paper explores the complex interplay between global influences and domestic factors in shaping the development of Uruguay’s cannabis regulation through the lens of hybridisation. Hybridisation is understood in a variety of ways, but for the purposes of this study, it refers to the combination of elements from policies found in two or more political contexts to develop an approach best suited to local conditions. Transfer processes and outcomes were evaluated in terms of Dolowitz and Marsh’s typology, which lists a range of degrees: copying, emulation, hybridisation and inspiration. The primary foci of analysis were the processes by which contextual factors shaped the decision (or not) to transfer certain aspects of policy approaches to cannabis in other countries to Uruguay based on the perceptions and strategic actions of policymakers involved in these processes.

The analysis demonstrates that Uruguay’s distinctive approach to state regulated cannabis supply can be understood as a form of ‘hybridisation’ in which aspects of policy models in other countries were selected, blended and adapted to the unique political and legal features of Uruguayan society. This led to the development of an innovative approach that nevertheless reflects elements found in existing cannabis supply systems. This blending of cannabis policy innovations with the domestic context was carried out in very specific ways, based on concerns to reconcile the specific contents of the legislation with the policies of Argentina and Brazil and the preferences of the US government as the regional hegemon. While there was greater latitude over aspects of regulation involving domestic considerations, Uruguayan officials were very cautious and conservative in the more constrained space of high politics or where cannabis regulation intersects with broader security dimensions of drug policy. The Uruguayan case suggests that national policy space to develop cannabis regulation in other contexts is likely to be constrained in areas where such regulation interacts with those of other powerful states.