Table 5 Evidence on three win–win strategies from six governments
For | Against | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Shared language win–win strategy | ||||
Case | Within | Across | Within | Across |
California | Strong | High | No evidence | No support |
Ecuador | Adequate | No evidence | ||
Finland | Limited | No evidence | ||
Norway | Adequate | No evidence | ||
Scotland | Strong | No evidence | ||
Thailand | Limited | No evidence | ||
Multiple outcomes win–win strategy | ||||
Case | Within | Across | Within | Across |
California | Strong | High | No evidence | No support |
Ecuador | Limited | No evidence | ||
Finland | Adequate | No evidence | ||
Norway | Strong | No evidence | ||
Scotland | Strong | No evidence | ||
Thailand | Adequate | No evidence | ||
Public health arguments win–win strategy | ||||
Case | Within | Across | Within | Across |
California | Limited | Low | No evidence | No support |
Ecuador | No evidence | No evidence | ||
Finland | Strong | Thin evidence | ||
Norway | No evidence | No evidence | ||
Scotland | No evidence | No evidence | ||
Thailand | No evidence | No evidence | ||