Suchergebnisse

OBJECTIVE: Maximising synergies and minimising conflicts (i.e. building policy coherence) between trade and nutrition policy is an important objective. One understudied driver of policy coherence is the alignment in the frames, discourses and values of actors involved in the respective sectors. In the present analysis, we aim to understand how such actors interpret (i.e. 'frame') nutrition and the implications for building trade–nutrition policy coherence. DESIGN: We adopted a qualitative single case study design, drawing on key informant interviews with those involved in trade policy. SETTING: We focused on the Australian trade policy sub-system, which has historically emphasised achieving market growth and export opportunities for Australian food producers. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen key informants involved in trade policy spanning the government, civil society, business and academic sectors. RESULTS: Nutrition had low 'salience' in Australian trade policy for several reasons. First, it was not a domestic political priority in Australia nor among its trading partners; few advocacy groups were advocating for nutrition in trade policy. Second, a 'productivist' policy paradigm in the food and trade policy sectors strongly emphasised market growth, export opportunities and deregulation over nutrition and other social objectives. Third, few opportunities existed for health advocates to influence trade policy, largely because of limited consultation processes. Fourth, the complexity of nutrition and its inter-linkages with trade presented difficulties for developing a 'broader discourse' for engaging the public and political leaders on the topic. CONCLUSIONS: Overcoming these 'ideational challenges' is likely to be important to building greater coherence between trade and nutrition policy going forward. ; Financial support: P.B. was supported by an Alfred Deakin Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship from Deakin University. This project was supported by funding from an Australian Research Council Discovery Project, 'Trade policy: Maximising benefits for nutrition, food security, human health, and the economy' (DP130101478).

AbstractDeindustrialisation and the closure of automotive manufacturing can differentially affect the socioeconomic prospects of workers and their communities, and contribute to social and health inequity. We used Bacchi's problematisation approach to examine the South Australian (SA) Labor government's policy responses to the General Motors Holden (GMH) Elizabeth plant closure announcement. We focused on the way that these policy responses framed the 'problem' of this major economic shock, particularly the extent to which potential social and health equity consequences were addressed. We found a narrow focus on economic strategies, neglecting the compounding impact of poverty in Playford, which may exacerbate health inequity. The community effects from the GMH closure remain uncertain and may be delayed for several years. SA requires better integrated social and economic policies to minimise social and health inequalities, as the consequences of the car manufacturing loss are realised.

Purpose and setting: Infrastructure is a global multi-trillion dollar market presenting many opportunities and risks for sustainable development. This article aims to foster better conceptualisation of the connections and tensions between infrastructure policy and public health in the light of the Sustain-able Development Goals, especially 'good health and wellbeing' (number 3) and 'industry, innovation and infrastructure' (number 9), based on findings from interviews with a purposive sample of senior practicing Australian infrastructure policy makers. Principal findings: We use an institutional framework to explore the ideas, actors, rules and mandates, and procedures underpinning the inclusion of health in infrastructure policy. Informants defined infrastructure as the construction and provision of services that facilitate economic, environmental and social outcomes. The tendency to default to infrastructure as essential for economic success has fundamental challenges for the SDGs, particularly the politically driven pursuit of 'mega-project' legacies, sector-specific siloed governance arrangements, and inadequate conceptualisations of costs and benefits. Conclusions: Public health and infrastructure policy are mutually re-enforcing given they both concern the public interest with implications for all 17 SDGs. Positioning health and wellbeing as fundamental societal outcomes from infrastructure decisions would go a long way to helping achieve the SDGs. ; This research was funded by a Sydney University Kickstart Grant, funded by the Balnaves Foundation. Patrick Harris is funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship (APP1090644).

AbstractThe growing number of public policy measures challenged through investor‐state dispute settlement has raised critiques that international investment agreements could lead governments to avoid introducing new policy measures out of a fear that these could be challenged by foreign investors, often referred to as 'regulatory chill'. While the body of work on regulatory chill is still in its infancy, there is a need to interrogate extant studies to better understand the state of the knowledge and the methodological approaches being employed to produce an evidence base. Grounded in a critical review of the existing literature, this paper develops a conceptual framework of regulatory chill, identifying it as one possible policy response wherein investment agreements are internalised by policy makers as considerations during their policy decision‐making. Three distinct bodies of work were identified in the literature which helped to populate this framework, including analysis of investment treaty language and awards, interviews with policy makers to explore internalisation of such treaties, and case studies of suspected regulatory chill policy responses. The conceptual framework is intended to help drive forward a cohesive research agenda on regulatory chill that can underpin the ongoing investment treaty reform.

The role of social innovations in transforming the lives of individuals and communities has been a source of popular attention in recent years. This article systematically reviews the available evidence of the relationship between social innovation and its promotion of health equity. Guided by Fair Foundations: The VicHealth framework for health equity and examining four types of social innovation-social movements, service-related social innovations, social enterprise and digital social innovations-we find a growing literature on social innovation activities, but inconsistent evaluative evidence of their impacts on health equities, particularly at the socio-economic, political and cultural level of the framework. Distinctive characteristics of social innovations related to the promotion of health equity include the mobilization of latent or unrealised value through new combinations of (social, cultural and material) resources; growing bridging social capital and purposeful approaches to linking individual knowledge and experience to institutional change. These have implications for health promotion practice and for research about social innovation and health equity.

The role of social innovations in transforming the lives of individuals and communities has been a source of popular attention in recent years. This article systematically reviews the available evidence of the relationship between social innovation and its promotion of health equity. Guided by Fair Foundations: The VicHealth framework for health equity and examining four types of social innovation-social movements, service-related social innovations, social enterprise and digital social innovations-we find a growing literature on social innovation activities, but inconsistent evaluative evidence of their impacts on health equities, particularly at the socio-economic, political and cultural level of the framework. Distinctive characteristics of social innovations related to the promotion of health equity include the mobilization of latent or unrealised value through new combinations of (social, cultural and material) resources; growing bridging social capital and purposeful approaches to linking individual knowledge and experience to institutional change. These have implications for health promotion practice and for research about social innovation and health equity.

AbstractInequities in access to fast and reliable internet connections, essential for digital access to services and information that are important for health, can exacerbate social inequalities in health. We evaluated the social equity of the rollout of the National Broadband Network (NBN) in Australia based on the type of digital infrastructure delivered to areas of varying socioeconomic status. We found that areas of greater socioeconomic disadvantage were significantly less likely to receive the highest quality infrastructure, controlling for level of remoteness. These social inequities in provision of quality infrastructure will shape and possibly exacerbate inequities in health. In our discussion we consider how political decisions have obstructed equitable implementation of the policy. Lessons from the Australian case study may be valuable for other countries investing in public digital infrastructure who want to ensure equity of provision and can also inform Australian policy in the NBN's remaining rollout.

Changes in climatic conditions and increases in weather variability affect human health directly and indirectly, including through agricultural changes and urban warming. Adaptation to climate change is receiving increasing attention, given, now, the inevitability of further climate change and its diverse impacts. However, with increased international funding for adaptation comes challenges such as ensuring supportive national policy environments for developing and implementing effective adaptation activities. Adaptation at community and population levels is underpinned by governance processes, such as the nature by which decisions are taken and implemented by government, community and private organizations. Thus an understanding of the policy context is necessary to identify the factors that enable or inhibit adaptation policy and programmes. This article examines to what degree there exist enabling factors to support the development of adaptation policy and activities, with relevance to the health sector. Results of a policy analysis are presented, which used stakeholder participation to investigate the context in which adaptation decisions were made within organizations across different sectors in Cambodia. Five factors were identified as critical components of the governance environment: (1)policy development processes; (2)the existence of a political recognition of climate change and (3–5) the organizational barriers relating to coordination, funding and lack of information. Without achieving a supportive policy environment, future adaptation actions are likely to have limited effect.

Changes in climatic conditions and increases in weather variability affect human health directly and indirectly, including through agricultural changes and urban warming. Adaptation to climate change is receiving increasing attention, given, now, the inevitability of further climate change and its diverse impacts. However, with increased international funding for adaptation comes challenges such as ensuring supportive national policy environments for developing and implementing effective adaptation activities. Adaptation at community and population levels is underpinned by governance processes, such as the nature by which decisions are taken and implemented by government, community and private organizations. Thus an understanding of the policy context is necessary to identify the factors that enable or inhibit adaptation policy and programmes. This article examines to what degree there exist enabling factors to support the development of adaptation policy and activities, with relevance to the health sector. Results of a policy analysis are presented, which used stakeholder participation to investigate the context in which adaptation decisions were made within organizations across different sectors in Cambodia. Five factors were identified as critical components of the governance environment: (1)policy development processes; (2)the existence of a political recognition of climate change and (3–5) the organizational barriers relating to coordination, funding and lack of information. Without achieving a supportive policy environment, future adaptation actions are likely to have limited effect.

Background Despite decades of evidence gathering and calls for action, few countries have systematically attenuated health inequities (HI) through action on the social determinants of health (SDH). This is at least partly because doing so presents a significant political and policy challenge. This paper explores this challenge through a review of the empirical literature, asking: what factors have enabled and constrained the inclusion of the social determinants of health inequities (SDHI) in government policy agendas? Methods A narrative review method was adopted involving three steps: first, drawing upon political science theories on agenda-setting, an integrated theoretical framework was developed to guide the review; second, a systematic search of scholarly databases for relevant literature; and third, qualitative analysis of the data and thematic synthesis of the results. Studies were included if they were empirical, met specified quality criteria, and identified factors that enabled or constrained the inclusion of the SDHI in government policy agendas. Results A total of 48 studies were included in the final synthesis, with studies spanning a number of country-contexts and jurisdictional settings, and employing a diversity of theoretical frameworks. Influential factors included the ways in which the SDHI were framed in public, media and political discourse; emerging data and evidence describing health inequalities; limited supporting evidence and misalignment of proposed solutions with existing policy and institutional arrangements; institutionalised norms and ideologies (ie, belief systems) that are antithetical to a SDH approach including neoliberalism, the medicalisation of health and racism; civil society mobilization; leadership; and changes in government. Conclusion A complex set of interrelated, context-dependent and dynamic factors influence the inclusion or neglect of the SDHI in government policy agendas. It is better to think about these factors as increasing (or decreasing) the 'probability' of health equity reaching a government agenda, rather than in terms of 'necessity' or 'sufficiency.' Understanding these factors may help advocates develop strategies for generating political priority for attenuating HI in the future. Keywords Health Inequities; Health Inequalities; Social Determinants of Health; Agenda-Setting; Policy Process ; This work was supported by the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on the Social Determinants of Health Equity: Policy research on the social determinants of health equity (APP1078046).

The 2007 Australian Northern Territory Emergency Response policy was harmful to the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We thematically analysed 72 speech acts and reports from the three prominent perspectives: a Northern Territory government inquiry report, the Federal government, and an Aboriginal civil society coalition to examine how framings during the policy agenda setting phase constrained or supported scope for equitable health outcomes. The report authors and the coalition emphasised colonisation and other social determinants of Indigenous health. The Federal government used a discourse of pathology and white sovereignty. Our findings highlighted the need for Indigenous voice in policy making, and the need to address colonial assumptions underpinning policy framings to achieve Indigenous health equity.

Equity remains poorly conceptualised in current nutrition frameworks and policy approaches. We draw on existing literatures to present a novel Nutrition Equity Framework (NEF) that can be used to identify priorities for nutrition research and action. The framework illustrates how social and political processes structure the food, health and care environments most important to nutrition. Central to the framework are processes of unfairness, injustice and exclusion as the engine of nutrition inequity across place, time and generations, ultimately influencing both nutritional status and people's space to act. The NEF illustrates conceptually how action on the socio-political determinants of nutrition is the most fundamental and sustainable way of improving nutrition equity for everyone everywhere, through 'equity-sensitive nutrition'. Efforts must ensure, in the words of the Sustainable Development Goals, that not only is "no one left behind" but also that the inequities and injustices we describe do not hold anyone back from realising their right to healthy diets and good nutrition.

There is increasing emphasis on wellbeing as a target for mental health promotion, especially during the formative period of childhood. Despite growing research on the importance of mental wellbeing, there is little information on how to effectively promote it or how to promote it equitably. This article presents a scoping review of interventions which seek to promote mental wellbeing and reduce inequities in children and young people living in high income countries. We used Fair Foundations: The VicHealth framework for health equity (VicHealth (2013) Melbourne, Australia: The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation) to identify points of entry at three layers of influence: (i) socioeconomic, cultural and political contexts, (ii) daily living conditions, and (iii) individual and family health-related factors. We identified more than 1000 interventions which aimed to prevent or treat childhood mental illness, but there were far fewer that aimed to promote children's or young people's mental wellbeing. The interventions we studied were either universal or specifically targeted children from disadvantaged families: none explicitly used an equity framework to guide their design or evaluation or addressed social gradients in wellbeing. Most interventions remained focused on proximate factors, although we also identified a handful of interventions that sought to address children's access to services and their educational and neighbourhood environments. However, we found encouraging evidence that interventions in family and educational settings were successful in building children's strengths and supporting positive parenting, universally and within disadvantaged groups. Such positive programme evaluations signal the potential for using a proportionate universalism approach that emphasizes equity in the promotion of mental wellbeing.