Suchergebnisse

Scholarship on the commercial determinants of health (CDoH) has sought to understand the multiple ways corporate policies, practices and products affect population health. At the same time, gender is recognised as a key determinant of health and an important axis of health inequalities. To date, there has been limited attention paid to the ways in which the CDoH engage with and impact on gender inequalities and health. This review seeks to address this gap by examining evidence on the practices and strategies of two industries-tobacco and alcohol-and their interaction with gender, with a particular focus on women. We first describe the practices by which these industries engage with women in their marketing and corporate social responsibility activities, reinforcing problematic gender norms and stereotypes that harm women and girls. We then examine how tobacco and alcohol companies contribute to gender inequalities through a range of strategies intended to protect their market freedoms and privileged position in society. By reinforcing gender inequalities at multiple levels, CDoH undermine the health of women and girls and exacerbate global health inequalities. ; While this research received no specific funding, both authors are members of the SPECTRUM Consortium (Shaping Public Health Policies to Reduce Inequalities and Harm) funded by the UK Prevention Research Partnership (MR/S037519/1).

This article argues that health outcomes, specifically nutrition related health outcomes, are socially determined, and can be linked to a wider political economy in which peoples' dietary consumption is structurally determined, evolving from political, economic and social forces. The article examines trade and investment agreements as regulatory vehicles that cultivate poor dietary consumption and inequalities in health outcomes between and within countries. How does this happen? The liberalization of trade and investment, and unfettered influence of powerful economic interests including transnational food and beverage companies has resulted in trade agreements that enable excess availability, affordability and acceptability of highly processed, nutrient poor foods worldwide, ultimately resulting in poor nutrition and consequently oral and other non-communicable diseases. These trade and nutrition policy tensions shine a spotlight on the challenges ahead for global health and development policies, including achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

AbstractThe consumption of harmful commodities drives the noncommunicable disease (NCD) epidemic globally and in Pacific small island developing states. Multisectoral committees are commonly chosen avenues to facilitate policy coherence across government sectors in regulating the commercial determinants of health (CDoH), but these committees often fail to function as intended. This paper aims to explore the institutional conditions that enable or constrain multisectoral committees in facilitating policy coherence for tobacco control in Fiji and Vanuatu. An exploratory, qualitative research design was applied, incorporating a two‐case study design with within‐case analysis and cross‐case synthesis. Data collection consisted of 70 in‐depth interviews in 2018 and 2019. Data collection and analysis were informed by an analytical framework drawn from the institutional collective action framework. The results show that the current amount of authority behind the investigated multisectoral committees in Fiji and Vanuatu is inadequate to meaningfully bring stakeholders together for an issue with high complexity. Moreover, multisectoral discussions on tobacco control have a high risk to break down, as the collaboration may generate unwanted impacts to one or more actors and the net benefits are perceived to be low. The authority behind multisectoral committees might be strengthened by the chairmanship of a cross‐sectoral, high‐level government official and the allocation of more resources for managing intersectoral engagement. Divergent preferences might be brought closer together by showcasing the socioeconomic costs of NCDs and policies affecting the availability, affordability, accessibility, and desirability of tobacco and raising awareness about CDoH in nonhealth sectors.

AbstractMultisectoral governance has been recognized to be vital to regulate harmful commodity industries, yet countries struggle with reaching policy coherence due to government agencies' conflicting mandates and industry interference. Limited empirical evidence is available on how interests, ideas, and institutions intersect and influence multisectoral governance in low‐ and middle‐income countries, particularly in Pacific small island developing states (PSIDS), often exploited by vested industry interests and whose non‐communicable disease crisis commands urgent action to regulate harmful commodities. This study assessed the ways interests, ideas, and institutions intersect and shape multisectoral tobacco governance in PSIDS. Interviewee data collected in Fiji and Vanuatu show that the idea of individual responsibility, the limited recognition of commercial determinants of health, the centralization of authority, and the vulnerabilities of small island developing states, (including small population, land, economy, geographic isolation, and status as a developing economy), prevent these states from achieving policy coherence in multisectoral tobacco governance.

The emerging global trade and investment regime is a site of ongoing contestation between states, powerful industry actors and civil society organisations seeking to infuence the formation of legal rules, principles, practices and institutions. The inclusion of major transnational tobacco, alcohol and ultraprocessed food companies seeking to influence governments in these processes has resulted in the expanded distribution and consumption of unhealthy commodities across the globe, overshadowing many of the positive impacts for health hypothesised from liberalised trade. The growing number of pathways for market actors to exert undue influence over national and international regulatory environments provided by agreements, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, has given many cause to be concerned. In the context of continued commitment by states to international trade and investment negotiations, we present several avenues for public health scholars, advocates and practitioners to explore to rebalance public and private interests in these deals.

Critical social and economic resources, such as employment, education, and health services, increasingly require online access, highlighting the growing need to address equity of access to high-speed broadband telecommunications. Ensuring access to broadband requires the necessary infrastructure which, in Australia, is the National Broadband Network (NBN). In this paper, we use policy implementation theory to examine the translation of the government's NBN policy into service delivery, specifically in relation to the choice of policy instruments to install the broadband infrastructure, the associated barriers and enablers to their implementation, and the equity considerations that are emerging as the policy is implemented. We conducted a rapid review of NBN policy documents and academic and grey literature to map the NBN policy instruments and to examine how key contextual, political, and technical aspects of NBN policy implementation are likely to affect equity. Our findings indicate a range of equity concerns in the implementation of NBN policy. The instrument choice of a public–private 'hybrid' organisation to implement NBN policy has created a fertile ground for competing political, social, and commercial priorities, thereby affecting how the policy is implemented and thus increasing the risks to equity as it competes with other priorities. As these mixed public–private instruments become more prevalent as policy tools to deliver major infrastructure, determining the best means to safeguard equity is a vital consideration to ensure the benefits are distributed fairly.

AbstractIndigenous peoples in Australia and similar colonised countries are subject to racism and systemic socioeconomic disadvantages, resulting in worse health outcomes compared to non‐Indigenous counterparts. Such inequities persist despite governments' attempts to reduce them. Since 2008, Australian governments have committed to a national 'Closing the Gap' (CTG) to reduce inequities in health, education, and employment outcomes between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and other Australians, but with limited success. We applied policy theory and a cultural safety framework developed for the research to analyse stakeholder perceptions of CTG policy implementation between 2008 and 2019. We identified policy‐shaping ideas and policy incoherence in the environment surrounding CTG policy that obstructed culturally safe policy. Top‐down, prescriptive modes of implementation were also a barrier. However, Indigenous‐led policy partnerships and community‐controlled services in the health sector have met principles of cultural safety. Identifying these strengths and weaknesses points to ways in which implementation of CTG policies can be improved to achieve cultural safety and reduce Indigenous health inequities. These results may hold lessons for similar countries such as the United States, New Zealand, and Canada.

Background: Despite greater attention to the nexus between trade and investment agreements and their potential impacts on public health, less is known regarding the political and governance conditions that enable or constrain attention to health issues on government trade agendas. Drawing on interviews with key stakeholders in the Australian trade domain, this article provides novel insights from policy actors into the range of factors that can enable or constrain attention to health in trade negotiations. Methods: A qualitative case study was chosen focused on Australia's participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and the domestic agenda-setting processes that shaped the government's negotiating mandate. Process tracing via document analysis of media reporting, parliamentary records and government inquiries identified key events during Australia's participation in the TPP negotiations. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 25 key government and non-government policy actors including Federal politicians, public servants, representatives from public interest nongovernment organisations and industry associations, and academic experts. Results: Interviews revealed that domestic concerns for protecting regulatory space for access to generic medicines and tobacco control emerged onto the Australian government's trade agenda. This contrasted with other health issues like alcohol control and nutrition and food systems that did not appear to receive attention. The analysis suggests sixteen key factors that shaped attention to these different health issues, including the strength of exporter interests; extent of political will of Trade and Health Ministers; framing of health issues; support within the major political parties; exogenous influencing events; public support; the strength of available evidence and the presence of existing domestic legislation and international treaties, among others. Conclusion: These findings aid understanding of the factors that can enable or constrain attention to health issues on government trade agendas, and offer insights for potential pathways to elevate greater attention to health in future. They provide a suite of conditions that appear to shape attention to health outside the biomedical health domain for further research in the commercial determinants of health. ; This work was supported by the Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on the Social Determinants of Health Equity: Policy research on the social determinants of health equity (APP1078046).

How health advocates and industry actors attempt to assert their authority as a strategy of influence in policymaking remains underexplored in the health governance literature. Greater exploration of the kinds of authority sources used by health actors vis-à-vis market actors and the role ideational factors may play in shaping access to these sources provides insight into advocates' efforts to exert influence in policy forums. Using the trade domain in Australia as a case study of the way in which the commercial determinants of health operate, we examined the different ways in which health, public interest and market actors assert their authority. Drawing on a political science typology of authority, we analysed 87 submissions to the Australian government during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. We identify four types of authority claims; institutional authority, derived from holding a position of influence within another established institution; legal authority through appeals to legal agreements and precedents; networked authority through cross-referencing between actors, and expert authority through use of evidence. Combining these claims with a framing analysis, we found that these bases of authority were invoked differently by actors who shared the dominant neoliberal ideology in contrast to those actors that shared a public interest discourse. In particular, market actors were much less likely to rely on external sources of authority, while health and public interest actors were more likely to appeal to networked and expert authority. We argue that actors who share strong ideational alignment with the dominant policy discourse appear less reliant on other sources of authority. Implications of this analysis include the need for greater attention to the different strategies and ideas used by industry and public health organisations in trade policy agenda-setting for health, which ultimately enable or constrain the advancement of health on government agendas. ; This work was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence in the Social Determinants of Health Equity: Policy research on the social determinants of health equity (APP1078046).

Inequities 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. ; This study is part of a wider National Health and Medical Research Council funded Centre for Research Excellence in the Social Determinants of Health Equity (APP1078046) examining the policy cycle in areas that shape the distribution of power, money, and resources that affect people's daily living conditions, including infrastructure policy, and the implications for health equity.

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).