Best of enemies: Using social network analysis to explore a policy network in European smoke-free policy

Abstract

Networks and coalitions of stakeholders play a crucial role in the development and implementation of policies, with previous research highlighting that networks in tobacco control are characterised by an antagonism between supporters and opponents of comprehensive tobacco control policies. This UK-based study used quantitative and qualitative network analysis (drawing on 176 policy submissions and 32 interviews) to systematically map and analyse a network of actors involved in the development of European Union (EU) smoke-free policy. Policy debates were dominated by two coalitions of stakeholders with starkly opposing positions on the issue. One coalition, consisting primarily of health-related organisations, supported comprehensive EU smoke-free policy, whereas the other, led by tobacco manufacturers' organisations, opposed the policy initiative. The data suggest that, aided by strong political commitment of EU decision makers to develop smokefree policy, advocates supporting comprehensive EU policy were able to frame policy debates in ways which challenged the tobacco industry's legitimacy. They then benefited from the stark polarisation between the two coalitions. The paper provides empirical evidence of the division between two distinct coalitions in tobacco policy debates and draws attention to the complex processes of consensus-seeking, alliance-building and strategic action which are integral to the development of EU policy. Highlighting network polarisation and industry isolation as factors which seemed to increase tobacco control success, the study demonstrates the potential significance and value of FCTC article 5.3 for tobacco control policy-making.

Mapping discourse coalitions in the minimum unit pricing for alcohol debate: a discourse network analysis of UK newspaper coverage

“…Unlike analyses of tobacco policy networks which present starkly polarized coalitions, containing clusters of homogeneous actors-either tobacco manufacturers or health-related organizations [29]-the MUP network shows the distribution of industry organizations across two opposing discourse coalitions, confirming previously identified divergence among alcohol-related industry actors on MUP. Unlike analyses of tobacco policy networks which present starkly polarized coalitions, containing clusters of homogeneous actors-either tobacco manufacturers or health-related organizations [29]-the MUP network shows the distribution of industry organizations across two opposing discourse coalitions, confirming previously identified divergence among alcohol-related industry actors on MUP.…”

“…Our analysis provides insights into the dispersal of alcohol manufacturers, retailers and trade associations across both discourse coalitions. Unlike analyses of tobacco policy networks which present starkly polarized coalitions, containing clusters of homogeneous actors-either tobacco manufacturers or health-related organizations [29]-the MUP network shows the distribution of industry organizations across two opposing discourse coalitions, confirming previously identified divergence among alcohol-related industry actors on MUP. Holden and colleagues suggest the alcohol industry is not a homogeneous entity and adopts different positions on a range of policy issues, including MUP [30].…”

Why media representations of corporations matter for public health policy: a scoping review

“…Drawing on the literature on framing of public and political debates on tobacco as an example, research highlights that, historically, tobacco corporations’ successful framing in terms of ‘market justice’ ideals, stressing personal freedom, economic growth, trade and CSR, has resulted in positive public and political perceptions of the industry and effective tobacco control legislation being delayed, withdrawn and amended [61–63]. However more recently, studies demonstrate that public health advocates in some (high income) contexts have been successful in framing at least some tobacco-related debates by focusing discussions on the right to breathe clean air, the need to protect vulnerable populations, and the effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control, thereby advancing the adoption of comprehensive policies [64–66]. Most prominently, the success of advocates in shifting the frame from the industry supported value of the ‘right to smoke’ to the social value of the ‘right to breathe clean air’ played a key role in winning public support for stronger laws to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke [67].…”

“…While it is not possible, without further research, to ascertain the extent to which these contrasting representations shape the decisions of policymakers (or are shaped by those decisions), it is certainly the case that alcohol and food companies are currently treated very differently from tobacco companies in many policy contexts, with alcohol and food companies being perceived as legitimate stakeholders and policymaking partners in NCD debates in the UK [69], US [70] and internationally [15]. Given that previous research suggests that tobacco advocates’ increasing confidence to speak out about the industry’s detrimental influence on public health has been crucial in increasing public and political awareness and support for population-based tobacco control measures [66, 71], comparative research on media representations of tobacco, alcohol, processed food and soft drinks industries is likely to offer opportunities for other areas of public health to learn from tobacco control strategies.…”

Who Is a Stream? Epistemic Communities, Instrument Constituencies and Advocacy Coalitions in Public Policy-Making

“…Although often posited by ACF advocates as comprising all actors within a policy subsystem, the role of advocacy coalitions in vying to get their preferred problem and solutions chosen in policy decisions implies that, consistent with Kingdon's ideas, they can more usefully be thought of as synonymous with activities in the politics stream (Weishaar, Amosb, & Collin, 2015).…”