A comparison of stakeholder networks across two pricing policy debates using discourse analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background Public health policy development is subject to a large number of stakeholders seeking to influence government thinking on policy options. One approach is via the news media. We compare the competing discourse coalitions evident in the UK public debate across two pricing policies, Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP) for alcohol and the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL). Methods Existing discourse network analyses (DNA) for MUP and SDIL were harmonised in Visone to allow direct comparison. We applied a common tie-weight threshold to reduce ties to robust argumentative similarities and to maximise the identification of both network structures. We used network measures (size, density and EI index) to compare the two networks and principal coalitions. Results Both networks involve a similar range of stakeholder types and form two discourse coalitions representing proponents and opponents of the policies. The SDIL network is larger, particularly the proponents coalition with over three times as many nodes and a lower EI index. Both networks show tight discourse coalitions of manufactures and commercial analysts acting in opposition to policy supporters. The only actors that appear in both debates are politicians, government advisors, commercial analysts and supermarkets. While public health actors appear in both debates they appear siloed in their interests. Conclusions DNA enabled direct comparison of the discourse coalitions across two highly contested pricing policy debates, visualising the complex network of actors and relationships operating to influence policy-making via the media. Use of comparative DNA across policy debates shows promise for better understanding the common tactics of different unhealthy commodity industries (UCIs) to disrupt public health policies. Public health actors could improve their response to UCIs by seeking to work across policy and commodity arenas. Key messages We compared the competing discourse coalitions across two pricing policy debates, MUP and SDIL. Public health advocates could improve their response by working across policy arenas.