Abstract
BackgroundPoor diet is the leading preventable risk factor contributing to the burden of disease in Australia. A range of cost-effective, comprehensive population-focussed strategies are available to address these dietary-related diseases. However, despite evidence of their effectiveness, minimal federal resources are directed to this area. To better understand the limited public health nutrition policy action in Australia, we sought to identify the key policy brokers in the Australian nutrition policy network and consider their level of influence over nutrition policymaking.MethodsA social network analysis involving four rounds of data collection was undertaken using a modified reputational snowball method to identify the nutrition policy network of individuals in direct contact with each other. Centrality measures, in particular betweenness centrality, and a visualisation of the network were used to identify key policy brokers.ResultsThree hundred and ninety (390) individual actors with 1917 direct ties were identified within the Australian nutrition policy network. The network revealed two key brokers; a Nutrition Academic and a General Health professional from a non-government organisation (NGO), with the latter being in the greatest strategic position for influencing policymakers.ConclusionThe results of this social network analysis illustrate there are two dominant brokers within the nutrition policy network in Australia. However their structural position in the network means their brokerage roles have different purposes and different levels of influence on policymaking. The results suggest that brokerage in isolation may not adequately represent influence in nutrition policy in Australia. Other factors, such as direct access to decision–makers and the saliency of the solution, must also be considered.
Highlights
Poor diet is the leading preventable risk factor contributing to the burden of disease in Australia
To better understand the limited public health nutrition policy action in Australia, we examined the power and influence of the actors involved in the policymaking process
It may point to the fact that brokerage in isolation may not be as influential in nutrition policy as other network measures such as direct access to decision makers as discussed in a previous paper by the authors. This indicates that a strategic brokerage position within a decision making network is not enough to influence policy, and that many other factors are likely at play including ideology and beliefs of decision-makers, the salience of the issue, opposing pressure from the food industry, unsupportive institutional norms and a lack of public will [17, 37, 38]
Summary
Poor diet is the leading preventable risk factor contributing to the burden of disease in Australia. Despite evidence of their effectiveness, minimal federal resources are directed to this area. Despite evidence of the effectiveness, minimal federal resources are directed to this area in Australia [6]. This lack of action is occurring within a policy space that is characterised by a range of diverse interest groups or actors vying to influence public health nutrition policy, including: many different sectors of the food and beverage industry; health and agricultural organisations; national, state and territory. The most common understanding of power has been relational where power is defined as the ability to achieve desired results; this can occur through the utilisation of resources and/or influence over actors [9].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
