Skip to main content Accessibility help

Trade and nutrition policy coherence: a framing analysis and Australian case study

  • Phillip Baker (a1), Sharon Friel (a2), Deborah Gleeson (a3), Anne-Marie Thow (a4) and Ronald Labonte (a5)...



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.


We adopted a qualitative single case study design, drawing on key informant interviews with those involved in trade policy.


We focused on the Australian trade policy sub-system, which has historically emphasised achieving market growth and export opportunities for Australian food producers.


Nineteen key informants involved in trade policy spanning the government, civil society, business and academic sectors.


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.


Overcoming these ‘ideational challenges’ is likely to be important to building greater coherence between trade and nutrition policy going forward.


Corresponding author

*Corresponding author: Email


Hide All
1. Friel, S, Gleeson, D, Thow, AM et al. (2013) A new generation of trade policy: potential risks to diet-related health from the trans pacific partnership agreement. Global Health 9, 46.
2. Thow, AM, Snowdon, W, Labonté, R et al. (2015) Will the next generation of preferential trade and investment agreements undermine prevention of noncommunicable diseases? A prospective policy analysis of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. Health Policy 119, 8896.
3. Koivusalo, M, Schrecker, T & Labonté, R (2009) Globalization and Policy Space for Health and Social Determinants of Health, Globalization and Health: Pathways, Evidence and Policy. New York: Routledge.
4. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2005) Policy Coherence for Development: Promoting Institutional Good Practice. Paris: OECD.
5. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations & World Health Organization (2014) Second International Conference on Nutrition, Rome, 19–21 November 2014. Conference Outcome Document: Rome Declaration on Nutrition. Rome: FAO.
6. Hawkes, C (2015) Enhancing Coherence Between Trade Policy and Nutrition Action. Rome: United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition.
7. Blouin, C (2007) Trade policy and health: from conflicting interests to policy coherence. Bull World Health Organ 85, 169173.
8. Baker, P, Kay, A & Walls, H (2015) Strengthening trade and health governance capacities to address non-communicable diseases in Asia: challenges and ways forward. Asia Pac Policy Stud 2, 310323.
9. Drope, J & Lencucha, R (2014) Evolving norms at the intersection of health and trade. J Health Polit Policy Law 39, 591631.
10. Thow, AM, Greenberg, S, Hara, M et al. (2018) Improving policy coherence for food security and nutrition in South Africa: a qualitative policy analysis. Food Secur 10, 11051130.
11. Baker, P, Hawkes, C, Wingrove, K et al. (2018) What drives political commitment for nutrition? A review and framework synthesis to inform the United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition. BMJ Glob Health 3, e000485.
12. Yin, RK (2017) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
13. Parkin, A, Summers, J & Woodward, D (2002) Government, Politics, Power and Policy in Australia. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Longman/Pearson Education Australia
14. Baker, P, Gill, T, Friel, S et al. (2017) Generating political priority for regulatory interventions targeting obesity prevention: an Australian case study. Soc Sci Med 177, 141149.
15. Carey, R, Krumholz, F, Duignan, K et al. (2016) Integrating agriculture and food policy to achieve sustainable peri-urban fruit and vegetable production in Victoria, Australia. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev 1, 181195.
16. Sabatier, PA & Weible, CM (editors) (2014) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
17. Finnemore, M & Sikkink, K (2001) Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annu Rev Polit Sci 4, 391416.
18. Goffman, E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Kahneman, D & Tversky, A (2013) Choices, values, and frames. In Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Part I, pp. 269278 [MacLean, LC and Ziemba, WT, editors]. Singapore: World Scientific.
20. Tversky, A & Kahneman, D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453458.
21. Benford, RD & Snow, DA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu Rev Sociol 26, 611639.
22. Snow, DA & Benford, RD (1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. Int Soc Mov Res 1, 197217.
23. Entman, RM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun 43, 5158.
24. Scheufele, DA & Tewksbury, D (2006) Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effects models. J Commun 57, 920.
25. Béland, D (2005) Ideas and social policy: an institutionalist perspective. Soc Policy Admin 39, 118.
26. Schmidt, VA (2008) Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annu Rev Polit Sci 11, 303326.
27. Schon, DA & Rein, M (1995) Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
28. Edelman, M (1977) Political Language: Words That Succeed and Policies That Fail. New York: Academic Press.
29. Shiffman, J (2009) A social explanation for the rise and fall of global health issues. Bull World Health Organ 87, 608613.
30. Baumgartner, FR & Jones, BD (2010) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31. Weiss, JA (1989) The powers of problem definition: the case of government paperwork. Policy Sci 22, 97121.
32. Hall, PA (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comp Polit 25, 275296.
33. Smith, K (2013) Institutional filters: the translation and re-circulation of ideas about health inequalities within policy. Policy Polit 41, 81100.
34. Henderson, J, Coveney, J, Ward, P et al. (2009) Governing childhood obesity: framing regulation of fast food advertising in the Australian print media. Soc Sci Med 69, 14021408.
35. Goodman, L (1961) Snowball sampling. Ann Math Stat 32, 148170.
36. Fram, SM (2013) The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded theory. Qual Rep 18, 125.
37. Schwartz-Shea, P & Yanow, D (2013) Interpretive Research Design: Concepts and Processes. New York: Routledge.
38. Cullerton, K, Donnet, T, Lee, A et al. (2018) Effective advocacy strategies for influencing government nutrition policy: a conceptual model. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 15, 83.
39. Friel, S, Ponnamperuma, S, Schram, A et al. (2016) Shaping the discourse: what has the food industry been lobbying for in the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement and what are the implications for dietary health? Crit Public Health 26, 518529.
40. Baum, FE, Laris, P, Fisher, M et al. (2013) ‘Never mind the logic, give me the numbers’: former Australian health ministers’ perspectives on the social determinants of health. Soc Sci Med 87, 138146.



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed