BACKGROUND AND AIM Public health policy development is subject to a range of stakeholders presenting their arguments to influence opinion on the best options for policy action. This paper compares stakeholders' positions in the discourse networks of two pricing policy debates in the UK: Minimum Unit Pricing for alcohol (MUP) and the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL). DESIGN Discourse analysis was combined with network visualisation to create representations of stakeholders' positions across the two policy debates as they were represented in 11 national UK newspapers. SETTING United Kingdom. OBSERVATIONS For the MUP debate 1,924 statements by 152 people from 87 organisations were coded from 348 articles. For the SDIL debate 3,883 statements by 214 people from 175 organisations were coded from 511 articles. MEASUREMENTS Network analysis techniques were used to identify robust argumentative similarities and maximise the identification of network structures. Network measures of size, connectedness and cohesion were used to compare discourse networks. FINDINGS The networks for both pricing debates involve a similar range of stakeholder types and form clusters representing policy discourse coalitions. The SDIL network is larger than the MUP network, particularly the proponents' cluster with over three times as many stakeholders. Both networks have tight clusters of manufacturers, think tanks, and commercial analysts in the opponents' coalition. Public health stakeholders appear in both networks, but no health charity or advocacy group is common to both. CONCLUSION A comparison of the discourse in the UK press during the policy development processes for Minimum Unit Pricing for alcohol and the Soft Drinks Industry Levy suggests greater cross-sector collaboration among policy opponents than proponents.

中文翻译：

---

酒类最低单价和软饮料行业征税话语网络中的政策一致性和倡导策略

背景和目标 公共卫生政策的制定取决于一系列利益相关者提出他们的论点，以影响对政策行动最佳选择的意见。本文比较了英国两次定价政策辩论的话语网络中利益相关者的立场：酒精最低单位定价 (MUP) 和软饮料行业征费 (SDIL)。设计 话语分析与网络可视化相结合，创建了利益相关者在两次政策辩论中的立场表述，这些观点出现在英国 11 家全国性报纸上。设置英国。观察 对于 MUP 辩论，来自 87 个组织的 152 人的 1,924 条陈述是从 348 篇文章中编码而来。在 SDIL 辩论中，来自 175 个组织的 214 人的 3,883 条陈述是从 511 篇文章中编码而来。测量网络分析技术用于识别稳健的论证相似性并最大限度地识别网络结构。网络规模、连通性和凝聚力的测量被用来比较话语网络。调查结果 两次定价辩论的网络都涉及一系列相似的利益相关者类型，并形成代表政策话语联盟的集群。SDIL 网络比 MUP 网络更大，特别是支持者集群的利益相关者数量是 MUP 网络的三倍多。这两个网络的对手联盟中都有紧密的制造商、智库和商业分析师集群。公共卫生利益相关者都出现在这两个网络中，但两个网络中没有共同的健康慈善机构或倡导团体。结论 通过比较英国媒体在酒类最低单价和软饮料行业征费政策制定过程中的言论，可以看出政策反对者之间的跨部门合作比支持者之间的合作要广泛。