Examining the Role and Strategies of Advocacy Coalitions in California’s Statewide Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax Debate (2001-2018)

Abstract

Purpose California’s failed attempts to enact a statewide sugary beverage tax presents an opportunity to advance understanding of advocacy coalition behavior. We investigate the participation of advocacy coalitions in California’s statewide sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax policy debate. Design Document analysis of legislative bills and newspaper articles collected in 2019. Setting California. Method A total of 11 SSB tax-related bills were introduced in California’s legislature between 2001-2018 according to the state’s legislative website. Data sources include legislative bill documents (n = 94) and newspaper articles (n = 138). Guided by the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we identify advocacy coalitions involved in California’s SSB tax debate and explore strategies and arguments used to advance each coalitions’ position. Results Two coalitions (public health, food/beverage industry) were involved in California’s statewide SSB tax policy debate. The public health coalition had higher member participation and referred to scientific research evidence while the industry coalition used preemption and financial resources as primary advocacy strategies. The public health coalition frequently presented messaging on the health consequences and financial benefits of SSB taxes. The industry coalition responded by focusing on the potential negative economic impact of a tax. Conclusion Multiple attempts to enact a statewide SSB tax in California have failed. Our findings add insight into the challenges of enacting an SSB tax considering industry interference. Results can inform future efforts to pass evidence-based nutrition policies.

The advocacy coalition of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes in Indonesia

“…16 Previously, the ACF was used to analyse different policy adoption processes, particularly for SSB tax in the Philippines 18 and California, USA. 19 In the case of the SSB tax adoption process in Indonesia, the use of ACF allows the understanding of policy change or choices in a particular context or of the establishment of an advocacy coalition. This framework considers policy change happening at a subsystem level, an area defined by its territorial boundary or substantive topics and includes policy actors that may initiate advocacy coalitions based on their shared beliefs.…”

“…Similar arguments used by the contra-SSB tax on the economic burden for the industry of the proposed tax was also reported in a study in California. 19…”