Conclusion: Strengthening Trade and Health Policy Coherence

Part of the Palgrave Studies in Public Health Policy Research book series (PSPHPR)


The Conclusion draws together all of the arguments of this book. It briefly recaps the emergence of the multilateral rules-based trading system and the shift towards bilateral and regional trade agreements, explores the main areas of policy incoherence between trade and health and discusses flaws in the trade policy-making process that frustrate efforts to achieve policy coherence. It concludes by summarising proposals for reform in four areas: changes to the legal rules included in trade agreements; reforms to the trade policy-making process; action to strengthen global governance of trade and health; and capacity-building and research activities.


Policy coherence Policy space Reform 


  1. 1.
    Koivusalo M, Schrecker T, Labonte R. Globalization and policy space for health and social determinants of health. In: Labonte R, Schrecker T, Packer C, Runnels V, editors. Globalization and health: pathways, evidence and policy. New York: Routledge; 2009. p. 105–30.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Labonté R, Schram A, Ruckert A. The trans pacific partnership: is it everything we feared for health? Int J Health Policy Manag. 2016;5(8):487–96.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Labonté R, Crosbie E, Gleeson D, McNamara C. USMCA (NAFTA 2.0): tightening the constraints on the right to regulate for public health. Glob Health [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 May 14];15(1):[35 p.].
  4. 4.
    Martuzzi M, Tickner JA. The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friel S, Baker P, Thow AM, Gleeson D, Townsend B. An expose of the realpolitik of trade negotiations: implications for population nutrition. Public Health Nutr. 2019;22(16):3083–91.
  6. 6.
    Jarman H. Trade policy governance: what health policymakers and advocates need to know. Health Policy. 2017;121(11):1105–12. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee K, Sridhar D, Patel M. Bridging the divide: global governance of trade and health. Lancet. 2009;373(9661):416–22. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blouin C. Trade policy and health: from conflicting interests to policy coherence. Bull World Health Organ. 2007;85:169–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Battams S, Townsend B. Power asymmetries, policy incoherence and noncommunicable disease control—a qualitative study of policy actor views. Crit Public Health [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2018 Jul 18]:[14 p.].
  10. 10.
    Delany L, Signal L, Thomson G. International trade and investment law: a new framework for public health and the common good. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):602. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stanford J. What does progressive trade policy look like? A 10-point plan for building a better global order [Internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives; 2018 [cited 2019 May 23].
  12. 12.
    Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee—Department of the Senate. Blind agreement: reforming Australia’s treaty-making process [Internet]. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2015 [cited 2019 May 23].

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychology and Public HealthLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Epidemiology and Public HealthUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations