Carole Clavier

Public health policy research: making the case for a political science approach

The past few years have seen the emergence of claims that the political determinants of health do not get due consideration and a growing demand for better insights into public policy analysis in the health research field. Several public health and health promotion researchers are calling for better training and a stronger research culture in health policy. The development of these studies tends to be more advanced in health promotion than in other areas of public health research, but researchers are still commonly caught in a naïve, idealistic and narrow view of public policy. This article argues that the political science discipline has developed a specific approach to public policy analysis that can help to open up unexplored levers of influence for public health research and practice and that can contribute to a better understanding of public policy as a determinant of health. It describes and critiques the public health model of policy analysis, analyzes political sciences specific approach to public policy analysis, and discusses how the politics of research provides opportunities and barriers to the integration of political sciences distinctive contributions to policy analysis in health promotion.

Health policy--why research it and how: health political science.

The establishment of policy is key to the implementation of actions for health. We review the nature of policy and the definition and directions of health policy. In doing so, we explicitly cast a health political science gaze on setting parameters for researching policy change for health. A brief overview of core theories of the policy process for health promotion is presented, and illustrated with empirical evidence.The key arguments are that (a) policy is not an intervention, but drives intervention development and implementation; (b) understanding policy processes and their pertinent theories is pivotal for the potential to influence policy change; (c) those theories and associated empirical work need to recognise the wicked, multi-level, and incremental nature of elements in the process; and, therefore, (d) the public health, health promotion, and education research toolbox should more explicitly embrace health political science insights.The rigorous application of insights from and theories of the policy process will enhance our understanding of not just how, but also why health policy is structured and implemented the way it is.

A theory-based model of translation practices in public health participatory research

This article explores the innovative practices of actors specifically mandated to support interactions between academic researchers and their partners from the community during public health participatory research. Drawing on the concept of translation as developed in actor-network theory and found in the literature on knowledge transfer and the sociology of intermediate actors, we build a theory-based model of the translation practices developed by these actors at the interface between community and university. We refine this model by using it to analyse material from two focus groups comprising participants purposively selected because they work at the nexus between research and practice. Our model of translation practices includes cognitive (dealing with the contents of the research), strategic (geared to facilitating the research process and balancing power relationships among the partners) and logistic practices (the hands-on tasks of coordination). Combined, these three types of translation practices demonstrate that actors working at the interface in participatory research contribute to multidirectional exchanges and the co-construction of knowledge among research partners. Beyond the case of participatory research, theorising translation practices helps understand how knowledge is produced at the interface between academic and experiential (or lay) knowledge.

Understanding similarities in the local implementation of a healthy environment programme: Insights from policy studies

This paper reports findings from an evaluation of the local implementation of a procedural public health programme whose objective is to create healthy environments (HE) for vulnerable families in the province of Quebec (Canada) through the funding of local projects. Considering the potential issue of programme-context interaction, our research question was the following: Does the procedural nature of this HE programme result in variation between local cases in terms of the types of projects and collaborations it subsidizes? Given that the creation of healthy environments requires intersectoral health action to address social determinants of health, the data were analysed with respect to intersectorality and cooperation. Results of this qualitative multiple case study (n = 8), for the period 2004-2009, show that the majority of subsidized projects were in the health and social services sector and focused on parenting, parent-child attachment, nutrition and the social networks of families. Only a few initiatives reached beyond the health and social services sector to address social health determinants such as education, housing and transportation. Membership and mandates of the local groups responsible for programme implementation also showed little intersectorality. The limited variation between these eight cases can be attributed to the configuration of the local networks, as well as to specific issues in urban and rural areas. To explain the overall similarity of results across cases, we turned to the literature on policy instruments which suggests that particular characteristics of a programme may produce effects that are independent of its intended objective. In our study, several programme mechanisms, such as those framing the definition of «healthy environment» and budget management rules, could have encouraged the local development of initiatives that focus on individual skills related to parenting and attachment rather than the development of intersectoral health action to address social determinants of health.

Bottom–Up Policy Convergence: A Sociology of the Reception of Policy Transfer in Public Health Policies in Europe

Abstract Policy convergence is generally studied from the point of view of the state and explained in terms of policy transfer. However, policy convergence also takes place between countries. The sociology of reception of policy transfer argues for the need to consider convergence from the point of view of the local actors involved in the transfer. Based on a case study of public health policy in France and Denmark, this paper shows that while the local embeddedness of public policy does indeed limit convergence, it also allows for policy transfer and therefore convergence.

Adapting public policy theory for public health research: A framework to understand the development of national policies on global health

National policies on global health appear as one way that actors from health, development and foreign affairs sectors in a country coordinate state action on global health. Next to a burgeoning literature in which international relations and global governance theories are employed to understand global health policy and global health diplomacy at the international level, little is known about policy processes for global health at the national scale. We propose a framework of the policy process to understand how such policies are developed, and we identify challenges for public health researchers integrating conceptual tools from political science. We developed the framework using a two-step process: 1) reviewing literature to establish criteria for selecting a theoretical framework fit for this purpose, and 2) adapting Real-Datos synthesis framework to integrate a cognitive approach to public policy within a constructivist perspective. Our framework identifies multiple contexts as part of the policy process, focuses on situations where actors work together to make national policy on global health, considers these interactive situations as spaces for observing external influences on policy change and proposes policy design as the output of the process. We suggest that this framework makes three contributions to the conceptualisation of national policy on global health as a research object. First, it emphasizes collective action over decisions of individual policy actors. Second, it conceptualises the policy process as organised interactive spaces for collaboration rather than as stages of a policy cycle. Third, national decision-making spaces are opportunities for transferring ideas and knowledge from different sectors and settings, and represent opportunities to identify international influences on a countrys global health policy. We discuss two sets of challenges for public health researchers using interdisciplinary approaches in policy research.

Implementing Health in All Policies – Time and Ideas Matter Too!; Comment on “Understanding the Role of Public Administration in Implementing Action on the Social Determinants of Health and Health Inequities”

Carey and Friel suggest that we turn to knowledge developed in the field of public administration, especially new public governance, to better understand the process of implementing health in all policies (HiAP). In this commentary, I claim that theories from the policy studies bring a broader view of the policy process, complementary to that of new public governance. Drawing on the policy studies, I argue that time and ideas matter to HiAP implementation, alongside with interests and institutions. Implementing HiAP is a complex process considering that it requires the involvement and coordination of several policy sectors, each with their own interests, institutions and ideas about the policy. Understanding who are the actors involved from the various policy sectors concerned, what context they evolve in, but also how they own and frame the policy problem (ideas), and how this has changed over time, is crucial for those involved in HiAP implementation so that they can relate to and work together with actors from other policy sectors.

The Role of Policy Coalitions in Understanding Community Participation in Healthy Cities Projects

Despite the Healthy Cities’ commitment to community participation, it is often unclear what the conditions for effective community participation are, and what role the community plays or should play in building Healthy Cities. In this chapter, we propose to outline a way of addressing the puzzle of community participation in Healthy Cities from the perspective of public policy studies and urban studies. Our premise is that the Healthy Cities projects are little different from other urban development strategies: despite their focus on health, well-being and social justice, the Healthy Cities are one among other policy strategies that are subject to the urban governance rules of the game. ‘Policy coalitions’ provide a way to understand how several actors—public officials, private actors and the community—work together towards governing cities and making public policies. As potential participants in such policy coalitions, the communities may ally with public or private actors to defend a particular vision for the Healthy Cities, or in support of a concurrent project, or it may be excluded from policy coalitions. Based on these findings, the final part of the chapter dwells on three issues that Healthy Cities should pay attention to: the formal instruments of community participation; the processes of actor inclusion and exclusion in the Healthy City coalition; and what the other policy coalitions might be. Departing from a formal definition of the Healthy City coalition as the partnership opens the way to considering tensions and oppositions among the actors involved and with non-partnership members.

Are national policies on global health in fact national policies on global health governance? A comparison of policy designs from Norway and Switzerland

Background Since the signing of the Oslo Ministerial Declaration in 2007, the idea that foreign policy formulation should include health considerations has gained traction on the United Nations agenda as evidenced by annual General Assembly resolutions on global health and foreign policy. The adoption of national policies on global health (NPGH) is one way that some member states integrate health and foreign policymaking. This paper explores what these policies intend to do and how countries plan to do it. Methods Using a most similar systems design, we carried out a comparative study of two policy documents formally adopted in 2012. We conducted a directed qualitative content analysis of the Norwegian White Paper on Global health in foreign and development policy and the Swiss Health Foreign Policy using Schneider and Ingrams policy design framework. After replicating analysis methods for each document, we analysed them side by side to explore the commonalities and differences across elements of NPGH design. Results Analyses indicate that NPGH expect to influence change outside their borders. Targeting the international level, they aim to affect policy venues, multilateral partnerships and international institutions. Instruments for supporting desired changes are primarily those of health diplomacy, proposed as a tool for negotiating interests and objectives for global health between multiple sectors, used internally in Switzerland and externally in Norway. Conclusion Findings suggest that NPGH designs contribute to constructing the global health governance system by identifying it as a policy target, and policy instruments may elude the health sector actors unless implementation rules explicitly include them. Research should explore how future NPGH designs may construct different kinds of targets as politicised groups of actors on which national governments seek to exercise influence for global health decision-making.