Ditte Heering Holt

Ambiguous expectations for intersectoral action for health: a document analysis of the Danish case

Abstract Ideas about intersectoral action and policy-making for health (ISA) are prominent among public health professionals. They are often presented as effective ways to address root causes of poor health and health inequality, and as such the best way to promote population health. The implementation of such ideas has proven difficult though. In this paper we argue that neo-institutional theory can help us conceptualize implementation challenges by pointing to implicit expectations and contradictions associated with the ISA idea itself. With Denmark as empirical case, we conducted a document analysis of recommendations for municipal ISA. The analysis shows how the recommendations provide a very abstract conceptualization of ISA that does not give much practical guidance for action. We show how ISA is discursively constructed with buzzword qualities as the natural way to organize health promotion, by being presented as a means to produce better quality services, more cost-effective operations and ensure the future of the welfare state, while at the same time hardly changing much at all. By applying the lens of institutional logics we show how ISA, although being vaguely defined, offer ambiguous normative and symbolic repertoires for action. We discuss the implementation challenges associated with this advocacy rhetoric and suggest that the domination of the corporation logic may appear to reduce the political character of ISA and potentially conflict with the ideals of health as a matter of social justice and human rights.

Time to dismiss the idea of a structural fix within government? An analysis of intersectoral action for health in Danish municipalities

Aims: This paper examines the role of organizational structure within government(s) in attempts to implement intersectoral action for health in Danish municipalities. We discuss the implications of structural reorganization and the governance structures that are established in order to ensure coordination and integration between policy sectors. Methods: The paper is based on 49 interviews with civil servants from health and non-health sectors of 10 municipalities. Based on participants’ experiences, cases have been described and analyzed in an iterative process consulting the literature on Health in All Policies and joined-up government. Results: Continuous and frequent processes of reorganizing were widespread in the municipalities. However, they appeared to have little effect on policy change. The two most common governance structures established to transcend organizational boundaries were the central unit and the intersectoral committee. According to the experiences of participants, paradoxically both of these organizational solutions tend to reproduce the organizational problems they are intended to overcome. Even if structural reorganization may succeed in dissolving some sector boundaries, it will inevitably create new ones. Conclusions: It is time to dismiss the idea that intersectoral action for health can be achieved by means of a structural fix. Rather than rearranging organizational boundaries it may be more useful to seek to manage the silos which exist in any organization, e.g. by promoting awareness of their implications for public health action and by enhancing the boundary spanning skills of public health officers.