Policymaking in a plural society: the case of human experiments in medicine in Israel

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Public Policy Pub Date : 2023-10-23 DOI:10.1017/s0143814x2300034x
Michal Neubauer-Shani, Etienne Lepicard
{"title":"Policymaking in a plural society: the case of human experiments in medicine in Israel","authors":"Michal Neubauer-Shani, Etienne Lepicard","doi":"10.1017/s0143814x2300034x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Various processes in recent years have brought about trends of polarization within democratic societies, challenging political stability. Against this backdrop, policy patterns that are being adopted regarding controversial issues are significantly affected by these countries’ aspiration to create and maintain a consensus, which may have implications not favoring the public. One such issue is human experiments in medicine (clinical trials), which has been regulated by most countries through primary legislation. As a deeply divided society, Israel has been addressing this issue through regulation and secondary legislation, despite several attempts to have it regulated through primary legislation. This article employs the consociational model alongside Public Choice Theory to explain the adoption of this policy pattern on the issue of human experiments. Based on thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews and existing sources, it sheds light on the normative choice that weighs the merits of primary legislation against the virtues of accommodation and consensus.","PeriodicalId":47578,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Policy","volume":"11 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0143814x2300034x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Various processes in recent years have brought about trends of polarization within democratic societies, challenging political stability. Against this backdrop, policy patterns that are being adopted regarding controversial issues are significantly affected by these countries’ aspiration to create and maintain a consensus, which may have implications not favoring the public. One such issue is human experiments in medicine (clinical trials), which has been regulated by most countries through primary legislation. As a deeply divided society, Israel has been addressing this issue through regulation and secondary legislation, despite several attempts to have it regulated through primary legislation. This article employs the consociational model alongside Public Choice Theory to explain the adoption of this policy pattern on the issue of human experiments. Based on thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews and existing sources, it sheds light on the normative choice that weighs the merits of primary legislation against the virtues of accommodation and consensus.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多元社会中的政策制定:以色列人体医学实验的案例
近年来的各种进程带来了民主社会内部的两极分化趋势,对政治稳定构成挑战。在这种背景下,这些国家希望建立和维持共识的愿望对正在采取的有关争议问题的政策模式产生了重大影响,这可能产生不利于公众的影响。其中一个问题是人体医学实验(临床试验),大多数国家都通过主要立法对其进行管制。作为一个严重分裂的社会,以色列一直通过管制和次级立法来解决这个问题,尽管几次试图通过初级立法来管制这个问题。本文采用联合模型和公共选择理论来解释这一政策模式在人体实验问题上的采用。基于对半结构化访谈和现有来源的专题分析,它揭示了衡量初级立法的优点与妥协和协商一致的优点的规范性选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Policy applies social science theories and concepts to significant political, economic and social issues and to the ways in which public policies are made. Its articles deal with topics of concern to public policy scholars in America, Europe, Japan and other advanced industrial nations. The journal often publishes articles that cut across disciplines, such as environmental issues, international political economy, regulatory policy and European Union processes. Its peer reviewers come from up to a dozen social science disciplines and countries across three continents, thus ensuring both analytic rigour and accuracy in reference to national and policy context.
期刊最新文献
Why are international standards not set? Explaining “weak” cases in shadow banking regulation PUP volume 43 issue 4 Cover and Back matter Policymaking in a plural society: the case of human experiments in medicine in Israel How are policy pilots managed? Findings from the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme in China Social media exposure’s effects on public support toward three-child policy in China: role of cognitive elaboration, perceived negative effects, and institutional trust
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1