{"title":"Health system reform and path-dependency: how ideas constrained change in South Africa’s national health insurance policy process","authors":"Eleanor Beth Whyle, Jill Olivier","doi":"10.1007/s11077-024-09541-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Path-dependency theory says that complex systems, such as health systems, are shaped by prior conditions and decisions, and are resistant to change. As a result, major policy changes, such as health system reform, are often only possible in policy windows—moments of transition or contextual crisis that re-balance social power dynamics and enable the consideration of new policy ideas. However, even in policy windows there can be resistance to change. In this paper, we consider the role of ideas in constraining change. We draw on political science theory on the dynamic relationship between foreground ideas (policy programmes and frames) and background ideas (deeply held collective cognitive and normative beliefs) to better understand how ideas exert influence independently of the contextual conditions that give rise to them or the actors that espouse them. To do so, we examine two apparent policy windows in the South African National Health Insurance policy process. The analysis reveals how ideas can become institutionalised in organisations and procedures (such as policy instruments or provider networks), and in intangible cultural norms—becoming hegemonic and uncontested ideas that shape the attitudes and perspectives of policy actors. In this way, ideas operate as independent variables, constraining change across policy windows. While health policy analysts increasingly recognise the influence of ideational variables in policy processes, they tend to conceptualise ideas as tools actors wield to drive change. This analysis reveals the importance of considering ideas (values, norms, and beliefs) as persistent features of the policy-making context that constrain actors.</p>","PeriodicalId":51433,"journal":{"name":"Policy Sciences","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09541-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Path-dependency theory says that complex systems, such as health systems, are shaped by prior conditions and decisions, and are resistant to change. As a result, major policy changes, such as health system reform, are often only possible in policy windows—moments of transition or contextual crisis that re-balance social power dynamics and enable the consideration of new policy ideas. However, even in policy windows there can be resistance to change. In this paper, we consider the role of ideas in constraining change. We draw on political science theory on the dynamic relationship between foreground ideas (policy programmes and frames) and background ideas (deeply held collective cognitive and normative beliefs) to better understand how ideas exert influence independently of the contextual conditions that give rise to them or the actors that espouse them. To do so, we examine two apparent policy windows in the South African National Health Insurance policy process. The analysis reveals how ideas can become institutionalised in organisations and procedures (such as policy instruments or provider networks), and in intangible cultural norms—becoming hegemonic and uncontested ideas that shape the attitudes and perspectives of policy actors. In this way, ideas operate as independent variables, constraining change across policy windows. While health policy analysts increasingly recognise the influence of ideational variables in policy processes, they tend to conceptualise ideas as tools actors wield to drive change. This analysis reveals the importance of considering ideas (values, norms, and beliefs) as persistent features of the policy-making context that constrain actors.
期刊介绍:
The policy sciences are distinctive within the policy movement in that they embrace the scholarly traditions innovated and elaborated by Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal. Within these pages we provide space for approaches that are problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method in orientation. There are many other journals in which authors can take top-down, deductive, and large-sample approach or adopt a primarily theoretical focus. Policy Sciences encourages systematic and empirical investigations in which problems are clearly identified from a practical and theoretical perspective, are well situated in the extant literature, and are investigated utilizing methodologies compatible with contextual, as opposed to reductionist, understandings. We tend not to publish pieces that are solely theoretical, but favor works in which the applied policy lessons are clearly articulated. Policy Sciences favors, but does not publish exclusively, works that either explicitly or implicitly utilize the policy sciences framework. The policy sciences can be applied to articles with greater or lesser intensity to accommodate the focus of an author’s work. At the minimum, this means taking a problem oriented, multi-method or contextual approach. At the fullest expression, it may mean leveraging central theory or explicitly applying aspects of the framework, which is comprised of three principal dimensions: (1) social process, which is mapped in terms of participants, perspectives, situations, base values, strategies, outcomes and effects, with values (power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, rectitude, respect, well-being, and affection) being the key elements in understanding participants’ behaviors and interactions; (2) decision process, which is mapped in terms of seven functions—intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal; and (3) problem orientation, which comprises the intellectual tasks of clarifying goals, describing trends, analyzing conditions, projecting developments, and inventing, evaluating, and selecting alternatives. There is a more extensive core literature that also applies and can be visited at the policy sciences website: http://www.policysciences.org/classicworks.cfm. In addition to articles that explicitly utilize the policy sciences framework, Policy Sciences has a long tradition of publishing papers that draw on various aspects of that framework and its central theory as well as high quality conceptual pieces that address key challenges, opportunities, or approaches in ways congruent with the perspective that this journal strives to maintain and extend.Officially cited as: Policy Sci