Evaluating the role of bricolage in US Health Care policy reform

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Policy and Politics Pub Date : 2020-07-01 DOI:10.1332/030557319x15734252004022
Adam Hannah
{"title":"Evaluating the role of bricolage in US Health Care policy reform","authors":"Adam Hannah","doi":"10.1332/030557319x15734252004022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Understanding of the role of ideas in non-paradigmatic policy change has been advanced by the introduction of the concept of bricolage, which suggests that reformers are likely to piece together ideas from disparate sources. However, the current literature is limited in several ways.\n As such, this article proposes three main contributions to the field. First, the use of bricolage as a pragmatic strategy is perfectly compatible with actors being motivated by relatively fixed policy goals or seeking to imitate policies from elsewhere. Second, the creative use of ideas can\n be limited by the imposition of narrow frames or problem definitions by the victors of agenda-setting battles. Third, the use of bricolage comes with more potential for conflict and unintended consequences than has been recognised. This argument is illustrated through an analysis of healthcare\n reform in the United States in 2009/10, focusing particularly on the fate of the ‘public option’.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319x15734252004022","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Understanding of the role of ideas in non-paradigmatic policy change has been advanced by the introduction of the concept of bricolage, which suggests that reformers are likely to piece together ideas from disparate sources. However, the current literature is limited in several ways. As such, this article proposes three main contributions to the field. First, the use of bricolage as a pragmatic strategy is perfectly compatible with actors being motivated by relatively fixed policy goals or seeking to imitate policies from elsewhere. Second, the creative use of ideas can be limited by the imposition of narrow frames or problem definitions by the victors of agenda-setting battles. Third, the use of bricolage comes with more potential for conflict and unintended consequences than has been recognised. This argument is illustrated through an analysis of healthcare reform in the United States in 2009/10, focusing particularly on the fate of the ‘public option’.
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
评估拼凑在美国医疗保健政策改革中的作用
对思想在非范例性政策变化中的作用的理解,通过引入“拼凑”的概念得到了推进,“拼凑”的概念表明,改革者可能会将来自不同来源的思想拼凑在一起。然而,目前的文献在几个方面是有限的。因此,本文提出了对该领域的三个主要贡献。首先,将“拼凑”作为一种务实的策略,与行为者受到相对固定的政策目标的激励或试图模仿其他地方的政策完全兼容。第二,创造性地使用想法可能会受到议程设定斗争胜利者强加的狭隘框架或问题定义的限制。第三,使用“拼凑”会带来更多潜在的冲突和意想不到的后果,这超出了人们的认识。这一论点是通过对2009/10年美国医疗改革的分析来说明的,特别关注“公共选择”的命运。
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
7.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
The racialisation of sexism: how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France Concluding discussion: key themes in the (possible) move to co-production and co-creation in public management A theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value Collaborative governance and innovation in public services settings Digital platforms for the co-creation of public value
×
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