In the recent debate on megaprojects (MPs), greater attention is devoted to the functioning of the interorganizational and multiactor networks that are one of the most innovative features in recent years. The complexity of these structures brings out governability issues for an MP’s management. Mutual recognition and consent become elements capable of inaugurating more collaborative processes and practices to reduce organizational and management criticalities in MPs. This paper focuses on a neglected relational dimension, namely legitimacy. We argue that legitimacy is instead the central dimension that attributes effectiveness and capacity for action to the organizations involved. Legitimacy regulates the relationship between various organizations—and especially—between organizations and the public sphere. Institutionalist theory assigns a central role to legitimacy in the construction of social processes, defining it as a generalized form of social acceptance toward an actor, an idea, or a project. In this paper, we hypothesize that the legitimacy attributed and “held” by the stakeholders is a crucial element in countering three critical aspects of MPs, namely the uncertainty, complexity, and conflict acting on the construction of public consensus and the quality of relationships between the participating stakeholders. We verify our hypothesis by analyzing a cross-border MP, the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link between Germany and Denmark. The paper concentrates on the mechanisms with which stakeholders can acquire legitimacy using the Eriksen discursive legitimation scheme. These mechanisms are different (evidence-based, public participation, and legislators’ command) and produce different outcomes in terms of increasing or containing these three criticalities.
{"title":"Bridging the “consent gap”: mechanisms of legitimization in a cross-border megaproject","authors":"Silvia Lucciarini, Rossana Galdini","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad007","url":null,"abstract":"In the recent debate on megaprojects (MPs), greater attention is devoted to the functioning of the interorganizational and multiactor networks that are one of the most innovative features in recent years. The complexity of these structures brings out governability issues for an MP’s management. Mutual recognition and consent become elements capable of inaugurating more collaborative processes and practices to reduce organizational and management criticalities in MPs. This paper focuses on a neglected relational dimension, namely legitimacy. We argue that legitimacy is instead the central dimension that attributes effectiveness and capacity for action to the organizations involved. Legitimacy regulates the relationship between various organizations—and especially—between organizations and the public sphere. Institutionalist theory assigns a central role to legitimacy in the construction of social processes, defining it as a generalized form of social acceptance toward an actor, an idea, or a project. In this paper, we hypothesize that the legitimacy attributed and “held” by the stakeholders is a crucial element in countering three critical aspects of MPs, namely the uncertainty, complexity, and conflict acting on the construction of public consensus and the quality of relationships between the participating stakeholders. We verify our hypothesis by analyzing a cross-border MP, the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link between Germany and Denmark. The paper concentrates on the mechanisms with which stakeholders can acquire legitimacy using the Eriksen discursive legitimation scheme. These mechanisms are different (evidence-based, public participation, and legislators’ command) and produce different outcomes in terms of increasing or containing these three criticalities.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"59 13","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The mobilization of narratives is essential in integrating people and constructing identities that help in navigating complexity, uncertainty, and conflictuality. This paper explores how comparisons are used as a discursive tool to shape narratives and bring about changes in policy and society, using the High Speed Two megaproject in the UK as a case study. We examine the comparisons that promoters and protesters employ in an organizational setting. In particular, we explore how the narratives that result from these comparisons—on questions including the need for the megaproject, the benefits of the megaproject, alternatives to the megaproject, and issues of noise, sustainability, compensation, and branding—help their efforts to organize. The research highlights how comparisons serve as an important cue in discourse and how different forms of comparison can help to create narratives and shape policy outcomes.
{"title":"Comparisons as a discursive tool: shaping megaproject narratives in the United Kingdom","authors":"N. Sergeeva, Johan Ninan","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The mobilization of narratives is essential in integrating people and constructing identities that help in navigating complexity, uncertainty, and conflictuality. This paper explores how comparisons are used as a discursive tool to shape narratives and bring about changes in policy and society, using the High Speed Two megaproject in the UK as a case study. We examine the comparisons that promoters and protesters employ in an organizational setting. In particular, we explore how the narratives that result from these comparisons—on questions including the need for the megaproject, the benefits of the megaproject, alternatives to the megaproject, and issues of noise, sustainability, compensation, and branding—help their efforts to organize. The research highlights how comparisons serve as an important cue in discourse and how different forms of comparison can help to create narratives and shape policy outcomes.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75125453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Project management theory often reduces development to a simplistic and smooth process of consultation leading to a consensual set of requirements. However, in large public infrastructure projects, this is rarely the case as development is often subject to major power struggles. This article shows that public policy theory has an excellent potential to shed a fresh light on project development. An integrated model combining the theoretical insights from the Advocacy Coalition Framework and project development studies is presented and illustrated using the case of a major Canadian city streetcar network megaproject. The implications of the model for understanding “wicked problems” are discussed.
{"title":"The development of large public infrastructure projects: integrating policy and project studies models","authors":"Pierre-André Hudon, Serghei Floricel","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad004","url":null,"abstract":"Project management theory often reduces development to a simplistic and smooth process of consultation leading to a consensual set of requirements. However, in large public infrastructure projects, this is rarely the case as development is often subject to major power struggles. This article shows that public policy theory has an excellent potential to shed a fresh light on project development. An integrated model combining the theoretical insights from the Advocacy Coalition Framework and project development studies is presented and illustrated using the case of a major Canadian city streetcar network megaproject. The implications of the model for understanding “wicked problems” are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"58 41","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since megaprojects are costly, impactful, and often contentious policymaking processes, scholars have started to look at policy narratives as instruments that actors use strategically to justify their preferences and achieve their goals. But is this really the case? Do actors always adopt a narrative to support their goals? Do they develop arguments that are consistent with their official goals and in a timely manner? This paper suggests that, when megaprojects are not salient, narratives are likely to be strategically nonused or used in a hypocritical way, as such strategies better fit the process-related goals of significant actors. Such a claim is illustrated by a case study on the construction of a new high-speed railway line and station in the city of Florence (Italy). Relying on content and discourse analysis of official documents, and experts’ interviews, the paper shows that, despite favorable premises for the emergence of a battle of narratives, this never took place, as some of the proponents choose to nonuse a strategic narrative, while others occasionally publicly used arguments to jeopardize the whole project. In turn, opponents effectively developed a strategic narrative that, differently from other similar cases, mostly relied on technical arguments and emplotment. Hence, the case study generates hypotheses that could be tested in further studies on the conditions under which a coalitional dynamic emerges and the role played by policy narratives in the process.
{"title":"Nonuse and hypocritical use of strategic narratives in Megaprojects: The case of the Florence high-speed railway","authors":"Fabrizio Coticchia, Marco Di Giulio","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad006","url":null,"abstract":"Since megaprojects are costly, impactful, and often contentious policymaking processes, scholars have started to look at policy narratives as instruments that actors use strategically to justify their preferences and achieve their goals. But is this really the case? Do actors always adopt a narrative to support their goals? Do they develop arguments that are consistent with their official goals and in a timely manner? This paper suggests that, when megaprojects are not salient, narratives are likely to be strategically nonused or used in a hypocritical way, as such strategies better fit the process-related goals of significant actors. Such a claim is illustrated by a case study on the construction of a new high-speed railway line and station in the city of Florence (Italy). Relying on content and discourse analysis of official documents, and experts’ interviews, the paper shows that, despite favorable premises for the emergence of a battle of narratives, this never took place, as some of the proponents choose to nonuse a strategic narrative, while others occasionally publicly used arguments to jeopardize the whole project. In turn, opponents effectively developed a strategic narrative that, differently from other similar cases, mostly relied on technical arguments and emplotment. Hence, the case study generates hypotheses that could be tested in further studies on the conditions under which a coalitional dynamic emerges and the role played by policy narratives in the process.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50166444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Megaprojects are now as important as ever. As a response to the pandemic, the European Union has put forward the Next Generation EU policy, making available a 2021–2027 long-term budget of €1.8 trillion to fund projects with ecological and digital applications in the field of telecommunication, transportation, and energy infrastructures. Similarly, in the United States a $1.9 trillion Covid relief plan is on the way. Also, China has planned to expedite the rollout of 102 infrastructure megaprojects earmarked for the 2021–25 development plan. Despite their importance to policy-makers, megaprojects are often met with criticism and opposition by citizens, and often go off the rails—either with regard to budget or time, or both. This introductory article presents the aim and scope of the themed issue. It positions the problem areas beyond technical issues and connects them to the social and institutional environment within which megaprojects are planned and implemented. Moreover, the article makes the case for conceptualizing megaprojects as wicked policy fields. In doing so, we specify the three defining elements of megaprojects, namely, complexity, uncertainty, and conflict. The article argues that megaproject development cannot be seen as a rational, straightforward process. It is often a non-linear, conflictual process shaped by the collective action of different stakeholder groups (e.g., project managers, policy-makers, and citizens). Driven by divergent interests, sociotechnical imaginaries, as well as behavioral and discursive logics, groups of actors construct and mobilize narratives to influence final decision-making while interacting with the institutional context.
{"title":"Governing wickedness in megaprojects: discursive and institutional perspectives","authors":"Giovanni Esposito, Andrea Terlizzi","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Megaprojects are now as important as ever. As a response to the pandemic, the European Union has put forward the Next Generation EU policy, making available a 2021–2027 long-term budget of €1.8 trillion to fund projects with ecological and digital applications in the field of telecommunication, transportation, and energy infrastructures. Similarly, in the United States a $1.9 trillion Covid relief plan is on the way. Also, China has planned to expedite the rollout of 102 infrastructure megaprojects earmarked for the 2021–25 development plan. Despite their importance to policy-makers, megaprojects are often met with criticism and opposition by citizens, and often go off the rails—either with regard to budget or time, or both. This introductory article presents the aim and scope of the themed issue. It positions the problem areas beyond technical issues and connects them to the social and institutional environment within which megaprojects are planned and implemented. Moreover, the article makes the case for conceptualizing megaprojects as wicked policy fields. In doing so, we specify the three defining elements of megaprojects, namely, complexity, uncertainty, and conflict. The article argues that megaproject development cannot be seen as a rational, straightforward process. It is often a non-linear, conflictual process shaped by the collective action of different stakeholder groups (e.g., project managers, policy-makers, and citizens). Driven by divergent interests, sociotechnical imaginaries, as well as behavioral and discursive logics, groups of actors construct and mobilize narratives to influence final decision-making while interacting with the institutional context.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81408014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper explores the politics of scale associated with the top-down planning of large hydraulic infrastructures in the Tigris–Euphrates basin. Against the backdrop of a worsening water crisis and the lack of cooperation between riparian countries, dams and reservoirs across the transboundary river system are sites of contestation between competing claims over dwindling and disputed resources. Drawing on post-structuralist insights from human geography on the politics of scale and the literature on megaprojects, it is argued here that hydraulic infrastructures are materially and discursively implicated in the construction of waterscapes at different scales to sustain broader political imaginaries. Based on ethnographic fieldwork and with a focus on the autonomous Region of Kurdistan in Iraq, the analysis juxtaposes the narratives deployed by state- and non-state actors to support or counter the development of additional dams. While, on the one hand, the Kurdistan Regional Government portrays hydraulic infrastructures as a vital source of security and well-being within the overarching nationalist narrative of Kurdish self-determination, on the other hand, transnational civil society groups under the umbrella of the Save the Tigris and Iraqi Marshes Campaign have mobilized against the adverse impact of megaprojects and appealed to the common Mesopotamian heritage in order to de-escalate political tensions within the transboundary river basin. In both cases, hydraulic infrastructures provide a framework for political action to secure recognition of rights and assert the appropriate scale of governance. Furthermore, bottom-up resistance is accompanied by the promotion of a participatory and inclusive approach to shared waters. From this perspective, the spatial politics of megaprojects intersect with issues of identity, equity, and sustainability.
{"title":"“Scales of justice. Large dams and water rights in the Tigris–Euphrates basin”","authors":"Alessandro Tinti","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The paper explores the politics of scale associated with the top-down planning of large hydraulic infrastructures in the Tigris–Euphrates basin. Against the backdrop of a worsening water crisis and the lack of cooperation between riparian countries, dams and reservoirs across the transboundary river system are sites of contestation between competing claims over dwindling and disputed resources. Drawing on post-structuralist insights from human geography on the politics of scale and the literature on megaprojects, it is argued here that hydraulic infrastructures are materially and discursively implicated in the construction of waterscapes at different scales to sustain broader political imaginaries. Based on ethnographic fieldwork and with a focus on the autonomous Region of Kurdistan in Iraq, the analysis juxtaposes the narratives deployed by state- and non-state actors to support or counter the development of additional dams. While, on the one hand, the Kurdistan Regional Government portrays hydraulic infrastructures as a vital source of security and well-being within the overarching nationalist narrative of Kurdish self-determination, on the other hand, transnational civil society groups under the umbrella of the Save the Tigris and Iraqi Marshes Campaign have mobilized against the adverse impact of megaprojects and appealed to the common Mesopotamian heritage in order to de-escalate political tensions within the transboundary river basin. In both cases, hydraulic infrastructures provide a framework for political action to secure recognition of rights and assert the appropriate scale of governance. Furthermore, bottom-up resistance is accompanied by the promotion of a participatory and inclusive approach to shared waters. From this perspective, the spatial politics of megaprojects intersect with issues of identity, equity, and sustainability.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86807881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Large-scale military platform procurement is an essential but understudied component of the policy studies of megaprojects. Procurement decisions in this area, from ships to aircraft, are examples of a specific type of often very expensive purchases which feature complex multi-actor and multiyear processes characterized by high degrees of conflict between actors over purchases and planning horizons. This study of military procurement efforts of this type demonstrates the importance of maintaining policy ‘alignment’ between governments and service providers for successful megaproject procurement to occur and suggests several strategies for accomplishing this that can be applied to similar large-scale but nondefense-related projects, ranging from hydroelectric dams to high-speed railway development.
{"title":"The politics of military megaprojects: discursive struggles in Canadian and Australian naval shipbuilding strategies","authors":"A. Migone, A. Howlett, Michael Howlett","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puad001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puad001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Large-scale military platform procurement is an essential but understudied component of the policy studies of megaprojects. Procurement decisions in this area, from ships to aircraft, are examples of a specific type of often very expensive purchases which feature complex multi-actor and multiyear processes characterized by high degrees of conflict between actors over purchases and planning horizons. This study of military procurement efforts of this type demonstrates the importance of maintaining policy ‘alignment’ between governments and service providers for successful megaproject procurement to occur and suggests several strategies for accomplishing this that can be applied to similar large-scale but nondefense-related projects, ranging from hydroelectric dams to high-speed railway development.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73291823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Giovanni Esposito, Andrea Felicetti, Andrea Terlizzi
Megaprojects are increasingly common across countries and attract substantial political attention from a variety of actors. Recent studies have highlighted the need to move from an understanding of megaprojects as linear and rational processes towards a more nuanced approach that accounts for non-linear and conflictual aspects. Participatory governance is often proposed as a valuable resource in this regard. In this paper, we investigate the setting and design of two participatory venues operating in the context of the implementation of the Lyon-Turin high-speed railway megaproject: the Italian Observatory for the Turin-Lyon Railway and the French Public Inquiry. Empirical evidence shows that the Italian case featured substantial structural barriers to effective democratic participation. As for the French case, while better designed and implanted in its context, it featured important agentic limitations that undermined its democratic potential. On the basis of our case study, we therefore argue that both the Observatory for the Turin-Lyon Railway and Public Inquiry failed to promote democratic participation. We thus propose a deliberative approach to (the study of) of megaprojects. Whereas deliberative democratic ideas command growing interest across disciplines, these have found only limited application in the study of megaprojects. We contend that a deliberative democratic approach holds promise to improve the democratic and epistemic qualities of decision making on megaprojects.
{"title":"Participatory governance in megaprojects: the Lyon–Turin high-speed railway among structure, agency, and democratic participation","authors":"Giovanni Esposito, Andrea Felicetti, Andrea Terlizzi","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Megaprojects are increasingly common across countries and attract substantial political attention from a variety of actors. Recent studies have highlighted the need to move from an understanding of megaprojects as linear and rational processes towards a more nuanced approach that accounts for non-linear and conflictual aspects. Participatory governance is often proposed as a valuable resource in this regard. In this paper, we investigate the setting and design of two participatory venues operating in the context of the implementation of the Lyon-Turin high-speed railway megaproject: the Italian Observatory for the Turin-Lyon Railway and the French Public Inquiry. Empirical evidence shows that the Italian case featured substantial structural barriers to effective democratic participation. As for the French case, while better designed and implanted in its context, it featured important agentic limitations that undermined its democratic potential. On the basis of our case study, we therefore argue that both the Observatory for the Turin-Lyon Railway and Public Inquiry failed to promote democratic participation. We thus propose a deliberative approach to (the study of) of megaprojects. Whereas deliberative democratic ideas command growing interest across disciplines, these have found only limited application in the study of megaprojects. We contend that a deliberative democratic approach holds promise to improve the democratic and epistemic qualities of decision making on megaprojects.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85636199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
F. C. Saddi, S. Peckham, G. Bloom, N. Turnbull, V. Coelho, J. Denis
The policy capacity framework offers relevant analytical ideas that can be mobilized for health system strengthening. However, the employment of this framework in the health field constitutes a relevant interdisciplinary gap in knowledge. This themed issue explores the relationships between the policy capacity framework and health system strengthening, in a multidimensional and interdisciplinary way, in high-income and low–middle-income countries. This introduction unpacks the dynamic interrelationships between the policy capacity framework and health system strengthening, bringing together common and distinct elements from both fields and summarizing possible relationships between them. The analysis shows that both fields together can increase our knowledge on health policies and system’s critical themes and reforms. This challenge could be followed by exploring the convergences between them, as far as concepts/themes (types of capacities and other themes) and levels of analysis are concerned. Although in varied ways, papers in this issue (based on European countries, China, Canada, New Zealand, India, Australia, and Brazil) advance the use of the policy capacity framework for health policy or system strengthening. They give two main interdisciplinary contributions. Critical capacities can be incorporated into the policy capacity framework for the analysis of system strengthening—capacity to adapt, contexts of mixed and complex systems, dynamic view of policy capacity, and policy capacity as a relational power. Policy capacity is contextually interpreted (relative to the problem frame) and dynamic and adaptive (processual and relational), in relation to the properties of a health system, particularly with regard to the existing and developing mixed and complex systems.
{"title":"Employing the policy capacity framework for health system strengthening","authors":"F. C. Saddi, S. Peckham, G. Bloom, N. Turnbull, V. Coelho, J. Denis","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac031","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The policy capacity framework offers relevant analytical ideas that can be mobilized for health system strengthening. However, the employment of this framework in the health field constitutes a relevant interdisciplinary gap in knowledge. This themed issue explores the relationships between the policy capacity framework and health system strengthening, in a multidimensional and interdisciplinary way, in high-income and low–middle-income countries. This introduction unpacks the dynamic interrelationships between the policy capacity framework and health system strengthening, bringing together common and distinct elements from both fields and summarizing possible relationships between them. The analysis shows that both fields together can increase our knowledge on health policies and system’s critical themes and reforms. This challenge could be followed by exploring the convergences between them, as far as concepts/themes (types of capacities and other themes) and levels of analysis are concerned. Although in varied ways, papers in this issue (based on European countries, China, Canada, New Zealand, India, Australia, and Brazil) advance the use of the policy capacity framework for health policy or system strengthening. They give two main interdisciplinary contributions. Critical capacities can be incorporated into the policy capacity framework for the analysis of system strengthening—capacity to adapt, contexts of mixed and complex systems, dynamic view of policy capacity, and policy capacity as a relational power. Policy capacity is contextually interpreted (relative to the problem frame) and dynamic and adaptive (processual and relational), in relation to the properties of a health system, particularly with regard to the existing and developing mixed and complex systems.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75938664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bijoya Roy, F. C. Saddi, S. Peckham, Maria Luiza Pereira Barretos
This paper employs the policy capacity framework to develop a multidimensional and nested policy analysis that is able to examine how different types of capacity—analytical, organizational, and political from different related levels of the health system—have contributed to both policy success and failure during the implementation of a politically significant national community health worker (CHW) program in India. Directed toward rural and urban marginalized populations in India, this CHW has become the world’s largest CHW program. Launched in 2006, it has targeted communitization, strengthening of the primary health-care system, and universal health-care coverage, ultimately receiving an international award in 2022. We argue that, in a context of capacity deficits and tensions between different capacity domains, the individual political capacity has been more critical to policy success and strengthening. The analysis not only clarifies the ways in which the government took some initiatives to build up capacity but also highlights capacity deficits along different competency dimensions. This approach demonstrates the value of understanding and creating awareness concerning complex poor-resource settings and low organizational capacity while concomitantly building up the capacities needed to foster (workforce and leadership) strengthening.
{"title":"Critical policy capacity factors in the implementation of the community health worker program in India","authors":"Bijoya Roy, F. C. Saddi, S. Peckham, Maria Luiza Pereira Barretos","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puac032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac032","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper employs the policy capacity framework to develop a multidimensional and nested policy analysis that is able to examine how different types of capacity—analytical, organizational, and political from different related levels of the health system—have contributed to both policy success and failure during the implementation of a politically significant national community health worker (CHW) program in India. Directed toward rural and urban marginalized populations in India, this CHW has become the world’s largest CHW program. Launched in 2006, it has targeted communitization, strengthening of the primary health-care system, and universal health-care coverage, ultimately receiving an international award in 2022. We argue that, in a context of capacity deficits and tensions between different capacity domains, the individual political capacity has been more critical to policy success and strengthening. The analysis not only clarifies the ways in which the government took some initiatives to build up capacity but also highlights capacity deficits along different competency dimensions. This approach demonstrates the value of understanding and creating awareness concerning complex poor-resource settings and low organizational capacity while concomitantly building up the capacities needed to foster (workforce and leadership) strengthening.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79052474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：