The following articles are merged in Scholar. Their combined citations are counted only for the first article. Merged citations. This "Cited by" count includes citations to the following articles in Scholar. Add co-authors Co-authors. Upload PDF. Follow this author. New articles by this author. New citations to this author. New articles related to this author's research. Email address for updates. The original piece of research by Lawless et al 1 is exemplary in its aim and description of using program logic to improve understandings of the practice of Health in All Policies HiAP in South Australia.
That said, the paper does provide important knowledge that has been missing in the healthy public policy arena I prefer the term Healthy Public Policy to HiAP as like Lawless et al I view the former as the discipline and the latter an approach. Taking a global perspective, the Lawless et al original contributes to an increasingly important body of work about influencing the wider determinants of health through healthy public policy.
My first critique concerns the research being unable to take on outcome evaluation and providing a lengthy and detailed explanation of this.
Serie: Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy
Unlike the response to the article by Labonte 7 who rather confusingly critiques the lack of outcome evaluation but then details why this was the case , I think the paper would be much improved by being more direct and succinct about this. I would prefer the original p. All the other clever concepts about causal relationships, contribution vs.
This type of article is not a PhD thesis requiring this sort of depth. This success has several pragmatic and conceptual dimensions.
Pragmatically the involvement of policy-makers is outstanding. This involvement is no mean feat and indeed may be a bi-product of the relationships developed as part of the HiAP approach in South Australia. Active collaboration and deliberation with policy-makers is very difficult to achieve. It takes entrepreneurialism, time, tenacity, relationships, and above all an institutional mandate to make initiatives such as HiAP to make it work. There is great merit in bringing policy-makers to articulate the dimensions of the logic model, using theories of the policy process to trigger thinking and explanation.
We know that policy learning is the principle mechanism for policy change, 8 - 10 and understanding program logic as a way of working to achieve this is very useful indeed. Explaining the actual doing of this adds enormously to the literature and helps add program logic as another useful health and public policy process. Other equally useful approaches include health impact assessment, complex systems analysis, and adaptive management — although the application of these could certainly do with the same detailed policy analysis as that provided by Lawless et al.
Conceptually the articulation of the policy dimensions that go into the framework and the analysis supports much of the policy literature and is another strength for the field of healthy public policy. The analysis is based around the core dimensions known to make up policy institutions or sub-systems in political science: Actors, structures, ideas leading to policy choices. However, just as Lawless et al present in their framework Figure 1 , it is crucial to realise that these essential dimensions are not the full story, instead they provide the platform for a fuller narrative to unfurl.
Crucial issues such as power and politics end up only nodded too noting that power was the subject of other recent commentaries on the original. Lawless et al do introduce power p. One passage is particularly interesting when seen with this type of critical lens. This could have and should be questioned in terms of who holds what power over who, why, and ultimately with what effect?
Non-governmental organizations NGOs and community groups would be unlikely to want the government to hold such power over them by dictating their goals. Governance however is given a wide berth by Lawless et al beyond being an internal mechanism for intra-agency engagement.
But this type of analysis is easier to critique than it is to do. The Section aims at filling this gap by bringing to the forefront of the academic discussion a spectrum of ideas and interpretations that address the meaning s of politics and their implications on results of research in political science and related disciplines.
The three proposed Panels are designed to move from the general challenge of the meaning of politics defining politics in the context of tendencies towards depoliticization to two more specific issue areas understanding the political elements of contemporary political institutions and a new set of political interactions emerging through links between international organizations, specifically in a crisis-affected environment. The design of the Panels intends to stimulate dialogue and academic exchange between senior scholars and young academics post-docs, postgraduate and experienced graduate students.
John Hogan - Google 學術搜尋引用文獻
Is it at odds with the reality of political relationships, based much more on notions of individual agency and freedoms? The Panel also aims to examine the possible linkages between the definition of politics as the basis of its understanding, and the tendencies towards depoliticization — moving away from anything political in favor of non-political such as bureaucratic ways of decision making. This has arguably increased the number and strength of relations of these actors not only with states but also with each other.
The goal of this Panel is to bring together contributions that address the nature of these relations. An important contextual variable to be taken into consideration in each analysis in the Panel is the emerging discourse about crises, political and other, that are highlighted specifically in global media. Sharpe, ,