Suchergebnisse

THE ARTICLE DISCUSSES WHETHER BOUNDARY ISSUES RAISED BY PROCESSES OF GLOBALIZATION ARE EXOGENOUS OR ENDOGENOUS TO THE THEORY OF DEMOCRACY. THE AUTHOR COMPARES VERTICAL VS. HORIZONTAL MODULARITY IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND IN POLITICAL THEORY. HE THEN EXPLOITS THE ANALOGY BETWEEN BOUNDARY ISSUES IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND IN POLITICAL THEORY IN ORDER TO SUGGEST HOW DEMOCRACY COULD BE RETHOUGHT AS AN EMERGENT PROPERTY OF A COMPLEX GLOBALLY DISTRIBUTED DYNAMIC SYSTEM OR SUPERNETWORK. LIKE RATIONALITY, IT NEED NOT BE CONCEIVED IN INTERNAL, PROCEDURAL TERMS THAT PRESUPPOSE VERTICAL MODULARITY. DEMOCRACY IS NOT ELIMINATED BY, AND CAN EVEN DEPEND ON, HORIZONTAL MODULARITY.

Introduction: A well-established body of literature demonstrates that health and equity are strongly influenced by the consequences of governments' policy and resultant actions (or inactions) outside the health sector. Consequently, the United Nations, and its agency the WHO, have called for national leadership and whole-of-government action to understand and address the health impacts of policies in all sectors. This research responds to that call by investigating how policymaking in four sectors—urban planning, justice, energy and environment—may influence the social determinants of health and health equity (SDH/HE). Methods and analysis: The research design is informed by a critical qualitative approach. Three successive stages are included in the design. The first involves analysing all strategic policy documents and selected legislative documents from the four sectors (n=583). The document analysis is based on a coding framework developed to identify alignment between the documents and the SDH/HE. Two policies that demonstrate good practice in regard to SDH/HE will be selected from each sector during the second stage for embedded case study analysis (total n=8). This is intended to illuminate which factors have supported recognition and action on SDH/HE in the selected policies. The third stage involves progressive theoretical integration and development to understand political and institutional facilitators and barriers to action on SDH/HE, both within and between sectors. Ethics and dissemination: The research will provide much needed evidence about how coherent whole-of-government action on SDH/HE can be advanced and contribute knowledge about how health-enhancing policy activity in the four sectors may be optimised. Learnings from the research will be shared via a project advisory group, policy briefings, academic papers, conference presentations and research symposia. Ethics approval has been secured for the embedded case studies, which involve research participants.

There is strong, and growing, evidence documenting health inequities across the world. However, most governments do not prioritize policies to encourage action on the social determinants of health and health equity. Furthermore, despite evidence concerning the benefits of joined-up, intersectoral policy to promote health and health equity, it is rare for such policy approaches to be applied systematically. To examine the usefulness of political and social science theory in understanding the reasons for this disjuncture between evidence and practice, researchers and public servants gathered in Adelaide for an Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia (ASSA) Workshop. This paper draws together the learnings that emerged from the Workshop, including key messages about the usefulness of various theories as well as insights drawn from policy practice. Discussions during the Workshop highlighted that applying multiple theories is particularly helpful in directing attention to, and understanding, the influence of all stages of the policy process; from the construction and framing of policy problems, to the implementation of policy and evaluation of outcomes, including those outcomes that may be unintended. In addition, the Workshop emphasized the value of collaborations among public health researchers, political and social scientists and public servants to open up critical discussion about the intersections between theory, research evidence and practice. Such critique is vital to render visible the processes through which particular sources of knowledge may be privileged over others and to examine how political and bureaucratic environments shape policy proposals and implementation action.