{"title":"Has recentralisation improved equality? Primary care infrastructure development in China","authors":"Xiao Tan, Lei Yu","doi":"10.1002/app5.346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Since the early 2000s, the Chinese Government has undertaken a series of recentralisation efforts. In social policy areas, such efforts are targeted at greater equalisation and inclusiveness. These developments raise a critical question: has recentralisation improved equality? This study explores this question through the lens of primary care infrastructure development, an essential aspect of healthcare reforms that has received limited attention in the academic literature. Based on an analysis of health yearbooks (2004–2016), other government documents and fieldwork interviews, we find that, despite recentralisation efforts, the financing for primary care infrastructure development has remained highly decentralised. Provincial governments act as important <i>intermediaries</i>, reflected by their discretionary power in managing central targets and fundraising behaviour to leverage available resources for outcomes that align with local priorities. Despite an overall capacity increase in primary care infrastructure, significant inequality has remained, which contradicts the central governmentʼs intent to improve equality through recentralisation.</p>","PeriodicalId":45839,"journal":{"name":"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies","volume":"9 2","pages":"115-133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/app5.346","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/app5.346","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
Since the early 2000s, the Chinese Government has undertaken a series of recentralisation efforts. In social policy areas, such efforts are targeted at greater equalisation and inclusiveness. These developments raise a critical question: has recentralisation improved equality? This study explores this question through the lens of primary care infrastructure development, an essential aspect of healthcare reforms that has received limited attention in the academic literature. Based on an analysis of health yearbooks (2004–2016), other government documents and fieldwork interviews, we find that, despite recentralisation efforts, the financing for primary care infrastructure development has remained highly decentralised. Provincial governments act as important intermediaries, reflected by their discretionary power in managing central targets and fundraising behaviour to leverage available resources for outcomes that align with local priorities. Despite an overall capacity increase in primary care infrastructure, significant inequality has remained, which contradicts the central governmentʼs intent to improve equality through recentralisation.
期刊介绍:
Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies is the flagship journal of the Crawford School of Public Policy at The Australian National University. It is a peer-reviewed journal that targets research in policy studies in Australia, Asia and the Pacific, across a discipline focus that includes economics, political science, governance, development and the environment. Specific themes of recent interest include health and education, aid, migration, inequality, poverty reduction, energy, climate and the environment, food policy, public administration, the role of the private sector in public policy, trade, foreign policy, natural resource management and development policy. Papers on a range of topics that speak to various disciplines, the region and policy makers are encouraged. The goal of the journal is to break down barriers across disciplines, and generate policy impact. Submissions will be reviewed on the basis of content, policy relevance and readability.