Thinking politically about intersectoral action: Ideas, Interests and Institutions shaping political dimensions of governing during COVID-19.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Fran Baum, Connie Musolino, Toby Freeman, Joanne Flavel, Wim De Ceukelaire, Chunhuei Chi, Carlos Alvarez Dardet, Matheus Zuliane Falcão, Sharon Friel, Hailay Abrha Gesesew, Camila Giugliani, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Nguyen Thanh Huong, Sun Kim, Leslie London, Martin McKee, Sulakshana Nandi, Lauren Paremoer, Jennie Popay, Hani Serag, Sundararaman Thiagarajan, Viroj Tangcharoensathien, Eugenio Villar
{"title":"Thinking politically about intersectoral action: Ideas, Interests and Institutions shaping political dimensions of governing during COVID-19.","authors":"Fran Baum, Connie Musolino, Toby Freeman, Joanne Flavel, Wim De Ceukelaire, Chunhuei Chi, Carlos Alvarez Dardet, Matheus Zuliane Falcão, Sharon Friel, Hailay Abrha Gesesew, Camila Giugliani, Philippa Howden-Chapman, Nguyen Thanh Huong, Sun Kim, Leslie London, Martin McKee, Sulakshana Nandi, Lauren Paremoer, Jennie Popay, Hani Serag, Sundararaman Thiagarajan, Viroj Tangcharoensathien, Eugenio Villar","doi":"10.1093/heapol/czae047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Our paper examines the political considerations in the intersectoral action that was evident during the SAR-COV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic through case studies of political and institutional responses in 16 nations (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Ethiopia, India, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, UK, and USA). Our qualitative case study approach involved an iterative process of data gathering and interpretation through the three Is (institutions, ideas and interests) lens, which we used to shape our understanding of political and intersectoral factors affecting pandemic responses. The institutional factors examined were: national economic and political context; influence of the global economic order; structural inequities; and public health structures and legislation, including intersectoral action. The ideas explored were: orientation of governments; political actors' views on science; willingness to challenge neoliberal policies; previous pandemic experiences. We examined the interests of political leaders and civil society and the extent of public trust. We derived five elements that predict effective and equity-sensitive political responses to a pandemic. Firstly, effective responses have to be intersectoral and led from the head of government with technical support from health agencies. Secondly, we found that political leaders' willingness to accept science, communicate empathetically and avoid 'othering' population groups was vital. The lack of political will was found in those countries stressing individualistic values. Thirdly, a supportive civil society which questions governments about excessive infringement of human rights without adopting populist anti-science views, and is free to express opposition to the government encourages effective political action in the interests of the population. Fourthly, citizen trust is vital in times of uncertainty and fear. Fifthly, evidence of consideration is needed regarding when people's health must be prioritized over the needs of the economy. All these factors are unlikely to be present in any one country. Recognizing the political aspects of pandemic preparedness is vital for effective responses to future pandemics and while intersectoral action is vital, it is not enough in isolation to improve pandemic outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12926,"journal":{"name":"Health policy and planning","volume":"39 Supplement_2","pages":"i75-i92"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11570834/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health policy and planning","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czae047","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our paper examines the political considerations in the intersectoral action that was evident during the SAR-COV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic through case studies of political and institutional responses in 16 nations (Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Ethiopia, India, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, UK, and USA). Our qualitative case study approach involved an iterative process of data gathering and interpretation through the three Is (institutions, ideas and interests) lens, which we used to shape our understanding of political and intersectoral factors affecting pandemic responses. The institutional factors examined were: national economic and political context; influence of the global economic order; structural inequities; and public health structures and legislation, including intersectoral action. The ideas explored were: orientation of governments; political actors' views on science; willingness to challenge neoliberal policies; previous pandemic experiences. We examined the interests of political leaders and civil society and the extent of public trust. We derived five elements that predict effective and equity-sensitive political responses to a pandemic. Firstly, effective responses have to be intersectoral and led from the head of government with technical support from health agencies. Secondly, we found that political leaders' willingness to accept science, communicate empathetically and avoid 'othering' population groups was vital. The lack of political will was found in those countries stressing individualistic values. Thirdly, a supportive civil society which questions governments about excessive infringement of human rights without adopting populist anti-science views, and is free to express opposition to the government encourages effective political action in the interests of the population. Fourthly, citizen trust is vital in times of uncertainty and fear. Fifthly, evidence of consideration is needed regarding when people's health must be prioritized over the needs of the economy. All these factors are unlikely to be present in any one country. Recognizing the political aspects of pandemic preparedness is vital for effective responses to future pandemics and while intersectoral action is vital, it is not enough in isolation to improve pandemic outcomes.

对跨部门行动进行政治思考:在 COVID-19 期间,思想、利益和机构塑造了治理的政治层面。
本文通过对 16 个国家(澳大利亚、比利时、巴西、埃塞俄比亚、印度、新西兰、尼日利亚、秘鲁、南非、韩国、西班牙、中国台湾、泰国、越南、英国和美国)的政治和机构应对措施的案例研究,探讨了在 SAR-COV-2 病毒(COVID-19)大流行期间跨部门行动中明显存在的政治因素。我们的定性案例研究方法包括通过三个 "Is"(机构、观念和利益)视角进行数据收集和解释的反复过程,我们利用这三个 "Is "来理解影响大流行病应对措施的政治和跨部门因素。我们研究的制度因素包括:国家经济和政治环境;全球经济秩序的影响;结构性不平等;公共卫生结构和立法,包括跨部门行动。探讨的观点包括:政府的取向;政治行为者对科学的看法;挑战新自由主义政策的意愿;以往的大流行病经验。我们研究了政治领导人和民间社会的利益以及公众信任的程度。我们得出了预测对大流行病采取有效和对公平敏感的政治应对措施的五个要素。首先,有效的应对措施必须是跨部门的,由政府首脑领导,卫生机构提供技术支持。其次,我们发现政治领导人愿意接受科学、以同理心进行沟通并避免 "另类 "人群是至关重要的。那些强调个人主义价值观的国家缺乏政治意愿。第三,一个支持性的民间社会,在不采纳民粹主义反科学观点的情况下对政府过度侵犯人权的行为提出质疑,并能自由表达对政府的反对意见,从而鼓励采取有效的政治行动来维护民众的利益。第四,在不确定和恐惧时期,公民的信任至关重要。第五,在什么情况下必须优先考虑人民的健康而不是经济需求,这需要考虑的证据。所有这些因素在任何一个国家都不太可能存在。认识到大流行病防备工作的政治因素对于有效应对未来的大流行病至关重要,虽然跨部门行动至关重要,但孤立地采取行动不足以改善大流行病的结果。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Health policy and planning
Health policy and planning 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.10%
发文量
98
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Health Policy and Planning publishes health policy and systems research focusing on low- and middle-income countries. Our journal provides an international forum for publishing original and high-quality research that addresses questions pertinent to policy-makers, public health researchers and practitioners. Health Policy and Planning is published 10 times a year.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信