Anna Baillie, Gillian Fergie, Mhairi Mackenzie, Kathryn Skivington
{"title":"Participatory-deliberative processes in UK policy making related to income insecurity as a determinant of health: a scoping review.","authors":"Anna Baillie, Gillian Fergie, Mhairi Mackenzie, Kathryn Skivington","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Deepening democratic engagement in socio-economic policy domains is of increasing interest to the health inequalities research community. However, there is a recognised gap between theory and the practical application of public participation. Viewing income security as a fundamental determinant of health, this article investigates how, when and where participatory-deliberative processes (PDPs) were applied in policy making connected to income, in the UK, from January 2007 to June 2022.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review applied the PRIMSA-ScR checklist. Searches were conducted in: EconLit, SOC Index, Sociological Abstracts, MedLine; and grey literature sources: BASE database, government, non-governmental organisation websites for articles related to PDPs in income-related policy making in the UK, published after 1 January 2007. Articles were synthesised through a conceptual framework combining Whitehead's typology of actions to tackle health inequalities and Smith's categorisation of democratic goods.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The review found 20 articles relating to 13 PDPs. A majority of PDPs took place in Scottish Government/ Parliament or at Local Authority/NHS Trust level in England and Wales. A variety of types of PDPs were used by policy-making institutions across a range of socio-economic domains, with varying degrees of information provided about participants and policy outcomes.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusions: </strong>Findings demonstrate a multitude of disconnects between participatory rhetoric and reality. There is no evidence of PDPs influencing macro socio-economic policy making, with participatory decision-making instead dispersed across less empowered, downstream spaces. Democratising socio-economic policy domains requires critical reflection on the fractured nature of participatory policy making, the locus of decision-making power and how inclusion is realised in participation spaces.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"429-453"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7617669/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000053","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Deepening democratic engagement in socio-economic policy domains is of increasing interest to the health inequalities research community. However, there is a recognised gap between theory and the practical application of public participation. Viewing income security as a fundamental determinant of health, this article investigates how, when and where participatory-deliberative processes (PDPs) were applied in policy making connected to income, in the UK, from January 2007 to June 2022.
Methods: The review applied the PRIMSA-ScR checklist. Searches were conducted in: EconLit, SOC Index, Sociological Abstracts, MedLine; and grey literature sources: BASE database, government, non-governmental organisation websites for articles related to PDPs in income-related policy making in the UK, published after 1 January 2007. Articles were synthesised through a conceptual framework combining Whitehead's typology of actions to tackle health inequalities and Smith's categorisation of democratic goods.
Findings: The review found 20 articles relating to 13 PDPs. A majority of PDPs took place in Scottish Government/ Parliament or at Local Authority/NHS Trust level in England and Wales. A variety of types of PDPs were used by policy-making institutions across a range of socio-economic domains, with varying degrees of information provided about participants and policy outcomes.
Discussion and conclusions: Findings demonstrate a multitude of disconnects between participatory rhetoric and reality. There is no evidence of PDPs influencing macro socio-economic policy making, with participatory decision-making instead dispersed across less empowered, downstream spaces. Democratising socio-economic policy domains requires critical reflection on the fractured nature of participatory policy making, the locus of decision-making power and how inclusion is realised in participation spaces.