Depoliticisation, Resilience and the Herceptin Post-code Lottery Crisis: Holding Back the Tide

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Matthew Wood
{"title":"Depoliticisation, Resilience and the Herceptin Post-code Lottery Crisis: Holding Back the Tide","authors":"Matthew Wood","doi":"10.1111/1467-856X.12060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This article:\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>Covers new empirical terrain in the study of depoliticisation, with an in-depth case study of health technology regulation;</li>\n \n <li>Analyses depoliticisation from a novel analytical perspective, examining how depoliticised institutions are resilient to external pressure for politicisation;</li>\n \n <li>Posits a distinctive framework for analysing resilience, drawing on cognate literatures on policy networks and agencification;</li>\n \n <li>Raises interesting and distinctive questions about the nature of depoliticisation in advanced liberal democracies, arguing it is more contested than commonly acknowledged.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>Depoliticisation as a concept offers distinctive insights into how governments attempt to relieve political pressures in liberal democracies. Analysis has examined the effects of depoliticisation tactics on the public, but not how those tactics are sustained during moments of political tension. Drawing on policy networks and agencification literatures, this article examines how these tactics are resilient against pressure for politicisation. Using an in-depth case study of the controversial appraisal of cancer drug Herceptin in 2005/6 by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the article examines how ‘resilient’ NICE was to external politicisation. It is argued that NICE was resilient because it was effectively ‘insulated’ by formal procedures and informal norms of deference to scientific expertise. This mechanism is termed ‘institutional double glazing’. The conclusion suggests developments to the conceptual and methodological framework of depoliticisation, and highlights theoretical insights into the nature of ‘anti-politics’ in contemporary democracies.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51479,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","volume":"17 4","pages":"644-664"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12060","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12060","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

This article:

  • Covers new empirical terrain in the study of depoliticisation, with an in-depth case study of health technology regulation;
  • Analyses depoliticisation from a novel analytical perspective, examining how depoliticised institutions are resilient to external pressure for politicisation;
  • Posits a distinctive framework for analysing resilience, drawing on cognate literatures on policy networks and agencification;
  • Raises interesting and distinctive questions about the nature of depoliticisation in advanced liberal democracies, arguing it is more contested than commonly acknowledged.

Depoliticisation as a concept offers distinctive insights into how governments attempt to relieve political pressures in liberal democracies. Analysis has examined the effects of depoliticisation tactics on the public, but not how those tactics are sustained during moments of political tension. Drawing on policy networks and agencification literatures, this article examines how these tactics are resilient against pressure for politicisation. Using an in-depth case study of the controversial appraisal of cancer drug Herceptin in 2005/6 by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the article examines how ‘resilient’ NICE was to external politicisation. It is argued that NICE was resilient because it was effectively ‘insulated’ by formal procedures and informal norms of deference to scientific expertise. This mechanism is termed ‘institutional double glazing’. The conclusion suggests developments to the conceptual and methodological framework of depoliticisation, and highlights theoretical insights into the nature of ‘anti-politics’ in contemporary democracies.

Abstract Image

去政治化,弹性和赫赛汀邮编彩票危机:阻碍潮流
本文:涵盖了去政治化研究的新经验领域,对卫生技术监管进行了深入的案例研究;从一个新颖的分析角度分析去政治化,考察去政治化的机构如何适应外部的政治化压力;假设一个独特的框架来分析弹性,借鉴同源文献的政策网络和机构;对发达自由民主国家去政治化的本质提出了有趣而独特的问题,认为它的争议比普遍承认的要大。去政治化作为一个概念,对自由民主国家政府如何试图缓解政治压力提供了独特的见解。分析研究了非政治化策略对公众的影响,但没有研究这些策略在政治紧张时期是如何维持的。利用政策网络和机构文献,本文探讨了这些策略如何抵御政治化的压力。这篇文章利用英国国家卫生与临床卓越研究所(NICE)在2005/ 2006年对癌症药物赫赛汀的有争议的评估进行了深入的案例研究,研究了NICE对外部政治化的“弹性”。有人认为,NICE之所以具有弹性,是因为它被正式程序和尊重科学专业知识的非正式规范有效地“隔离”了。这种机制被称为“机构双层玻璃”。结论提出了去政治化的概念和方法框架的发展,并强调了对当代民主国家“反政治”本质的理论见解。
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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: BJPIR provides an outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain Founded in 1999, BJPIR is now based in the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham. It is a major refereed journal published by Blackwell Publishing under the auspices of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom. BJPIR is committed to acting as a broadly-based outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain. A fully refereed journal, it publishes topical, scholarly work on significant debates in British scholarship and on all major political issues affecting Britain"s relationship to Europe and the world.
×
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