Understanding NHS Policy Making in England: The Formulation of the NHS Plan, 2000

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Arturo Alvarez-Rosete, Nicholas Mays
{"title":"Understanding NHS Policy Making in England: The Formulation of the NHS Plan, 2000","authors":"Arturo Alvarez-Rosete,&nbsp;Nicholas Mays","doi":"10.1111/1467-856X.12005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>The article investigates which of two competing accounts of contemporary British policy making better captures the nature of policy making during episodes of major reform of the English NHS.</li>\n \n <li>The analysis of the formulation of the English NHS Plan 2000 suggests that the Asymmetric Power Model better describes the reality of NHS policy making under New Labour than the Differentiated Polity Model.</li>\n \n <li>Although the process of developing the Plan showed signs of a more open policy process, it was tightly controlled and personally led by the Secretary of State for Health and his close advisers, reflecting an underlying British political tradition that emphasises the idea that the NHS has to be continuously improved with change led from above by central government.</li>\n \n <li>However, when compared to the processes underpinning Thatcher's Ministerial Review of the NHS and the 2010 Coalition government's White Paper, <i>if ever</i> NHS policy making in England were to have come close to the Differentiated Polity Model, it would have been during the formulation of the 2000 NHS Plan.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>Through a case study of the formulation of the English NHS Plan 2000, this article investigates which of two competing models of the British policy process—the Differentiated Polity and Asymmetric Power Models—better describes the reality of major NHS reform policy making under New Labour. The process of developing the Plan showed signs of a more open policy process, seemingly closer to the DPM. There was contestability of policy advice and limited involvement of the medical profession through its representative bodies. However, the process was tightly controlled and personally led by the Secretary of State and his advisers, with the direct involvement of the Prime Minister throughout. Two key moments of interest group involvement—the Modernisation Action Teams and the signing of the Plan by health sector organisations—were marked by power asymmetries. Overall, the APM better describes the reality of major reform policy making under New Labour.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51479,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","volume":"16 4","pages":"624-644"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12005","citationCount":"7","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.12005","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: 7

Abstract

  • The article investigates which of two competing accounts of contemporary British policy making better captures the nature of policy making during episodes of major reform of the English NHS.
  • The analysis of the formulation of the English NHS Plan 2000 suggests that the Asymmetric Power Model better describes the reality of NHS policy making under New Labour than the Differentiated Polity Model.
  • Although the process of developing the Plan showed signs of a more open policy process, it was tightly controlled and personally led by the Secretary of State for Health and his close advisers, reflecting an underlying British political tradition that emphasises the idea that the NHS has to be continuously improved with change led from above by central government.
  • However, when compared to the processes underpinning Thatcher's Ministerial Review of the NHS and the 2010 Coalition government's White Paper, if ever NHS policy making in England were to have come close to the Differentiated Polity Model, it would have been during the formulation of the 2000 NHS Plan.

Through a case study of the formulation of the English NHS Plan 2000, this article investigates which of two competing models of the British policy process—the Differentiated Polity and Asymmetric Power Models—better describes the reality of major NHS reform policy making under New Labour. The process of developing the Plan showed signs of a more open policy process, seemingly closer to the DPM. There was contestability of policy advice and limited involvement of the medical profession through its representative bodies. However, the process was tightly controlled and personally led by the Secretary of State and his advisers, with the direct involvement of the Prime Minister throughout. Two key moments of interest group involvement—the Modernisation Action Teams and the signing of the Plan by health sector organisations—were marked by power asymmetries. Overall, the APM better describes the reality of major reform policy making under New Labour.

理解英国国民健康保险制度的政策制定:国民健康保险制度计划的制定,2000
这篇文章调查了关于当代英国政策制定的两种相互竞争的说法中,哪一种更好地抓住了英国NHS重大改革时期政策制定的本质。对英国NHS 2000计划制定过程的分析表明,不对称权力模型比分化政策模型更能描述新工党下NHS政策制定的现实。虽然制定计划的过程显示出一个更开放的政策过程的迹象,但它受到卫生大臣及其亲密顾问的严格控制和亲自领导,反映了英国潜在的政治传统,即强调必须通过中央政府自上而下的变革不断改进国民保健制度。然而,当与撒切尔夫人的NHS部长审查和2010年联合政府白皮书的基础过程相比,如果英格兰的NHS政策制定接近差异化政策模型,那将是在2000年NHS计划的制定过程中。本文通过对英国2000年国民保健服务计划制定的个案研究,探讨了英国政策过程中两个相互竞争的模型——分化政体模型和不对称权力模型——哪一个更能描述新工党领导下的国民保健服务改革政策制定的现实。计划的制定过程显示出更开放的政策过程,似乎更接近副总理。政策咨询存在争议,医疗专业人员通过其代表机构的参与有限。然而,这一过程受到国务卿及其顾问的严格控制和亲自领导,总理全程直接参与。利益集团参与的两个关键时刻——现代化行动小组和卫生部门组织签署《计划》——以权力不对称为特征。总体而言,APM更好地描述了新工党领导下重大改革政策制定的现实。
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