Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Patterns of public participation: opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective|
Hauegen, Renata Curi
Whitty, Jennifer A.
Pearson, Steven D.
|Affilliation:||Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Washington, DC, USA.|
University of Otago. Department of General Practice & Rural Health. Bioethics Centre. Dunedin, New Zealand.
Catherine Max Consulting: The Future Health Partnership. London, UK.
Renmin University of China. School of Public Administration and Policy. Beijing, China.
Ministry of Public Health. Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program. Bangkok, Thailand.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Centro de Desenvolvimento Tecnológico em Saúde. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
University of Queensland. School of Pharmacy. Brisbane, Australia / University of East Anglia. Norwich Medical School. Norwich, UK.
University College London. Department of Political Science. London, UK.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Boston, MA, USA.
University of the Witwatersrand. School of Public Health, Johannesburg, South Africa / Wits School of Public Health. Priceless SA. Johannesburg, South Africa.
Renmin University. School of Public Administration and Policy. Beijing, China.
University of Warwick. RCN Research Institute. Warwick Medical School. Coventry, UK.
National Medicines Regulatory Authority of Sri Lanka. Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Ewha Womans University. Department of Health Management. Seoul, South Korea.
Dartmouth Medical School. Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. Lebanon, NH, USA.
|Abstract:||Purpose - The paper summarizes data from 12 countries, chosen to exhibit wide variation, on the role and place of public participation in the setting of priorities. The purpose of this paper is to exhibit cross-national patterns in respect of public participation, linking those differences to institutional features of the countries concerned. Design/methodology/approach - The approach is an example of case-orientated qualitative assessment of participation practices. It derives its data from the presentation of country case studies by experts on each system. The country cases are located within the historical development of democracy in each country. Findings - Patterns of participation are widely variable. Participation that is effective through routinized institutional processes appears to be inversely related to contestatory participation that uses political mobilization to challenge the legitimacy of the priority setting process. No system has resolved the conceptual ambiguities that are implicit in the idea of public participation. Originality/value - The paper draws on a unique collection of country case studies in participatory practice in prioritization, supplementing existing published sources. In showing that contestatory participation plays an important role in a sub-set of these countries it makes an important contribution to the field because it broadens the debate about public participation in priority setting beyond the use of minipublics and the observation of public representatives on decision-making bodies.|
|Citation:||SLUTSKY, J. et al. Patterns of public participation: opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective. Journal of Health Organization and Management, p. 1-28, 2016.|
|Appears in Collections:||CDTS - Preprint|
Files in This Item:
|va_Renata_Hauegen_CDTS_2016a.pdf||Versão do autor - pré-print||275.11 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.