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.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 751-768 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Journal of Health, Organisation and Management |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Aug 15 2016 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Contestatory participation
- Cross-national comparisons
- Priority setting
- Public participation
- Resource allocation
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Health Policy
Cite this
Patterns of public participation : Opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective. / Slutsky, Jean; Tumilty, Emma; Max, Catherine; Lu, Lanting; Tantivess, Sripen; Hauegen, Renata Curi; Whitty, Jennifer A.; Weale, Albert; Pearson, Steven D.; Tugendhaft, Aviva; Wang, Hufeng; Staniszewska, Sophie; Weerasuriya, Krisantha; Ahn, Jeonghoon; Cubillos, Leonardo.
In: Journal of Health, Organisation and Management, Vol. 30, No. 5, 15.08.2016, p. 751-768.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Patterns of public participation
T2 - Opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective
AU - Slutsky, Jean
AU - Tumilty, Emma
AU - Max, Catherine
AU - Lu, Lanting
AU - Tantivess, Sripen
AU - Hauegen, Renata Curi
AU - Whitty, Jennifer A.
AU - Weale, Albert
AU - Pearson, Steven D.
AU - Tugendhaft, Aviva
AU - Wang, Hufeng
AU - Staniszewska, Sophie
AU - Weerasuriya, Krisantha
AU - Ahn, Jeonghoon
AU - Cubillos, Leonardo
PY - 2016/8/15
Y1 - 2016/8/15
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Contestatory participation
KW - Cross-national comparisons
KW - Priority setting
KW - Public participation
KW - Resource allocation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84979884765&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84979884765&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1108/JHOM-03-2016-0037
DO - 10.1108/JHOM-03-2016-0037
M3 - Review article
C2 - 27468773
AN - SCOPUS:84979884765
VL - 30
SP - 751
EP - 768
JO - Journal of Health Organization and Management
JF - Journal of Health Organization and Management
SN - 1477-7266
IS - 5
ER -