Patterns of public participation

Opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective

Jean Slutsky, Emma Tumilty, Catherine Max, Lanting Lu, Sripen Tantivess, Renata Curi Hauegen, Jennifer A. Whitty, Albert Weale, Steven D. Pearson, Aviva Tugendhaft, Hufeng Wang, Sophie Staniszewska, Krisantha Weerasuriya, Jeonghoon Ahn, Leonardo Cubillos

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

14 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)751-768
Number of pages18
JournalJournal of Health, Organisation and Management
Volume30
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 15 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Democracy
Illegitimacy
Decision Making
Observation
Community Participation
Public participation
Participation
Mobilization
Cross-national
Priority setting
Legitimacy
Prioritization
Design methodology
Qualitative assessment
Decision making

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 journalReview article

Slutsky, J, Tumilty, E, Max, C, Lu, L, Tantivess, S, Hauegen, RC, Whitty, JA, Weale, A, Pearson, SD, Tugendhaft, A, Wang, H, Staniszewska, S, Weerasuriya, K, Ahn, J & Cubillos, L 2016, 'Patterns of public participation: Opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective', Journal of Health, Organisation and Management, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 751-768. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-03-2016-0037
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. / Patterns of public participation : Opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective. In: Journal of Health, Organisation and Management. 2016 ; Vol. 30, No. 5. pp. 751-768.
@article{a27d381e2b9046e5b7a2610aeba5f645,
title = "Patterns of public participation: Opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective",
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.",
keywords = "Contestatory participation, Cross-national comparisons, Priority setting, Public participation, Resource allocation",
author = "Jean Slutsky and Emma Tumilty and Catherine Max and Lanting Lu and Sripen Tantivess and Hauegen, {Renata Curi} and Whitty, {Jennifer A.} and Albert Weale and Pearson, {Steven D.} and Aviva Tugendhaft and Hufeng Wang and Sophie Staniszewska and Krisantha Weerasuriya and Jeonghoon Ahn and Leonardo Cubillos",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1108/JHOM-03-2016-0037",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "751--768",
journal = "Journal of Health Organization and Management",
issn = "1477-7266",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "5",

}

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

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 -