...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Social science and medicine >How do actors with asymmetrical power assert authority in policy agenda-setting? A study of authority claims by health actors in trade policy
【24h】

How do actors with asymmetrical power assert authority in policy agenda-setting? A study of authority claims by health actors in trade policy

机译：如何在政策议程 - 环境中具有不对称权力主张权威的演员？ 贸易政策卫生行动者的权力索赔研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

How health advocates and industry actors attempt to assert their authority as a strategy of influence in policymaking remains underexplored in the health governance literature. Greater exploration of the kinds of authority sources used by health actors vis-a-vis market actors and the role ideational factors may play in shaping access to these sources provides insight into advocates' efforts to exert influence in policy forums. Using the trade domain in Australia as a case study of the way in which the commercial determinants of health operate, we examined the different ways in which health, public interest and market actors assert their authority. Drawing on a political science typology of authority, we analysed 87 submissions to the Australian government during the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. We identify four types of authority claims; institutional authority, derived from holding a position of influence within another established institution; legal authority through appeals to legal agreements and precedents; networked authority through cross-referencing between actors, and expert authority through use of evidence. Combining these claims with a framing analysis, we found that these bases of authority were invoked differently by actors who shared the dominant neoliberal ideology in contrast to those actors that shared a public interest discourse. In particular, market actors were much less likely to rely on external sources of authority, while health and public interest actors were more likely to appeal to networked and expert authority. We argue that actors who share strong ideational alignment with the dominant policy discourse appear less reliant on other sources of authority. Implications of this analysis include the need for greater attention to the different strategies and ideas used by industry and public health organisations in trade policy agenda-setting for health, which ultimately enable or constrain the advancement of health on government agendas.
机译：健康倡导者和行业行为者如何试图将其权威声称为政策制作的影响策略仍然在卫生治理文学中仍然引人注目。更大探索卫生行动者VIS-A-VIS市场演员的权力资源来源和角色识别因素可能在塑造对这些来源的访问中，为倡导者努力发挥对政策论坛的努力提供洞察力。使用澳大利亚的贸易领域作为卫生经营商业决定因素的方式研究，我们审查了卫生，公共利益和市场行动者主持其权力的不同方式。在跨太平洋伙伴关系谈判期间，我们在跨太平洋伙伴关系谈判期间分析了87份澳大利亚政府的87份提交。我们确定四种类型的权力索赔;制度权威，潜入另一个既定机构内部影响力;通过上诉法律协议和先例的法律权威;通过使用证据通过演员和专家权限之间的交叉引用网络权威。将这些索赔与框架分析结合起来，我们发现这些权威基地被分享了与分享了公共利益话语的参与者相反的参与者分享了占主导地位的新自由主义思想。特别是，市场演员的可能性依赖于外部权力来源，而卫生和公共利益行动者更有可能呼吁网络和专家权力。我们认为与主导政策话语共享强烈的象征性对齐的演员在其他权威来源上显得较依赖。该分析的含义包括更加重视行业和公共卫生组织在贸易政策议程 - 健康环境中使用的不同策略和想法，最终能够实现或限制政府议程的卫生发展。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号