Erik Söderberg1, Ewa Wikström2. 1. School of Public Administration, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden erik.soderberg@spa.gu.se. 2. School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Abstract
AIMS: The paper aims to contribute to our understanding of the policy process in health promotion by addressing the following questions: What are the characteristics of the policy process in health promotion? How do policy entrepreneurs influence project implementation? METHODS: This is a qualitative study with an explorative case study design that uses three different data sources: qualitative interviews, written documents and observations. RESULTS: The paper examines several factors (determinants) that influence the policy process and that, to a lesser extent, are addressed by current models in health policy research. Legitimacy, financial capacity, available structure and political timing are all important determinants that influence the policy process. Policy entrepreneurs, with established networks and knowledge of the environment and its procedures, create legitimacy and provide opportunities for action; however, indistinct organizational boundaries among roles and poorly defined individual responsibilities create policy process uncertainty. As a result, there are lengthy discussions and few decisions, both of which delay the progress of a project. CONCLUSIONS: This paper's theoretical contribution is its analysis of the relationship of policy-making to linear models, via a discussion of policy entrepreneurs, and their importance in the policy process. The paper concludes that we need to consider the influence of policy entrepreneurs, whom build legitimacy and seize action opportunities by coupling the three streams in the policy process, as they help bring projects to fruition. Furthermore, the study points to the importance of policy entrepreneurs throughout the policy process. The paper has practical implications for practitioners whom work with the implementation of community policies.
AIMS: The paper aims to contribute to our understanding of the policy process in health promotion by addressing the following questions: What are the characteristics of the policy process in health promotion? How do policy entrepreneurs influence project implementation? METHODS: This is a qualitative study with an explorative case study design that uses three different data sources: qualitative interviews, written documents and observations. RESULTS: The paper examines several factors (determinants) that influence the policy process and that, to a lesser extent, are addressed by current models in health policy research. Legitimacy, financial capacity, available structure and political timing are all important determinants that influence the policy process. Policy entrepreneurs, with established networks and knowledge of the environment and its procedures, create legitimacy and provide opportunities for action; however, indistinct organizational boundaries among roles and poorly defined individual responsibilities create policy process uncertainty. As a result, there are lengthy discussions and few decisions, both of which delay the progress of a project. CONCLUSIONS: This paper's theoretical contribution is its analysis of the relationship of policy-making to linear models, via a discussion of policy entrepreneurs, and their importance in the policy process. The paper concludes that we need to consider the influence of policy entrepreneurs, whom build legitimacy and seize action opportunities by coupling the three streams in the policy process, as they help bring projects to fruition. Furthermore, the study points to the importance of policy entrepreneurs throughout the policy process. The paper has practical implications for practitioners whom work with the implementation of community policies.
Keywords:
Policy entrepreneurs; financial capacity; health promotion; implementation; legitimacy; policy making; policy process; policy windows; political timing; public health