PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11423032

[Public policy analysis].

Abstract

This article presents to public health professionals concepts and perspectives from political science relevant for creating a healthier public policy. Currently, there is no uniform vision of what constitutes public interest and the decisions of public administrations tend to be based on compromise. In public debate, what is paramount is the capacity to persuade. From the perspective of public policy analysis, the crucial issue is definition: the final decision depends on the definition of the problem that has emerged triumphant in the public debate among competing actors with different definitions of the problem. From a policy analysis perspective, the problems entering the agenda of public administration does not necessarily correspond to their severity, as competing actors try to impose their point of view. Because of its historical evolution, the Spanish political system has specific traits. The relatively weak democratic tradition tends to make the decision process less visibles, with strong technocratic elements and weaker social articulation. Both the juridical tradition and liberal rhetoric portray lobbying as contrary to public interest, when in fact it is constantly performed by powerful vested interest groups, through both personal contacts and economic connections. Regulatory policies, with concentrated costs and diffuse benefits, seem to be moving from Spain to the European Union. To promote healthier public policies, the development of civil society initiatives and the building of coalitions will play an increasingly greater role in the future.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Subirats. [Public policy analysis].. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0213-9111(01)71557-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Editorial: rethinking science as an area of concern.

Science has played an influential role in framing public policy in many areas of concern. But in recent years, science itself has become an area of concern. This is partly because scientific theories can be difficult to understand and because the evidence that supports them is rarely as definitive as we might hope. But it is also because scientific inquiry is increasingly influenced by a variety of factors that many people regard as non-scientific. We are currently straddling several different concepts regarding what science is and what its primary goals are. The idea that science aims at the preservation and enhancement of our economic welfare is just one example. It is difficult to know whether we are witnessing a distortion of science or its evolution. But the time has come to begin a discussion aimed at rethinking science as an area of concern. This discussion should explore, develop, and describe each of our several contrasting concepts of science, together with their possible consequences. The purpose of the discussion is not to decide what science is, or even what it ought to be. It is to illuminate the different possible concepts of science and their likely consequences as clearly as we can so that we can see more clearly what science might become - and so that we will be in a better position to choose how we should think about science, and about how it should interact with public policy in democratic open societies with market economies like our own. We should discuss our different concepts of science not so much with an eye toward determining whether they are accurate as descriptions or attractive as ideals, as with an eye toward understanding what our future science, scientists, scientific research, and scientific knowledge might become under their influence. It is only by rethinking science in this way that we will knowingly be able to choose which way we want to go.

Public Policy↗