Policy analysis is an established discipline in the industrialized world, yet its application to developing countries has been limited. The health sector in particular appears to have been neglected. This is surprising because there is a well recognized crisis in health systems, and prescriptions abound of what health policy reforms countries should introduce. However, little attention has been paid to how countries should carry out reforms, much less who is likely to favour or resist such policies. This paper argues that much health policy wrongly focuses attention on the content of reform, and neglects the actors involved in policy reform (at the international, national sub-national levels), the processes contingent on developing and implementing change and the context within which policy is developed. Focus on policy content diverts attention from understanding the processes which explain why desired policy outcomes fail to emerge. The paper is organized in 4 sections. The first sets the scene, demonstrating how the shift from consensus to conflict in health policy established the need for a greater emphasis on policy analysis. The second section explores what is meant by policy analysis. The third investigates what other disciplines have written that help to develop a framework of analysis. And the final section suggests how policy analysis can be used not only to analyze the policy process, but also to plan.

/pdf/reforming-the-health-sector-in-developing-countries-the-tlqs79wl9w.pdf

Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis

The issue of “measuring” climate change vulnerability and adaptive capacity by means of indicators divides policy and academic communities. While policy increasingly demands such indicators an increasing body of literature criticises them. This misfit results from a twofold confusion. First, there is confusion about what vulnerability indicators are and which arguments are available for building them. Second, there is confusion about the kinds of policy problems to be solved by means of indicators. This paper addresses both sources of confusion. It first develops a rigorous conceptual framework for vulnerability indicators and applies it to review the scientific arguments available for building climate change vulnerability indicators. Then, it opposes this availability with the following six diverse types of problems that vulnerability indicators are meant to address according to the literature: (i) identification of mitigation targets; (ii) identification of vulnerable people, communities, regions, etc.; (iii) raising awareness; (iv) allocation of adaptation funds; (v) monitoring of adaptation policy; and (vi) conducting scientific research. It is found that vulnerability indicators are only appropriate for addressing the second type of problem but only at local scales, when systems can be narrowly defined and inductive arguments can be built. For the other five types of problems, either vulnerability is not the adequate concept or vulnerability indicators are not the adequate methodology. I conclude that both the policy and academic communities should collaboratively attempt to use a more specific terminology for speaking about the problems addressed and the methodologies applied. The one-size-fits-all vulnerability label is not sufficient. Speaking of “measuring” vulnerability is particularly misleading, as this is impossible and raises false expectations.

“Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: Towards a clarification of the science–policy interface

http://emiguel.econ.berkeley.edu/assets/miguel_research/24/_Paper__War_and_Local_Collective_Action.pdf

War and local collective action in Sierra Leone

Social scientists have sketched four distinct theories to explain a phenomenon that appears to have ramped up in recent years, the diffusion of policies across countries. Constructivists trace policy norms to expert epistemic communities and international organizations, who define economic progress and human rights. Coercion theorists point to powerful nation-states, and international financial institutions, that threaten sanctions or promise aid in return for fiscal conservatism, free trade, etc. Competition theorists argue that countries compete to attract investment and to sell exports by lowering the cost of doing business, reducing constraints on investment, or reducing tariff barriers in the hope of reciprocity. Learning theorists suggest that countries learn from their own experiences and, as well, from the policy experiments of their peers. We review the large body of research from sociologists and political scientists, as well as the growing body of work from economists and psychologists, pointing to the diverse mechanisms that are theorized and to promising avenues for distinguishing among causal mechanisms.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2281983_code2071501.pdf?abstractid=2281983&type=2

The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition or Learning?

The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences.

Aid and power: the World Bank and policy-based lending

Human development report 1991

Dictionary of environment and development: people, places, ideas and organisations

Banks, borrowers and the establishment: a revisionist account of the international debt crisis

The other side of international development policy: the non-aid economic relations with developing countries of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden

David Lubin

Papers

Aid and power: the World Bank and policy-based lending

Human development report 1991

Dictionary of environment and development: people, places, ideas and organisations

Banks, borrowers and the establishment: a revisionist account of the international debt crisis

The other side of international development policy: the non-aid economic relations with developing countries of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden