Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSlutsky, Jean
dc.contributor.authorTumilty, Emma
dc.contributor.authorMax, Catherine
dc.contributor.authorLu, Lanting
dc.contributor.authorTantivess, Sripen
dc.contributor.authorHauegen, Renata Curi
dc.contributor.authorWhitty, Jennifer A
dc.contributor.authorWeale, Albert
dc.contributor.authorPearson, Steven D
dc.contributor.authorTugendhaft, Aviva
dc.contributor.authorWang, Hufeng
dc.contributor.authorStaniszewska, Sophie
dc.contributor.authorWeerasuriya, Krisantha
dc.contributor.authorAhn, Jeonghoon
dc.contributor.authorCubillos, Leonardo
dc.date.accessioned2021-07-16T01:40:34Z
dc.date.available2021-07-16T01:40:34Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn1477-7266
dc.identifier.doi10.1108/JHOM-03-2016-0037
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/406043
dc.description.abstractPurpose - 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.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherEMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom751
dc.relation.ispartofpageto768
dc.relation.ispartofissue5
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJOURNAL OF HEALTH ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
dc.relation.ispartofvolume30
dc.subject.fieldofresearchMedical and Health Sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCommerce, Management, Tourism and Services
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode11
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode15
dc.subject.keywordsScience & Technology
dc.subject.keywordsLife Sciences & Biomedicine
dc.subject.keywordsHealth Policy & Services
dc.subject.keywordsHealth Care Sciences & Services
dc.subject.keywordsResource allocation
dc.titlePatterns of public participation Opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dcterms.bibliographicCitationSlutsky, 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, Patterns of public participation Opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective, Patterns of public participation Opportunity structures and mobilization from a cross-national perspective, 2016, 30 (5), pp. 751-768
dc.date.updated2021-07-16T01:38:34Z
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorWhitty, Jennifer A.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record