IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v40y2023i4p534-552.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Programmatic action in Chinese health policy—The making and design of “Healthy China 2030”

Author

Listed:
  • Colette S. Vogeler
  • Annemieke van den Dool
  • Meifang Chen

Abstract

The Programmatic Action Framework (PAF) is a powerful analytical perspective to advance our understanding of policy change by stressing the role of programmatic groups and how they promote their preferred policy programs. While the PAF has been applied successfully to European countries and the US, a considerable research gap remains regarding its explanatory power in other regions and political settings. To step into this research gap, we apply the PAF to authoritarian China through a qualitative case study of the making of “Healthy China 2030”, a national health policy program. We explore two research questions: firstly, to what extent can the PAF be operationalized in a nondemocracy to identify programmatic groups and evaluate policy design, and second, what are the limitations and challenges facing the application of the PAF to nondemocracies? Our empirical analysis shows that the design of this policy program involves actors from different policy areas, despite the top‐down political structure. With regards to the transfer of PAF hypotheses, we show that the framework is a helpful lens to identify programmatic groups and to evaluate policy programs' potential for success based on coherence, responsiveness, and program fit. Meanwhile, the research process of our study revealed the challenges of applying policy process theories to China, including hard‐to‐reach political actors for data collection, lack of transparency regarding collaboration processes between actors, and a lack of publicly available program‐related information. El Marco de Acción Programático (PAF) es una poderosa perspectiva analítica para avanzar en nuestra comprensión del cambio de políticas al enfatizar el papel de los grupos programáticos y cómo promueven sus programas de políticas preferidos. Si bien el PAF se ha aplicado con éxito a los países europeos y los EE. UU., sigue existiendo una brecha considerable en la investigación con respecto a su poder explicativo en otras regiones y entornos políticos. Para llenar este vacío de investigación, aplicamos el PAF a la China autoritaria a través de un estudio de caso cualitativo sobre la elaboración de “Healthy China 2030”, un programa de política nacional de salud. Exploramos dos preguntas de investigación: en primer lugar, ¿en qué medida se puede operacionalizar el PAF en una no democracia para identificar grupos programáticos y evaluar el diseño de políticas y, en segundo lugar, cuáles son las limitaciones y desafíos que enfrenta la aplicación del PAF en las no democracias? Nuestro análisis empírico muestra que el diseño de este programa de políticas involucra a actores de diferentes áreas de políticas, a pesar de la estructura política de arriba hacia abajo. Con respecto a la transferencia de hipótesis PAF, mostramos que el marco es un lente útil para identificar grupos programáticos y evaluar el potencial de éxito de los programas de políticas en función de la coherencia, la capacidad de respuesta y el ajuste del programa. Mientras tanto, el proceso de investigación de nuestro estudio reveló los desafíos de aplicar las teorías del proceso de políticas en China, incluidos los actores políticos de difícil acceso para la recopilación de datos, la falta de transparencia con respecto a los procesos de colaboración entre los actores y la falta de información relacionada con el programa disponible públicamente. 计划行动框架(PAF)是一个强大的分析视角,通过强调计划团体的作用以及其如何推动其偏好的政策计划,进而增进我们对政策变革的理解。尽管PAF已被成功应用于欧洲国家和美国,但关于其在其他地区和政治背景中的解释力的研究仍存在一定的空白。为了填补这一研究空白,我们将PAF应用于中国这一非民主国家,对“健康中国 2030”(一项全国性卫生政策计划)的制定进行了定性案例研究。我们探究了两个研究问题:第一,PAF能在多大程度上被应用于非民主国家中来识别计划团体和评价政策设计;第二,在将PAF应用于非民主国家时会面临的局限性和挑战。我们的实证分析表明,尽管存在自上而下的政治结构,但该政策计划的设计涉及不同政策领域的行动者。至于PAF假设的转移,我们表明,该框架提供有帮助的视角,以识别计划团体,并根据连贯性、响应性和计划适合性来评价政策计划的成功潜力。同时,我们的研究过程揭示了将政策过程理论应用于中国所面临的挑战,包括难以接触到政治行动者进行数据收集、行动者之间的协作过程缺乏透明度、以及缺乏与计划相关的公开信息。

Suggested Citation

  • Colette S. Vogeler & Annemieke van den Dool & Meifang Chen, 2023. "Programmatic action in Chinese health policy—The making and design of “Healthy China 2030”," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(4), pages 534-552, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:4:p:534-552
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12533
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12533
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12533?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giliberto Capano & Michael Howlett, 2020. "The Knowns and Unknowns of Policy Instrument Analysis: Policy Tools and the Current Research Agenda on Policy Mixes," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440199, January.
    2. Christopher M. Weible & Kristin L. Olofsson & Daniel P. Costie & Juniper M. Katz & Tanya Heikkila, 2016. "Enhancing Precision and Clarity in the Study of Policy Narratives: An Analysis of Climate and Air Issues in Delhi, India," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(4), pages 420-441, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hongshan Yang & Hongtao Yi, 2023. "Frontiers of policy process research in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(4), pages 484-489, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alastair Stark & Sophie Yates, 2021. "Public inquiries as procedural policy tools [Policy tools theory and implementation networks: understanding state enterprise zone partnerships]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 345-361.
    2. Shariful Malik & Mohammad Shahidul Hasan Swapan & Shahed Khan, 2020. "Sustainable Mobility through Safer Roads: Translating Road Safety Strategy into Local Context in Western Australia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Yang, You-hong & Gao, Ping & Zhou, Haimei, 2023. "Understanding the evolution of China's standardization policy system," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2).
    4. Clemente J. Navarro-Yáñez, 2021. "The Effectiveness of Integral Urban Strategies: Policy Theory and Target Scale. The European URBAN I Initiative and Employment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Claron, Charles & Mikou, Mehdi & Levrel, Harold & Tardieu, Léa, 2022. "Mapping urban ecosystem services to design cost-effective purchase of development rights programs: The case of the Greater Paris metropolis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    6. Elisabeth Epping, 2020. "Lifting the smokescreen of science diplomacy: comparing the political instrumentation of science and innovation centres," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Brendan Moore & Andrew Jordan, 2020. "Disaggregating the dependent variable in policy feedback research: an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading System," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 291-307, June.
    8. Anat Gofen & Adam M. Wellstead & Noa Tal, 2023. "Devil in the details? Policy settings and calibrations of national excellence-centers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 301-323, June.
    9. Hannes R. Stephan, 2020. "Shaping the Scope of Conflict in Scotland’s Fracking Debate: Conflict Management and the Narrative Policy Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 64-91, January.
    10. Martin Ferry, 2021. "Pulling things together: regional policy coordination approaches and drivers in Europe [‘PiS wchodzi w buty marszałków. Cel? Miliony z funduszy europejskich’]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(1), pages 37-57.
    11. Adam Hannah, 2021. "Procedural tools and pension reform in the long run: the case of Sweden [The new politics of the welfare state? A case study of extra-parliamentary party politics in Norway]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 362-378.
    12. Kelly Parsons & David Barling, 2022. "Identifying the Policy Instrument Interactions to Enable the Public Procurement of Sustainable Food," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, April.
    13. Naimeh Mohammadi & Hamid Mostofi & Hans-Liudger Dienel, 2023. "Policy Chain of Energy Transition from Economic and Innovative Perspectives: Conceptual Framework and Consistency Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-27, August.
    14. Acciai, Claudia, 2021. "The politics of research and innovation: Understanding instrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    15. Prudence R. Brown & Alastair Stark, 2022. "Policy inaction meets policy learning: four moments of non-implementation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(1), pages 47-63, March.
    16. Yuting Hu & Xinyu Ma, 2023. "Research on the Structure and Characteristics of Adolescent Physical Health Policy in China Based on Policy Text Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, May.
    17. Ishani Mukherjee, 2022. "Fueling green connections: Networked policy instrument choices for sustainability regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(5), pages 602-631, September.
    18. Sarker, Pradip Kumar & Fischer, Richard & Tamayo, Fabian & Navarrete, Bolier Torres & Günter, Sven, 2022. "Analyzing forest policy mixes based on the coherence of policies and the consistency of legislative policy instruments: A case study from Ecuador," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    19. Azad Singh Bali & Michael Howlett & Jenny M Lewis & M Ramesh, 2021. "Procedural policy tools in theory and practice [The stick, the carrot, and other strategies: A theoretical analysis of governmental intervention]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 40(3), pages 295-311.
    20. Erica Reeve & Amerita Ravuvu & Anna Farmery & Senoveva Mauli & Dorah Wilson & Ellen Johnson & Anne-Marie Thow, 2022. "Strengthening Food Systems Governance to Achieve Multiple Objectives: A Comparative Instrumentation Analysis of Food Systems Policies in Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-23, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:4:p:534-552. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.