IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v14y2019i04p425-442_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The dilemma of knowledge use in political decision-making: National Guidelines in a Swedish priority-setting context

Author

Listed:
  • Sandberg, Johanna
  • Persson, Bo
  • Garpenby, Peter

Abstract

There is a growing recognition of the importance of evidence to support allocative policy decisions in health care. This study is based on interviews with politicians in four regional health authorities in Sweden. Drawing on theories of strategic use of knowledge, the article analyses how politicians perceive and make use of expert knowledge represented by the National Guidelines, embracing both a scientific and a political rationale. As health care is an organisation with a dual basis for legitimacy – at the same time a political and an action organisation – it affects knowledge use. We investigate how the context of health care priority setting influences the conditions for knowledge use among regional politicians. Our findings illustrate the dilemma of political decision-makers and how they prefer to use expert knowledge. The politicians use this policy instrument in a legitimising fashion, as it will fit into the current political debate on more equal care. As an instrument for resource allocation the politicians noted that ‘facts’ per se could not provide them with a sufficient basis for legitimising their governing of health care. The dualistic organisational context makes knowledge important as a political weapon in negotiations with the medical profession.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandberg, Johanna & Persson, Bo & Garpenby, Peter, 2019. "The dilemma of knowledge use in political decision-making: National Guidelines in a Swedish priority-setting context," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 425-442, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:14:y:2019:i:04:p:425-442_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133118000233/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:hecopl:v:14:y:2019:i:04:p:425-442_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    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.