Slutsky Jean, Tumilty Emma, Max Catherine, Lu Lanting, Tantivess Sripen, Hauegen Renata Curi, Whitty Jennifer A, Weale Albert, Pearson Steven D, Tugendhaft Aviva, Wang Hufeng, Staniszewska Sophie, Weerasuriya Krisantha, Ahn Jeonghoon, Cubillos Leonardo
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Bioethics Centre, Department of General Practice & Rural Health, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
J Health Organ Manag. 2016 Aug 15;30(5):751-68. doi: 10.1108/JHOM-03-2016-0037.
Purpose - 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.
目的——本文总结了来自12个国家的数据，这些国家经挑选具有广泛的差异性，涉及公众参与确定优先事项的作用和地位。本文的目的是展示公众参与方面的跨国模式，将这些差异与相关国家的制度特征联系起来。设计/方法/途径——该方法是以案例为导向对参与实践进行定性评估的一个实例。其数据来源于各系统专家所做的国家案例研究报告。这些国家案例置于每个国家民主的历史发展背景之中。研究结果——参与模式差异很大。通过常规制度化程序实现的有效参与似乎与利用政治动员来挑战优先事项设定过程合法性的抗争性参与呈负相关。没有哪个系统解决了公众参与概念中隐含的概念模糊性问题。原创性/价值——本文借鉴了一组独特的关于优先事项设定中参与实践的国家案例研究，补充了现有的已发表资料。通过表明抗争性参与在其中一些国家中发挥着重要作用，本文对该领域做出了重要贡献，因为它拓宽了关于公众参与优先事项设定的辩论范围，超越了小型公众的使用以及决策机构中公众代表的观察。
