Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023;12:8101. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.8101. Epub 2023 Jun 25.
Powell and Mannion's recent editorial discusses how different 'models' of the policy process have been applied within the health policy field. They present two ways forward for scholarship: more 'home grown' development of health-specific models, or deeper engagement with broader public policy scholarship. In this paper I argue for the latter approach for several reasons. First, health policy analysis is a social, not a natural science - and as such is not exceptional to other forms of policy scholarship. Second, many 'health policy models' are often grounded in conceptual work from elsewhere (or may not be health specific). Finally, there has been significant work to develop more nuanced understandings of theories, models, and frameworks available to particular analytical tasks and questions. As such, the growing body of global health policy scholarship may find it can benefit more from deeper engagement with existing conceptual work than constructing its own new models in most cases.
鲍威尔和曼尼恩最近的社论讨论了不同的“模式”在卫生政策领域中的应用。他们为学术研究提出了两种前进的方式：更“本土”地发展针对卫生的具体模式，或更深入地参与更广泛的公共政策学术研究。我基于以下几个原因，主张采用后一种方法。首先，卫生政策分析是一门社会科学，而非自然科学——因此，它与其他形式的政策学术研究并无不同。其次，许多“卫生政策模式”通常基于其他领域的概念性工作（或者可能不是针对卫生的）。最后，已经有大量工作致力于更深入地了解针对特定分析任务和问题可用的理论、模型和框架。因此，不断发展的全球卫生政策学术研究可能会发现，在大多数情况下，它可以从更深入地参与现有概念性工作中受益，而不是构建自己的新模式。
