From Headline to Hard Grind: The Importance of Understanding Public Administration in Achieving Health Outcomes; Comment on “Understanding the Role of Public Administration in Implementing Action on the Social Determinants of Health and Health Inequities”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

Melbourne School of Government, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Abstract

Many public policy programs fail to translate ambitious headlines to on-the-ground action. The reasons for this are many and varied, but for public administration and management scholars a large part of the gap between ambition and achievement is the challenge associated with the operation of the machinery of government itself, and how it relates to the other parties that it relies on to fulfill these outcomes. In their article, Carey and Friel set out key reasons why public health scholars should seek to better understand important ideas in public administration. In commenting on their contribution, I draw out two critical questions that are raised by this discussion: (i) what are boundaries and what forms do they take? and (ii) why work across boundaries? Expanding on these key questions extends the points made by Carey and Friel on the importance of understanding public administration and will better place public health scholars and practitioners to realise health outcomes.

Keywords

References

  1. Rittel HW, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1971;4(2):155-169. 
  2. Carey G, Friel S. page 796-797.
  3. Bingham L, O’Leary R.  Conclusion: Parallel play, not collaboration: missing questions, missing connections. Public Adm Rev. 2006;66(s1):161-167. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00686.x
  4. Kelman S.  The transformation of government in the decade ahead. In: Kettl D, Kelman S, eds. Reflections on 21st Century Government management. Washington DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government; 2007:33-61.
  5. 6 P. Holistic government. London: DEMOS; 1997. 
  6. O’Flynn J.  Crossing boundaries: the fundamental questions in public management and policy. In: O’Flynn J, Blackman, D, Halligan, J, eds. Crossing Boundaries In Public Management and Policy: The International Experience. London: Routledge; 2014:11-44.
  7. Heracleous L. Boundaries in the study of organization. Hum Relat. 2004;57(1):95-103.  doi:10.1177/0018726704042716
  8. Lamont M, Molnar V. The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Ann Rev Sociol. 2002;28:167-195. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107
  9. Alford J, O’Flynn J. Rethinking Public Service Delivery: Working With External Providers. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2012
  10. Alford, J. Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service Delivery to Co-production. Basingstoke: Palgrave; 2009.
  11. McTaggart D, O’Flynn J. Public sector reform. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2015;74(1):13-22. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12128
  12. Fuerth LS, Faber EMH. Anticipatory government practical upgrades: equipping the executive branch to cope with increasing speed and complexity of major challenges. Washington DC: Elliot School of International Affairs, George Washington University; 2012.
  13. Head B, O’Flynn J. Australia: building policy capacity for managing wicked policy challenges. In: Massey A, Johnston K, eds. The International Handbook of Public Administration and Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2015:341-368.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 12 February 2016
  • Revise Date: 26 April 2016
  • Accept Date: 27 April 2016
  • First Publish Date: 01 July 2016

Share

How to cite

Statistics