This submit continues the dialogue that begins in What’s politics? It informs a chat on prevention for Public Well being Affiliation Australia Preventive Well being Convention 2025 ‘Prevention is Political’
The politics of prevention entails (1) deciding who’s accountable for (2) translating the imprecise idiom ‘prevention is healthier than remedy’ into concrete choices about what prevention is, what coverage options and processes would change, and the way a lot of a precedence it ought to be.
For instance, our guide Why Isn’t Authorities Coverage Extra Preventive? (free Introduction and Conclusion) compares two methods to make sense of prevention and provoke political debate.
First, in public well being, prevention can confer with a particular agenda to forestall or cut back non-communicable ailments (NCDs) related to smoking, alcohol, unhealthy meals, inactivity or weight problems, or air pollution. For instance, ‘complete tobacco management’ entails excessive state intervention to provide a group of coverage devices, resembling laws on tobacco merchandise, how corporations can promote, and the place folks could smoke; taxes and duties to boost the worth; companies to assist folks cease (or be handled for ill-health); and well being schooling (together with stark messages on merchandise) (e.g. within the UK).
The politics of tobacco consists of debate on (1) how you can body the difficulty, resembling a authorized product with financial worth or a dangerous substance contributing to an epidemic of NCDs and well being inequalities, and (2) how far the state ought to intervene, from solely giving info to prohibiting behaviour. In international locations just like the UK and Australia, maybe this debate has been gained, however it took many years to translate proof into coverage, and there stays excessive contestation every time a authorities proposes a brand new instrument, resembling to ban smoking in automobiles with kids or elevate the smoking age annually.
Second, prevention could be a extra ambiguous agenda for coverage change and policymaking reforms, together with Well being in All Insurance policies but in addition wider social coverage or preventing-spending initiatives throughout authorities. In Why is well being enchancment coverage so tough to safe? and new analysis we relate key obstacles to progress – prevention coverage’s lack of readability, congruity, and capability – to unresolved and contested choices.
Deciding what prevention means (‘readability’)
The politics of prevention consists of (1) the extent of state duty and intervention (what coverage devices to make use of), and (2) the allocation of sources to ranges of prevention or particular social teams.
For some, prevention symbolises an ethical agenda to help social justice: there ought to be excessive state intervention to forestall or cut back poor outcomes (resembling sick well being) and inequalities (such because the unequal unfold of NCDs). State intervention might embody taxing and spending to cut back financial inequalities, or the reallocation of public companies to mitigate their impression. There could also be an express coverage to cut back inequalities in relation to components resembling race or ethnicity, gender, or incapacity (resembling laws to problem discrimination).
For some, prevention symbolises extra pragmatic or urgent goals, resembling to cut back demand on public companies. It would contain excessive state intervention to affect enterprise and social behaviour, a push to combine public companies, or a deal with giving folks extra details about how you can enhance their very own wholesome behaviour. Decreasing well being inequalities could also be a major purpose or byproduct of such insurance policies.
There may be additionally some doubt about which stage of prevention to prioritise: major prevention, or probably the most formidable ‘upstream’ complete inhabitants measures; secondary prevention, to determine interventions for teams liable to hurt; and, tertiary prevention, to forestall current situations getting worse. You possibly can agree with all three, however allocating extra sources to at least one suggests fewer sources for an additional.
Rising political points can also differ by sector, resembling to focus on the allocation of tertiary sources based on age in healthcare (e.g. companies for older folks) or the secondary prevention downside of figuring out at-risk teams in social coverage (e.g. early intervention for youngsters and oldsters).
Deciding what ought to change (‘congruity’)
Prevention could be offered as a radical different to the established order or a method to mainstream prevention in routine authorities enterprise.
The novel agenda is clearly ‘political’, together with a direct problem to the coverage options and processes contributing to poor and unequal outcomes.
Nonetheless, agendas like HiAP, and preventive goals in public service integration, usually search to depoliticise this course of, resembling to emphasize pragmatism and win-win options primarily based on attempting to mainstream public well being or match prevention concepts into present authorities routines. Right here, we could deal with ‘political astuteness’ to attach new goals to the agendas of elected politicians, the ‘micropolitics’ of cooperation when skilled and organisational guidelines or cultures collide, or one type of policymaking undermining one other (e.g. Godziewski on the EU guidelines and norms that undermine HiAP by favouring financial goals and together with trade actors in public well being coverage).
Deciding between goals and setting priorities (‘capability’)
Getting high-level help for an agenda like ‘prevention’ could seem to be a win. Nonetheless, a authorities’s rhetorical dedication to a brand new agenda can sign (1) honest and energetic help, or (2) the need to make use of a buzzword as a substitute for motion.
Certainly, it’s common in public well being and social coverage analysis to narrate this downside to politics: an absence of ‘political will’ to show a brand new dedication into concrete motion when (1) politicians face opposition from vested pursuits, and/or (2) their greater dedication to ‘neoliberalism’ (to favour financial progress and restrict state intervention) overshadows their dedication to cut back inequalities.
On this case, insights from coverage course of analysis relate to the necessity to make an analytical separation between:
- the particular political motion (or inaction) that undermine progress, and
- the systemic limits to coverage change when policymakers interact in a posh policymaking setting over which they’ve restricted understanding and management.
In different phrases, what are the dynamics that may undermine progress (in the direction of integration or coherence) even when prevention is backed by probably the most honest and energetic politicians? This thought-exercise helps to keep away from the idea that any lack of progress is brought on by poor politics or low-energy politicians.
We can also mix 1 and a couple of to determine the impact of high-level political choices on preventive policymaking. For instance, in ‘Westminster’ techniques, the macro-political alternative is to keep up and prioritise excessive stakes accountability by way of frequent elections, with main knock-on results together with: devoting most political consideration, sources, and efficiency administration to short-term success in relation to high-profile companies resembling healthcare. This focus comes on the expense of prevention, particularly if the story is of funding for the long-term that struggles to suit into short-term measures of success (e.g. within the UK).
Now learn on:
I additionally made pretty comparable factors as a part of an ANZSOG tour again within the day, together with: Prevention is healthier than remedy, so why aren’t we doing extra of it?
This submit continues the dialogue that begins in What’s politics? It informs a chat on prevention for Public Well being Affiliation Australia Preventive Well being Convention 2025 ‘Prevention is Political’
The politics of prevention entails (1) deciding who’s accountable for (2) translating the imprecise idiom ‘prevention is healthier than remedy’ into concrete choices about what prevention is, what coverage options and processes would change, and the way a lot of a precedence it ought to be.
For instance, our guide Why Isn’t Authorities Coverage Extra Preventive? (free Introduction and Conclusion) compares two methods to make sense of prevention and provoke political debate.
First, in public well being, prevention can confer with a particular agenda to forestall or cut back non-communicable ailments (NCDs) related to smoking, alcohol, unhealthy meals, inactivity or weight problems, or air pollution. For instance, ‘complete tobacco management’ entails excessive state intervention to provide a group of coverage devices, resembling laws on tobacco merchandise, how corporations can promote, and the place folks could smoke; taxes and duties to boost the worth; companies to assist folks cease (or be handled for ill-health); and well being schooling (together with stark messages on merchandise) (e.g. within the UK).
The politics of tobacco consists of debate on (1) how you can body the difficulty, resembling a authorized product with financial worth or a dangerous substance contributing to an epidemic of NCDs and well being inequalities, and (2) how far the state ought to intervene, from solely giving info to prohibiting behaviour. In international locations just like the UK and Australia, maybe this debate has been gained, however it took many years to translate proof into coverage, and there stays excessive contestation every time a authorities proposes a brand new instrument, resembling to ban smoking in automobiles with kids or elevate the smoking age annually.
Second, prevention could be a extra ambiguous agenda for coverage change and policymaking reforms, together with Well being in All Insurance policies but in addition wider social coverage or preventing-spending initiatives throughout authorities. In Why is well being enchancment coverage so tough to safe? and new analysis we relate key obstacles to progress – prevention coverage’s lack of readability, congruity, and capability – to unresolved and contested choices.
Deciding what prevention means (‘readability’)
The politics of prevention consists of (1) the extent of state duty and intervention (what coverage devices to make use of), and (2) the allocation of sources to ranges of prevention or particular social teams.
For some, prevention symbolises an ethical agenda to help social justice: there ought to be excessive state intervention to forestall or cut back poor outcomes (resembling sick well being) and inequalities (such because the unequal unfold of NCDs). State intervention might embody taxing and spending to cut back financial inequalities, or the reallocation of public companies to mitigate their impression. There could also be an express coverage to cut back inequalities in relation to components resembling race or ethnicity, gender, or incapacity (resembling laws to problem discrimination).
For some, prevention symbolises extra pragmatic or urgent goals, resembling to cut back demand on public companies. It would contain excessive state intervention to affect enterprise and social behaviour, a push to combine public companies, or a deal with giving folks extra details about how you can enhance their very own wholesome behaviour. Decreasing well being inequalities could also be a major purpose or byproduct of such insurance policies.
There may be additionally some doubt about which stage of prevention to prioritise: major prevention, or probably the most formidable ‘upstream’ complete inhabitants measures; secondary prevention, to determine interventions for teams liable to hurt; and, tertiary prevention, to forestall current situations getting worse. You possibly can agree with all three, however allocating extra sources to at least one suggests fewer sources for an additional.
Rising political points can also differ by sector, resembling to focus on the allocation of tertiary sources based on age in healthcare (e.g. companies for older folks) or the secondary prevention downside of figuring out at-risk teams in social coverage (e.g. early intervention for youngsters and oldsters).
Deciding what ought to change (‘congruity’)
Prevention could be offered as a radical different to the established order or a method to mainstream prevention in routine authorities enterprise.
The novel agenda is clearly ‘political’, together with a direct problem to the coverage options and processes contributing to poor and unequal outcomes.
Nonetheless, agendas like HiAP, and preventive goals in public service integration, usually search to depoliticise this course of, resembling to emphasize pragmatism and win-win options primarily based on attempting to mainstream public well being or match prevention concepts into present authorities routines. Right here, we could deal with ‘political astuteness’ to attach new goals to the agendas of elected politicians, the ‘micropolitics’ of cooperation when skilled and organisational guidelines or cultures collide, or one type of policymaking undermining one other (e.g. Godziewski on the EU guidelines and norms that undermine HiAP by favouring financial goals and together with trade actors in public well being coverage).
Deciding between goals and setting priorities (‘capability’)
Getting high-level help for an agenda like ‘prevention’ could seem to be a win. Nonetheless, a authorities’s rhetorical dedication to a brand new agenda can sign (1) honest and energetic help, or (2) the need to make use of a buzzword as a substitute for motion.
Certainly, it’s common in public well being and social coverage analysis to narrate this downside to politics: an absence of ‘political will’ to show a brand new dedication into concrete motion when (1) politicians face opposition from vested pursuits, and/or (2) their greater dedication to ‘neoliberalism’ (to favour financial progress and restrict state intervention) overshadows their dedication to cut back inequalities.
On this case, insights from coverage course of analysis relate to the necessity to make an analytical separation between:
- the particular political motion (or inaction) that undermine progress, and
- the systemic limits to coverage change when policymakers interact in a posh policymaking setting over which they’ve restricted understanding and management.
In different phrases, what are the dynamics that may undermine progress (in the direction of integration or coherence) even when prevention is backed by probably the most honest and energetic politicians? This thought-exercise helps to keep away from the idea that any lack of progress is brought on by poor politics or low-energy politicians.
We can also mix 1 and a couple of to determine the impact of high-level political choices on preventive policymaking. For instance, in ‘Westminster’ techniques, the macro-political alternative is to keep up and prioritise excessive stakes accountability by way of frequent elections, with main knock-on results together with: devoting most political consideration, sources, and efficiency administration to short-term success in relation to high-profile companies resembling healthcare. This focus comes on the expense of prevention, particularly if the story is of funding for the long-term that struggles to suit into short-term measures of success (e.g. within the UK).
Now learn on:
I additionally made pretty comparable factors as a part of an ANZSOG tour again within the day, together with: Prevention is healthier than remedy, so why aren’t we doing extra of it?
This submit continues the dialogue that begins in What’s politics? It informs a chat on prevention for Public Well being Affiliation Australia Preventive Well being Convention 2025 ‘Prevention is Political’
The politics of prevention entails (1) deciding who’s accountable for (2) translating the imprecise idiom ‘prevention is healthier than remedy’ into concrete choices about what prevention is, what coverage options and processes would change, and the way a lot of a precedence it ought to be.
For instance, our guide Why Isn’t Authorities Coverage Extra Preventive? (free Introduction and Conclusion) compares two methods to make sense of prevention and provoke political debate.
First, in public well being, prevention can confer with a particular agenda to forestall or cut back non-communicable ailments (NCDs) related to smoking, alcohol, unhealthy meals, inactivity or weight problems, or air pollution. For instance, ‘complete tobacco management’ entails excessive state intervention to provide a group of coverage devices, resembling laws on tobacco merchandise, how corporations can promote, and the place folks could smoke; taxes and duties to boost the worth; companies to assist folks cease (or be handled for ill-health); and well being schooling (together with stark messages on merchandise) (e.g. within the UK).
The politics of tobacco consists of debate on (1) how you can body the difficulty, resembling a authorized product with financial worth or a dangerous substance contributing to an epidemic of NCDs and well being inequalities, and (2) how far the state ought to intervene, from solely giving info to prohibiting behaviour. In international locations just like the UK and Australia, maybe this debate has been gained, however it took many years to translate proof into coverage, and there stays excessive contestation every time a authorities proposes a brand new instrument, resembling to ban smoking in automobiles with kids or elevate the smoking age annually.
Second, prevention could be a extra ambiguous agenda for coverage change and policymaking reforms, together with Well being in All Insurance policies but in addition wider social coverage or preventing-spending initiatives throughout authorities. In Why is well being enchancment coverage so tough to safe? and new analysis we relate key obstacles to progress – prevention coverage’s lack of readability, congruity, and capability – to unresolved and contested choices.
Deciding what prevention means (‘readability’)
The politics of prevention consists of (1) the extent of state duty and intervention (what coverage devices to make use of), and (2) the allocation of sources to ranges of prevention or particular social teams.
For some, prevention symbolises an ethical agenda to help social justice: there ought to be excessive state intervention to forestall or cut back poor outcomes (resembling sick well being) and inequalities (such because the unequal unfold of NCDs). State intervention might embody taxing and spending to cut back financial inequalities, or the reallocation of public companies to mitigate their impression. There could also be an express coverage to cut back inequalities in relation to components resembling race or ethnicity, gender, or incapacity (resembling laws to problem discrimination).
For some, prevention symbolises extra pragmatic or urgent goals, resembling to cut back demand on public companies. It would contain excessive state intervention to affect enterprise and social behaviour, a push to combine public companies, or a deal with giving folks extra details about how you can enhance their very own wholesome behaviour. Decreasing well being inequalities could also be a major purpose or byproduct of such insurance policies.
There may be additionally some doubt about which stage of prevention to prioritise: major prevention, or probably the most formidable ‘upstream’ complete inhabitants measures; secondary prevention, to determine interventions for teams liable to hurt; and, tertiary prevention, to forestall current situations getting worse. You possibly can agree with all three, however allocating extra sources to at least one suggests fewer sources for an additional.
Rising political points can also differ by sector, resembling to focus on the allocation of tertiary sources based on age in healthcare (e.g. companies for older folks) or the secondary prevention downside of figuring out at-risk teams in social coverage (e.g. early intervention for youngsters and oldsters).
Deciding what ought to change (‘congruity’)
Prevention could be offered as a radical different to the established order or a method to mainstream prevention in routine authorities enterprise.
The novel agenda is clearly ‘political’, together with a direct problem to the coverage options and processes contributing to poor and unequal outcomes.
Nonetheless, agendas like HiAP, and preventive goals in public service integration, usually search to depoliticise this course of, resembling to emphasize pragmatism and win-win options primarily based on attempting to mainstream public well being or match prevention concepts into present authorities routines. Right here, we could deal with ‘political astuteness’ to attach new goals to the agendas of elected politicians, the ‘micropolitics’ of cooperation when skilled and organisational guidelines or cultures collide, or one type of policymaking undermining one other (e.g. Godziewski on the EU guidelines and norms that undermine HiAP by favouring financial goals and together with trade actors in public well being coverage).
Deciding between goals and setting priorities (‘capability’)
Getting high-level help for an agenda like ‘prevention’ could seem to be a win. Nonetheless, a authorities’s rhetorical dedication to a brand new agenda can sign (1) honest and energetic help, or (2) the need to make use of a buzzword as a substitute for motion.
Certainly, it’s common in public well being and social coverage analysis to narrate this downside to politics: an absence of ‘political will’ to show a brand new dedication into concrete motion when (1) politicians face opposition from vested pursuits, and/or (2) their greater dedication to ‘neoliberalism’ (to favour financial progress and restrict state intervention) overshadows their dedication to cut back inequalities.
On this case, insights from coverage course of analysis relate to the necessity to make an analytical separation between:
- the particular political motion (or inaction) that undermine progress, and
- the systemic limits to coverage change when policymakers interact in a posh policymaking setting over which they’ve restricted understanding and management.
In different phrases, what are the dynamics that may undermine progress (in the direction of integration or coherence) even when prevention is backed by probably the most honest and energetic politicians? This thought-exercise helps to keep away from the idea that any lack of progress is brought on by poor politics or low-energy politicians.
We can also mix 1 and a couple of to determine the impact of high-level political choices on preventive policymaking. For instance, in ‘Westminster’ techniques, the macro-political alternative is to keep up and prioritise excessive stakes accountability by way of frequent elections, with main knock-on results together with: devoting most political consideration, sources, and efficiency administration to short-term success in relation to high-profile companies resembling healthcare. This focus comes on the expense of prevention, particularly if the story is of funding for the long-term that struggles to suit into short-term measures of success (e.g. within the UK).
Now learn on:
I additionally made pretty comparable factors as a part of an ANZSOG tour again within the day, together with: Prevention is healthier than remedy, so why aren’t we doing extra of it?
This submit continues the dialogue that begins in What’s politics? It informs a chat on prevention for Public Well being Affiliation Australia Preventive Well being Convention 2025 ‘Prevention is Political’
The politics of prevention entails (1) deciding who’s accountable for (2) translating the imprecise idiom ‘prevention is healthier than remedy’ into concrete choices about what prevention is, what coverage options and processes would change, and the way a lot of a precedence it ought to be.
For instance, our guide Why Isn’t Authorities Coverage Extra Preventive? (free Introduction and Conclusion) compares two methods to make sense of prevention and provoke political debate.
First, in public well being, prevention can confer with a particular agenda to forestall or cut back non-communicable ailments (NCDs) related to smoking, alcohol, unhealthy meals, inactivity or weight problems, or air pollution. For instance, ‘complete tobacco management’ entails excessive state intervention to provide a group of coverage devices, resembling laws on tobacco merchandise, how corporations can promote, and the place folks could smoke; taxes and duties to boost the worth; companies to assist folks cease (or be handled for ill-health); and well being schooling (together with stark messages on merchandise) (e.g. within the UK).
The politics of tobacco consists of debate on (1) how you can body the difficulty, resembling a authorized product with financial worth or a dangerous substance contributing to an epidemic of NCDs and well being inequalities, and (2) how far the state ought to intervene, from solely giving info to prohibiting behaviour. In international locations just like the UK and Australia, maybe this debate has been gained, however it took many years to translate proof into coverage, and there stays excessive contestation every time a authorities proposes a brand new instrument, resembling to ban smoking in automobiles with kids or elevate the smoking age annually.
Second, prevention could be a extra ambiguous agenda for coverage change and policymaking reforms, together with Well being in All Insurance policies but in addition wider social coverage or preventing-spending initiatives throughout authorities. In Why is well being enchancment coverage so tough to safe? and new analysis we relate key obstacles to progress – prevention coverage’s lack of readability, congruity, and capability – to unresolved and contested choices.
Deciding what prevention means (‘readability’)
The politics of prevention consists of (1) the extent of state duty and intervention (what coverage devices to make use of), and (2) the allocation of sources to ranges of prevention or particular social teams.
For some, prevention symbolises an ethical agenda to help social justice: there ought to be excessive state intervention to forestall or cut back poor outcomes (resembling sick well being) and inequalities (such because the unequal unfold of NCDs). State intervention might embody taxing and spending to cut back financial inequalities, or the reallocation of public companies to mitigate their impression. There could also be an express coverage to cut back inequalities in relation to components resembling race or ethnicity, gender, or incapacity (resembling laws to problem discrimination).
For some, prevention symbolises extra pragmatic or urgent goals, resembling to cut back demand on public companies. It would contain excessive state intervention to affect enterprise and social behaviour, a push to combine public companies, or a deal with giving folks extra details about how you can enhance their very own wholesome behaviour. Decreasing well being inequalities could also be a major purpose or byproduct of such insurance policies.
There may be additionally some doubt about which stage of prevention to prioritise: major prevention, or probably the most formidable ‘upstream’ complete inhabitants measures; secondary prevention, to determine interventions for teams liable to hurt; and, tertiary prevention, to forestall current situations getting worse. You possibly can agree with all three, however allocating extra sources to at least one suggests fewer sources for an additional.
Rising political points can also differ by sector, resembling to focus on the allocation of tertiary sources based on age in healthcare (e.g. companies for older folks) or the secondary prevention downside of figuring out at-risk teams in social coverage (e.g. early intervention for youngsters and oldsters).
Deciding what ought to change (‘congruity’)
Prevention could be offered as a radical different to the established order or a method to mainstream prevention in routine authorities enterprise.
The novel agenda is clearly ‘political’, together with a direct problem to the coverage options and processes contributing to poor and unequal outcomes.
Nonetheless, agendas like HiAP, and preventive goals in public service integration, usually search to depoliticise this course of, resembling to emphasize pragmatism and win-win options primarily based on attempting to mainstream public well being or match prevention concepts into present authorities routines. Right here, we could deal with ‘political astuteness’ to attach new goals to the agendas of elected politicians, the ‘micropolitics’ of cooperation when skilled and organisational guidelines or cultures collide, or one type of policymaking undermining one other (e.g. Godziewski on the EU guidelines and norms that undermine HiAP by favouring financial goals and together with trade actors in public well being coverage).
Deciding between goals and setting priorities (‘capability’)
Getting high-level help for an agenda like ‘prevention’ could seem to be a win. Nonetheless, a authorities’s rhetorical dedication to a brand new agenda can sign (1) honest and energetic help, or (2) the need to make use of a buzzword as a substitute for motion.
Certainly, it’s common in public well being and social coverage analysis to narrate this downside to politics: an absence of ‘political will’ to show a brand new dedication into concrete motion when (1) politicians face opposition from vested pursuits, and/or (2) their greater dedication to ‘neoliberalism’ (to favour financial progress and restrict state intervention) overshadows their dedication to cut back inequalities.
On this case, insights from coverage course of analysis relate to the necessity to make an analytical separation between:
- the particular political motion (or inaction) that undermine progress, and
- the systemic limits to coverage change when policymakers interact in a posh policymaking setting over which they’ve restricted understanding and management.
In different phrases, what are the dynamics that may undermine progress (in the direction of integration or coherence) even when prevention is backed by probably the most honest and energetic politicians? This thought-exercise helps to keep away from the idea that any lack of progress is brought on by poor politics or low-energy politicians.
We can also mix 1 and a couple of to determine the impact of high-level political choices on preventive policymaking. For instance, in ‘Westminster’ techniques, the macro-political alternative is to keep up and prioritise excessive stakes accountability by way of frequent elections, with main knock-on results together with: devoting most political consideration, sources, and efficiency administration to short-term success in relation to high-profile companies resembling healthcare. This focus comes on the expense of prevention, particularly if the story is of funding for the long-term that struggles to suit into short-term measures of success (e.g. within the UK).
Now learn on:
I additionally made pretty comparable factors as a part of an ANZSOG tour again within the day, together with: Prevention is healthier than remedy, so why aren’t we doing extra of it?
