an article by Anna Bendz (University of Gothenburg, Sweden) published in Social Policy & Administration: an international journal of policy and practice Volume 51 Issue 1 (January 2017)
Abstract
How and when does welfare policy contribute to shape public opinion?
This article departs from the policy feedback research tradition and seeks to contribute to the understanding of how policy influences public opinion (public responsiveness). The argument here suggests that personal experiences in terms of empowerment condition the dynamics between policy and opinion.
The empirical case concerns the implementation of a consumer's choice model in Swedish primary health care, which resulted an intended increase in private health care centres. In this case, empowerment is assumed to be enhanced by increased exit options and freedom of choice. The specific question in the analysis is whether citizens who have empowering experiences, as a consequence of the reform, are more likely to be positive towards further privatization of welfare services.
The results show few effects in general, but there seems to be a correlation between the experience of exiting and more positive attitudes towards privatization.
Full text (PDF 19pp)
Showing posts with label consumer_choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumer_choice. Show all posts
Wednesday, 1 March 2017
Monday, 28 January 2013
More Is Not Always Better: Intuitions About Effective Public Policy Can Lead to Unintended Consequences
an article by Ellen Peters and Louise Meilleur (The Ohio State University), William Klein and Annette Kaufman (National Cancer Institute) and Anna Dixon (The King’s Fund, London) published in Social Issues and Policy Review
Volume 7 Issue 1 (January 2013)
Abstract
Public policy decisions often appear based on an assumption that providing more options, more information, and greater decision-making autonomy to consumers will produce better outcomes.
We examine reasons why this “more-is-better” approach exists based on the psychological literature. Although better outcomes can result from informed consumer choice, we argue that more options, information, and autonomy can also lead to unintended negative consequences.
We use mostly health-related policies and guidelines from the United States and elsewhere as exemplars.
We consider various psychological mechanisms that cause these unintended consequences including cognitive overload, affect, and anticipated regret, information salience and availability, and trust in governments as authoritative information providers.
We also point toward potential solutions based on psychological research that may reduce the negative unintended consequences of a “more-is-better” approach.
Abstract
Public policy decisions often appear based on an assumption that providing more options, more information, and greater decision-making autonomy to consumers will produce better outcomes.
We examine reasons why this “more-is-better” approach exists based on the psychological literature. Although better outcomes can result from informed consumer choice, we argue that more options, information, and autonomy can also lead to unintended negative consequences.
We use mostly health-related policies and guidelines from the United States and elsewhere as exemplars.
We consider various psychological mechanisms that cause these unintended consequences including cognitive overload, affect, and anticipated regret, information salience and availability, and trust in governments as authoritative information providers.
We also point toward potential solutions based on psychological research that may reduce the negative unintended consequences of a “more-is-better” approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
