LIST OF WORKSHOPS

CONTEXT. The COVID-19 pandemic is a unique, natural experiment, where societies and governments across the globe have been confronted with a major public health crisis and broadly similar challenges, around roughly the same time. There has never before been a global health crisis of this severity and magnitude. This has resulted in a range of, more or less, similar policy responses, but important differences remain; for example, the impact and outcome of policy responses vary strongly between health systems. As such, the COVID-19 pandemic offers a very rich laboratory to raise and address a plethora of research questions for scholars of comparative public policy. For instance, what explains the broadly similar policy responses observed in different healthcare systems around the world? What role does state capacity play in explaining differences in outcome? How do politics and policies interplay with broader social, cultural and economic circumstances? The pandemic has exposed the relative strengths and weaknesses of societies and governments in terms of their ability to respond to crises. This is reflected in the renewed interest in social inequalities as a basic indicator of government performance and, more specifically, of the ability of governments to maintain societal cohesion. Studies have shown how the pandemic has exposed and even worsened existing social inequalities as well as created new ones. There has also been a heightened interest in resilience as the capacities of government to prepare for, deal with and learn from crises. Studies have examined particular resources, actors and capacities that enabled resilience across a range of policy sectors and discussed the underlying institutional factors.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS & HYPOTHESES. This has been the focus of the existing public policy literature on the COVID-19 pandemic, based on initial responses during the first six to nine months of the pandemic. Now the time is ripe to take the next step and to review existing theories and methods of comparative public policy as well as to identify the political-practical lessons to be learned from the pandemic. The workshop does this, based on a critical examination of the field of comparative health policy. This is because health policy has been at the forefront of public policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, over the past three decades, the study of health policy across different countries has developed into a major field of research of comparative public policy.

      Our hypothesis is two-fold. First, that the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the salient and well-known weaknesses of comparative health policy, in particular the reliance on theories that use explanations based on health systems and the corresponding use of methodological approaches based on descriptive, quantitative methods. Second, that the pandemic pushes for more comprehensive empirical research in comparative health policy, which draws on more complex theoretical frameworks and makes greater use of explorative, qualitative methods and in-depth case studies.

      Based on this, the workshop addresses three research questions.
1) How to revise or move beyond health systems?
2) How to understand the health policy process?
3) How to understand and conceptualise the actors at play?

STATE OF THE ART. The first research question concerns the use of the concepts of health systems and institutions for understanding comparative health policy. Studies of comparative health policy have drawn heavily on the concept of health systems as more or less fixed sets of system-level institutions. However, the inclusion of a wider range of countries challenges the applicability of existing typologies and indeed the very dimensions on which these typologies are based. For instance, recent health reforms have combined policy approaches borrowed from different health system types; most countries have implemented universal healthcare coverage policies, but also rely on market elements. This can most clearly be observed in resource-poorer settings, e.g. in Eastern European countries as well as in Latin America. Studies have also highlighted the considerable diversity of institutional arrangements within one country. This points to the importance of different sub-domains, for example, primary health policies and elderly care policies. For instance, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a general tendency of health policy efforts to prioritise technical resources (hospital beds, respirators) and protection of hospital healthcare workers, while long-term care was neglected. Taken together, this points to the greater complexity of institutional arrangements, including broader political institutions and also at different levels.

      The second research question is about how to understand processes of making health policy in a comparative perspective. Research on comparative health policy has long drawn, more or less explicitly, on the concept of the policy cycle and the notion that it is possible to distinguish between different phases of policy making, most prominently between decision-making and implementation. This rests on a view of policy making as essentially top-down strategy and driven by political-administrative actors. Studies of governance have challenged this perspective and have instead pointed to the plurality of both, arenas for policy making and actors involved. Policy making emerges as a complex process that can also occur bottom-up and simultaneously in different arenas and involving a diverse range of actors. Analyses of initial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic underline this point, reflecting highly accelerated policy making and a broad reach in terms of levels and policy actors involved. Here, professionals acting from the bottom-up, for example as ‘street level bureaucrats’, are ideally placed to making up policy as they go along in the context of the emerging pandemic.

      The third research question relates to actors in health policy. Studies of health politics have typically focused on collective actors at the national level, such as parties, ministries and interest organisations. The more integrated nature of policy making during the COVID-19 pandemic underlines the fact that we still lack a more comprehensive knowledge about the actors in health policy. This is in terms of a broader range of actors, including those, who are marginalised in the policy process, such as less qualified professionals and carers at the interface of formal and informal labour; as well as in terms of the specificities of actors in health policy, namely their interests, resources and interactions. This more inclusive perspective on policy actors tallies with recent contributions to studies of professions and the literature on street level bureaucracy. This perspective also calls for greater attention to the social positioning of these actors both as collective players and as individuals; gender and racial inequalities are particularly important to understand their power resources and roles in the policy process.

PAPERS & AGENDA. We invite papers which use thorough empirical analysis of health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic as a steppingstone to discuss specific theoretical and/or methodological implications for the comparative study of health policy. We welcome papers: that reflect on what institutions matter and how; that examine the more integrated nature of health policy making and possible conceptualisations; and that analyse a greater diversity of actors in health policy and discuss gender-sensitive and intersectional approaches. Ideally, the papers draw on a comparison of at least two countries.

      The workshop is divided into three parts, reflecting the main research questions of the workshop. This ensures a clear focus and facilitates synthesis across related papers. Further, we will nominate at least one discussant for each paper, and we will allow time for plenary discussions at the end of each of the three parts as well as the workshop. Taken together, this helps to secure the impact of the workshop, namely what the COVID-19 pandemic teaches us about how to use institutions, policy processes and policy actors as theoretical concepts in comparative health policy.

      Our plan is to use the workshop as a steppingstone for developing a special issue to be submitted to the Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis as first choice (Health Policy/Elsevier as an alternative option). The workshop offers an ideal opportunity to survey the global field of possible contributors and to identify the strongest contributions. This also helps to secure a substantial impact on public policy research.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a unique, natural experiment, where societies and governments across the globe have been confronted with a major public health crisis, broadly similar challenges, and around roughly the same time. This offers a rich laboratory for scholars of comparative public policy. Now the time is ripe to review the lessons learned for existing theories and methods of comparative public policy. The workshop does this based on a critical examination of the field of comparative health policy. The pandemic has exposed salient weaknesses of comparative health policy and has pushed for more comprehensive empirical research, drawing on more complex theoretical frameworks and greater use of explorative, qualitative methods. Based on this, the workshop addresses three research questions: How to revise or move beyond health systems? How to understand the health policy process? How to understand and conceptualise the actors at play?

      The first research question concerns the use of institutions for understanding comparative health policy. Studies of comparative health policy have drawn heavily on the concept of health systems as more or less fixed sets of system-level institutions. However, the inclusion of a wider range of countries challenges the applicability of existing typologies, and also highlights the considerable diversity of institutional arrangements within one country. Analyses of the initial policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic confirm the greater complexity of institutional arrangements.

      The second research question is about how to understand processes of making health policy in a comparative perspective. Comparative health policy has long drawn on the distinction between different phases of policy making. Studies of governance have instead pointed to complex processes that can occur bottom-up and simultaneously in different arenas, involving a diverse range of actors. Analyses of initial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic underline this point. Professionals acting from the bottom-up are ideally placed to making up policy as they go along in the context of the emerging pandemic.

      The third research question relates to actors in health policy. Studies of health politics have typically focused on collective actors at the national level. The more integrated nature of policy making during the COVID-19 pandemic underlines that we still lack more comprehensive knowledge about actors in health policy. This is: in terms of a broader range of actors, including those marginalised in the policy process; and in terms of the specificities of actors in health policy, namely their interests, resources and interactions. This perspective also calls for greater attention to the social positioning of actors based on gender and racial inequalities.

      We invite papers which use thorough empirical analysis of health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic as a steppingstone to discuss specific theoretical and/or methodological implications for the comparative study of health policy. We welcome papers: that reflect on what institutions matter and how; that examine the more integrated nature of health policy making and possible conceptualisations; and that analyse a greater diversity of actors in health policy and discuss gender-sensitive and intersectional approaches. Ideally, papers draw on a comparison of at least two countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a unique, natural experiment, where societies and governments across the globe have been confronted with a major public health crisis and broadly similar challenges, around roughly the same time. As such, the COVID-19 pandemic offers a very rich laboratory to raise and address a plethora of research questions for scholars of comparative public policy. Now the time is ripe to move beyond empirical analyses and to review the lessons learned for existing theories and methods of comparative public policy. The workshop does this, based on a critical examination of the field of comparative health policy. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the salient and well-known weaknesses of comparative health policy. Our hypothesis is that the pandemic has pushed for more comprehensive empirical research in comparative health policy, which draws on more complex theoretical frameworks and makes greater use of explorative, qualitative methods and in-depth case studies. Based on this, the workshop addresses three research questions: How to revise or move beyond health systems? How to understand the health policy process? How to understand and conceptualise the actors at play? We invite papers which use thorough empirical analysis of health policy during the COVID-19 pandemic as a steppingstone to discuss specific theoretical and/or methodological implications for the comparative study of health policy. Ideally, the papers draw on a comparison of at least two countries. The workshop is divided into three parts, reflecting the main research questions of the workshop. We will nominate at least one discussant for each paper, and we will allow ample time for plenary discussions throughout the workshop to facilitate synthesis across related papers. Our plan is to use the workshop as a steppingstone for developing a special issue.

Viola Burau has a PhD in Political Science from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland and an MA in Social Sciences from Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany. She has a joint appointment as Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science and the Department of Public Health, both at Aarhus University in Denmark. Previous appointments include senior researcher in Central Denmark Regional Government and Lecturer at Brunel University in England, as well as visiting positions at McGill University in Canada and Shandong University in China. Her research interests lie in the areas of comparative health policy, studies of professions, and health organisation. She has published widely: on how institutions shape health reform and health governance; on the role of health professions in policy making and in health governance; and on how health professions contribute to organisational change. Recent publications include: ‘Comparative health policy’, co-author with Blank and Kuhlmann (Palgrave Macmillan, fifth edition, 2018); ‘How welfare professions contribute to the making of welfare governance’ (Journal of Social Policy, 2021), ’The welfare state driving "me"- and "we"-medicine’ (New Genetics and Society, 2020); ‘Understanding gaps in the coexistence between different modes of governance (Policy & Politics, 2018). She has (co-)organised numerous sessions at international conferences, including conferences of the International Research Society for Public Management, the Political Studies Association, the Nordic Political Science Association, the International Sociological Association, and the European Public Health Association.

Ellen Kuhlmann has a PhD and post-doctoral degree (Habilitation) in Sociology, a MA in Public Health, a professional qualification in nursing. Ellen works as Senior Researcher at Hannover Medical School in Germany, and is president of the section ‘Health Workforce Research’ of European Public Health Association. In Germany, she is Steering Board member of GLOHRA, the German Alliance for Global Health Research. She has extensively published on comparative health policy, e.g. as lead editor of the ‘Palgrave International Handbook of Healthcare Policy and Governance’ (2015) and co-author of ‘Comparative Health Policy’, Fifth Edition (with Blank and Burau). Ellen has long-standing international work experience including e.g. as Senior Lecturer at the Department of Social Policy, University of Bath, UK, as guest professor at Aarhus University, Denmark, senior researcher at Karolinska Institutet’s Medical Management Centre, Sweden and through fellowships at McMaster University, Canada and Kaoshiung Medical University, Taiwan. Her most recent publications include edited special issues of ‘Health Policy’ (2018), ‘European Journal of Public Health‘ (2020) and ‘International Journal of Health Planning and Management’ (2021)and a conceptual comparative article ‘Health workforce protection and preparedness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a tool for the rapid assessment of EU health systems’, European Journal of Public Health (2021 forthcoming). She has (co-) organised numerous sessions at international conferences, e.g. at the International Sociological Association (ISA) Conferences, the EGOS Symposium and the European Public Health Conferences (EPH).