Has Labour decentralised the NHS? Terminological obfuscation and analytical confusion

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Has Labour decentralised the NHS? Terminological obfuscation and analytical confusion. / Greener, I; Exworthy, Mark; Peckham, Stephen; Powell, M.

In: Policy Studies, Vol. 30, No. 4, 01.09.2009, p. 439-454.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{7ad4ef4b66c04f7782e5efa06a4008d4,
title = "Has Labour decentralised the NHS? Terminological obfuscation and analytical confusion",
abstract = "This article considers the rise of decentralisation as an approach to public-sector reform generally, and its approach to the British National Health Service (NHS) specifically. It suggests that the term 'decentralisation' is often so poorly defined that reforms made in its name cannot be assessed to see if they have achieved it as a goal or not. The article explores the meanings of decentralisation and attempts to clarify it, before going on to examine, through a review of what four key commentators have said about it, how health reform under the British New Labour government, despite often claiming to be decentralising, has often been centralising instead. The article presents a framework for assessing claims of decentralisation in public reform more generally, before presenting a specific example from the NH",
author = "I Greener and Mark Exworthy and Stephen Peckham and M Powell",
year = "2009",
month = sep,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/01442870902899905",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "439--454",
journal = "Policy Studies",
issn = "0144-2872",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Has Labour decentralised the NHS? Terminological obfuscation and analytical confusion

AU - Greener, I

AU - Exworthy, Mark

AU - Peckham, Stephen

AU - Powell, M

PY - 2009/9/1

Y1 - 2009/9/1

N2 - This article considers the rise of decentralisation as an approach to public-sector reform generally, and its approach to the British National Health Service (NHS) specifically. It suggests that the term 'decentralisation' is often so poorly defined that reforms made in its name cannot be assessed to see if they have achieved it as a goal or not. The article explores the meanings of decentralisation and attempts to clarify it, before going on to examine, through a review of what four key commentators have said about it, how health reform under the British New Labour government, despite often claiming to be decentralising, has often been centralising instead. The article presents a framework for assessing claims of decentralisation in public reform more generally, before presenting a specific example from the NH

AB - This article considers the rise of decentralisation as an approach to public-sector reform generally, and its approach to the British National Health Service (NHS) specifically. It suggests that the term 'decentralisation' is often so poorly defined that reforms made in its name cannot be assessed to see if they have achieved it as a goal or not. The article explores the meanings of decentralisation and attempts to clarify it, before going on to examine, through a review of what four key commentators have said about it, how health reform under the British New Labour government, despite often claiming to be decentralising, has often been centralising instead. The article presents a framework for assessing claims of decentralisation in public reform more generally, before presenting a specific example from the NH

U2 - 10.1080/01442870902899905

DO - 10.1080/01442870902899905

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 439

EP - 454

JO - Policy Studies

JF - Policy Studies

SN - 0144-2872

IS - 4

ER -