Advertisement

Explaining Health System Decentralization and Recentralization

  • Andrea TerlizziEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Series on Public Policy book series (ISPP)

Abstract

After a review of the literature on the role of ideas, interests, and institutions in public policy analysis, the chapter illustrates the explanatory framework. The latter builds on historical and discursive institutionalism, pointing to the role of ideas, discourse, and institutions. The chapter presents the core ideas and arguments in favor of decentralization, which are mainly associated with New Public Management (NPM) and theories of fiscal federalism, as well as those supporting (re)centralization. These ideas and arguments constitute the substantive content of discourse over the territorial organization of health systems. The institutional factors the book considers are the formal institutional setting and the system of intergovernmental relations. Finally, the chapter illustrates the working hypotheses, the research design and the methods, as well as the sources of empirical material.

Keywords

Ideas Discourse Institutions Bricolage Process tracing 

References

  1. Atkinson, Michael M., and William D. Coleman. 1992. “Policy Networks, Policy Communities and the Problems of Governance.” Governance 5 (2): 154–180.Google Scholar
  2. Aucoin, Peter. 1990. “Administrative Reform in Public Management: Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums.” Governance 3 (2): 115–137.Google Scholar
  3. Azfar, Omar, Satu Kähkönen, Anthony Lanyi, Patrick Meagher, and Diana Rutherford. 1999. “Decentralization, Governance and Public Services: The Impact of Institutional Arrangements. A Review of the Literature.” IRIS Center, University of Maryland, College Park, 1–35.Google Scholar
  4. Bahl, Roy. 1998. “Implementation Rules for Fiscal Decentralization.” Paper presented at the International Seminar on Land Policy and Economic Development, Land Reform Training Institute, Taiwan, November 17.Google Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, Frank R. 2013. “Ideas and Policy Change.” Governance 26 (2): 239–258.Google Scholar
  6. Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2013. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bednar, Jenna. 2013. “Constitutional Change in Federations: The Role of Complementary Institutions.” In Federal Dynamics: Continuity, Change, and the Varieties of Federalism, edited by Arthur Benz and Jörg Broschek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Béland, Daniel. 2005. “Ideas and Social Policy: An Institutionalist Perspective.” Social Policy & Administration 39 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar
  9. Béland, Daniel. 2009. “Ideas, Institutions, and Policy Change.” Journal of European Public Policy 16 (5): 701–718.Google Scholar
  10. Béland, Daniel. 2016. “Ideas and Institutions in Social Policy Research.” Social Policy & Administration 50 (6): 734–750.Google Scholar
  11. Béland, Daniel, and André Lecours. 2013. “Federalism, Nationalist Politics, and Social Policy: How Ideas and Institutions Interact to Produce or Prevent Change.” In Federal Dynamics: Continuity, Change, and the Varieties of Federalism, edited by Arthur Benz and Jörg Broschek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Béland, Daniel, and Klaus Petersen. 2017. “Exploring Social Policy Ideas and Language.” In Handbook of European Social Policy, edited by Patricia Kennett, and Noemi Lendvai-Bainton. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Béland, Daniel, and Robert Henry Cox. 2011a. “Introduction: Ideas and Politics.” In Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research, edited by Daniel Béland and Robert Henry Cox. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Béland, Daniel, and Robert Henry Cox, eds. 2011b. Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Béland, Daniel, and Robert Henry Cox. 2016. “Ideas as Coalition Magnets: Coalition Building, Policy Entrepreneurs, and Power Relations.” Journal of European Public Policy 23 (3): 428–445.Google Scholar
  16. Bennett, Andrew, and Jeffrey T. Checkel. 2015. “Process Tracing: From Philosphical Roots to Best Practices.” In Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool, edited by Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Blyth, Mark. 1997. “Review Article: ‘Any More Bright Ideas?’ The Ideational Turn of Comparative Political Economy.” Comparative Politics 29 (2): 229–250.Google Scholar
  18. Blyth, Mark. 2002. Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Blyth, Mark. 2003. “Structures Do Not Come with an Instruction Sheet: Interests, Ideas, and Progress in Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 1 (4): 695–706.Google Scholar
  20. Blyth, Mark, Oddny Helgadottir, and William Kring. 2016. “Ideas and Historical Institutionalism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism, edited by Orfeo Fioretos, Tulia G. Falleti, and Adam Sheingate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Boadway, Robin, and Anwar Shah. 2009. Fiscal Federalism: Principles and Practice for Multiorder Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Braun, Dietmar, ed. 2000. Public Policy and Federalism. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  23. Burki, Shahid Javed, Guillermo E. Perry, and William R. Dillinger. 1999. Beyond the Center: Decentralizing the State. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  24. Campbell, John L. 1998. “Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy.” Theory and Society 27: 377–409.Google Scholar
  25. Campbell, John L. 2002. “Ideas, Politics, and Public Policy.” Annual Review of Sociology 28: 21–38.Google Scholar
  26. Campbell, John L. 2004. Institutional Change and Globalization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Campbell, John L., and Ove K. Pedersen. 2001. “Introduction: The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis.” In The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis, edited by John L. Campbell and Ove K. Pedersen. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Capano, Giliberto. 2009. “Understanding Policy Change as an Epistemological and Theoretical Problem.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11 (1): 5–28.Google Scholar
  29. Carstensen, Martin B. 2011. “Paradigm Man vs. the Bricoleur: Bricolage As an Alternative Vision of Agency in Ideational Change.” European Political Science Review 3 (1): 147–167.Google Scholar
  30. Carstensen, Martin B. 2016. “Bricolage as an Analytical Lens in New Institutionalist Theory.” In Conceptualising Comparative Politics, edited by Anthony Petros Spanakos and Francisco Panizza. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Carstensen, Martin B. 2017. “Institutional Bricolage in Times of Crisis.” European Political Science Review 9 (1): 139–160.Google Scholar
  32. Carstensen, Martin B., and Vivien A. Schmidt. 2016. “Power Through, Over and in Ideas: Conceptualizing Ideational Power in Discursive Institutionalism.” Journal of European Public Policy 23 (3): 318–337.Google Scholar
  33. Charbit, Claire. 2011. “Governance of Public Policies in Decentralised Contexts: The Multi-Level Approach.” OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2001/04: 1–23.Google Scholar
  34. Christensen, Tom, and Per Lægreid, eds. 2011. The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  35. Colino, César. 2013. “Varieties of Federalism and Propensities for Change.” In Federal Dynamics: Continuity, Change, and the Varieties of Federalism, edited by Arthur Benz and Jörg Broschek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Collier, David. 2011. “Understanding Process Tracing.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44 (4): 823–830.Google Scholar
  37. Cremer, Jaques, Antonio Estache, and Paul Seabright. 1994. “The Decentralization of Public Services: Lessons from the Theory of the Firm.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 1345: 1–51.Google Scholar
  38. De Vries, Michiel S. 2000. “The Rise and Fall of Decentralization: A Comparative Analysis of Arguments and Practices in European Countries.” European Journal of Political Research 38: 193–224.Google Scholar
  39. DICE Database. 2001. “Health Systems: General Description and Level of Centralization of Health Systems.” ifo Institute, Munich. Available at http://www.cesifo-group.de/DICE/fb/xqz93Nq9.
  40. DICE Database. 2010. “Health Systems: General Description and Level of Centralization of Health Systems.” ifo Institute, Munich. Available at http://www.cesifo-group.de/DICE/fb/3qAgL9BXh.
  41. DICE Database. 2011. “Health Systems: General Description and Level of Centralization of Health Systems.” ifo Institute, Munich. Available at http://www.cesifo-group.de/DICE/fb/3qAgL9BXh.
  42. Dunleavy, Patrick, and Christopher Hood. 1994. “From Old Public Administration to New Public Management.” Public Money and Management 14 (3): 9–16.Google Scholar
  43. Elster, Jon. 1989. Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Falleti, Tulia G. 2010. Decentralization and Subnational Politics in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Falleti, Tulia G. 2016. “Process Tracing of Extensive and Intensive Processes.” New Political Economy 21 (5): 455–462.Google Scholar
  46. Falleti, Tulia G., and James Mahoney. 2015. “The Comparative Sequential Method.” In Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, edited by James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Falleti, Tulia G., and Julia F. Lynch. 2009. “Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (9): 1143–1166.Google Scholar
  48. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Gerring, John. 2008. “The Mechanismic Worldview: Thinking Inside the Box.” British Journal of Political Science 38 (1): 161–179.Google Scholar
  51. Gerring, John. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms: Yes, But …” Comparative Political Studies 43 (11): 1499–1526.Google Scholar
  52. Goertz, Gary. 2017. Multimethod Research, Causal Mechanisms, and Case Studies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Gofas, Andreas, and Colin Hay. 2010a. “Varieties of Ideational Explanation.” In The Role of Ideas in Political Analysis: A Portrait of Contemporary Debates, edited by Andreas Gofas and Colin Hay. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Gofas, Andreas, and Colin Hay, eds. 2010b. The Role of Ideas in Political Analysis: A Portrait of Contemporary Debates. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Goldstein, Judith, and Robert O. Kehoane, eds. 1993a. Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Goldstein, Judith, and Robert O. Keohane. 1993b. “Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework.” In Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, edited by Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Kehoane. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Greer, Scott L., and Elize Massard da Fonseca. 2015. “Decentralization and Health System Governance.” In The Palgrave International Handbook of Healthcare Policy and Governance, edited by Ellen Kuhlmann, Robert H. Blank, Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, and Claus Wendt. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Gruening, Gernod. 2001. “Origin and Theoretical Basis of New Public Management.” International Public Management Journal 4: 1–25.Google Scholar
  59. Haas, Peter M. 1992. “Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization 46 (1): 1–35.Google Scholar
  60. Haas, Peter M. 2004. “When Does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the Policy Process.” Journal of European Public Policy 11 (4): 569–592.Google Scholar
  61. Hall, Peter A. 1986. Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Hall, Peter A. 1993. “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain.” Comparative Politics 25 (3): 275–296.Google Scholar
  63. Hall, Peter A. 2003. “Aligning Ontology and Methodology in the Social Sciences.” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Hall, Peter A. 2013. “Tracing the Progress of Process Tracing.” European Political Science 12: 20–30.Google Scholar
  65. Hamlin, Alan P. 1991. “Decentralization, Competition and the Efficiency of Federalism.” The Economic Record 67 (3): 193–204.Google Scholar
  66. Hay, Colin. 2001. “The ‘Crisis’ of Keynesianism and the Rise of Neoliberalism in Britain: An Ideational Institutionalist Approach.” In The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis, edited by John L. Campbell and Ove K. Pedersen. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Hay, Colin. 2006. “Constructivist Institutionalism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, edited by R. A. W. Rhodes, Sarah A. Binder, and Bert A. Rockman. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Hay, Colin. 2011. “Ideas and the Construction of Interests.” In Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research, edited by Daniel Béland and Robert Henry Cox. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Heclo, Hugh. 1994. “Ideas, Interests, and Institutions.” In The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations, edited by Lawrence C. Dodd and Calvin Jillson. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  70. Hedström, Peter, and Petri Ylikoski. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 36: 49–67.Google Scholar
  71. Hedström, Peter, and Richard Swedberg. 1998. “Social Mechanism: An Introductory Essay.” In Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, edited by Peter Hedström, and Richard Swedberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Hogan, John, and Michael Howlett, eds. 2015. Policy Paradigms in Theory and Practice: Discourses, Ideas and Anomalies in Public Policy Dynamics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  73. Hood, Christopher. 1991. “A Public Management for All Seasons?” Public Administration 69: 3–19.Google Scholar
  74. Hunter, David J., Mikko Vienonen, and W. Cezary Wlodarczyk. 1998. “Optimal Balance of Centralized and Decentralized Management.” In Critical Challanges for Health Care Reforms in Europe, edited by Richard B. Saltman, Josep Figueras, and Constantino Sakellarides. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Jenkins-Smith, Hank C., and Paul A. Sabatier. 1993. “The Dynamics of Policy-Oriented Learning.” In Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, edited by Paul A. Sabatier and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  76. John, Peter. 2003. “Is There Life After Policy Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, and Punctuations: Using Evolutionary Theory to Explain Policy Change?” Policy Studies Journal 31 (4): 481–498.Google Scholar
  77. Kay, Adrian, and Phillip Baker. 2015. “What Can Causal Process Tracing Offer to Policy Studies? A Review of the Literature.” Policy Studies Journal 43 (1): 1–21.Google Scholar
  78. Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  79. Kiser, Larry L., and Elinor Ostrom. 1982. “The Three Worlds of Action: A Metatheoretical Synthesis of Institutional Approaches.” In Strategies of Political Inquiry, edited by Elinor Ostrom. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  80. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1966. The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
  81. Litvack, Jennie, Junaid Ahmad, and Richard Bird. 1998. Rethinking Decentralization in Developing Countries. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  82. Mahoney, James. 2001. “Beyond Correlational Analysis: Recent Innovations in Theory and Method.” Sociological Forum 16 (3): 575–593.Google Scholar
  83. Mahoney, James, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds. 2003. Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Mahoney, James, and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2015. Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Mahoney, James, and P. Larkin Terrie. 2008. “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Maino, Franca. 2001. La Politica Sanitaria. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  87. March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  88. Mehta, Jal. 2011. “The Varied Roles of Ideas in Politics: From ‘Whether’ to ‘How’.” In Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research, edited by Daniel Béland and Robert Henry Cox. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Mills, Anne, J. Patrick Vaughan, Duane L. Smith, and Iraj Tabibzadeh. 1990. Health System Decentralization: Concepts, Issues and Country Experience. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  90. Oates, Wallace E. 1999. “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism.” Journal of Economic Literature 37 (3): 1120–1149.Google Scholar
  91. Oates, Wallace E. 2005. “Toward a Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism.” International Tax and Public Finance 12: 349–373.Google Scholar
  92. OECD. 1995. Governance in Transition: Public Management Reforms in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  93. Ostrom, Elinor. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Parsons, Craig. 2007. How to Map Arguments in Political Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Peckham, Stephen, Mark Exworthy, Martin Powell, and Ian Greener. 2005. Decentralisation, Centralisation and Devolution in Publicly Funded Health Services: Decentralisation as an Organisational Model for Health Care in England. London: National Coordinating Centre for the Service Delivery and Organisation.Google Scholar
  96. Pollitt, Christopher. 2005. “Decentralization: A Central Concept in Contemporary Public Management.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Managment, edited by Ewan Ferlie, Laurence E. Lynn, Jr., and Christopher Pollitt. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Prud’homme, Rémy. 1994. “On the Dangers of Decentralization.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 1252: 1–36.Google Scholar
  98. Prud’homme, Rémy. 1995. “The Dangers of Decentralization.” The World Bank Research Observer 10 (2): 201–220.Google Scholar
  99. Regmi, Krishna, ed. 2014. Decentralizing Health Services: A Global Perspective. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  100. Rico, Ana. 2009. “Regional Decentralization and Health Care Reform in Spain (1976–1996).” South European Society and Politics 1 (3): 115–134.Google Scholar
  101. Rico, Ana, and Sandra León. 2005. “Health Care Devolution in Europe: Trends and Prospects.” Health Organization Research Norway—HORN Working Paper No. 1: 1–25.Google Scholar
  102. Rodden, Jonathan. 2006. Hamilton’s Paradox: The Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 2006. “Why and How Ideas Matter.” In The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, edited by Robert E. Goodin and Charles Tilly. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment.” In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by Paul A. Sabatier. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  105. Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, eds. 1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  106. Saltman, Richard B., and Josep Figueras. 1997. European Health Care Reform: Analysis of Current Strategies. Copenhagen: Regional Office for Europe, World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  107. Saltman, Richard B., and Karsten Vrangbæk. 2007. “Drawing Lessons for Policy-Making.” In Decentralization in Health Care, edited by Richard B. Saltman, Vaida Bankauskaite, and Karsten Vrangbæk. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Saltman, Richard B., Karsten Vrangbæk, Juhani Lehto, and Urlika Winblad. 2012a. “Commentary: Denmark’s Health Reforms Are Part of a Wider Trend.” British Medical Journal 345: e4994.Google Scholar
  109. Saltman, Richard B., Karsten Vrangbæk, Juhani Lehto, and Urlika Winblad. 2012b. “Consolidating National Authority in Nordic Health Systems.” Eurohealth 18 (3): 21–24.Google Scholar
  110. Saltman, Richard B., Vaida Bankauskaite, and Karsten Vrangbæk, eds. 2007. Decentralization in Health Care. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2008a. “Bringing Ideas and Discourse Back into the Explanation of Change in Varieties of Capitalism and Welfare States.” Centre for Global Political Economy, Working Paper No. 2: 1–25.Google Scholar
  112. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2008b. “Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326.Google Scholar
  113. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2010. “Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change Through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth ‘New Institutionalism’.” European Political Science Review 2 (1): 1–25.Google Scholar
  114. Schmidt, Vivien A. 2011. “Reconciling Ideas and Institutions Through Discursive Institutionalism.” In Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research, edited by Daniel Béland and Robert Henry Cox. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Schmidt, Vivien A., and Claudio M. Radaelli. 2004. “Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” West European Politics 27 (2): 183–210.Google Scholar
  116. Sikkink, Kathryn. 1991. Ideas and Institutions: Developmentalism in Brazil and Argentina. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Steinmo, Sven, Kathleen Thelen, and Frank Longstreth, eds. 1992. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  118. Stone, Deborah A. 1989. “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas.” Political Science Quarterly 104 (2): 281–300.Google Scholar
  119. Swenden, Wilfried. 2006. Federalism and Regionalism in Western Europe: A Comparative and Thematic Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  120. Tanzi, Vito. 1996. “Fiscal Federalism and Decentralization: A Review of Some Efficiency and Macroeconomic Aspects.” In Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics 1995, edited by Michael Bruno and Boris Pleskovic. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  121. Thelen, Kathleen, and James Mahoney. 2015. “Comparative-Historical Analysis in Contemporary Political Science.” In Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, edited by James Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  122. Thelen, Kathleen, and Sven Steinmo. 1992. “Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, edited by Sven Steinmo, Katheleen Thelen, and Frank Longstreth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  123. Trampusch, Christine, and Bruno Palier. 2016. “Between X and Y: How Process Tracing Contributes to Opening the Black Box of Causality.” New Political Economy 21 (5): 437–454.Google Scholar
  124. Treisman, Daniel. 2007. The Architecture of Government: Rethinking Political Decentralization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  125. Vrangbæk, Karsten. 2007. “Key Factors in Assessing Decentralization and Recentralization in Health Systems.” In Decentralization in Health Care, edited by Richard B. Saltman, Vaida Bankauskaite, and Karsten Vrangbæk. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  126. Vrangbæk, Karsten, and Terkel Christiansen. 2005. “Health Policy in Denmark: Leaving the Decentralized Welfare Path?” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 30 (1–2): 29–52.Google Scholar
  127. Weingast, Barry R. 2009. “Second Generation Fiscal Federalism: The Implications of Fiscal Incentives.” Journal of Urban Economics 65: 279–293.Google Scholar
  128. Weingast, Barry R. 2014. “Second Generation Fiscal Federalism: Political Aspects of Decentralization and Economic Development.” World Development 53: 14–25.Google Scholar
  129. Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  130. WHO Regions for Health Network. 2008. Decentralized Health Systems in Transition. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  131. World Bank. 1993. World Development Report 1993: Investing in Health. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  132. World Bank. 1997. World Development Report 1997: The State in a Changing World. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  133. Yee, Albert S. 1996. “The Causal Effects of Ideas on Policies.” International Organization 50 (1): 69–108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations