Advertisement

A Theoretical Framework for the Study

  • Alexander Haarmann
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter will outline the theoretical perspective of the book. Since it is politicians who will eventually decide about legislation and regulation on patient/user involvement, this is the field that needs to be focused on. Given structures, context variables, key actors, and their interplay need to be taken into account in order to arrive at the proper perspective. As any theoretical perspective, the approach pursued here needs to contribute to an explanation of the empirical observation in this exploratory study. Given the peculiarities and potential variances of the respective case studies, it also needs to be highly flexible and to cover a broad range of contexts and processes. In order to achieve that, the theoretical approach of this book rests on three pillars and combines historical institutionalism with actor-centred institutionalism and ideational approaches. Based on these theoretical approaches, it is possible to design an ideal-typical policy process and to theoretically follow the case of legislation of patient involvement from cradle to implementation.

References

  1. Béland, D. (2005). Ideas and social policy: An institutionalist perspective. Social Policy and Administration, 39(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, C. J. (1991). What is policy convergence and what causes it? British Journal of Political Science, 21, 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonoli, G., & Palier B. (2007, December). When past reforms open new opportunities: Comparing old-age insurance reforms in Bismarckian Welfare systems. Social Policy & Administration, 41(6), 555–573.Google Scholar
  4. Boudon, R. (1981). The logic of social action—an introduction to sociological analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  5. Busse, R., & Riesberg, A. (2005). Gesundheitssysteme im Wandel: Deutschland. Kopenhagen: WHO Regionalbüro im Auftrag des Europäischen Oberservatoriums für Gesundheitssysteme und Gesundheitspolitik.Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Checkel, J. T. (1997). Ideas and international political change Soviet/Russian behavior and the end of the cold war. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Clegg, D. (2007, December). Continental drift: On unemployment policy change in Bismarckian welfare states. Social Policy & Administration, 41(6), 597–617.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohn, D. (1992:2). Reforming health care in Canada and Sweden. Stockholm: University of Stockholm, International Graduate School of International Studies.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, J. S. (1974). Power and the structure of society. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  12. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cox, R. H. (2001, April). The social construction of an imperative: Why welfare reform happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but not in Germany. World Politics, 53(3), 436–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cox, R. H. (2004, April). The path dependence of an idea: Why Scandinavian welfare states remain distinct. Social Policy & Administration, 38(2), 204–219.Google Scholar
  15. Cox, R. H. (2009). Ideas and the politics of labour market reforms. In I. Dingeldey & H. Rothgang (Eds.), Governance of welfare state reform—a cross national and cross sectoral comparison of policy and politics (Chap. 9, pp. 200–218). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. Crouch, C., & Farrell, H. (2002, June). Breaking the path of institutional development? Alternatives to the new determinism. Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung—Discussion Paper 02/5. Köln.Google Scholar
  17. Dennet, D. C. (1981). International systems. In Brainstorms: Philosophical essays on mind and psychology (pp. 3–22). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. ([1983] 1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 63–82). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dowding, K. (1995). Interpreting formal theory. In K. Dowding & D. King (Eds.), Preferences, institutions, and rational choice (pp. 43–59). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ebbinghaus, B. (2006). From path dependence to path departure in welfare reform analysis. APSA—European Politics & Society Newsletter. 5(2), 1–4.Google Scholar
  21. Elster, J. (1998). A plea for mechanisms. In P. Hedström & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory (Chap. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fuchs-Heinritz, W., Lautmann, R., Rammstedt, O., & Wienold, H. (Eds.). (1995). Lexikon zur Soziologie (3. Auflage). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research—principles and practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Glenngård, A., Hjalte, F., Svensson, M., Anell, A., & Bankauskaite, V. (2005). Sweden: Health system review. In V. Bankauskaite (Ed.), Health systems in transition. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies.Google Scholar
  26. Groenewegen, P. P. (1994). The shadow of the future: Institutional change in health care. Health Affairs, 13(5), 137–148. Winter.Google Scholar
  27. Groenewegen, P. P. (1995, October 6). Het gedrag van hulpverleners en patiënten: Toepassingen van de methode van de sociologische modelbouw. Tijdschrift voor Sociale Gezondheidszorg, 4–9.Google Scholar
  28. Groenewegen, P. P. (1998). Besluitvorming in de gezondheidszorg op macroniveau. In C. W. Aakster & J. W. Groothoff (Eds.), Medische sociologie—Sociologische perpectieven op ziekte en zorg (5th ed., Chap. 2, pp. 295–302). Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  29. Guillén, A. M., & Palier, B. (2004). Introduction: Does Europe matter? Accession to EU and social policy developments in recent and new member states. Journal of European Social Policy, 14(3), 203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haarmann, A. (2012). Niederlande: Soziale Sicherung zwischen staatlicher Grundsicherung und For-Profit-Versicherern. In T. Klenk, P. Weyrauch, A. Haarmann, & F. Nullmeier (Eds.), Abkehr vom Korporatismus? (pp. 367–438). Frankfurt a.M.: Campus.Google Scholar
  31. Hacker, J. S. (2004). Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: The hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review, 98, 361–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hall, P. A. (1989). Conclusion: The politics of Keynesian ideas. In P. A. Hall (Ed.), The political power of economic ideas. Keynesianism across nations (pp. 361–391). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hall, P. A. (1993, April). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state—the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hansen, R., & King, D. (2001, January). Eugenic ideas, political interests, and policy variance: Immigration and sterilization policy in Britain and the US. World Politics, 53(2), 237–263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social mechanisms: An introductory essay. In P. Hedström & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory (Chap. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hemerijck, A., & Schludi, M. (2000). Sequences of policy failures and effective policy responses. In F. W. Scharpf & V. A. Schmidt (Eds.), Welfare and work in the open economy (Chap. 3, Vol. 1, pp. 125–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hemerijck, A., Unger, B., & Visser, J. (2001). How small countries negotiate change—twenty-five years of policy adjustment in Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium. In F. W. Scharpf & V. A. Schmidt (Eds.), Welfare and work in the open economy volume II: Diverse responses to common challenges in twelve countries (Chap. 5, Vol. 2, pp. 175–263). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hirschman, A. O. (1991). The rhetoric of reaction. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  40. Immergut, E. M. (1990). Institutions, veto points and policy results: A comparative analysis of health care. Journal of Public Policy, 10(4), 391–416. 10–12.Google Scholar
  41. Immergut, E. M. (1992). Health politics: Interests and institutions in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Immergut, E. M. (2006). From constraints to change. APSA—European Politics & Society Newsletter, 5(2), 4–6.Google Scholar
  43. Ismayr, W. (2009). Das politische System Deutschlands. In W. Ismayr, S. Richter, & M. Söldner (Eds.), Die politischen Systeme Westeuropas (4th ed., pp. 515–566). Wiesbaden: VS, Verlag für Sozialwiss.Google Scholar
  44. Jahn, D. (2009). Das politische System Schwedens. In W. Ismayr, S. Richter, & M. Söldner (Eds.), Die politischen Systeme Westeuropas (4th ed., pp. 107–150). Wiesbaden: VS, Verlag für Sozialwiss.Google Scholar
  45. Jary, D., & Jary, J. (Eds.). (2000). Collins dictionary sociology (3rd ed.). Glasgow: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  46. Kaiser, A. (1999). Die politische Theorie des Neo-Institutionalismus: James March und Johan Olsen. In A. Brodocz & G. S. Schaal (Eds.), Politische Theorien der Gegenwart (Chap. 8, pp. 190–211). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  47. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. (1955). Personal influence. Chicago: Free Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kingdon, J. W. (2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  49. Kuhn, T. S. (1976). Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen (2nd ed.). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  50. Kuhnle, S. (2000). The Scandinavian welfare state in the 1990s: Challenged but viable. In M. Ferrara & M. Rhodes (Eds.), Recasting European welfare states (pp. 209–228). London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  51. Lepszy N., & Wilp, M. (2009). Das politische System der Niederlande. In W. Ismayr, S. Richter, & M. öldner (Eds.), Die politischen Systeme Westeuropas (4th ed., pp. 405–450). Wiesbaden: VS, Verlag für Sozialwissenschaft.Google Scholar
  52. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2009). A theory of gradual institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power (Chap. 1, pp. 1–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Maier, M. L. (2003). Wissens- und ideenorientierte Anätze in der Politikwissenschaft: Versuch einer systematischen Übersicht. In M. L. Maier, F. Nullmeier, T. Pritzlaff, & A. Wiesner (Eds.), Politik als Lernprozess—Wissenszentrierte Ansätze der Politikanalyse (pp. 25–77). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78, 734–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mathisen, J. (1993). Sykepleiehistorie. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  57. Mayntz, R. (1990). Politische Steuerbarkeit und Reformblockaden: Überlegungen am Beispiel des Gesundheitswesens. Staatswissenschaften und Staatspraxis, 3(1), 283–307.Google Scholar
  58. Mayntz, R., & Scharpf, F. W. (1995). Der Ansatz des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus. In R. Mayntz & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung (Chap. 2, pp. 39–72). Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  59. McNamara, K. R. (1998). The currency of ideas. Monetary politics in the European Union. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Merton, R. K. (1967). On sociological theories of the middle range. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), On theoretical sociology: Five essays, old and new (pp. 39–72). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  61. Münnich, S. (2011). Wie weit reicht der Einfluß von Ideen?—Herausforderungen und Grenzen ideen- und diskursorientierter Wohlfahrtsforschung. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 57(4), 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Palier, B. (2001, June). Beyond retrenchment. Working Paper Series. Center for European Studies.Google Scholar
  63. Palier, B. (2006, June). Farewell to Bismarckianism? Welfare reforms in France. Prepared for the Conference ‘A Long Goodbye to Bismarck? The Politics of Welfare Reforms in Continental Europe’.Google Scholar
  64. Palier, B. (2010). Ordering change: Understanding the ‘Bismarckian’ welfare reform trajectory. In B. Palier (Ed.), A long goodbye to Bismarck? (Chap. 1, pp. 19–44). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Palier, B., & Martin, C. (2007, December). From “a frozen landscape” to structural reforms: The sequential transformation of Bismarckian welfare systems. Social Policy & Administration, 41(6), 535–554.Google Scholar
  66. Pierson, P. (2000, June). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Potvin, L. (2007). Managing uncertainty through participation. Health and Modernity, 10, 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Qvarsell, R. (1991). Vårdens idéhistoria. Stockholm: Carlsson bokförlag.Google Scholar
  69. Rhodes, M. (2000). Restructuring the British welfare state: Between domestic constraints and global imperatives. In F. W. Scharpf & V. A. Schmidt (Eds.), Welfare and work in the open economy volume II: Diverse responses to common challenges in twelve countries (Chap. 2, Vol. 2, pp. 19–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Ritter, G. A. (1983). Sozialversicherungen in Deutschland und England: Entstehung und Grundzüge im Vergleich. München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
  71. Ritter, G. A. (1998). Bismarck und die Grundlegung des deutschen Sozialstaates. In F. Ruland, B. B. Maydell, & H.-J. Papier (Eds.), Verfassung Theorie und Praxis des Sozialstaats (pp. 789–820). Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller Verlag.Google Scholar
  72. Rosenberg, A. (1988). Philosophy of social science. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  73. Rothgang, H., Schmid, A., & Schneider, S. (2011). Transformationen des Interventionsstaates und ihre Erklärung: Das Beispiel nationaler Gesundheitssysteme.Google Scholar
  74. Rothgang, H., Schmid, A., & Schneider, S. (2012). Transformationen des Interventionsstaates und ihre Erklärung: Das Beispiel nationaler Gesundheitssysteme. In M. Bach (Ed.), Der entmachtete Leviathan: Löst sich der souveräne Staat auf? (Vol. Sonderband 5, pp. 175–196). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  75. Rothstein, B. (1998). The political and moral logic of the universal welfare state. In Just institutions matter: The moral and political logic of the universal welfare state (Chap. 6, pp. 144–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Sabatier, P. A. (1993a). Advocacy-Koalitionen, Policy-Wandel und Policy-Lernen. Eine Alternative zur Phasenheuristik. In A. Héritier (Ed.), Policy-Analyse Kritik und Neuorientierung. Politische Vierteljahresschrift (Vols. Sonderheft 24, pp. 116–148). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  77. Sabatier, P. A. (1993b). Policy change over a decade or more. In P. A. Sabatier & H. C. Jenkins-Smith (Eds.), Policy change and learning an advocacy coalition approach (pp. 13–39). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  78. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play—actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  79. Scharpf, F. W. (2000). Interaktionsformen. Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus in der Politikforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  80. Schelling, T. C. (1998). Social mechanisms and social dynamics. In P. Hedström & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory (Chap. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Schmid, A., Cacace, M., Götze, R., & Rothgang, H. (2010, August). Explaining health care system change: Problem pressure and the emergence of “hybrid” health care systems. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 35(4), 455–486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  84. Sejersted, F. (2011). The age of social democracy—Norway and Sweden in the twentieth century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the experimental life—including a translation of Thomas Hobbes, Dialogus physic... Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Sikkink, K. (1993). The power of principled ideas: Human rights policies in the United States and Western Europe. In J. Goldstein & R. O. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and foreign policy beliefs, institutions, and political change (Chap. 6, pp. 139–172). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Skogstad, G. (1998). Ideas, paradigms and institutions. Agricultural exceptionalism in the European Union and the United States. Governance, 11(4), 463–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Steinmo, S. (2008). What is historical institutionalism? In D. Della Porta & M. Keating (Eds.), Approaches in the social sciences (Chap. 7, pp. 118–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Stinchcombe, A. L. (1968). Constructing social theories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  91. Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In W. Streek & K. Thelen (Eds.), Institutional change in advanced political economies (pp. 3–39). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Thelen, K. (2003). How institutions evolve. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences (Chap. 6, pp. 208–240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Touraine, A. (1977). The self-production of society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  94. Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. New York/Princeton: SAGE Foundation/Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. WHO. (1996). Health care systems in transition: Sweden: Preliminary version. Copenhagen: World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  97. Windhoff-Héritier A. (1988). Institutionelle Interessenvermittlung im Sozialsektor Strukturmuster verbandlicher Beteiligung und deren Folgen. In H.-H. Hartwich (Ed.), Macht und Ohnmacht politischer Institutionen (pp. 158–176). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Haarmann
    • 1
  1. 1.NIVELUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations