Reconfiguring the Relation Between Primary and Secondary Healthcare Through Policy Instruments

  • Luis Araujo
  • Antonella La Rocca
  • Thomas Hoholm


In Chapter 7, Araujo, La Rocca and Hoholm examine the role of public policy interventions in reconfiguring the relationship between primary and secondary care sectors and the means through which these interventions take place. Drawing from the “governmentality” school of thought (e.g. Miller and Rose 1990) the focus of this chapter is on how these interventions mobilize different forms of expertise in an attempt to both reconfigure agencies as well as the relations these agencies enter into. The authors suggest that the ability of policy instruments to work depends on the ability of the subjects of government to use the spaces of discretion afforded by their incompleteness, to embed them in existing practices without creating much disruption.


  1. Barry, A. (2002). The anti-political economy. Economy and Society, 31(2), 268–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beckert, J., & Musselin, C. (Eds.) (2013). Constructing quality. The classification of goods in markets. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Broer, T., Nieboer, A. P., & Bal, R. (2012). Governing mental health care: How power is exerted in and through a quality improvement collaborative. Public Administration, 90(3), 800–815.Google Scholar
  5. Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dix, G. (2014a). Expressing concerns about the incentive as a public policy device. In Susi Geiger et al. (Eds.), Concerned markets: Economic ordering for multiple values (pp. 19–45). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  7. Dix, G. (2014b). Governing by carrot and stick. A genealogy of the incentive. PhD Dissertation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University.Google Scholar
  8. Dix, G. (2016). A genealogy of the incentive. Economic Sociology: The European Electronic Newsletter, 17(2), 24–31.Google Scholar
  9. Ferlie, E., & McGivern, G. (2013). Bringing Anglo-governmentality into Public Management Scholarship: The case of evidence-based Medicine in UK health care. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardner, K., Banfield, M., McRae, I., Gillespie, J, & Yen, L. (2014). Improving coordination through information continuity: A framework for translational research. BMC Health Service Research, 14, 590–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hacking, I. (1986). Making up people. In T. Heller, M. Sosna and D. Wellberry (Eds.) Reconstructing individualism (pp. 222–236). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hunter, D. J. (2009). The case against choice and competition. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 4(04), 489–501.Google Scholar
  14. Krafve, J. L. (2014). Marketization by the (rule) book: Concern for market and public values in primary care. In Geiger et al. (red) (Eds.), Concerned markets: Economic ordering for multiple values (pp. 46–71). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Kurunmaki, L., & Miller, P. (2008). Counting the costs: The risks of regulating and accounting for healthcare provision. Health, Risk & Society, 10(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laffont, J.-J., & Martimort, D. (2009). The theory of incentives: The principal-agent model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. La Rocca, A., & Hoholm, T. (2017). Coordination between primary and secondary care: The role of ICT based communication and incentive system. BMC Health Service Research, 17, 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. La Rocca, A., Hvidsten, A., & Hoholm, T. (2016). Making innovation work locally: The role of creativity. In M. Skerlavaj, A. Dysvik, A. Carlsen and M. Cerne (Eds.), Capitalizing on creativity at work: Fostering the implementation of creative ideas in organizations (pp. 258–269). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  19. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (Eds.) (2004). Gouverner par les Instruments. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  20. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galés, P. (2007). From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments, 20(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  21. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. McDonald, K. M., Sundaram, V., Bravata, D. M., Lewis, R., Lin, N., Kraft, S., McKinnon, M., Paguntalan, H., & Owens, D. K. (2007). Care coordination. In K. G. Shojania, K. M. McDonald, R. M. Wachter, D. K. Owens (Eds.), Closing the quality gap: A critical analysis of quality improvement strategies. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Technical Review 9). Retrieved from
  23. McKinlay, A., & Pezet, E. (2010). Accounting for Foucault. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(6), 486–495.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, P., & Power, M. (2013). Accounting, organizing, and economizing: Connecting accounting research and organization theory. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present: Administering economic, social and personal life. London: Polity.Google Scholar
  27. Ramsdal, H. (2012). From hierarchical steering to dialogic governance? An analysis of four welfare state reforms in Norway. In J. Barroso and L. M. Carvalho (Eds.), Knowledge and regulatory processes in health and education policies (pp. 89–131). Lisbon: EDUCA.Google Scholar
  28. Report no. 47. The Coordination Reform. Proper treatment – at the right place and right time, Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services; (2008–2009). Retrieved from
  29. Romøren, T. I., Torjesen, D. O., & Landmark, B. (2011). Promoting coordination in Norwegian Health Care. International Journal of Integrated Care, 11, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the State: Problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2),173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Samhandlingsstatistikk. 2013–2014. Helsedirektoratet. Retrived from Accessed March 2015.
  32. Sandel, M. J. (2012). What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Scott, A., & Le Galés, P. (2010). A British bureaucratic revolution? Autonomy without control, or “Freer Markets, More Rules”. Revue française de sociologie 2010/5, 51, 117–143.Google Scholar
  34. Vabø, M. (2012). Norwegian home care in transition – Heading for accountability, off-loading responsibilities. Health and Social Care, 20(3), 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Voß, J. P. (2016). Realizing instruments: Performativity in emissions trading and citizen panels, In J. P. Voß and R. Freeman (2016), Introduction: Knowing governance. In knowing governance (pp. 127–154). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Araujo
    • 1
  • Antonella La Rocca
    • 2
    • 3
  • Thomas Hoholm
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Marketing and StrategyManchester Business SchoolManchesterUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of StrategyBI Norwegian Business SchoolOsloNorway
  3. 3.Health Services Research CenterAkershus University HospitalLørenskogNorway

Personalised recommendations