Inequities in the Freedom to Lead a Flourishing and Healthy Life: Time for a Progressive Social Protections Framework; Comment on “Inequities in the Freedom to Lead a Flourishing and Healthy Life: Issues for Healthy Public Policy”

Document Type: Commentary

Author

National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, School of Population Health, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

Abstract

Evidence now shows that the key drivers of poor health are social factors, such as education, employment,
housing and urban environments. Variations in these social factors—or the conditions in which we live our
lives—have lead to a growth in health inequalities within and between countries. One of the key challenges
facing those concerned with health equity is how to effect change across the broad policy areas that impact
these social conditions, and create a robust ‘social protections framework’ to address and prevent health
inequalities.

Keywords

Main Subjects


 

  1. Marmort M. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: The Marmot Review. Strategic Review of Health Inequalitites in England post-2010. London; 2010.
  2. Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH). Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: WHO; 2008.
  3. Friel S. Inequities in the freedom to lead a flourishing and healthy life: issues for healthy public policy. Int J Health Policy Manag 2014; 3: 1–3.  doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.82
  4. Coburn D. Beyond the income inequality hypothesis: class, neo-liberalism, and health inequalities. Soc Sci Med 2004; 58: 41–56. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00159-x
  5. Brennenstuhl S, Quesnel-Vallee A, McDonough P. Welfare regimes, population health and health inequalities: a research synthesis. J Epidemiol Community Health 2012; 66: 397–409. doi: 10.1136/jech-2011-200277
  6. Stark P. The politics of welfare state retrenchment: A literature review. Soc Policy Adm 2006; 40: 104–20.  doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9515.2006.00479.x
  7. Thompson S, Hoggett P. Universalism, selectivism and particularism: Towards a postmodern social policy. Crit Soc Policy 1996; 16: 21–42. doi: 10.1177/026101839601604602
  8. Hurley J, Vaithianathan R, Crossley TF, Cobb-Clark DA. Parallel private health insurance in Australia: A cautionary tale and lessons for Canada. IZA Discussion Paper; 2002. Report No.515.
  9. Taylor-Gooby P. Postmodernism and Social Policy: A Great Leap Backwards? J Soc Policy 1994; 23: 385. doi: 10.1017/s0047279400021917
  10. Stiglitz J. The demand for education in public and private school systems. J Econ 1974; 3: 349–85. doi: 10.1016/0047-2727(74)90005-x
  11. Campbell I, Brosnan P. Labour Market Deregulation in Australia: the slow combustion approach to workplace change. International Review of Applied Economics  1999; 13: 353–94.  doi: 10.1080/026921799101599
  12. Briggs C, Buchanan J. Australian Labour Market Deregulation: A Critical Assessment. Parliament of Australia; 2000.
  13. Watson I, Buchanan J, Campbell I, Briggs C. Fragmented Futures: New Challenges in Working Life. Sydney: Federation Press; 2003.
  14. Sala H, Silva JI, Toledo M. Flexibility at the Margin and Labor Market Volatility in OECD Countries. Scand J Econ 2012; 114: 991–1017.
  15. Pocock B. Rethinking unionism in a changing world of work, family and community life. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations 2011; 66: 562–84. doi: 10.7202/1007633ar
  16. Chung H, Muntaner C, Benach J, the EMCONET Network. Employment Relations and Global Health: A Typological Study of World Labor Markets. Int J Health Serv 2010; 40: 229–53. doi: 10.2190/hs.40.2.e
  17. Benach J, Muntaner C, Santana V, Chairs F. Employment conditions and health inequalities. Final report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) Employment Conditions Knowledge Network (EMCONET) [Internet]. Geneva: WHO. 2007 [cited 2014 May 8]. Available from: http://cdrwww.who.int/entity/social_determinants/resources/articles/emconet_who_report.pdf
  18. Hart JT. The inverse care law. Lancet 1971; 297: 405-12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(71)92410-X
  19. Victora CG, Vaughan JP, Barros FC, Silva AC, Tomasi E. Explaining trends in inequities: evidence from Brazilian child health studies. Lancet 2000; 356: 1093–8. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02741-0
  20. Anttonen A. Universalism and the challenge of diversity. In: Anttonen A, Haikio L, Stefansson K, editors. Welfare State, Universalism and Diversity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2012. p. 1–15.
  21. Henderson G, Karn V. Race, Class and State Housing: Inequality and the Allocation of Public Housing in Britain. Aldershot: Gower; 1987.
  22. Spicker P. Understanding particularism. Crit Soc Policy 1994; 13: 5–20. doi: 10.1177/026101839401303901
  23. Carey G, Crammond B. A glossary of policy frameworks: the many forms of “universalism” and policy “targeting”. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health; forthcoming.
  24. Neal R, Parker R, Brown K. Purchaser-Provider Split in a Traditional Public Service Environment: Three Case Studies of Managing Change. Public Policy Administration Journal 2000; 9: 206–21.
  25. Dworkin R. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1978.
  26. Morenoff J, Lynch J. What makes a place healthy? Neighborhood influences on racial/ethnic disparities in health over the life course. In: Anderson NB, Bulatao RA, Cohen B, editors. Critical perspectives on racial and ethnic differences in health in late life. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2004.p. 406–49.
  27. Mitchell R, Dorling D, Shaw M, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Inequalities in life and death: what if Britain were more equal? Bristol: Policy Press; 2000.
  28. Blacksher E, Lovasi GS. Place-focused physical activity research, human agency, and social justice in public health: Taking agency seriously in studies of the built environment. Health Place 2012; 18: 172–9. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.08.019
  29. Bradwell P, Marr S, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Making the most of collaboration: An international survey of public service co-design [Internet]. Demos London; 2008 [cited 2014 Sep 8]. Available from: http://www.mbsportal.bl.uk/secure/subjareas/mgmt/demos/111678making08.pdf
  30. van Kersbergen K, Verbeek B. Subsidiarity as a Principle of Governance in the European Union. Comparative European Politics 2004; 2: 142–62. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110033
  31. Syrpis P. In defence of subsidiarity. Oxf J Leg Stud 2004; 24: 323–34 doi: 10.1093/ojls/24.2.323.
  32. Cole I, Etherington D. Neighbourhood Renewal Policy and Spatial Differentiation in Housing Markets: Recent Trends in England and Denmark. European Journal of Housing Policy 2005; 5: 75–77. doi: 10.1080/14616710500055703
  33. Keast RL, Mandell M. The collaborative push: pushing beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence [internet]. 2011 [cited 2014 Jul 24]. Available from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/47352/
  34. O’Flynn J. Crossing boundaries: The fundamental questions in public. In: O’Flynn J, Wanna J, editors. Crossing Boundaries in Public Management and Policy: The International Experience. London: Routledge; 2013. p. 11–44.
  35. Bills D. Tackling social exclusion: The contribution of voluntary organisations. In: Harris M, Rochester C, editors. Voluntary Organisations and social policy in Britain. London: Palgrave; 2001. p. 37–48.
  36. Hacker J. The institutional foundations of middle-class democracy [Internet]. Policy Network; 2011. Available from: http://www.policy-network.net/articles/3998/The-institutional-foundations-of-middle-class-democracy
  1. Hacker J. Making Progressive Politics Work. London: Policy Network; 2014. p. 34–7.