The Paradox of Health Policy: Revealing the True Colours of This ‘Chameleon Concept’; Comment on “The Politics and Analytics of Health Policy”

Document Type : Commentary


Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK


Health policy has been termed a ‘chameleon concept’, referring to its ability to take on different forms of disciplinarity as well as different roles and functions. This paper extends Paton’s analysis by exploring the paradox of health policy as a field of academic inquiry—sitting across many of the boundaries of social science but also marginalised by them. It situates contemporary approaches within disciplinary traditions, explaining its inter- and multi-disciplinary character. It also presents a ‘way of seeing’ health policy in terms of three axes: central/local, profession/management, and health/healthcare. The paper concludes with a call for a new research agenda which recognises health policy’s pedigree but also one which carves a distinctive future of relevance and rigour.


Main Subjects

  1. Klein R, Marmor T. Reflections on policy analysis: putting it together again. In: Moran M, Rein M, Goodin RE, editors. Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford; Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 892–912
  2. Paton C. Disciplining health policy? Explaining health policy by reference to…what? Health Econ Policy Law 2013; 8: 397–405. doi: 10.1017/s1744133113000200
  3. Paton CR. The politics and analytics of health policy. Int J Health Policy Manag 2014; 2: 105-107.  doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.26
  4. Hunter DJ. Public health policy. Cambridge: Polity; 2003.
  5. Exworthy M, Powell M. Case-studies in health policy: an introduction. In: Exworthy M, Peckham S, Powell P, Hann A, editors. Shaping health policy: case-study methods and analysis. Bristol: Policy Press; 2011. doi: 10.1017/s004727941200061x
  6. Heclo H. Social policy and policy imapcts. In Holden M, Dresang, DL, editors. What government does. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage; 1975. p.151–76.
  7. Walt G. Health policy: an introduction to process and power. London: Zed Books; 1994.
  8. Davies HTO, Nutley S, Smith PC. What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in the public services. Bristol: Policy Press; 2000. doi: 10.1332/policypress/9781861341914.003.0001
  9. Harrison S. The politics of evidence-based medicine in the UK. Policy Polit 1998; 6: 15–31. doi: 10.1332/030557398782018293
  10. Pressman J, Wildavsky I. Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1973.  doi: 10.2307/2129419
  11. Exworthy M, Freeman R. The United Kingdom: health policy learning in the NHS. In: Marmor T, Freeman R, Okma K, editors. Comparative studies and the politics of modern medical care. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 2009. p. 153–79.
  12. Exworthy M, Frosini F, Jones L. Are NHS foundation trusts able and willing to exercise autonomy? ‘You can take a horse to water…’. J Health Serv Res Policy 2011; 16: 232–7. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2011.010077
  13. Exworthy M,  Allen K. Two cents worth. HSMC Viewpoint blog [internet]. 2014. Available from: