Not Up for Discussion: Applying Lukes’ Power Model to the Study of Health System Corruption; Comment on “We Need to Talk About Corruption in Health Systems”

Document Type : Commentary


London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK


This companion paper suggests the potential benefits of applying Steven Lukes’ dimensions of power model to the study of corruption in health systems. Lukes’ model sets out three “faces of power” classified by their influence on political discourse, resulting in overt, covert and latent discussion of issues depending on the degree of their alignment with the agenda of dominant power interests.

His concept that differential access to public discourse varies according to this alignment implies the potential for identifying more serious forms of corruption by the mismatch between their practical importance and the amount of open debate addressing them. These two variables are in practice inversely related, and do not, as might be expected, correlate, with more important topics receiving more public attention. Lukes’ model would predict and can explain such inversion of public priorities, which tells us that observed suppression of public debate might efficiently direct the interest of researchers and the efforts of those seeking to further the public good on to the key issues needing discussion and resolution.

The commentary goes on to examine whether the most serious and dangerous forms of corruption might therefore also be the most invisible, and suggests that whistleblower reports should be considered a key data source for research into high-level corruption in health systems, including redirection of policy decisions away from those which are in the public interest.


Main Subjects

  1. Hutchinson E, Balabanova D, McKee M. We need to talk about corruption in health systems. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;8(4):191-194. doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2018.123
  2. Kingdon JW, Thurber JA. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown; 1984.
  3. Zyglidopoulos S, Hirsch P, Martin de Holan P, Phillips N. Expanding Research on Corporate Corruption, Management, and Organizations. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications; 2017.
  4. Lukes S. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan; 1974.
  5. Reynolds L. The inconveniently excellent Beveridge NHS model: Part 1. Cost of Living website.  Published Octtober 14, 2014.
  6. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. Nearly 500 Hospitals Pay United States More Than $250 Million to Resolve False Claims Act Allegations Related to Implantation of Cardiac Devices. United States Department of Justice; 2015.
  7. Green D. Silent Revolution. Latin America Bureau/Cassell 1995 pages 3, 51 & 75.
  8. Perkins J. Confessions of An Economic Hit Man. Ebury Press; 2005:ix-x.
  9. Palast G. Sell the Lexus, burn the olive tree. In: The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Robinson; 2003.
  10. Optum increases dominance of NHS thanks to former employee Simon Stevens – now NHS commissioning quango boss.  Published April 24, 2019.
  11. Hawkes N. Cochrane director’s expulsion results in four board members resigning. BMJ. 2018;362:k3945. doi:10.1136/bmj.k3945
  12. Holt K. Whistleblowing in the NHS. BMJ. 2015;350:h2300. doi:10.1136/bmj.h2300
  13. Alexander M, Drew D. Re: whistleblowing in the NHS. BMJ.  Published August 5, 2015.
  14. Cooper B. I was left to fight alone for NHS whistleblowing protection. The Guardian. October 2, 2018.  
  15. Lind S. Labour Party complains to Prime Minister about Matt Hancock’s Babylon links. Pulse. November 3, 2018.  
  16. Social Investigations. Compilation of Parliamentary Financial Links to Private Healthcare.  Published March 2, 2014.
Volume 8, Issue 12
December 2019
Pages 723-726
  • Receive Date: 01 May 2019
  • Revise Date: 07 September 2019
  • Accept Date: 07 September 2019
  • First Publish Date: 01 December 2019