What is it about?
The article analyzes theoretically and empirically why similar polities respond differently to the same public health threats. It reviews several key theories that may explain such variations, and it then tests which among the theories best explains Dutch and Danish 2009 H1N1 "swine flu" pandemic vaccination policy-making.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
This article is one of the first to analyze comparatively why countries selected the 2009 H1N1 pandemic responses that they did. Much work on crisis management or pandemic preparedness and response is focused on "what works". But the important prior is "why is one policy selected over another". By analyzing the 'why' question, this paper casts light on the preconditions for good threat preparedness and response policy.
Perspectives
This is the first publication of direct results from my 2013-'15 research project funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research. The project involved field work in the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark during 2013-2014. To carry out the project, I was a visiting scholar at Utrecht University's School of Governance in the first half of 2014 and Uppsala University's Department of Government in the last half of 2014. During the project, I held positions at Roskilde University's Department of Society and Globalisation and at the University of Copenhagen's Department of Public Health.
Dr Erik Baekkeskov
University of Melbourne
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: SAME THREAT, DIFFERENT RESPONSES: EXPERTS STEERING POLITICIANS AND STAKEHOLDERS IN 2009 H1N1 VACCINATION POLICY-MAKING, Public Administration, February 2016, Wiley,
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12244.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
