IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v277y2021ics0277953621002483.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Politicisation, depoliticisation, and repoliticisation of health care controversies: Vaccination and mental health care reform in the Czech Republic

Author

Listed:
  • Numerato, Dino
  • Honová, Petra A.
  • Sedláčková, Tereza

Abstract

This article analyses the politicisation of public health debates by focusing on vaccination and mental health care in the Czech Republic. The mainstream understanding of politicisation commonly refers to politics-as-sphere, linked with the political instrumentalisation of health care controversies as part of electoral campaigning and power struggles. In our analysis, we conceive politicisation more broadly, as politics-as-activity, which encompasses the role of civic engagement and the involvement of patients in these processes. We thus view politicisation as a process which encompasses a plurality of political actors and, in addition to politicians, includes patients, users, carers, citizens, and experts. Our analysis draws on extensive empirical evidence, consisting of observations, semi-structured interviews, and a review of available documents. The study took place in the Czech Republic from 2017 to 2019. We conclude that politicisation takes place alongside four dimensions: (1) contingency, (2) agency, (3) a plurality of opinions and approaches, and (4) visibility. We further argue that the contingent nature of biomedical controversies is articulated in three different, possibly interconnected layers. Thus, the politicisation of the two Czech analysed cases refers to (a) uncertainties and problematic aspects of biomedical objects of controversy; to (b) social rights, economic needs, and legal aspects as well as social representations of illness and vaccinations in the public debate; and to (c) the political processes which determine the previous two layers of politicisation, labelled as meta-politicisation. Last but not least, we stress the dynamic and non-linear nature of politicisation processes, the varieties of connections between the third sector and expertise, and the necessity to analyse the politicisation of public health controversies hand in hand with its connection to depoliticisation and repoliticisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Numerato, Dino & Honová, Petra A. & Sedláčková, Tereza, 2021. "Politicisation, depoliticisation, and repoliticisation of health care controversies: Vaccination and mental health care reform in the Czech Republic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:277:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621002483
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113916
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621002483
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113916?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ward, Jeremy K. & Cafiero, Florian & Fretigny, Raphael & Colgrove, James & Seror, Valérie, 2019. "France's citizen consultation on vaccination and the challenges of participatory democracy in health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 73-80.
    2. Laura Jenkins, 2011. "The Difference Genealogy Makes: Strategies for Politicisation or How to Extend Capacities for Autonomy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 59(1), pages 156-174, March.
    3. Epstein, Steven, 2016. "The politics of health mobilization in the United States: The promise and pitfalls of “disease constituencies”," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 246-254.
    4. Peter Weingart, 1999. "Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(3), pages 151-161, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kovanic, Martin & Steuer, Max, 2023. "Fighting against COVID-19: With or without politics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 337(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kate Dooley & Aarti Gupta, 2017. "Governing by expertise: the contested politics of (accounting for) land-based mitigation in a new climate agreement," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 483-500, August.
    2. Philipp Wassler & Giacomo Del Chiappa & Thi Hong Hai Nguyen & Giancarlo Fedeli & Nigel L. Williams, 2022. "Increasing vaccination intention in pandemic times: a social marketing perspective," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2022(1), pages 37-58, March.
    3. Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
    4. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    5. Aurélien Goutsmedt & Francesco Sergi & François Claveau & Clément Fontan, 2023. "The Different Paths of Central Bank Scientization: The Case of the Bank of England," Working Papers hal-04267004, HAL.
    6. Thomas V Maher & Charles Seguin & Yongjun Zhang & Andrew P Davis, 2020. "Social scientists’ testimony before Congress in the United States between 1946-2016, trends from a new dataset," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-13, March.
    7. Jingjing Zeng & Guihua Huang, 2024. "Bureaucratic biases in trust of expert policy advice: a randomized controlled experiment based on Chinese think tank reports," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 305-351, June.
    8. Peter D. Gluckman & Anne Bardsley & Matthias Kaiser, 2021. "Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Johan Christensen, 2018. "Economic knowledge and the scientization of policy advice," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 291-311, September.
    10. Ekayani, Meti & Nurrochmat, Dodik Ridho & Darusman, Dudung, 2016. "The role of scientists in forest fire media discourse and its potential influence for policy-agenda setting in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 22-29.
    11. Jaspers, Patricia & Houtepen, Rob & Horstman, Klasien, 2013. "Ethical review: Standardizing procedures and local shaping of ethical review practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 311-318.
    12. Yulia A. Krasheninnikova, 2019. "The Problems of Ensuring the Quality of Experts’ Work: the Case of Media Content Evaluation in the Russian Federation," Administrative Consulting, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. North-West Institute of Management., issue 3.
    13. Bes, Bart Joachim & Schoonvelde, Martijn & Rauh, Christian, 2020. "Undermining, defusing or defending European integration? Assessing public communication of European executives in times of EU politicisation," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(2), pages 397-423.
    14. Thomas Koetz & Katharine Farrell & Peter Bridgewater, 2012. "Building better science-policy interfaces for international environmental governance: assessing potential within the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, March.
    15. Sokolovska, Nataliia & Fecher, Benedikt & Wagner, Gert G., 2019. "Communication on the Science-Policy Interface: An Overview of Conceptual Models," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(4).
    16. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    17. Peter Tangney & Michael Howes, 2016. "The politics of evidence-based policy: A comparative analysis of climate adaptation in Australia and the UK," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(6), pages 1115-1134, September.
    18. Coburn, Josie & Yaqub, Ohid & Ràfols, Ismael & Chataway, Joanna, 2024. "Cross-disease spillover from research funding: Evidence from four diseases," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 349(C).
    19. Goutsmedt, Aurélien & Sergi, Francesco, 2024. "Redefining Scientisation: Central Banks between Science and Politics," SocArXiv dxvfp, Center for Open Science.
    20. Friedrichs, Gordon & Stasiak, Dorota & Thunert, Martin & Rauscher, Natalie & Thiele, Hanna, 2019. "Muster der Politikberatung: Wirtschaftspolitische Beratung in Deutschland und den USA im Vergleich," Study / edition der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Düsseldorf, volume 127, number 423, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:277:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621002483. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.