Taking the relationship between populism and healthcare seriously

In this commentary, we reflect on Rinaldi and Bekker’s scoping review of the literature on populist radical right (PRR) parties and welfare policies. We argue that their review provides political scientists and healthcare scholars with a firm basis to further explore the relationships between populism and welfare policies in different political systems. In line with the authors, we furthermore (re)emphasize the need for additional empirical inquiries into the relationship between populism and healthcare. But instead of expanding the research agenda suggested – for instance by adding categories or niches in which this relationship can be observed – we would like to challenge some of the premises of the studies conducted and reviewed thus far. We do so by identifying two concerns and by illustrating these concerns with two examples from the Netherlands

Mapmaking and the (re)organization of professional practice

Combining insights from sociology and geography, we examine how professionals organize professional relations, beyond the boundaries of their profes

Together alone: organizing integrated, patient-centered primary care in the layered institutional context of Dutch healthcare governance

We aim to better understand the dynamic between professionals and institutions by scrutinizing how professionals conduct institutional work in a layered institutional context. To date, institutional scholars have either studied professionals or institutions as objects of maintenance or change. Here, we suggest an alternative ‘relational’ and ‘evolutionary’ interpretation of the relation between institutions and professionals. We do so by introducing a two-dimensional analytical framework. We illustrate the relevance of this framework by analyzing a policy implementation program called ‘Primary Focus’. This program sought to improve the provision of integrated and patient-centered primary care by organizing multidisciplinary collaboration. Progres

Who contextualises clinical epidemiological evidence?

We critically examine the discussion on the role of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in healthcare governance. We take the institutionally layered Dutch healthcare system as our case study. Here, different actors are involved in the regulation, provision and financing of healthcare services. Over the last decades, these actors have related to EBM to inform their actor specific roles. At the same time, EBM has increasingly been problematised. To better understand this problematisation, we organised focus groups and interviews. We noticed that particularly EBM’s reductionist epistemology and its uncritical use by ‘professional others’ are considered problematic. However, our analysis also reveals that something else seems to be at stake. In fact, all the actors involved underwrite EBM’s reductionist epistemology and emphasise that evidence should be contextualised. They however do so in different ways and with different contexts in mind. Moreover, the ways in which some actors contextualise evidence has consequences for the ways in which others can do the same. We therefore emphasise that behind EBM’s scientific problematisation lurks a political issue. A dispute over who should contextualise evidence how, in a layered healthcare system with interdependent actors that cater to both individual patients and the public. We urge public administration scholars and policymakers to open-up the political confrontation between healthcare actors and their sometimes irreconcilable, yet evidence-informed perspectives

Together Alone: An analysis of policy experimentation in Dutch healthcare governance

In this book, Martijn Felder critically examines whether and how policy experimentation contributes to overcoming tensions amongst actors involved in Dutch healthcare governance. He does so by analyzing different policy experiments aimed at moving beyond vested interests and improving collaboration between healthcare pr

Absence/presence and the ontological politics of heritage: the case of Barrack 57

19 July 2009. A barn burns down in a small Dutch town. Afterwards, this invisible and insignificant ‘barn’ became widely known as ‘Barrack 57’. The destruction triggered attention and led to the barn’s association with a Nazi Second World War transit camp and with Anne Frank. Its material destruction made this barn/barrack both present and absent in various networks. We use the case of Barrack 57 to study the interplay between presence/absence and non-existence of objects in these networks, an exercise which connects to and contributes to the development of constructivist perspectives on object formation in heritage studies. Our analysis of presence/absence and non-existence therefore is based on different concepts developed in actor network theory and Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems. Of particular importance is Luhmann’s distinction between first- and second-order observation. We argue that heritage objects themselves are the result of different enactments of (non) human properties in various relational configurations. With this view, a new task for critical heritage scholars emerges. Understanding the dynamics of presence/absence and non-existence of heritage objects in different networks deepens insight into the broader issues of the formation of heritage objects and their delineating technologies and the policies of normalisation and naturalisation

Absence/presence and the ontological politics of heritage: the case of Barrack 57

19 July 2009. A barn burns down in a small Dutch town. Afterwards, this invisible and insignificant ‘barn’ became widely known as ‘Barrack 57’. The destruction triggered attention and led to the barn’s association with a Nazi Second World War transit camp and with Anne Frank. Its material destruction made this barn/barrack both present and absent in various networks. We use the case of Barrack 57 to study the interplay between presence/absence and non-existence of objects in these networks, an exercise which connects to and contributes to the development of constructivist perspectives on object formation in heritage studies. Our analysis of presence/absence and non-existence therefore is based on different concepts developed in actor network theory and Niklas Luhmann’s theory of social systems. Of particular importance is Luhmann’s distinction between first- and second-order observation. We argue that heritage objects themselves are the result of different enactments of (non) human properties in various relational configurations. With this view, a new task for critical heritage scholars emerges. Understanding the dynamics of presence/absence and non-existence of heritage objects in different networks deepens insight into the broader issues of the formation of heritage objects and their delineating technologies and the policies of normalisation and naturalisation