 | The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA |
|
| The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA |
Bleddyn P. Davies Davies, MA DPhil, PSSRU, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, WC2 2AE, England, 44 1227 827634, B.P.Davies@ukc.ac.uk
Comparison with countries like the USA, Australia, and France illustrate how the influence of incentives in national policy (interpreted as in the psychologists’ theory of motivated action) reflects political cultures and institutions. In England, they can permit greater centralisation of power through super-ministries on whom political responsibility is concentrated.
Having defined key concepts (‘incentives’, ‘inclusion’, level of ‘integration’, ‘innovation’ and ‘managed change’), and outlined key features of political structures and values, the paper will [a] discuss their effects on incentives created by national policies during two periods of the reform and the role of incentivisation in the policy’s logic; [b] describe how the incentives affect patterns of innovation and change, integration and inclusion; and [c] discuss the degree to which the incentives have contributed to what policy-makers would judge to be a fairer distribution of outcomes using public subsidies more effectively and efficiently. For instance, it will ask whether the incentives were well chosen to achieve the forms of innovation, integration, or inclusion which would contribute most. Have the incentives encouraged appropriate imitation and diffusion of innovatory models, and what part has innovation played in managed change in authorities in different circumstances? Have incentives intended to promote one goal made other goals more difficult to achieve? The paper will end with suggested implications for other countries.
Learning Objectives:
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.