This study examines healthy public policy development in three European countries representing different welfare regimes: England representing the liberal model; Norway, the social democratic model; and the Netherlands, the corporatist model. National policy documents were used for the analysis. In England and Norway, health promotion has a prominent place and there is a political focus on the broader determinants of health. However, while the Norwegian policies have an explicit focus on the social gradient, the English policies have a much clearer focus on disadvantaged groups and geographic areas. In the Netherlands, the main focus is on disease prevention and risk behaviors. In the Netherlands and England there is a strong focus on the free will of the population in changing unhealthy lifestyles. By analyzing the different policies in the light of Esping-Andersen's typology of welfare state regimes, it is possible to better understand the differences among the countries. While all types of regimes seem willing to develop targeted measures, the social democratic regime seems the most willing to also develop structural measures addressing the wider social determinants of health.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
World Health Organization. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion. Ottawa, 1986.
2.
O'NeillM., and PedersonA.Building a methods bridge between policy analysis and healthy public policy. Can. J. Public Health83(Suppl. 1): 25–30, 1992.
3.
De LeeuwE., and PolmanL.Health policy making: The Dutch experience. Soc. Sci. Med.40(3): 331–338, 1993.
4.
MarmotM.Achieving health equity: From root causes to fair outcomes. Lancet370: 1153–1163, 2007, doi: 10.1016/SO140-6736(07)61385-3.
5.
WhiteheadM., and DahlgrenG.Levelling Up (Part 1): A Discussion Paper on Concepts and Principles for Tackling Social Inequities in Health. Studies on Economic Determinants of Population Health No. 3. WHO Collaborating Centre for Policy Research on Social Determinants of Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, 2006.
6.
World Health Organization Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report. Geneva, 2008.
7.
BambraC.FoxD., and Scott-SamuelA.Towards a politics of health. Health Promot. Int.20(2): 187–193, 2005.
8.
NavarroV., and ShiL.The political context of social inequalities and health. Soc. Sci. Med.52: 481–491, 2001.
9.
MansyurC. L.Culture and the social context of health inequalities. Int. J. Health Serv. 39(1): 85–106, 2009, doi: 10.2190/HS39.1.d.
10.
GrahamH.Social determinants and their unequal distribution: Clarifying policy understandings. Milbank Q.82: 101–124, 2004.
11.
GrahamH.Tackling inequalities in health in England: Remedying health disadvantages, narrowing health gaps or reducing health gradients?J. Soc. Policy.33(1): 115–131, 2004, doi: 10.1017/S0047279403007220.
12.
DahlgrenG., and WhiteheadM.Levelling Up (Part 2): A Discussion Paper on European Strategies for Tackling Social Inequities in Health. Studies on Economic Determinants of Population Health No. 3. WHO Collaborative Centre for Policy Research on Social Determinants of Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, 2006.
13.
Esping-AndersenG.The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990.
14.
FerreraM.The “Southern model” of welfare state in social Europe. J. Eur. Soc. Policy.6(17): 17–37, 1996, doi: 10.1177/095892879600600102.
15.
BambraC.Going beyond the three worlds of welfare capitalism: Regime theory and public health research. J. Epidemiol. Community Health61: 1098–1102, 2007, doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.064295.
16.
BambraC.Gender, health inequalities and welfare state regimes: A cross-national study of 13 European countries. J. Epidemiol. Community Health63: 38–44, 2008, doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.070292.
17.
LeitnerS.Varieties of familialism: The caring function of the family in comparative perspective. Eur. Soc.5(4): 353–375, 2003, doi: 10.1080/1461669032000127642.
18.
Esping-AndersenG.Social Foundations of Post Industrial Economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999.
19.
Esping-AndersenG.The sustainability of welfare states into the twenty-first century. Int. J. Health Serv. 30(1): 1–12, 2000.
20.
BambraC., and EikemoT. A.Welfare state regimes, unemployment and health: A comparative study of the relationship between unemployment and self-reported health in 23 European countries. J. Epidemiol. Community Health63: 92–98, 2009, doi: 10/1136/jech.2008.077354.
21.
LundbergO., for NEWS Nordic Expert Group. The role of welfare state principles and generosity in social policy programmes for public health: An international comparative study. Lancet372: 1633–1640, 2008.
22.
LundbergO.The Nordic Experience: Welfare States and Public Health (NEWS). Health Equity Studies No. 12. Centre for Health Equity Studies, Stockholm University/Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, 2008.
23.
MacKenbachJ. P.Socioeconomic inequalities in morbidity and mortality in Western Europe. Lancet349: 1955–1959, 1997.
24.
DahlE.Welfare state regimes and health inequalities. In Social Inequalities in Health, ed. SiegristJ.MarmotM., and MacKenbachJ.. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.
25.
LundbergO.How do welfare policies contribute to the reduction of health inequalities?Eurohealth15(3): 24–27, 2009.
26.
WhiteheadM.Diffusion of ideas on social inequalities in health: A European perspective. Milbank Q.76(3): 469–492, 1998.
27.
DahlE.Health inequalities and health policy: The Norwegian case. Norsk Epidemiol. 12(1): 69–75, 2002.
28.
Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, Norway. Challenges in Health Promotion and Disease Prevention: Report to the Storting No. 37 (1992–93). St. meld. 37 (1992–93) Utfordringer i helsefremmende og forebyggende arbeid. Sosial- og helsedepartementet, Oslo, 1993.
29.
ViningR. A., and WeimerD. L.Informing institutional design: Strategies for comparative cumulation. J. Comp. Policy Anal. Res. Pract.9: 39–60, 1999.
30.
YinR. K.Case Study Research, Design, and Methods. Sage, Newbury Park, UK, 1989.
31.
DenscombeM.The Good Research Guide. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK, 1998.
32.
FlickU.An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Ed. 4. Sage, London, 2009.
33.
MacKenbachJ.Strategies to Reduce Socio-economic Inequalities in Health in Europe: Lessons from the Eurothine Project—Tackling Health Inequalities in Europe: An Integrated Approach. Final Report from the Eurothine Project. Department of Public Health, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, 2007.
34.
Comprehensive Database of Health Promotion Policies, Infrastructures, and Practices. www.hp-source.net (accessed April 13, 2010).
35.
Department of Health, England. Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation. Government White Paper. London, 1999. www.hp-source.net (accessed April 13, 2010).
36.
Department of Health, England. Choosing Health: Making Healthy Choices Easier. Government White Paper, Executive Summary. London, 2004. www.hp-source.net (accessed April 13, 2010).
37.
Department of Health, England. Delivering Choosing Health: Making Healthy Choices Easier. London, 2005. www.hp-source.net (accessed April 13, 2010).
38.
Department of Health, England. Choosing a Better Diet: A Food and Health Action Plan. London, 2005. www.hp-source.net (accessed April 13, 2010).
39.
Department of Health, England. Choosing Activity: A Physical Activity Action Plan. London, 2005. www.hp-source.net (accessed April 13, 2010).
40.
Department of Health, The Netherlands. Tackling Health Inequalities: 2007 Status Report on the Programme for Action. The Hague, 2008. www.hp-source.net (accessed April 13, 2010).
41.
Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, The Netherlands. Opting for a Healthy Life: Public Health Policy in The Netherlands 2007–2010. The Hague, 2006. www.hp-source.net (accessed April 13, 2010).
42.
Ministry of Health and Care Services, Norway. Prescription for a Healthier Norway. Report No. 16 (2002–2003) to the Storting. Oslo, 2003. www.hp-source.net (accessed April 13, 2010).
43.
Directorate of Health and Social Affairs, Norway. The Challenge of the Gradient: Action Plan against Social Inequalities in Health. Oslo, 2005. www.hp-source.net (accessed April 13, 2010).
44.
Ministry of Health and Care Services, Norway. National Strategy to Reduce Social Inequalities in Health. Report No. 20 (2006–2007) to the Storting. Oslo, 2007. www.hp-source.net (accessed April 13, 2010).
45.
BenzevalM.National experiences, England. In Reducing Inequalities in Health: A European Perspective, ed. MacKenbachJ. and BakkerM.. Routledge, London, 2002.
46.
WhiteheadM.BurströmB., and DiderichsenF.Social policy and the pathways to inequalities in health: A comparative analysis of lone mothers in Britain and Sweden. Soc. Sci. Med.50: 255–270, 2000.
