Action on the social determinants of health (SDH) through intersectoral policymaking is often suggested to promote health and health equity. This paper argues that the process of intersectoral policymaking influences how the SDH are construed and acted upon in municipal policymaking. We discuss how the intersectoral policy process legitimates certain practices in the setting of Danish municipal health promotion and the potential impact this can have for long-term, sustainable healthy public policy. Based on ethnographic fieldwork, we show how the intention of intersectoriality produces a strong concern for integrating health into non-health sectors to ensure productive collaboration. To encourage this integration, health is often framed as a means to achieve the objectives of non-health sectors. In doing so, the intersectoral policy process tends to favor smaller-scale interventions that aim to introduce healthier practices into various settings, e.g. creating healthy school environments for increased physical activity and healthy eating. While other more overarching interventions on the health impacts of broader welfare policies (e.g. education policy) tend to be neglected. The interventions hereby neglect to address more fundamental SDH. Based on these findings, we argue that intersectoral policymaking to address the SDH may translate into a limited approach to action on so-called 'intermediary determinants' of health, and as such may end up corrupting the broader SDH. Further, we discuss how this corruption affects the intended role of non-health sectors in tackling the SDH, as it may impede the overall success and long-term sustainability of intersectoral efforts.

BackgroundFor more than 30 years policy action across sectors has been celebrated as a necessary and viable way to affect the social factors impacting on health. In particular intersectoral action on the social determinants of health is considered necessary to address social inequalities in health. However, despite growing support for intersectoral policymaking, implementation remains a challenge. Critics argue that public health has remained naïve about the policy process and a better understanding is needed. Based on ethnographic data, this paper conducts an in-depth analysis of a local process of intersectoral policymaking in order to gain a better understanding of the challenges posed by implementation. To help conceptualize the process, we apply the theoretical perspective of organizational neo-institutionalism, in particular the concepts of rationalized myth and decoupling.MethodsOn the basis of an explorative study among ten Danish municipalities, we conducted an ethnographic study of the development of a municipal-wide implementation strategy for the intersectoral health policy of a medium-sized municipality. The main data sources consist of ethnographic field notes from participant observation and interview transcripts.ResultsBy providing detailed contextual description, we show how an apparent failure to move from policy to action is played out by the ongoing production of abstract rhetoric and vague plans. We find that idealization of universal intersectoralism, inconsistent demands, and doubts about economic outcomes challenge the notion of implementation as moving from rhetoric to action.ConclusionWe argue that the ‘myth’ of intersectoralism may be instrumental in avoiding the specification of action to implement the policy, and that the policy instead serves as a way to display and support good intentions and hereby continue the process. On this basis we expand the discussion on implementation challenges regarding intersectoral policymaking for health.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2864-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

It is time to dismiss the idea that intersectoral action for health can be achieved by means of a structural fix. Rather than rearranging organizational boundaries it may be more useful to seek to manage the silos which exist in any organization, e.g. by promoting awareness of their implications for public health action and by enhancing the boundary spanning skills of public health officers.

Ideas about intersectoral action and policymaking for health (ISA) are prominent among public health professionals. They are often presented as effective ways to address root causes of poor health and health inequality, and as such the best way to promote population health. The implementation of such ideas has proven difficult though. In this paper we argue that neo-institutional theory can help us conceptualize implementation challenges by pointing to implicit expectations and contradictions associated with the ISA idea itself. With Denmark as empirical case, we conducted a document analysis of recommendations for municipal ISA. The analysis shows how the recommendations provide a very abstract conceptualization of ISA that does not give much practical guidance for action. We show how ISA is discursively constructed with buzzword qualities as the natural way to organize health promotion, by being presented as a means to produce better quality services, more cost-effective operations, and ensure the future of the welfare state, while at the same time hardly changing much at all. By applying the lens of institutional logics we show how ISA, although being vaguely defined, offer ambiguous normative and symbolic repertoires for action. We discuss the implementation challenges associated with this advocacy rhetoric and suggest that the domination of the corporation logic may appear to reduce the political character of ISA and potentially conflict with the ideals of health as a matter of social justice and human rights.

This commentary discusses the interesting and surprising findings by Hagen and colleagues, focusing on the role of the public health coordinator as a Health in All Policies (HiAP) tool. The original article finds a negative association between the employment of public health coordinators in Norwegian municipalities and consideration of a fair distribution of social and economic resources between social groups in local policymaking and planning. The commentary contemplates whether this surprising negative association should be interpreted as a failure of implementation, as suggested by the authors, or whether it might be the theory of change that has failed. On this basis, it is suggested that the very notion of HiAP could be flawed by the assumption that health should function as an overarching aim across government sectors. Potentially, the social determinants of health (SDH) might be more efficiently addressed by means of sectoral action by the corresponding sectors, emphasizing equity rather than health.