No abstract

No abstract

Aims: To contribute to development of global frameworks for health promotion education, by means of constructive criticism of the Galway Consensus Conference Statement (GCCS), and, furthermore, to substantiate that such frameworks must transcend political trends if they are to contribute to the ongoing development of health promotion both as a discipline and as a professional practice. This article is based on a workshop on competence domains in health promotion, held at the Sixth Nordic Health Promotion Research Conference in Gothenburg, Sweden, 20-22 August 2009. Methods: The GCCS's delimitations of health, health promotion, and health promotion ethics is analysed and contrasted with the authors' ongoing experiences from a master's programme in health promotion. Results: Three important limitations in the GCCS are identified: the GCCS does not promote perspectives on health other than absence of disease, defines no role for health promotion other than disease prevention, and includes no perspectives on ethical challenges for practitioners. The examples from the master's programme illustrate how and why these delimitations are problematic. Conclusions: Despite its limitations the GCCS has the potential to set a global agenda for health promotion education because of its emphasis on domains of core competencies in health promotion practice. To further this potential the GCCS' context of use should be changed from mainstreaming health promotion into a technology for disease prevention, to enabling dialog between contributors to health promotion with differing political and scientific ideals. Such dialog must relate to tensions and ambiguities experienced by health promotion practitioners in real-life situations.

No abstract

Purpose This study aims to analyse how top-level policymakers across the political left-right spectrum in a social-democratic welfare state understand social enterprise (SE), its relation to existing welfare institutions and their intentions of policymaking towards SE. Design/methodology/approach This study conducted in-depth interviews explicitly focused on SE with policymakers at the national level in Norway. The informants collectively represented most political parties in Norway’s Parliament in 2017–2021. Data were analysed using a historical institutional perspective. Findings Centre-right wing policymakers predominantly consider SE as commercial enterprises not requiring specific policies. Left wing policymakers prefer that SEs operate like voluntary organizations and advocate policies preventing extraction of profit and competition with public service providers. Hence, policymakers positioned SE within an overarching political debate on the privatization of welfare services. They expressed little interest in developing policies aimed at strengthening SE opportunity structures. Research limitations/implications Policy inaction impedes recognition of SEs as different from commercial and voluntary organizations, as well as their ability to compete for tenders. Thus, SE will likely remain a rather marginal phenomenon in Norway. Further research is needed to establish whether and how Norway’s universal welfare state inhibits social entrepreneurship on the society-wide level. Originality/value This article details how SE is understood within a social democratic welfare regime and the likely consequences thereof for SEs. It contributes with new knowledge of why policymakers may be reluctant to develop policy dedicated to further SE, across different political party affiliations. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study in Norway to analyse how existing institutions and political controversies influence how policymakers at the national level approach SE.