A new wave of support for populist parties and movements represents a serious threat to universal healthcare coverage in traditional liberal democracies and beyond. This article aims to contribute empirical material on the relationships between healthcare governance, professions and populism. It applies an explanatory cross-country comparative approach and uses mixed methods, including micro-level data garnered from international comparative databases and documents. Denmark, England, Germany, Italy and Turkey have been selected for comparison, reflecting different types of healthcare systems and populist movements. The results reveal variety in the ways populist discourses impact in healthcare. Abundant economic resources, network-based governance, high levels of trust in healthcare providers and doctors participating as insiders in the policy process seem to work as a bulwark against populist attacks on healthcare and professional expertise. On the other hand, poorly resourced NHS systems with doctors as outsiders in the policy process and major NPM reforms together with low to medium levels of trust in healthcare providers may be fertile ground for populist discourse to flourish. Our explanatory data provide hints of correlations, which may inform further studies to investigate causality. Yet the research highlights that healthcare governance and professions matter, and brings into view capacity for counteracting populist attacks on universal healthcare and professional knowledge.

Explaining policy change has been one of the major concerns of the health care politics and policy development literature. This article aims to explain the specific dynamics of large-scale reforms introduced within the framework of the Health Transformation Program in Turkey. It argues that confluence of the three streams - problem, policy, and politics - with the exceptional political will of the Justice and Development Party's (JDP) leaders opened up a window of opportunity for a large-scale policy change. The article also underscores the contribution of recent ideational perspectives that help explain "why" political actors in Turkey would focus on health care reform, given that there are a number of issues waiting to be addressed in the policy agenda. Examining how political actors framed problems and policies deepens our understanding of the content of the reform initiatives as well as the construction of the need to reform. The article builds on the insights of both the ideational and institutionalist perspectives when it argues that the interests, aspirations, and fears of the JDP, alongside the peculiar characteristics of the institutional context, have shaped its priorities and determination to carry out this reform initiative.

Turkey is undertaking comprehensive reforms in its healthcare sector which bring about a major transformation in the boundaries between the public and private sectors. As in many transition and late-developing countries reforms seek to universalize coverage, increase efficiency and improve quality of healthcare services. The Turkish case is interesting as it draws attention to the balance that is being struck between two major components of the reforms, namely marketization and universalism. Expansion of coverage and improvements in equity are taking place alongside state-induced market and managerial reforms. This article assesses the extent of marketization and argues that while market elements have been limited to the provision dimension, in the long run they may lead to some erosion in universalism. The Turkish case serves as an example of transformations in developing countries where market reforms have to be accompanied by a strong and active state for universalism to be achieved.

No abstract

No abstract