We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter looks empirically at the field of health technology assessment (HTA) and argues that it is possible to identify the ‘defence’ style of hyper-active governance posited in the previous chapter. HTA is the crucial expert policy area, involving deciding which drugs and other medical treatments are safe and cost-effective to be prescribed by a local doctor or hospital. HTA has been described by international organisations promoting its use as ‘the systematic evaluation of the properties and effects of a health technology, addressing the direct and intended effects of this technology, as well as its indirect and unintended consequences, and aimed mainly at informing decision making regarding health technologies’ (www.inahta.org). It is a process for making delicate decisions about whether a country will fund a medicine, often based on variants of cost–benefit analysis. In this sense, HTA is a classic arena of expert governance: it is the attempt to turn highly emotive decisions about life and death – about who gets access to new potentially life saving drugs and medical treatments – into rational, evidence-based questions of medical science.
The previous chapters have sought to map and explain dynamics of contemporary governance in which governments have relied upon experts to govern complex policy problems but have taken a ‘hands-on’ rather than ‘hands-off’ approach – ‘hyper-active governance’. The dynamics were summarised through the terms ‘defence’ and ‘empowerment’. This chapter focuses on a third style, which is termed ‘inclusion’. This style of governance refers to how governments may rally popular opposition to a policy explicitly designed to be made by experts. Expert-driven decisions are not politically uncontentious, and the fallout of expert-led policy processes can be a societal backlash if they are seen as unnecessarily biased or unfair. Governments sometimes side with society in the backlash and demand that experts revise their decisions to take account of public opinion. Examples of this style can be found in areas where ethical concerns are important and experts are seen to have failed to listen to public opinion. Alternatively, big infrastructure projects like high-speed rail links often lead to politicians criticising experts where their advice has led to houses needlessly being bulldozed. In such instances, politicians often build in mechanisms for public input into decision-making, often through extensive consultation and ‘stakeholder engagement’ processes.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.