Global Health Politics

2019 ◽  
pp. xiv-15
Author(s):  
Colin McInnes ◽  
Kelley Lee ◽  
Jeremy Youde
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Complete Understanding ◽  
Health Politics ◽  
Rational Decision Making ◽  
Interdisciplinary Field ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Global Problems

Global health politics has emerged over the last two decades as a distinct interdisciplinary field of study which, although its boundaries are not set, is beginning to demonstrate signs of maturity. It is concerned with the actions, practices, and policies that govern the sphere of global health. Its emergence then is intimately linked with the reconceptualisation of health as global. The field addresses not only the processes of decision-making, but also the structures of power that shape what is possible and the requirement for collective action to address global problems. Politics is unavoidable, necessary and integral to effectively addressing global health challenges. The study of global health politics therefore is not about how to minimise interference in rational decision-making, but rather about explaining and improving the quality of political institutions and processes that will in turn improve global health actions and ultimately outcomes. Fundamental to this is an understanding of the nature of politics and the workings of power. But the field also requires knowledge and techniques from a variety of disciplines, which intersect to produce a more complete understanding than any one discipline can provide. The result is inherently both multi- and interdisciplinary, characterised by methodological pluralism and varied theoretical perspectives.

The Oxford Handbook of Global Health Politics

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Health Politics ◽  
Rational Decision Making ◽  
Interdisciplinary Field ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Global Problems ◽  
Health Action

Global health politics has emerged over the last two decades as a distinct, interdisciplinary field of study which, although its boundaries are not set, is beginning to demonstrate signs of maturity. It is concerned with the actions, practices, and policies that govern the sphere of global health. Its emergence is intimately linked with the reconceptualisation of health as global. The field addresses not only the processes of decision-making, but also the structures of power that shape what is possible and the requirement for collective action to address global problems. Politics is unavoidable, necessary, and integral to effectively addressing global health challenges. The study of global health politics therefore is not about how to minimise interference in rational decision-making, but rather about explaining and improving the quality of political institutions and processes that will, in turn, improve global health action and, ultimately, outcomes. Fundamental to this is an understanding of the nature of politics and the workings of power. But the field also requires knowledge and techniques from a variety of disciplines, which intersect to produce a more complete understanding than any one discipline can provide. The result is inherently both multi- and interdisciplinary, characterised by methodological pluralism and varied theoretical perspectives.

scholarly journals An analysis of systemic thinking in decision-making processes in the municipalities within the province of KwaZulu-Natal

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 531-547
Author(s):  
Mbuyiseni Goodlife Ntuli ◽  
Lawrence Mpela Lekhanya
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Process Model ◽  
Business Environment ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Systemic Thinking ◽  
Rational Decision Making ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Kwazulu Natal ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Decision Making Model

This paper advocates the adoption of systemic thinking in decision-making processes in municipalities. Most importantly, in this epoch of managing in complex and thought-provoking business environment, decision making is one of the most important skills required by any manager to remain effective. The success of a municipality or any business hinges on how well decisions are taken and implemented. In this paper, I intend to scrutinize decision making processes at strategic management levels in the municipalities within the province of KwaZulu-Natal. In doing that, a mixed method approach of qualitative and quantitative techniques was adopted in gathering data from sixty-one municipalities within the province of KwaZulu-Natal. This was done in order to substantiate theoretical perspectives from different erudite scholars on the discourse of systemic thinking in decision making processes. This notion of systemic thinking is coined upon the universally used rational decision making process model. Thus, the conceptualization of rational decision-making model was also considered in this paper, the possibility of decision failure, the complexity of the municipality, and systemic thinking as the recommended option of dealing with complexity was explored. The results indicates that the theory that underpins the adoption of systemic thinking in dealing with complexity today’s business environment is relevant.

Effect of training in rational decision making on the quality of simulated career decisions.

1982 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 618-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Krumboltz ◽  
Dale S. Scherba ◽  
Daniel A. Hamel ◽  
Lynda K. Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Career Decisions ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Rational Decision Making

scholarly journals Traditional Political Institutions and Democracy: Reassessing Their Compatibility and Accountability

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (12) ◽  
pp. 1747-1774 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Baldwin ◽  
Katharina Holzinger
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Expert Survey ◽  
Electoral Accountability ◽  
Traditional Leaders ◽  
New Information ◽  
Decision Making Processes

This article revisits prominent frameworks for understanding traditional political institutions which make pessimistic assessments about their compatibility with democracy. Traditional political institutions are often assumed to be unaccountable because they are led by undemocratic leaders who are not subject to electoral sanctioning. However, drawing on new information from the TradGov Group dataset, an expert survey on the contemporary practices of more than 1,400 ethnic groups that currently have traditional political institutions, we show that these institutions contain their own distinct mechanisms of accountability. In a majority of cases, decision-making is consensual and leaders must account for their actions in various ways. We challenge the electoral accountability framework for understanding the quality of traditional leaders’ performance, instead arguing that traditional political institutions can be compatible with democracy and even accountable to their citizens insofar as they adopt inclusive decision-making processes and their leaders have strong nonelectoral connections to the communities they represent.

Evaluation of the Academic Setting in Spain 1This study was financed by the University of Oviedo.

1995 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Fernández ◽  
Miguel A. Mateo ◽  
José Muñiz
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Climate ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Academic Setting ◽  
Teaching And Research ◽  
Evaluation Questionnaire ◽  
University Teachers ◽  
The University

The conditions are investigated in which Spanish university teachers carry out their teaching and research functions. 655 teachers from the University of Oviedo took part in this study by completing the Academic Setting Evaluation Questionnaire (ASEQ). Of the three dimensions assessed in the ASEQ, Satisfaction received the lowest ratings, Social Climate was rated higher, and Relations with students was rated the highest. These results are similar to those found in two studies carried out in the academic years 1986/87 and 1989/90. Their relevance for higher education is twofold because these data can be used as a complement of those obtained by means of students' opinions, and the crossing of both types of data can facilitate decision making in order to improve the quality of the work (teaching and research) of the university institutions.

The Priority of Democracy

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Knight ◽  
James Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Monetary Policy ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Federal Reserve ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Institutional Choice ◽  
Democratic Process ◽  
Strong Case ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Relationship

Pragmatism and its consequences are central issues in American politics today, yet scholars rarely examine in detail the relationship between pragmatism and politics. This book systematically explores the subject and makes a strong case for adopting a pragmatist approach to democratic politics—and for giving priority to democracy in the process of selecting and reforming political institutions. What is the primary value of democracy? When should we make decisions democratically and when should we rely on markets? And when should we accept the decisions of unelected officials, such as judges or bureaucrats? This book explores how a commitment to pragmatism should affect our answers to such important questions. It concludes that democracy is a good way of determining how these kinds of decisions should be made—even if what the democratic process determines is that not all decisions should be made democratically. So, for example, the democratically elected U.S. Congress may legitimately remove monetary policy from democratic decision-making by putting it under the control of the Federal Reserve. This book argues that pragmatism offers an original and compelling justification of democracy in terms of the unique contributions democratic institutions can make to processes of institutional choice. This focus highlights the important role that democracy plays, not in achieving consensus or commonality, but rather in addressing conflicts. Indeed, the book suggest that democratic politics is perhaps best seen less as a way of reaching consensus or agreement than as a way of structuring the terms of persistent disagreement.

Why Is Safe Science Good Science?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camilla Kao ◽  
Che-I Kao ◽  
Russell Furr
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Good Science ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Safety Requirements ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Obvious Benefit ◽  
New Ideas

In science, safety can seem unfashionable. Satisfying safety requirements can slow the pace of research, make it cumbersome, or cost significant amounts of money. The logic of rules can seem unclear. Compliance can feel like a negative incentive. So besides the obvious benefit that safety keeps one safe, why do some scientists preach "safe science is good science"? Understanding the principles that underlie this maxim might help to create a strong positive incentive to incorporate safety into the pursuit of groundbreaking science.<div><br></div><div>This essay explains how safety can enhance the quality of an experiment and promote innovation in one's research. Being safe induces a researcher to have <b>greater control</b> over an experiment, which reduces the <b>uncertainty</b> that characterizes the experiment. Less uncertainty increases both <b>safety</b> and the <b>quality</b> of the experiment, the latter including <b>statistical quality</b> (reproducibility, sensitivity, etc.) and <b>countless other properties</b> (yield, purity, cost, etc.). Like prototyping in design thinking and working under the constraint of creative limitation in the arts, <b>considering safety issues</b> is a hands-on activity that involves <b>decision-making</b>. Making decisions leads to new ideas, which spawns <b>innovation</b>.</div>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document