The rules for intersectoral policy processes in the Swiss national policy on global health arena
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Four European countries have adopted national policies on global health (NPGH), reflecting efforts by national governments to integrate global health, development and foreign policy agendas. Contributions of policy sectors in a NPGH arena vary according to their roles in intersectoral policy situations. Rules structure sectoral interactions in situations. This presentation aims to show how rules in intersectoral policy situations determine insiders and outsiders of the NPGH arena producing the Swiss Health Foreign Policy. Methods In 2015 we conducted semi-structured interviews with 14 Swiss key informants to ask about Swiss NPGH policy processes (2006-2012). For each of 5 intersectoral situations composing the Swiss NPGH arena, we coded the actors, processes, resources, and results in verbatim transcripts using MAXQDA software. We analysed rules related to power within each situation, and those characteristic of the arena overall. Results Different types of rules distribute power to insiders and forge barriers to outsiders in intersectoral policy processes of the Swiss NPGH arena. Position rules confer dispositional power to core group of actors from public health, foreign affairs, development and intellectual property policy sectors. Boundary rules regulate participants' access to policy situations (primarily to senior experts/directors from federal public administration) and constrain the scope of ideas allowed (mainly from agendas of international institutions and multilateral projects of Swiss interest). Boundary rule changes that authorise new resources modify relational power of non-core group participants. Interaction rules reproduce general consensus-based decision-making rules of Swiss policy context. Conclusions Rules, such as co-chairing intersectoral policy platforms, create power-sharing arrangements within the Swiss NPGH arena. Such arrangements challenge rigid sectoral identities and contribute to transparency and trust between policy sectors. Key messages: Rules incentivise sectors to interact in the Swiss NPGH arena, but they are insufficient without commitment from individual actors, who interpret, schematize, and use rules for these interactions. Rules are building blocks for the institutionalisation of intersectoral policy processes in the Swiss NPGH arena.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".