4.2 Article

Health inequalities, fundamental causes and power: towards the practice of good theory

期刊

SOCIOLOGY OF HEALTH & ILLNESS
卷 43, 期 1, 页码 20-39

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.13181

关键词

power; health inequalities; fundamental causes; democracy; health

资金

  1. ESRC [ES/M003922/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses the challenge of reducing health inequalities using the 'fundamental cause theory', emphasizing the importance of power in maintaining, increasing, or reducing social and economic inequalities. It proposes a framework to identify sources, forms, and positions of power to reduce inequalities.
Reducing health inequalities remains a challenge for policy makers across the world. Beginning from Lewin's famous dictum that there is nothing as practical as a good theory, this paper begins from an appreciative discussion of 'fundamental cause theory', emphasizing the elegance of its theoretical encapsulation of the challenge, the relevance of its critical focus for action, and its potential to support the practical mobilisation of knowledge in generating change. Moreover, it is argued that recent developments in the theory, provide an opportunity for further theoretical development focused more clearly on the concept of power (Dickie et al. 2015). A critical focus on power as the essential element in maintaining, increasing or reducing social and economic inequalities - including health inequalities - can both enhance the coherence of the theory, and also enhance the capacity to challenge the roots of health inequalities at different levels and scales. This paper provides an initial contribution by proposing a framework to help to identify the most important sources, forms and positions of power, as well as the social spaces in which they operate. Subsequent work could usefully test, elaborate and adapt this framework, or indeed ultimately replace it with something better, to help focus actions to reduce inequalities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据