Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-28T05:03:59.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Building Alliances: Incentives and Impediments in the UK Health Consumer Group Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2007

Kathryn Jones
Kathryn Jones*
Affiliation:
Senior Research Fellow, Health Policy Research Unit, Bosworth House, De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester, LE1 9BH E-mail: kljones@dmu.ac.uk.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper addresses the incentives and impediments to alliance formation in the UK health consumer group sector. Research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council shows that links between groups are extensive and highly valued. However, they take place in the context of competition for resources and influence within New Labour's reform agenda. Drawing on theories from sociology and political science this paper shows how in recent years the working environment of groups has shaped cooperation. However, alliance working carries opportunity costs and doubts remain about their ability to survive once these external stimuli disappear.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 515 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

ACU (2000a), Compact Getting it Right Together: Funding a Code of Good Practice, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
ACU (2000b), Compact Getting it Right Together: Consultation and Policy Appraisal a Code of Good Practice, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Baggott, R. (2005) ‘A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: the reform of patient and public involvement in England’, Public Administration, 83, 3, 533–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggott, R., Allsop, J. and Jones, K. (2005), Speaking for Patients and Carers: Health Consumer Groups and the National Policy Process, Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F. and Jones, B. (1993), Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Browne, W.P. (1990), ‘Organised interests and their use of niches, a search for pluralism in a policy domain’, Journal of Politics, 52, 2, 477–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clegg, D. (2005), ‘Welfare after Thatcherism: New Labour and social democratic politics’, in Powell, M., Bauld, L. and Clarke, K. (eds), Social Policy Review, 17, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Craig, G. and Taylor, M. (2002), ‘Dangerous liaisons: local government and the voluntary and community sectors’, in Glendinning, C., Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (eds), Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
DoH (1996), Patient Partnership: Building a Collaborative Strategy, London: DoH.Google Scholar
DoH (1999), Patient and Public Involvement in the New NHS, London: DoH.Google Scholar
DoH (2004), Making Partnership Work for Patients, Carers and Service Users: A Strategic Agreement between the Department of Health, the NHS and the Voluntary and Community Sector, London: DoH.Google Scholar
DoH (2005), New Taskforce to Help Voluntary Sector Get Involved in Health and Social Care, Department of Health Press Release: 0350, London: DoH.Google Scholar
Fazackerley, A. and Parker, S (2001), ‘Sane and MIND – a relationship on the mend’, The Guardian, http://society.guardian.co.uk/news/story/07838437604,00.html, 8/4/2003.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1998), The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Glendinning, C., Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (2002), Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Gray, V. and Lowery, D. (1998), ‘To lobby alone or in a flock’, American Political Quarterly, 26, 1, 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinz, J.P. (1993), The Hollow Core: Private Interests in National Policy Making, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
HM Government (1999), Modernising Government, Cm 4310, London: TSO.Google Scholar
Hogg, C., Loosemore-Reppen, G. and Rowan, K. (2006), The Patients Forum options for the future, www.thepatientsforum.org.uk/pdf/options-for-the-future.pdf, 5 June 2006.Google Scholar
Hojnacki, M. (1997), ‘Interest groups’ decisions to join alliances or work alone’, American Journal of Political Science, 41, 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hojnacki, M. (1998), ‘Organised interests advocacy behaviour in alliances’, Political Research Quarterly, 51, 2, 437–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxham, C. (1996), Creating Collaborative Advantage, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, B. and Hardy, B. (2002), ‘What is a ‘successful’ partnership and how can it be measured’ in Glendining, C., Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (eds), Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Kendall, J. (2000), ‘The mainstreaming of the third sector in public policy in England in the later 1990s: whys and wherefores’, Policy and Politics, 28, 4, 541–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, J. (2003), The Voluntary Sector: Comparative Perspectives in the UK, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Leat, D. and Passey, A. (2000), Joint Working and Mergers in the Voluntary Sector, London: NCVO.Google Scholar
Levi, M. and Murphy, G.H. (2006), ‘Coalitions of contention: the case of the WTO protests in Seattle’, Political Studies, 54, 4, 651–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L. and Stoker, G. (2006), ‘Diagnosing and remedying the failings of official participation schemes: the CLEAR Framework’, Social Policy and Society, 5, 2, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCurry, P. (2001), ‘Just rewards’, The Guardian, G2, 25 April: 9.Google Scholar
Patients Forum (2000), Annual Report 2000, London: Patients Forum.Google Scholar
Powell, M. and Glendinning, C. (2002), ‘Introduction’, in Glendinning, C., Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (eds), Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Powell, M. and Exworthy, M. (2002), ‘Partnerships, quasi-networks and social policy’, in Glendinning, C., Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (eds), Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Riker, W. (1962), The Theory of Political Coalitions, Harvard, NY: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rummery, K. (2002), ‘Towards a theory of welfare partnerships’, in Glendinning, C., Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (eds), Partnerships, New Labour and the Governance of Welfare, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Salisbury, R.H. (1987), ‘Who works with whom? Interest groups alliances and opposition’, American Political Science Review, 81, 4, 1217–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staggenborg, S. (1986), ‘Coalition work in the pro-choice movement’, Social Problems, 35, 5, 374–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, H. and Skelcher, C. (2002), Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M. (2006), ‘Communities in partnership: developing a strategic voice’, Social Policy and Society, 5, 2, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volresource (2005), Mergers and Closures, www.volresource.org.uk/kcnews/news3432.htm, 5 June 2006Google Scholar