The case study examines post-war English hospital policy. The focus of inquiry is on recent developments. Special attention is paid to problems of political steering and to changes in the governance of the hospital sector. Two closely related aspects are to the fore: 1) the conditions and limitations of political problem solving; 2) the relationship between political intervention and societal self-regulation. The results of the analysis are compared to German developments to identify similarities and differences between the two countries and to assess the relevance of institutional factors. The research is based on literature and document analysis. The studys analytical framework comprises concepts designed to examine problems of governance in the public sector of modern societies. They aim at the combination of institutional and action-oriented perspectives.
The individual chapters of the study address different aspects and subject areas of hospital policy. After an outline of the genesis of the NHS the organisational changes of its hospital sector and the development of hospital financing within the NHS are described. The following chapters deal with rationing, evidence-based medicine, quality assurance, (performance) management and user involvement. The penultimate chapter outlines changes in the governance of the German hospital sector after the finance reforms of 1972/3. It serves as an information basis for the comparison of England and Germany. The final chapter summarises central aspects of governance developments in the hospital sectors of the two countries: the expansion of institutionalised subjects of regulation; the strengthening of central control; the extension of non-state public governance structures; the introduction of market elements; the standardisation of aspects of care; the strengthening of economic steering elements; the institutionalisation of limitations on clinical autonomy.
The comparison reveals some significant parallels between England and Germany. Their causes lie in similar conditions, goals and problems of public policy. Besides, the connection of both countries to an international "market" of problem definitions and solutions is important. The main driving forces of governance developments have been steering aspirations of governments, which have become more diverse and concrete. In view of the many institutional differences between the two countries it is not surprising that the specific shape of governance developments has been different and "path-dependent". The English case illustrates the complexity and limitations of hospital policy in a modern welfare state, even if the state has far reaching powers and an elaborate performance management is institutionalised.