"Health in All Policies" in Norwegian municipalities-Dilemmas and lack of legitimacy and capacity.

According to the Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, public health work in Norway is regarded as a multi-actor collaboration based on planning and partnership for the purpose of enabling people to increase their control over their health and its determinants. HiAP builds largely on the governance and communicative turn in the public sector and thus exists in the shadow of a vertical government structure with sectors, silos and a chain of command. In practice, HiAP challenges the established way of thinking and acting in the silos and tries to create a more holistic understanding and handling of problems and needs. In order to successfully involve different sectors and government levels in this work, HiAP requires strong democratic legitimacy and institutional capacity. In this article, we discuss the empirical research data on the HiAP approach in Norway within the context of theory on collaborative planning processes and legitimising political capacity to act. Our research question is whether the HiAP approach in Norwegian municipalities have sufficient democratic legitimacy and institutional capacity to achieve the purpose of public health work. In general, we find that HIAP as practised in Norwegian municipalities does not function as a complete political legitimising and capacity building process. The practice contains several dilemmas, and there is a need to distinguish between different forms of legitimacy and capacity.

Intersectoral Planning for Public Health: Dilemmas and Challenges.

BACKGROUND: Intersectoral action is often presented as essential in the promotion of population health and health equity. In Norway, national public health policies are based on the Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach that promotes whole-of-government responsibility. As part of the promotion of this intersectoral responsibility, planning is presented as a tool that every Norwegian municipality should use to integrate public health policies into their planning and management systems. Although research on implementing the HiAP approach is increasing, few studies apply a planning perspective. To address this gap in the literature, our study investigates how three Norwegian municipalities experience the use of planning as a tool when implementing the HiAP approach. METHODS: To investigate planning practices in three Norwegian municipalities, we used a qualitative multiple case study design based on face-to-face interviews. When analysing and discussing the results, we used the dichotomy of instrumental and communicative planning approaches, in addition to a collaborative planning approach, as the theoretical framework. RESULTS: The municipalities encounter several dilemmas when using planning as a tool for implementing the HiAP approach. Balancing the use of qualitative and quantitative knowledge and balancing the use of structural and processual procedures are two such dilemmas. Other dilemmas include balancing the use of power and balancing action and understanding in different municipal contexts. They are also faced with the dilemma of whether to place public health issues at the forefront or to present these issues in more general terms. CONCLUSION: We argue that the dilemmas experienced by the municipalities might be explained by the difficult task of combining instrumental and communicative planning approaches because the balance between them is seldom fixed.

Public health terminology: Hindrance to a Health in All Policies approach?

AIM: National public health policies in Norway are based on a Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach. At the local level, this means that public health, as a cross-sectional responsibility, should be implemented in all municipal sectors by integrating public health policies in municipal planning and management systems. The paper investigates these local processes, focusing on the use of public health terminology and how this terminology is translated from national to local contexts. We ask whether the terms 'public health' and 'public health work' are suitable when implementing an HiAP approach. METHODS: A qualitative case study based on analyses of interviews and planning documents was performed in three Norwegian municipalities. RESULTS: The results present dilemmas associated with using public health terminology when implementing an HiAP approach. On the one hand, the terms are experienced as wide, complex, advanced and unnecessary. On the other hand, the terms are experienced as important for a systematic approach towards understanding public health ideology and cross-sectional responsibility. One municipality used alternative terminology. CONCLUSIONS: This paper promotes debate about the appropriateness of using the terms 'public health' and 'public health work' at the local level. It suggests that adaptation is suitable and necessary, unless it compromises knowledge, responsibility and a systematic approach. This study concludes that the use of terminology is a central factor when implementing the Norwegian Public Health Act at the local level.