Search

Governments in Australia and internationally show growing interest in wellbeing as a policy goal; however, such interests raise questions about the theories or definitions of wellbeing they will apply. Choices about how wellbeing is defined for policy purposes are likely to delimit the strategies applied. Wholly individualized conceptualizations of wellbeing may lead to policy focused narrowly on 'improving' individuals rather than on creating favourable social conditions. Also, Indigenous theories of wellbeing may have much to offer policy for public wellbeing, but little research has examined whether this potential is considered in contemporary health policy. We report on research examining Indigenous and non-Indigenous theories of wellbeing in a representative sample of current Australian health policy documents. We examine what theories or definitions of wellbeing are present, whether policies recognize social determinants of health; if 'lifestyle drift' is present; how Indigenous and non-Indigenous theories of wellbeing are positioned; and whether policies propose strategies consistent with their definitions of wellbeing. We discuss implications of current approaches for effective policy to promote Indigenous and non-Indigenous wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transnational corporations (TNCs) shape population health both positively and negatively through their national and international social, political and economic power and influence; and are a vital commercial determinant of health. Individual and group advocacy and activism in response to corporate products, practices or policy influences can mediate negative health impacts. This paper discusses the unequal power relations existing between TNCs that promote their own financial interests, and activists and advocates who support population and environmental health by challenging corporate power. It draws on interview data from 19 respondents who informed 2 health impact assessments conducted on TNCs; 1 from the fast food industry, and 1 from the extractive industries sector. It reveals the types of strategies that civil society organizations (CSOs) have used to encourage TNCs to act in more health promoting ways. It discusses the extent to which these strategies have been effective, and how TNCs have used their power to respond to civil society action. The paper highlights the rewards, and the very real challenges faced by CSOs trying to change TNC practices related to health, within a neoliberal policy environment. It aims to provide evidence for socially oriented actors to inform their advocacy for changes in public policy or corporate practices that can contribute to improving population health and equity and tackling commercial determinants of health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of cultural safety (CS) has been developed as a critical perspective on healthcare provided to Indigenous service users in neo-colonial countries such as New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Unlike other frameworks for culturally competent healthcare, a CS approach recognizes impacts of colonization and power inequalities on Indigenous peoples and asks how these may manifest in healthcare settings. It has been argued that CS thinking is suited to critical analysis of public policy, but there has been limited work in this direction. Drawing on literature on CS in Australian healthcare, we defined a CS framework consisting of five concepts: reflexivity, dialogue, reducing power differences, decolonization and regardful care. Our research examined whether and in what terms this framework could be adapted as a tool for critical analysis of Australian public policy as it affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We used a collaborative inquiry process combining perspectives of an Aboriginal researcher and a non-Indigenous researcher. We developed a thematic analysis framework to examine how the five concepts might be reflected in contemporary writings on policy by leading Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander thinkers. We found the framework is applicable as a tool for policy analysis; bringing together key concerns raised by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders and critical concepts such as sovereignty and interface thinking. We concluded the framework is likely to be a useful tool for critical, systemic thinking about public policy as it affects Indigenous peoples and for specifying areas where performance can be improved to achieve culturally safe policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]