This paper explores the policy-making process in the 1990s in two countries, South Africa and Zambia, in relation to health care financing reforms. While much of the analysis of health reform programmes has looked at design issues, assuming that a technically sound design is the primary requirement of effective policy change, this paper explores the political and bureaucratic realities shaping the pattern of policy change and its impacts. Through a case study approach, it provides a picture of the policy environment and processes in the two countries, specifically considering the extent to which technical analysts and technical knowledge were able to shape policy change. The two countries' experiences indicate the strong influence of political factors and actors over which health care financing policies were implemented, and which not, as well as over the details of policy design. Moments of political transition in both countries provided political leaders, specifically Ministers of Health, with windows of opportunity in which to introduce new policies. However, these transitions, and the changes in administrative structures introduced with them, also created environments that constrained the processes of reform design and implementation and limited the equity and sustainability gains achieved by the policies. Technical analysts, working either inside or outside government, had varying and often limited influence. In part, this reflected the limits of their own capacity as well as weaknesses in the way they were used in policy development. In addition, the analysts were constrained by the fact that their preferred policies often received only weak political support. Focusing almost exclusively on designing policy reforms, these analysts gave little attention to generating adequate support for the policy options they proposed. Finally, the country experiences showed that front-line health workers, middle level managers and the public had important influences over policy implementation and its impacts. The limited attention given to communicating policy changes to, or consulting with, these actors only heightened the potential for reforms to result in unanticipated and unwanted impacts. The strength of the paper lies in its 'thick description' of the policy process in each country, an empirical case study approach to policy that is under-represented in the literature. While such an approach allows only a cautious drawing of general conclusions, it suggests a number of ways in which to strengthen the implementation of financing policies in each country.

In recent years there has been a growth in the number of independent health policy analysis institutes in low- and middle-income countries which has occurred in response to the limitation of government analytical capacity and pressures associated with democratization. This study aimed to: (i) investigate the contribution made by health policy analysis institutes in low- and middle-income countries to health policy agenda setting, formulation, implementation and monitoring and evaluation; and (ii) assess which factors, including organizational form and structure, support the role of health policy analysis institutes in low- and middle-income countries in terms of positively contributing to health policy. Six case studies of health policy analysis institutes in Bangladesh, Ghana, India, South Africa, Uganda and Vietnam were conducted including two NGOs, two university and two government-owned policy analysis institutes. Case studies drew on document review, analysis of financial information, semi-structured interviews with staff and other stakeholders, and iterative feedback of draft findings. Some of the institutes had made major contributions to policy development in their respective countries. All of the institutes were actively engaged in providing policy advice and most undertook policy-relevant research. Relatively few were engaged in conducting policy dialogues, or systematic reviews, or commissioning research. Much of the work undertaken by institutes was driven by requests from government or donors, and the primary outputs for most institutes were research reports, frequently combined with verbal briefings. Several factors were critical in supporting effective policy engagement. These included a supportive policy environment, some degree of independence in governance and financing, and strong links to policy makers that facilitate trust and influence. While the formal relationship of the institute to government was not found to be critical, units within government faced considerable difficulties.

Background: Over the past ten years, calls to strengthen health systems research capacities in low and middle income countries have increased. One mechanism for capacity development is the partnering of northern and southern institutions. However, detailed case-studies of north-south partnerships, at least in the domain of health systems research, remain limited.