The DOI matches its Crossref record.
New Labour, Modernisation and the Medical Labour Process
Abstract
The label ‘modernisation’, originally coined to signify reform within the Labour Party, has since 1997 increasingly been used as a descriptor of various facets of public policy. This paper addresses three questions, all in the context of health policy. What (if anything) is the impact of the notion of modernisation on NHS medical labour process, what is its substantive content, and how might we explain its rise to prominence? On the first question, I suggest that a model of medicine (which I term ‘scientific-bureaucratic medicine’) is being developed that embodies many of the specific characteristics of Fordist labour processes. On the second question, I suggest that ‘modernisation’ denotes a philosophy towards the governance of the NHS which entails the distinctive characteristics of the project which social theorists have termed ‘modernity’. The third question has particular significance in a social context (variously termed ‘late modernity’ or ‘postmodernity’) generally thought of as characterised by trends towards postFordist labour processes. I tentatively suggest that scientific-bureaucratic medicine can be viewed as the state's (not necessarily successful) strategy for coping with radical consumerism and changing perceptions of risk and expertise in the context of health and medicine.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In this sense, the QOF was strongly aligned with the new managerialism being introduced by the New Labour government in the early 2000sa policy of 'transparency' (i.e. the collection and public release of performance data) and close monitoring of this performance towards nationally set targets.”
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lean healthcare: rhetoric, ritual and resistance.
Waring, J., & Bishop, S. (2010) · Social Science & Medicine (1967) · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.028 · Cited by 434
Beyond Blame: Cultural Barriers to Medical Incident Reporting
Waring, J. J. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.055 · Cited by 386
“and Mulcahy 1996, Harrison 2002, Rosenthal 1995).”
BackgroundInfluentialNew Public Management et professions dans l’État : au-delà des oppositions, quelles recompositions ?
Bezes, P., Demazière, D., Bianic, T. L., Paradeise, C., Normand, R., Benamouzig, D., Pierru, F., & Evetts, J. (2011) · Sociologie du Travail · doi:10.1016/j.soctra.2011.06.003 · Cited by 340
“Dominent d’abord les réformes du NHS en Grande-Bretagne qui ont donné lieu à de multiples analyses (Allsop, 2006 ; Currie et al., 2009 ; Dent, 2003 ; Harrison, 2002 ; Harrison et Pollitt, 1994 ; Moran, 2000 ; Morrell, 2006).”
BackgroundGreenhalgh, J., Dalkin, S. M., Gooding, K., Gibbons, E. J., Wright, J. M., Meads, D. M., Black, N. A., Valderas, J. M., & Pawson, R. (2017) · Health Services and Delivery Research · doi:10.3310/hsdr05020 · Cited by 253
“At the individual level, PROMs feedback for detection and monitoring of patients’ problems can be seen as an attempt to modify clinical judgement with encoded, standardised knowledge as part of the move towards scientific-bureaucratic medicine.(22) The intention of increasing patient involvement in the consultation be…”
BackgroundMcDonald, R., Harrison, S. A., Checkland, K., Campbell, S., & Roland, M. O. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39238.890810.be · Cited by 195
“and that the imposition of external guidelines will result in a “Fordist” or production line approach to clinical practice.”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- HARRISON, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- HARRISON, STEPHEN
- ORCID
- HARRISON, STEPHEN
- Venue
- Journal of Social Policy
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 465-485
- ISSN
- 0047-2794 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7823
- OpenAlex
- W2170017965
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 16.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Social Policy (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare Systems and Challenges
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Systems and Practices
- Keywords
- New Labour, modernization, National Health Service, Fordism, post-Fordism, late modernity, postmodernity, health policy, consumerism, medical professionalism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review