What explains the passage of Thailand's landmark universal healthcare (UHC) policy? In separate contributions, Selway and Harris emphasized the role of electoral rules and political parties, on one hand, and “professional movements” of developmentally minded state bureaucrats on the other. Which is correct? In this article, Selway and Harris respond to each other's work. While Selway agrees that the actions of the professional movement constitute an underappreciated necessary condition for universal healthcare in Thailand, he argues that Harris overstates the role of the movement in implementation. Harris defends his position and maintains that an institution-focused account is insufficient, arguing that the actions of Thailand's Rural Doctors’ Movement not only explain universal healthcare but also gave rise to the very electoral rule changes that Selway argues were so critical to facilitating universal coverage. Selway responds to these criticisms, and the two researchers jointly consider implications for causation, qualitative research, and policymaking theory.

中文翻译：

---

交流：解释泰国全民医疗保健的通过

是什么解释了泰国具有里程碑意义的全民医疗保健 (UHC) 政策的通过？在单独的文章中，塞尔威和哈里斯一方面强调了选举规则和政党的作用，另一方面强调了具有发展意识的国家官僚的“专业运动”。哪个是对的？在这篇文章中，塞尔威和哈里斯回应了彼此的工作。虽然 Selway 同意专业运动的行动构成泰国全民医疗保健的一个被低估的必要条件，但他认为，哈里斯夸大了运动在实施中的作用。哈里斯为自己的立场辩护并坚持以机构为中心的账户是不够的，认为泰国的行为 s 农村医生运动不仅解释了全民医疗保健，而且还引发了选举规则的变化，塞尔威认为这对促进全民覆盖至关重要。Selway 回应了这些批评，两位研究人员共同考虑了对因果关系、定性研究和决策理论的影响。