Wu, Howlett, and Ramesh’s understanding of policy capacity has been used to identify generalizable strengths and weaknesses of specific jurisdictions and policy sectors such as health. In an extension of this work, Howlett and Ramesh have argued that the mode of governance of a policy sector accentuates the importance of specific elements of policy capacity. In this paper we focus on the implementation of the System Level Measures Framework (SLMF) in New Zealand that has been specifically focused on health systems improvement and which aimed to do so by fostering network governance at the local level. However, this policy is introduced in a context in which there has been significant contestation regarding which mode of governance—network or hierarchy—is dominant in New Zealand health policy. By exploring three divergent local cases of implementation of the SLMF we develop three arguments that contribute to the literature on policy capacity and health. Firstly, local histories of interorganizational play a crucial role in shaping health policy capacity. Secondly, it is crucially important to understand the dynamics and feedback loops between operational, political, and analytical policy capacity. Network and hierarchical governance are characterized by distinct and contrasting understandings of the content of policy capacity elements and of the way in which they are dynamically related. Thirdly, the key challenge in developing policy capacity compatible with network governance is how to facilitate this capacity when connections between operational, political, and analytical policy capacity fail to fire.

中文翻译：

---

通过新西兰的网络治理培养卫生政策能力：从不同的政策实施故事中学习

Wu、Howlett 和 Ramesh 对政策能力的理解已被用于确定特定司法管辖区和政策部门（如卫生）的普遍优势和劣势。在这项工作的扩展中，Howlett 和 Ramesh 认为，政策部门的治理模式强调了政策能力特定要素的重要性。在本文中，我们重点关注新西兰系统级措施框架 (SLMF) 的实施，该框架特别关注卫生系统的改进，旨在通过促进地方一级的网络治理来实现这一目标。然而，这项政策是在新西兰卫生政策中哪种治理模式（网络或等级制度）占主导地位存在重大争议的背景下引入的。通过探索实施 SLMF 的三个不同的地方案例，我们提出了三个有助于政策能力和健康文献的论点。首先，跨组织的地方历史在塑造卫生政策能力方面发挥着至关重要的作用。其次，了解运营、政治和分析政策能力之间的动态和反馈循环至关重要。网络和等级治理的特点是对政策能力要素的内容以及它们动态相关的方式的不同和对比的理解。第三，发展与网络治理兼容的政策能力的关键挑战是，当运营、政治和分析政策能力之间的联系失败时，如何促进这种能力。