Travelling models and the challenge of pragmatic contexts and practical norms: the case of maternal health.

As in other areas of international development, we are witnessing the proliferation of 'traveling models' developed by international experts and introduced in an almost identical format across numerous countries to improve some aspect of maternal health systems in low- and middle-income countries. These policies and protocols are based on 'miracle mechanisms' that have been taken out of their original context but are believed to be intrinsically effective in light of their operational devices.In reality, standardised interventions are, in Africa and elsewhere, confronted with pragmatic implementation contexts that are always varied and specific, and which lead to drifts, distortions, dismemberments and bypasses. The partogram, focused antenatal care, the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV or performance-based payment all illustrate these implementation gaps, often caused by the routine behaviour of health personnel who follow practical norms (and a professional culture) that are often distinct from official norms - as is the case with midwives.Experiences in maternal and child health in Africa suggest that an alternative approach would be to start with the daily reality of social and practical norms instead of relying on models, and to promote innovations that emerge from within local health systems.

Diagnosis of a public policy: an introduction to user fee exemptions for healthcare in the Sahel.

During the last ten years, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have opted for selective user fee exemption policies, while remaining within the general framework of cost recovery. But they have each developed their own particular institutional mechanisms, different from those of their neighbour. This was the topic of a comparative research program combining both quantitative and qualitative surveys over a four-year period. This special issue presents papers setting exemption policies in the wider context of public policy and the day-to-day functioning of health systems (part 1); presenting overarching case studies (part 2); and reflecting on our methodological approach (part 3).

Local sustainability and scaling up for user fee exemptions: medical NGOs vis-à-vis health systems.

Free healthcare obviously works when a partner from abroad supplies a health centre or a health district with medicines and funding on a regular basis, provides medical, administrative and managerial training, and gives incentive bonuses and daily subsistence allowances to staff. The experiments by three international NGO in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have all been success stories. But withdrawing NGO support means that health centres that have enjoyed a time of plenty under NGO management will return to the fold of health centres run by the state in its present condition and the health system in its present condition, with the everyday consequences of late reimbursements and stock shortages. The local support given by international NGOs has more often than not an effect of triggering an addiction to aid instead of inducing local sustainability without infusion. In the same way, scaling up to the entire country a local pilot experiment conducted under an NGO involves its insertion into a national bureaucratic machine with its multiple levels, all of which are potential bottlenecks. Only experiments carried out under the "ordinary" management of the state are capable of laying bare the problems associated with this process. Without reformers 'on the inside' (within the health system itself and among health workers), no real reform of the health system induced by reformers 'from the outside' can succeed.

A mixed methods contribution to the study of health public policies: complementarities and difficulties.

The use of mixed methods (combining quantitative and qualitative data) is developing in a variety of forms, especially in the health field. Our own research has adopted this perspective from the outset. We have sought all along to innovate in various ways and especially to develop an equal partnership, in the sense of not allowing any single approach to dominate. After briefly describing mixed methods, in this article we explain and illustrate how we have exploited both qualitative and quantitative methods to answer our research questions, ending with a reflective analysis of our experiment.

Public policies and health systems in Sahelian Africa: theoretical context and empirical specificity.

This research on user fee removal in three African countries is located at the interface of public policy analysis and health systems research. Public policy analysis has gradually become a vast and multifaceted area of research consisting of a number of perspectives. But the context of public policies in Sahelian Africa has some specific characteristics. They are largely shaped by international institutions and development agencies, on the basis of very common 'one-size-fits-all' models; the practical norms that govern the actual behaviour of employees are far removed from official norms; public goods and services are co-delivered by a string of different actors and institutions, with little coordination between them; the State is widely regarded by the majority of citizens as untrustworthy. In such a context, setting up and implementing health user fee exemptions in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger was beset by major problems, lack of coherence and bottlenecks that affect public policy-making and implementation in these countries.

Health fee exemptions: controversies and misunderstandings around a research programme. Researchers and the public debate.

Our research programme on fee exemption policies in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger involved sensitive topics with strong ideological and political connotations for the decision-makers, for health-workers, and for users. Thus we were confronted with reluctance, criticism, pressures and accusations. Our frank description of the shortcomings of these policies, based on rigorous research, and never polemical or accusatory, surprises political leaders and health managers, who are accustomed to official data, censored evaluations and discourse of justification.