EUVIMEDEuropean Health Evidence
Uhr Sources10/10 Journal Tree
Easy Demo

European Health Evidence

The European alternative to PubMed

EUVIMED is the European alternative to PubMed: a central, multilingual research platform for medicine, nursing, life sciences and healthcare. It brings together international and European literature sources, study registries, open-access full texts, citations and retraction notices in one search. Unlike pure bibliographic databases, EUVIMED supports the entire research process – from discovery and appraisal with LIVIA and CLARA to traceable evidence synthesis. European in focus, transparent, interoperable and designed for science and healthcare.

EuropeanMultilingualInteroperableTraceable

EUVIMED BETA

EUVIMED is currently in beta

EUVIMED is under continuous development. Features, data coverage and presentation may change or be temporarily incomplete.

Results are beta

Search results, classifications, summaries and AI-assisted assessments may be incomplete, delayed or incorrect.

Check original sources

Do not use EUVIMED results without verification for diagnosis, treatment or other clinical decisions. Always consult the original source and applicable guidelines.

Errors and feedback help us improve EUVIMED: info@euvimed.com

Lokaler Crossref-Datenbestand · journal-article

When democracies coerce their health professionals: institutional constraints and policy outcomes across four jurisdictions

Myeong Su Kim, Daihun Kang

Frontiers in Public Health · 2026

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

Background Coercive health workforce policy—the use of legal mechanisms to compel professional compliance in ways that override established processes of negotiation, consent, or collective bargaining—has been deployed repeatedly by governments in high-income democracies through statutory wage controls, contract imposition, employment restructuring, and disciplinary orders backed by license sanctions. The conditions under which such policies achieve or fail to achieve their stated objectives remain poorly understood. Methods We conducted a comparative case study of four jurisdictions (South Korea, Ontario/Canada, England, and Hungary) over 2015–2025. Cases were selected from a defined universe of workforce conflicts in high-income democracies to maximize variation in coercive intensity—classified along a five-level escalation ladder derived inductively from the case material—and in institutional configuration, the latter assessed using third-party indices (World Justice Project, Reporters Without Borders, CIVICUS) from editions preceding each conflict’s onset where available. Outcomes were assessed in three layers: compliance with the instrument, persistence of the instrument, and attainment of each government’s stated objective against objective-specific indicators. Results In none of the four cases did coercive policy attain its stated workforce objective. South Korea’s return-to-work orders were abandoned amid mass non-compliance, and the quota expansion was reversed during an ensuing constitutional crisis. Ontario’s statutory wage cap was struck down as unconstitutional and repealed. England’s contract imposition produced procedural containment without resolution, followed by training attrition and renewed industrial action. Hungary’s employment restructuring achieved formal compliance amid weakened oversight, yet shortages and emigration persisted. Routine policy correction occurred only where substantive constitutional review of workforce legislation was available (Ontario); where it was absent (England) or eroded (Hungary), coercive policies persisted. Conclusion Across these four high-income democracies—including jurisdictions ranking among the top 20 worldwide on rule-of-law indices—coercive workforce policies did not produce the stable, motivated, and adequate health workforces their governments sought, and recourse to compulsion appeared across the democratic spectrum studied. These findings suggest the central policy question is not how to make coercion effective, but how to build the consultation and arbitration mechanisms that make it unnecessary.

Bibliografischer Nachweis

Publikationsdaten

Autor:innen
Myeong Su Kim, Daihun Kang
Quelle
Frontiers in Public Health
Publikation
2026-01-01
Band / Ausgabe
Nicht angegeben
Seiten
Nicht angegeben
ISSN / ISBN
2296-2565
Zitationen
0 laut Crossref
Referenzen
0 hinterlegt

Zitieren

Zitierfähiger Nachweis

Myeong Su Kim, Daihun Kang (2026). When democracies coerce their health professionals: institutional constraints and policy outcomes across four jurisdictions. Frontiers in Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1878816
RIS BibTeX CSL-JSON

Kontext

Themen, Förderung und Nutzung

Lizenzhinweise: Lizenz 1