Contested Boundaries: Evaluating Institutional and Government Authority in Academia and Public Health

Abstract

This dissertation explores tensions between individual freedom and institutional authority. Chapter one examines public perceptions of the legitimacy of "new frontier" public health measures. I present results from a national survey of 1,817 adults concerning the acceptability of public health interventions for noncommunicable diseases. We found that support for these interventions is high overall; strongly associated with race and political orientation; and tied to perceptions of democratic representation in policy making. There was much support for strategies that enable people to exercise healthful choices, but considerably less for more coercive measures. These findings suggest that the least coercive path will be the smoothest. Additionally, the findings underscore the need for policy makers to involve the public in decision making, understand the public's values, and communicate how policy decisions reflect this understanding.