systems in growing capacity and systemic resiliency; increasing innovation
in policy and practice; promoting accountability and transparency; and
supporting normative and procedural harmonization and consistency. While
redundancy poses drawbacks in public health law, the point at which those
drawbacks outweigh benefits of complementarity is unclear. Additional legal
research will be needed to conceptualize this tension between redundancy
and complementarity and categorize types of legal overlap, employing this
typology to study the effects of overlapping systems on the public’s health.
Rather than reflexively assuming redundancy to be harmful to public health
governance, research may determine those contexts in which complementary
institutions can prove advantageous. This initial assessment applying theories
of redundancy and complementarity to public health governance suggests
that some overlap is inevitable, but that in many cases, it may bring with it
significant benefits for the public’s health.