Formal planning rationality in public sector professional work: between discourse and practice

Although rational models of formal planning have been seriously criticized by strategy literature, they not only remain a widely used organizational practice in private firms, but they have increasingly been entering public, professional organizations too, as part of public sector managerial reforms. This research addresses this apparent paradox, exploring the meaning of formal planning in public sector professional work. Curiously, this is an issue that remains under-investigated in the literature: the long debate on formal planning in strategy research devoted scant attention to its diffusion in the public sector, and public sector studies have scrutinized the introduction of other management tools in professional work, but very limitedly formal planning itself. In fact, little is known on the actual meaning of formal planning in public, professional services. This research is based upon a case of adoption of formal planning tools in a public hospital. Embracing a discourse analytical lens, it examines which formal planning discourse entered professional work, to what extent, and how professionals interpret it and engage with it in their practice. The analysis uncovers dynamics of social construction of meaning where, eventually, a formal planning discourse both shapes and is shaped by professional practice. In particular, it is found that formal planning rationality largely penetrated professional work, but not to the detriment of professional values. Morevover, formal planning ‘fails’ as a tool for rational decision making, but it takes up a knowledge work and a social value in professional work, as a tool for explicitation of action courses and for dialogue between otherwise more disconnected parts of the organization.

The Right to Voice: Its Realization by Estonian and American Parents in Public Schools

Investigating parents’ formal engagement opportunities in public schools serves well to characterize the relationship between states and societies. While the relationship between parental involvement and students’ academic success has been thoroughly investigated, rarely has it been seen to indicate countries’ governing regimes. The researcher was curious to see whether and how does parents’ voice differ in different democracies. The hypothesis was that in mature regimes, institutional opportunities for formal parental engagement are plenty and parents are actively involved; while in young democracies there are less opportunities and the engagement is lower. The assumption was also that parental deliberation in expressing their dissatisfaction with schools differs across democracies: where it is more intense, there it translates to higher engagement. Parents’ informedness on relevant regulations and agendas was assumed to be equally average, and their demographic background to have similar effects on engagement. The comparative, most different systems design was employed where public middle schools last graders’ parents in Tartu, Estonia and in Huntsville, Alabama the United States served as a sample. The multidimensional study includes the theoretical review, country and community analyses, institutional analysis in terms of formal parental involvement, and parents’ survey. The findings revealed sizeable differences between parents’ engagement levels in Huntsville and Tartu. The results indicate passivity in both communities, while in Tartu the engagement seems to be alarmingly low. Furthermore, Tartu parents have much less institutional opportunities to engage. In the United States, multilevel efforts to engage parents are visible from local to federal level, in Estonia similar intentions seem to be missing and meaningful parental organizations do not exist. In terms of civic education there is much room for development in both countries. The road will be longer for a young democracy Estonia in transforming its institutional systems from formally democratic to inherently inclusive.

Medical Malpractice in Public Healthcare Systems: An Empirical Investigation of Scheduled Damages

In the last decades, medical malpractice has been framed as one of the most critical issues for healthcare providers and health policy, holding a central role on both the policy agenda and public debate. The Law and Economics literature has devoted much attention to medical malpractice and to the investigation of the impact of malpractice reforms. Nonetheless, some reforms have been much less empirically studied as in the case of schedules, and their effects remain highly debated. The present work seeks to contribute to the study of medical malpractice and of schedules of noneconomic damages in a civil law country with a public national health system, using Italy as case study. Besides considering schedules and exploiting a quasi-experimental setting, the novelty of our contribution consists in the inclusion of the performance of the judiciary (measured as courts’ civil backlog) in the empirical analysis. The empirical analysis is twofold. First, it investigates how limiting compensations for pain and suffering through schedules impacts on the malpractice insurance market in terms of presence of private insurers and of premiums applied. Second, it examines whether, and to what extent, healthcare providers react to the implementation of this policy in terms of both levels and composition of the medical treatments offered. Our findings show that the introduction of schedules increases the presence of insurers only in inefficient courts, while it does not produce significant effects on paid premiums. Judicial inefficiency is attractive to insurers for average values of schedules penetration of the market, with an increasing positive impact of inefficiency as the territorial coverage of schedules increases. Moreover, the implementation of schedules tends to reduce the use of defensive practices on the part of clinicians, but the magnitude of this impact is ultimately determined by the actual degree of backlog of the court implementing schedules.