A new special issue on Payment for performance: comparing policy making, design and implementation in health, social care and education, recently published in the International Journal of Public Sector Management, launches questions and ways on how to advance our knowledge on comparative payment for performance. We already know that payment for performance programmes is not only about outcomes. The policy process of both policymaking and implementation can greatly affect policy success and system strengthening. However, we still need to advance in the adoption of comparative process analyses of payment for performance programmes or policies, and in a contextualised form. How would it be possible to stablish comparisons between countries, comparisons within regions in a single country or even develop a comparative global comparative perspective on the subject? How insights and lessons from policy process analyses, using qualitative methods/data and review material can advance our comparative understanding on how to achieve better policy processes and relate them to effects in payment for performance?

The issue aims to start a renewed critical debate on how to produce contextual evidence in payment for performance (P4P) - also known as performance-based financing (PBF) - from the perspective of comparative analysis of policy processes and/or effects, to better understand how management and policy similarities and differences take place across different countries, across administrations or teams (or selected units of analysis) in a single country, and from a global viewpoint.

It gathers nine papers form other leading experts around the world, including Valery Ridde, Søren Rud Kristensen, Laura Anselmi, Rene Loewenson, Josephine Borghi, Jonathan Hammond, Liz Richardson, Anne-Marie Turcotte-Tremblay, Tony Zitti and Everton Nunes da Silva. The guest-editorial starts a discussion on comparative issues in payment for performance (Saddi et al. 2023). The other papers published in the issue present three types of comparative studies: cross-countries comparisons (Zitti et al., 2023; Andersen, 2023), intra-county comparisons s (Aktas et al., 2023; Srinivasan and Sarin, 2023; Coelho et al., 2023; Dos Anjos et al., 2023), and world-wide types of reviews e (Kristensen et al., 2023; Briganti et al., 2023). Authors carry out policy process analyses, employing qualitative, mixed methods and review techniques, combined with comparative analytical descriptive accounts.

The issue shows that the advance of comparative studies could better inform policy and research not only about what and how to implement a successful payment for performance and performance-based financing programme or scheme, but also successful management strategies and initiatives that require high levels of motivation and engagement of professionals. Getting a more comprehensive and sophisticated understanding of when P4P/PBF works and for whom is crucial, since reforms associated with P4P/PBF require high levels of motivation and engagement by managers and front-line health professionals. Furthermore, there is still the need to develop comparative analysis between countries from different regions/ levels of income.

Guest-editorial and papers included in the issue:

Saddi, F.d.C., Peckham, S., Brown, G.W., Renmans, D. and Sousa, A.N.A.d. (2023), "Guest editorial: Payment for performance: comparing policy making, design and implementation in health, social care and education", International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 36 No. 6/7, pp. 481-491. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-10-2023-355

Aktas, P., Hammond, J. and Richardson, L. (2023), “Pay-for-performance in healthcare provision: the role of discretion in policy implementation in Turkey”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 36 Nos 6-7, pp. 530-545, doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-12-2022-0282.

Andersen, M.M. (2023), “Barriers to social impact bond implementation: a review of evidence from the UK and US”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 36 Nos 6-7, pp. 512-529, doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-05-2022-0134.

Briganti, P., De Genaro, D., Buonocore, F., Varriale, L. (2023), “Job satisfaction in pay-for-performance healthcare systems: a meta-synthesis of qualitative literature”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 36 Nos 6-7, pp. 606-631.

Coelho, G., Saddi, F.C., Peckham, S., Silva, M.A., Silva, J.D., Barretos, M.L.P., Rocha, G.A.S., Silva, A.E.N. (2023), “Policy mechanisms and types of participation in the implementation of the Brazilian pay-for-performance programme PMAQ”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 36 Nos 6-7, pp. 563-577.

dos Anjos, D.S.O., Scherer, M.D.d.A., Cantalino, J.L.R. and da Silva, E.N. (2023), “Pay for performance in Brazilian primary health care: quality of work processes, actions and services”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 36 Nos 6-7, pp. 578-591, doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-01- 2023-0022.

Kristensen, S.R., Anselmi, L., Brown, G.W., Fichera, E., Kovacs, R., Loewenson, R., Singh, N., Midzi, N., Mustapha, F., White, L. and Borghi, J. (2023), “Pay for performance at a crossroads: lessons from taking a global perspective”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 35 Nos 6-7, pp. 592-605, doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-03-2023-0084.

Srinivasan, S. and Sarin, A. (2023), “Frontline workers’ performance in prosocial tasks: evidence from a lab-in-the-field in western India”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 36 Nos 6-7, pp. 546-562.

Zitti, T., Coulibaly, A., Gali-Gali, I.A.Z., Ridde, V. and Turcotte-Tremblay, A.-M. (2023), “A comparative study of community verification processes in the context of performance-based financing in Mali and Burkina Faso”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 36 Nos 6-7, pp. 492-511, doi: 10.1108/IJPSM-02-2023-0063.