LIST OF PANELS

General Objectives,

This panel objective is to comparatively discuss payment for performance (PBF) and performance-based financing (PBF) programmes, as well as other forms of financial incentives, from an international comparative and cross-sectorial perspective. Discussions will be focused on health care, social care and education, in High-income countries (HIC) and Low- and Middle-income countries (LMICs), not only from diverse comparative perspectives in each sector, but also from cross-sectorial perspectives.

Research Questions

How can the design and/or policymaking process of one country or groups of countries (or sectors) shed light on how to foster a more effective policymaking process and/or re-design of P4P/PBF? How do actors/stakeholders with distinct interests and actions, as well as types of learning and analytical/political capacities engaged in the policymaking and/or design process of P4P/PBF, influence the policy appraisals and design of policy tools? Can those processes be characterised as collaborative processes? What are the levels of effectiveness of those policies? From a methodologic perspective, how could we employ multiple theories and, for instance, the policy tools theories, the advocacy coalition and multiple streams frameworks to answer the same question in a comparative way?

From the viewpoint of implementation, how specific public policy themes/theories and frameworks, or combination of policy themes/concepts - such as policy feedback, learning, adhesion, street level bureaucracy - relates to distinct capacities, contexts? For example: How policy drivers/or mechanisms (coming from diverse policy theories and frameworks) takes place in countries/policies holding distinct/similar combinations of capacities (analytical, operational and/or organizational capacity) - and as a way to categorise types of pathways/patterns of implementation that could better inform implementation challenges. For instance: How do policy feedback and learning take place in the implementation of payment for performance programmes in health in Brazil and Germany, and from the perspective of both operational and organizational capacity? Do we see more diverse forms of learning, with positive feedback in the German context, with higher levels of capacity? How could Germany learn from the Brazilian pattern, vice-versa?

Scientific Relevance

There is still a knowledge gap regarding how Low- and Middle-income countries (LMICs) can learn from High income countries (HIC) and, reversely, how HIC have/can learn from LMICs as far as the policymaking and/or design and implementation processes of payment for performance (P4P) and performance-based financing (PBF) programmes are concerned. This gap is also relevant not only across countries with similar and distinct levels of income, but also across similar and distinct public policy sectors, such as health, social care, education.

There is a need to better understand if/how the design and/or policymaking process of one country or group(s) of countries can shed light on how to improve the policymaking process and/or re-design of a more effective P4P/PBF which is in accordance with the government/sector capabilities and competencies or with the reality of implementation. We also need to advance our knowledge on how public policy theories/concepts take place in distinct contexts, cross-sectorial and comparatively.

Another co-organizer: Prof. Garrett Brown, University of Leeds

The best papers submitted to this panel will be considered for publication in a special issue in the International Journal of Public Sector Management (ISSN: 0951-3558)

This panel welcomes comparative papers studying payment for performance (PBF) or performance-based financing (PBF) programmes, as well as other forms of financial incentives, in health care, social care and education in High-income countries (HIC) and Low- and Middle-income countries (LMICs), from a comparative perspective in each sector or from a comparative cross-sectorial perspective (joining more than one of those sectors). This means that we expect to receive papers dealing with comparisons within the same sector (within countries/regions/cities) and with comparisons across distinct sectors.

- [Comparative Policymaking processes] We welcome comparative sectorial and comparative cross-sectorial papers focusing on the policymaking processes of P4P/PBF, using public policy theories such as multiple streams, advocacy coalitions, policy tools, collaborative policymaking, ownership, ideologies, innovative tools, policy learning, governance arrangements, performance system/indicators, and others theories and frameworks.

- [Comparative Policy design] Papers dealing with the design of P4P/PBF from a comparative or cross-sectorial perspective, using design/tools theories and frameworks from public Policies, health policies, social care and education are welcome as well.

- [Comparative Implementation] We also welcome cross-sectorial and comparative papers dealing with the implementation of P4P/PBF in LMIC and HIC using public policy theories, that can be combined with health, social care and education. Examples of Public policies are: street level bureaucracy, policy learning, policy capacity (framework), policy feedback, motivation, policy network, cooperation, policy effectiveness, public management, wicked problems, coping, unexpected results.

Please note that papers focusing on the same type of policy are expected to compare different countries, or regions or cities/ districts.

- [Comparative Policy Methods] We welcome papers focusing on comparative methods:

1. Seeking to answer how payment for performance is different across countries or across sectors, and what explains those distinctions.

2. Comparing the power and validity of public policy theories in distinct institutional setting(s)/ configuration(s), either testing a single theory or a group of theories

3. Applying a theoretical lens in the analyses (using either one theory or a group of theories/ framework(s)) to answer the same research question in public policy in order to develop or start developing or discussing a probable new (best) theory.

4. Other related comparative methods are welcome as well

 - [Other related Issues and Methods] We also welcome papers dealing with other public policy and health policy, social care and education issues and comparative methods related to this call.