Search

The article examines the implementation by the Italian Ministry of Health of performance-based funding to allocate resources for research to IRCCS (Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico) hospitals. The analysis provides evidence that ten years from its introduction the performance-based funding system has persisted, but it has been implemented rather differently from what had been imagined by its proponents. By drawing on the theoretical frameworks of policy implementation, agency, and relational contracting, the study establishes that the overall design of the system has contributed to this final outcome only to a limited extent. Rather, the lack of procedural fairness, as well as of political leadership in linking the system to national research priorities, has undermined the basis for trust between hospitals and the Ministry of Health. The article discusses how, in this, the governance of performance-based funding and its strong ownership by the ministerial bureaucracy has been determinant.

The approval (2003) and enforcement (2005) of a smoking ban in Italy have been viewed by many as an unexpectedly successful example of policy change. The present paper, by applying a processualist approach, concentrates on two policy cycles between 2000 and 2005. These had opposing outcomes: an incomplete decisional stage and an authoritative decision, enforced two years later. Through the analysis of the different phases of agenda setting, alternative specification and decision making, we have compared the quality of participation of policy entrepreneurs in the two cycles, their political strategies and, in these, the relevance of issue image. The case allows us to direct the attention of scholars and practitioners to an early phase of the policy implementation process ‐ which we have named ‘transition to practice’. This, managed with political strategy, might have strongly contributed to the final successful policy outcome.