Search

Markets are increasingly used by governments to deliver social services, underpinned by the belief that they can drive efficiency and quality. These ‘quasi‐markets' require on‐going management to ensure they meet policy goals, and address issues of market inequity. This has seen debates emerge around ‘market stewardship' and ‘market shaping’ that center on how best to manage markets toward optimal policy outcomes. At present, there is a significant gap in both literature and practice with regard to what types of actions are most effective for market stewardship. In this article, we outline a framework that helps diagnose different quasi‐market problems. We delineate two dimensions of public service quasi‐markets—sufficiency and diversity—using the example of a disability personalization market to show how this framework can unpack different types of quasi‐market states. Lastly, we outline the types of interventions that might be adopted to help deal with ineffective quasi‐markets. Evidence for Practice Market mechanisms are increasing being used by governments around the world to drive innovation and efficacies. Increasingly it is being recognized that these markets need intervention in order to meet policy goals. This paper provides a framework for conceptualizing types of market problems, and offers solutions for the scenarios outlined.

Markets are increasingly used by governments to deliver social services, underpinned by the belief that they can drive efficiency and quality. These ‘quasi-markets' require on-going management to ensure they meet policy goals, and address issues of market inequity. This has seen debates emerge around ‘market stewardship' and ‘market shaping’ that center on how best to manage markets toward optimal policy outcomes. At present, there is a significant gap in both literature and practice with regard to what types of actions are most effective for market stewardship. In this article, we outline a framework that helps diagnose different quasi-market problems. We delineate two dimensions of public service quasi-markets—sufficiency and diversity—using the example of a disability personalization market to show how this framework can unpack different types of quasi-market states. Lastly, we outline the types of interventions that might be adopted to help deal with ineffective quasi-markets.

In this chapter, the changes that have occurred in the Australian government’s(Commonwealth) accounting systems and its reporting/disclosure regimes over the last 30 years and the consequential effects on accountability will be considered. Many of these changes result from a combination of several factors (Broadbent & Guthrie 1992; Ryan 1995). One of the factors proposed as being a catalyst for the changes is the emergence of the ‘new right’ and its promotion of market solutions to public sector resourcing problems (Hood 1991). Whilst the focus here is on the Australian Commonwealth government, it is also relevant to the various state governments within Australia that have adopted similar changes and to international jurisdictions since these changes have also occurred in other western democracies. As an example, accrual accounting, badged as resource accounting, was introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001 (Connolly & Hyndman 2006). There were in the UK, as there had been in Australia, concerns about the ability of accrual accounting to deliver effective accountability mechanisms (Carlin 2005).

There has been a recent trend towards the use of performance indicators – often predicated on financial data – to enhance accountability and transparency of local government both in Australia and abroad. However, performance management also brings with it a range of risks including inter alia unintended performance distortion, synecdochal gap and intended distortions. This chapter reviews the substantial scholarly literature on government performance management before applying the concepts to a particular instance of high stakes performance management: the New South Wales Fit for the Future program. Fit for the Future required councils to self-assess against seven ratios drawn from financial statement data. Councils which failed to achieve the prescribed benchmarks were subject to forced amalgamations. Empirical evidence is provided which suggests significant levels of distortion in the performance management data. It is argued that careful design and testing of ratios – in order to avoid deleterious outcomes – is extremely important in any performance management regime, irrespective of whether accounting data from audited financial statements is used.

The not-for-profit (NFP) sector is a critical part of the social infrastructure of a developed country. It is a sector that has a long history and, in the Australian context, was early recognised by the establishment of legislation designed to facilitate the incorporation of associations. Over time, the legislation in Australia was changed to meet changing perceptions relating to the governance, regulation and supervision of these organisations. The focus of NFP organisations has largely been recognised to be related to mission—NFP organisations are provided tax relief and other advantages as they are seen to provide critical services and supports that enhance our civil society while members cannot appropriate profits or assets generated out of the operations. However, in the last five years or so, the general perception regarding the regulation and supervision of NFP organisations has related to what might be called commercial foci. Part of this change is the result of the increasingly commercial nature of the relationship between government and the NFP sector, wherein government seeks to procure services from the sector commensurate with its policy objectives as they may be from time to time. This chapter examines the development of reform at the national and sub-national levels in Australia related to NFP organisations over time, in order to assess the nature of NFP organisations themselves, the drivers of reform, and the impact such reforms are likely to have on mission priorities in particular. We find that, while NFP organisations are sui generis and have their provenance in mission centricity, without focusing on this mission as part of the regulatory framework, the drift toward commercial values is likely to reduce the suitability of NFP organisations to their social task.

The history of accounting can be traced back hundreds of years with double entry accounting first transcribed by Cotrugli and Pacioli in 1458 and 1494 respectively (Yamey 1994). Since then financial reporting, including Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), has developed through the centuries. One of the major turning points in the United States (US) was the Great Depression which triggered comprehensive reform beginning in 1930 with the American Institute of Accountants and the New York Stock Exchange reviewing financial reporting requirements (Financial Accounting Foundation n.d.). According to the Financial Accounting Foundation (n.d.), their main aim was the provision of information to aid in decision-making by users. Other countries followed suit, including Australia, always with this same key message as the objective. It is how that information is transmitted that continues to result in much debate amongst accounting standard setting bodies. Differential reporting became topical when the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) introduced International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for Small and Medium-sized Entities (SMEs) in July 2009. This chapter fills a gap in the current literature by, initially, considering the impact on the public sector in general if a differential reporting system is introduced. Then, it examines more closely the Australian Reduced Disclosure Requirements (RDR) regime—something other countries could consider instead of IFRS for SMEs. Taken in the context of value as defined in this chapter, findings reveal that not all criteria in terms of efficiencies, clarity and transparency, are met. For the public sector there are bigger issues at stake in terms of accountability that neither the IFRS nor RDR have addressed.

? Based on rigorous research by top public sector researchers, this edited collection explores how the concepts of accountability, governance and auditing are applied in practice, providing a unique perspective on the global challenges of ...

It explores the multiple nuances which impact the adoption of governance policies, while reflecting the additional complexity imposed by political factors. ¿ Based on rigorous research by top public sector researchers, this edited ...

This chapter focuses on the central role of evaluation in assessing the achievement of outcomes and the challenges. It reviews the nature and structure of a Social Impact Bonds (SIBs). SIBs are very new and in many respects experimental and are likely to remain in that category for some time yet. The public good here equates to an increase in better focused, better managed and more effective human services programs. Barclay and Symons have identified two elements of assessment that need to be undertaken in order for a SIB to be successfully evaluated. The search for interventions suited to the SIB approach raises significant issues for the wider practice of evaluation. As Azemati et al. comment for many social problems, we lack proven, scalable solutions. There may be increased opportunities for focused and rigorous evaluations which are necessary precursors to the negotiation of future SIBs.

This chapter discusses the key aspects of accountability in relation to the public policy contribution of Not For Profit Organizations (NFPOs). Accountability provides a lens through which we can gain insights into governance of nonstatutory contributions to governments public policy objectives. A review of accountability frameworks for NFPOs observed that there are very few critical eyes looking from the outside; no shareholders, stockbrokers or specific government watchdogs. Many of the entities involved do not operate in the market sector and many of their activities would not be undertaken by the for-profit or government sectors. This is either due to the traditional allocation of government funding to NPFOs or because the funding for service delivery is insufficient and inherently unprofitable. Characteristics of good Not For Profit (NFP) governance which includes a focus on meeting member and stakeholder expectations through accountability, transparency, and disclosure.

Since 2008, kidney exchange in America has grown in part from the incorporation of nondirected donors in transplant chains rather than simple exchanges. It is controversial whether these chains should be performed simultaneously ‘domino-paired donation’, (DPD) or nonsimultaneously ‘nonsimultaneous extended altruistic donor, chains (NEAD). NEAD chains create ‘bridge donors’ whose incompatible recipients receive kidneys before the bridge donor donates, and so risk reneging by bridge donors, but offer the opportunity to create more transplants by overcoming logistical barriers inherent in simultaneous chains. Gentry et al. simulated whether DPD or NEAD chains would produce more transplants when chain segment length was limited to three transplants, and reported that DPD performed at least as well as NEAD chains. As this finding contrasts with the experience of several groups involved in kidney-paired donation, we performed simulations that allowed for longer chain segments and used actual patient data from the Alliance for Paired Donation. When chain segments of 4–6 transplants are allowed in the simulations, NEAD chains produce more transplants than DPD. Our simulations showed not only more transplants as chain length increased, but also that NEAD chains produced more transplants for highly sensitized and blood type O recipients., Alliance for Paired Donation, Novartis (Firm), Genzyme Corporation, F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co., Pfizer Inc., Astellas Pharma US, National Science Foundation (U.S.) (Grant No. 0616733 to the National Bureau of Economic Research), Life Connection of Ohio, University of Toledo

Background: Hormone therapy (HT) is commonly given to women to alleviate the climacteric symptoms associated with menopause. There is concern that this treatment may increase the risk of breast cancer. The potential association of HT and breast cancer risk is of particular interest to women who carry a mutation in BRCA1 because they face a high lifetime risk of breast cancer and because many of these women take HT after undergoing prophylactic surgical oophorectomy at a young age. Methods: We conducted a matched case-control study of 472 postmenopausal women with a BRCA1 mutation to examine whether or not the use of HT is associated with subsequent risk of breast cancer. Breast cancer case patients and control subjects were matched with respect to age, age at menopause, and type of menopause (surgical or natural). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated with conditional logistic regression. Statistical tests were two-sided. Results: In this group of BRCA1 mutation carriers, the adjusted OR for breast cancer associated with ever use of HT compared with never use was 0.58 (95% CI = 0.35 to 0.96; P =. 03). In analyses by type of HT, an inverse association with breast cancer risk was observed with use of estrogen only (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.98; P =. 04); the association with use of estrogen plus progesterone was not statistically significant (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.34 to 1.27; P =. 21). Conclusion: Among postmenopausal women with a BRCA1 mutation, HT use was not associated with increased risk of breast cancer; indeed, in this population, it was associated with a decreased risk.

Several options for cancer prevention are available for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, including prophylactic surgery, chemoprevention and