Search results

The aim of the chapter is to compare Public–Private Partnership (PPP) healthcare investments in developed countries with those in emerging economies, analysing the sustainability issues of health-led growth. Healthcare PPP best practices in developed nations represent a template that catching-up economies may follow with local adaptations. A comparison starts from the UK case and then examines the Turkish experience as an ideal bridge between advanced and developing countries. Healthcare investments are a primary social infrastructure, with a deep impact on poverty alleviation. Demand for the infrastructure necessary to provide healthcare services has increased substantially in developing and emerging economies due to rapid economic growth, industrialization and urbanization, while public supply is limited by budget constraints. PPP best practices provide a global benchmark (World bank, 2015b). Integrated supply and value chains and management of viability milestone improve healthcare PPP sustainability and bankability. Different legal frameworks and funding issues are not thoroughly investigated. Careful customization and local fine-tuning of best practices require further scrutiny. Homogenization of best practices improves comparison of different projects, fostering competition and easing cross-border investments, accompanied by knowledge transfer, sharing and consequent value co-creation. Best practices improve value for money, bankability and resilience of PPP investments, with potential benefits for healthcare services and quality of life. This chapter makes an innovative and comprehensive comparison of healthcare PPP projects worldwide, looking for a common denominator of value-enhancing rules and resilient pro-growth strategies.

The chapter aims to compare public, private and non-profit working citizens’ preferences for cross-sectoral relations in England and Finland. Its main contribution is in identifying preferences in the delivery of services in the respective countries in which citizen choice has become an issue in times of public sector austerity. Challenges arise because in these two similarly institutionalized healthcare systems but pluralistic societies people have contrasting perspectives on the values that should guide policy decisions. The survey data was therefore collected in both England (N = 2,000) and Finland (N = 1,973) in 2013 from cities in which citizens have choices regarding health service delivery. Our informants in England anticipated more potential for better ‘privatized driven public interest’ than did those in Finland. Surprisingly, over 60% of public sector employees in England would like for-profit healthcare to carry main responsibility, and almost 55% of all employees agree with this. Almost 20% of respondents in both countries did not care who the service provider is if only services are available. Thus, the research has pioneering relevance for policymaking, public strategic management and the comparative empirical study of managing people’s preferences in cross-sectoral relations. We conclude that identifying working citizens’ preferences is crucial for effective utilization of current welfare services because the preferences derive from both service and work experience. In sum, strategically, this identification lets public managers balance biased images of the cross-sectoral differences and reconstruct functional hybridity of services.

Healthcare is indispensable for any civilisation to attain a good quality of life and well-being on both mental and physical levels. The healthcare domain primarily falls under pharma, medical, biotechnology, and nursing. Also, other fields may be aligned with these primary fields. Healthcare amasses the contemporary trends and knowledge of upcoming techniques to improve healthcare processes. The practitioners are primarily doctors, nurses, specialists and health professionals, hospital administrators, and health insurance.

It is a fundamental attribute needed for any society to attain good quality of life and well-being in mental and physical health. It is a fundamental right of people to receive good healthcare where drug treatment and hospitalization are available at a nominal cost, as a requirement of today’s modern era. There appears to be a significant disparity in the availability of good healthcare in rural areas compared to urban in India. Even though we enter the digital era with the facilities offered in Industry 4.0 and other advanced technologies brings about a significant change of overall processing within healthcare systems. During the pandemic of COVID-19, there has been digital transformation with success globally. Healthcare cooperatives are a new norm to support the healthcare systems globally. The chapter discusses Gampaha healthcare cooperative and reviews Ayushman Sahakar scheme in India. The reforms require time to evolve.

This chapter investigates the origins of cross-sectoral collaboration by exploring when and why policy networks form within the Turkish health sector – a least likely case for network formation. The analysis presented here draws on information collected from a number of official documents, semi-structured interviews with professional experts, and two multi-stakeholder meetings. Timewise, networks entered the policy jargon during the introduction of the Health Transformation Program in 2003. Yet, the years between 2011 and 2015 were ground-breaking in producing concrete cross-sectoral collaborative instruments of policy making. The findings of the analysis reveal that policy networks form as a result of central government’s choice to devolve responsibility and expand the policy space with new issues and actors. Moreover, policy networks emerge not only during the times of policy change which has a reactionary, abrupt, and nature but also during the times of policy stability and legitimacy. These contextual factors are crucial in maintaining an atmosphere of trust among stakeholders, particularly between state and non-state actors. The refugee crisis and spreading securitization discourse in the post-2015 period explain the shifting policy and political agenda leading to public sector retrenchment from cross-sectoral projects within the field of health. This chapter intends to contribute to the literature of comparative public policy by examining the link between policy networks and policy change in addition to adding to the debates on network governance by exploring the processes of network formation. Finally, this chapter contributes to Turkish studies by examining the process of network formation within the Turkish health sector.

Cross sector collaboration, particularly the use of Multi-Sectorial Partnerships, has recently developed as a crucial element of efforts to deliver and improve public service outcomes across developing countries. Yet for collaborations initiated to respond to emergencies, these have to cope with both a fluid problem and the context of operation. We utilise a literature grounded framework and draw on publicly accessible data on the empirical case study of the National COVID-19 Task Force (NTF) in Uganda to discern important considerations for effective governance of cross-sector initiatives in emergencies. Based on the analysis, we argue that a careful mix of considerations in the structures, processes and actors realms enable collaborative initiatives to remain effective in a continually evolving and wide scale response in emergency contexts. We specifically underscore the primacy of the adoption of whole-of-government approach, cascading of identical collaboration structures to lower levels of government, adoption of a unified communication strategy, participatory resource mobilisation and active involvement of initiative's champions. We have reinforced the enduring relevance of cross-sector initiatives for addressing wicked problems, foreshadowed ingredients for more agile partnerships and mainstreamed the consideration of evolving context in the collaboration discourse.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its related economic meltdown and social unrest severely challenged most countries, their societies, economies, organizations, and individual citizens. Focusing on both more and less successful country-specific initiatives to fight the pandemic and its multitude of related consequences, this chapter explores implications for leadership and effective action at the individual, organizational, and societal levels. As international management scholars and consultants, the authors document actions taken and their wide-ranging consequences in a diverse set of countries, including countries that have been more or less successful in fighting the pandemic, are geographically larger and smaller, are located in each region of the world, are economically advanced and economically developing, and that chose unique strategies versus strategies more similar to those of their neighbors. Cultural influences on leadership, strategy, and outcomes are described for 19 countries. Informed by a cross-cultural lens, the authors explore such urgent questions as: What is most important for leaders, scholars, and organizations to learn from critical, life-threatening, society-encompassing crises and grand challenges? How do leaders build and maintain trust? What types of communication are most effective at various stages of a crisis? How can we accelerate learning processes globally? How does cultural resilience emerge within rapidly changing environments of fear, shifting cultural norms, and profound challenges to core identity and meaning? This chapter invites readers and authors alike to learn from each other and to begin to discover novel and more successful approaches to tackling grand challenges. It is not definitive; we are all still learning.

Intentions of managers of pharmaceutical multinational enterprises (MNEs) to adopt business strategies, which will aid global health and wellbeing, are in some ways linked with their understanding of the returns that their company will receive from these investments. However, the MNE’s managers are unaware of business strategies that will allow them to link their business activities with the corporate objectives of contributing to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Pharmaceutical companies are moving toward monopolistic practices by acquiring local companies for manufacturing purposes or by engaging local companies in contract manufacturing and directing the focus of these companies away from innovation and toward profit making. At the same time, pharmaceutical MNEs are promoting global health and wellbeing as their SDGs. This study uses knowledge from existing sources and expert insights to explain the returns that MNEs can get from their investments related to global health and wellbeing. One of the important recommendations from the ethical point of view is engaging local firms in the innovation process; from the marketing perspective, this study recommends the use of a corporate brand and not a product brand for offering generic medicines. The operations perspective explains how MNEs can incorporate the social agenda into their mainstream business strategies. Limitations of the study are discussed, and avenues for future research are explained.

The global healthcare industry is one of the largest and fastest-growing service industries in the world. The respective benefits of public and private healthcare systems are continually debated, but a third way – that of healthcare cooperatives – is emerging as an alternative method for managing the well-being of the population. There is a growing demand for bringing together successful cases and models of healthcare cooperatives across the world. This chapter focuses on the initiatives of successful healthcare cooperative models from different parts of the world. The chapter highlights the Health cooperative’s capability to deliver positive outcomes through healthcare services that are sustained through the collaborative efforts of their members, with remarkable examples and models established in every corner of the world. Such cooperatives provide hospitals and infrastructure, medical facilities, biotechnology, information technology, and all other healthcare services. With this objective, the chapter will help to understand the initiatives in healthcare cooperatives in different parts of the world.