Search results

Purpose – The numbers of health care transparency initiatives are increasing. Despite the growing availability of quality data, there seems to be a shortage of evidence about the effects and effectiveness of such initiatives. The aim of this systematic review is to document the effects of transparency, defined as the public release of quality performance data, on hospital care outcomes.

Design/methodology/approach – Through a review of the literature, we chose 46 keywords to use in our searches and focused on empirical studies published in English between 2010 and 2015. The use of combinations of these keywords in searches of four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) generated 13,849 publications. The removal of duplicates and exclusion of studies that were not empirical or not relevant to transparency and quality resulted in 39 studies to be reviewed.

Findings – Our review of the literature confirmed the growth of health care transparency efforts, led by the United States, and found mixed results regarding the effects of transparency on hospital care outcomes. For example, mortality, the most frequently researched performance measure (n = 15), exhibited this mixed pattern by having studies showing a reduction (n = 4), increase (n = 1), mixed findings (n = 4), and no significant relationship (n = 6) as a result of public release. We also found a limited number of articles related to unintended consequences of public reporting. When compared with earlier systematic reviews, there seems to be a trend in the reduction of unintended consequences. Therefore, we recommend exploration of this potential trend in future studies empirically.

Practical Implications – The research findings summarized in this systematic review can be used to understand the results of existing transparency efforts and to develop future transparency initiatives that may better enhance hospital quality performance.

Originality/value – This is the latest and most comprehensive systematic review summarizing the effects of transparency of quality metrics on hospital care outcomes.

In recent years, international bodies and public opinion have recommended that governments adopt social responsibility practices to inform and be accountable to citizens about their sustainability actions in environmental, social and economic fields (Galera et al., 2014) and restore citizens' confidence in public authorities (Crane et al., 2008; Shepherd et al., 2010). This chapter reviews the literature on measuring and reporting sustainable performance in the public sector. Analyzing 35 studies published in a period of 10 years (from 2012 to 2021), we address two specific research questions: How and to what extent have public organizations changed to integrate sustainability reporting (SR) systems? What are the enabling organizational factors in adopting SR in public organizations?

This article critically reviews the latest Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines and recommended sustainability topics for public agencies, and presents normative argument by using Gray’s (2006) ecological and eco-justice (EEJ) approach to produce public value inscriptions of sustainability to represent sustainable public value.

The study presents a critical analysis and discussion of the changes to the GRI G4 and sustainability topics for public agencies from a managerialistic and EEJ approach.

We observe that the GRI continues to evolve while paying scant attention to furthering the Sector Supplement for Public Sector Agencies as it remains in its pilot form since its inception in 2005. Changes to the GRI are somewhat enlightening because several of the changes do begin to address a more comprehensive view of how any organization, including public agencies, can contribute to an EEJ approach to sustainability.

In the future it is important to be aware that, as inscriptions, the GRI guidelines have the potential power to influence how managers in public agencies approach sustainability. As Dumay, Guthrie, and Farneti (2010) previously argued, if guidelines continue to approach sustainability from a ‘managerialistic’ approach then there is little hope of public sector agencies adopting EEJ practices. We argue that organizations should act referring to Gray’s EEJ approach.

In recent years, accounting for heritage assets has evolved but continuing the diversity in reporting practices remains problematic. Traditional cash-based budgets are still common in governmental accounting in some countries, but these ignore heritage assets as they are non-realisable and often do not generate revenue. Heritage assets do, however, incur cash outflows. The adoption of accrual accounting for recording heritage assets raises the technical issues of recognition and measurement of such assets, both in the balance sheet and income statements.

This chapter examines the financial reporting environment for heritage assets in New Zealand (NZ). The authors provide evidence on the reporting practices of heritage assets by five of NZ’s significant museums during the period 2011–2020, under IAS 16 and IPSAS 17 requirements. The authors analyse disclosures on heritage assets in the financial reports of these museums, including accounting policies, valuation and measurement, income statement impact, and related notes.

The findings suggest that, despite the existence of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) (IAS 16) and International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS) (IPSAS 17) reporting standards during this period, a variety of reporting practices exist among NZ museums. For example, heritage assets are recognised either at fair value or historical cost on the balance sheet or not recognised in the financial statements at all. These findings suggest substantial non-uniformity in the actual measurement and reporting of heritage assets. They are of interest to policy-makers and regulators, particularly in countries that are currently considering adoption of IPSAS.

The purpose of this contribution is to investigate whether popular reports can strengthen public governance by fostering greater transparency and public participation.

The analysis is based on the case of the “Bilancio in Arancio” of the Municipality of Milan. Data are collected through a triangulation of sources, including the authors’ direct observation, conversational interviews, the press, and a questionnaire distributed to the citizens participating in the experience.

The analysis discusses how popular reports can improve Public Governance, and identify related critical issues. More specifically, four key aspects of Popular reporting appear to play a central role in strengthening governance, that is, their capacity to ensure greater transparency, neutrality, enhanced participation and impacts on decision making. We suggest that every aspect represents an important “step” to be taken in an ideal “ladder of participation.”

Governments that want to enhance public governance may have an interest in developing popular reports, paying attention at ensuring transparency, neutrality, stakeholders’ participation, and their contribution to decision-making processes.

Popular reports can provide to citizens the education on public budgeting issues required to consciously participate in public decision-making processes and give them greater voice and power to express their instances. Popular reports can also promote a two-way communication and dialogue between citizens and governments.

Drawing on the experience of the Municipality of Milan, more general lessons are learnt on the role of popular reports in strengthening public governance, and on the related strengths and weaknesses.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

This introductory chapter elaborates on the tricky issue of measurement in public sector financial reporting, which arises due to the particular features of the public sector when compared to the private sector. It provides a summary of the book chapters, highlighting the theoretical/practical frameworks used, methodologies and conclusions. Three themes are identified in the book, namely, (a) frameworks and methodologies; (b) measuring and reporting the elements in financial statements; and (c) heritage. This chapter identifies important avenues for further research.

This book chapter intends to analyse a particular measurement basis, namely the ‘value in use’, regarding its definition and application in the public sector context. To this end, the current study assesses the development of a measurement practice in a particular jurisdiction, that is, Italy, compared with requirements in current International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs), in order to explore its suitability and practicability for a specific category of public sector assets, namely heritage assets.