King's College London

Research portal

Reputations count: why benchmarking performance is improving health care across the world

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gwyn Bevan, Alice Evans, Sabina Nuti

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages21
JournalHealth Economics, Policy and Law
Early online date16 Mar 2018
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 16 Mar 2018

Documents

King's Authors

Abstract

This paper explores what motivates improved health care performance. Previously, many have thought that performance would either improve via choice and competition or by relying on trust and altruism. But neither assumption is supported by available evidence. So instead we explore a third approach of reciprocal altruism with sanctions for unacceptably poor performance and rewards for high performance. These rewards and sanctions, however, are not monetary, but in the form of reputational effects through public reporting of benchmarking of performance. Drawing on natural experiments in Italy and the United Kingdom, we illustrate how public benchmarking can improve poor performance at the national level through ‘naming and shaming’ and enhance good performance at the sub-national level through ‘competitive benchmarking’ and peer learning. Ethnographic research in Zambia also showed how reputations count. Policy-makers could use these effects in different ways to improve public services.

Download statistics

No data available

View graph of relations

© 2018 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454