IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v97y1998i1-2p93-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Entry Barriers and Medical Board Funding Autonomy

Author

Listed:
  • Svorny, Shirley
  • Toma, Eugenia Froedge

Abstract

In this paper, the authors develop and test the hypothesis that institutional funding arrangements affect the extent to which public agencies are influenced by special interests. They test this hypothesis using data on state medical boards. In 1989, medical boards in twenty-one states received budget appropriations from their legislatures. The remaining boards operated independent of legislative control, financing their activities from fees and other revenues. The authors find that budgetary autonomy does influence agency decisions. The ability of physicians to restrict entry is enhanced where licensing boards are self-financed. Copyright 1998 by Kluwer Academic Publishers

Suggested Citation

  • Svorny, Shirley & Toma, Eugenia Froedge, 1998. "Entry Barriers and Medical Board Funding Autonomy," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 97(1-2), pages 93-106, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:97:y:1998:i:1-2:p:93-106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0048-5829/contents
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter T. Leeson & Henry A. Thompson, 2023. "Public choice and public health," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 5-41, April.
    2. Brenton Peterson & Sonal Pandya & David Leblang, 2014. "Doctors with borders: occupational licensing as an implicit barrier to high skill migration," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 45-63, July.
    3. Shirley Svorny, 2004. "Licensing Doctors: Do Economists Agree?," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 1(2), pages 279-305, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:97:y:1998:i:1-2:p:93-106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.