IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/noa/journl/y2017i3p103-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of the agent theory on private and public companies based on the analysis of Croatian health care system

Author

Listed:
  • Martina Sopta

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb)

  • Mihaela Mikić

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb)

  • Matej BotiÄ ki

Abstract

For years, the Republic of Croatia has been faced with the challenge of sustainability of its health care system due to the inefficiency of public health care institutions. It is generally believed that such development is the cause of health care system structure itself, which provides health care to all citizens. This paper seeks to explore whether public health care institutions can be more effective despite the system structure itself. The basic premise of the paper is that public health care institutions are ineffective because of the agent theory impact. In order to examine that premise, it is necessary to compare public and private health care institutions. The aim of this paper is to find out whether there is a greater impact of the agent theory in public health institutions in regard to different influence of private and public ownership on the management methods. The research methodology refers to the financial analysis of selected private and public health institutions. The examination of the professional qualification of managing directors of these institutions showed that there are no major differences in the share of experts in the field of economics in private and public institutions. Efficiency analysis based on the specific institutions shows that public health institutions are more ineffective than the private ones when it comes to cost management. Based on this, the conclusion is that the agent theory impact is more prevalent in public health care institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Martina Sopta & Mihaela Mikić & Matej BotiÄ ki, 2017. "Impact of the agent theory on private and public companies based on the analysis of Croatian health care system," Notitia - journal for economic, business and social issues, Notitia Ltd., vol. 1(3), pages 103-124, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:noa:journl:y:2017:i:3:p:103-124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.notitia.hr/RePEc/noa/journl/09_2017.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arnoud W. A. Boot & Radhakrishnan Gopalan & Anjan V. Thakor, 2006. "The Entrepreneur's Choice between Private and Public Ownership," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(2), pages 803-836, April.
    2. Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1985. "Credit Markets and the Control of Capital," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 17(2), pages 133-152, May.
    3. Avinash Dixit, 2002. "# Incentives and Organizations in the Public Sector: An Interpretative Review," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 696-727.
    4. Handy, Femida & Katz, Eliakim, 1998. "The Wage Differential between Nonprofit Institutions and Corporations: Getting More by Paying Less?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 246-261, June.
    5. Christian Kellner, 2017. "The principal-agent problem with smooth ambiguity," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(2), pages 83-119, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert, 2007. "Signaling and screening of workers' motivation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 605-624, April.
    2. Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert, 2010. "Managerial talent, motivation, and self-selection into public management," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(9-10), pages 654-660, October.
    3. Jonathan Lipow & Jay Simon, 2014. "Attitude, Aptitude, and Testing in the Efficient Mobilization of Military Manpower," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 113-124, April.
    4. Stijn VAN PUYVELDE & Marc JEGERS, 2016. "Heterogeneity and self-selection into nonprofit management," CIRIEC Working Papers 1603, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    5. Catalina Tejada & Eliana Ferrara & Henrik Kleven & Florian Blum & Oriana Bandiera & Michel Azulai, 2015. "State Effectiveness, Growth, and Development," Working Papers id:6668, eSocialSciences.
    6. Bilgehan TEKIN & Erol YENER, 2019. "The causality between economic growth and stock market in developing and developed countries: Toda-Yamamoto approach," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania / Editura Economica, vol. 0(2(619), S), pages 79-90, Summer.
    7. Josse Delfgaauw & Robert Dur, 2008. "Incentives and Workers' Motivation in the Public Sector," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(525), pages 171-191, January.
    8. Pradeepta Sethi & Brajesh Kumar, 2014. "Financial structure gap and economic development in India," Journal of Business Economics and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(4), pages 776-794, September.
    9. Mads Leth Felsager Jakobsen & Thomas Pallesen, 2017. "Performance Budgeting in Practice: the Case of Danish Hospital Management," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 255-273, June.
    10. Antonio Sánchez Soliño, 2019. "Sustainability of Public Services: Is Outsourcing the Answer?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-12, December.
    11. Canice Prendergast, 2016. "Bureaucratic Responses," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(S2), pages 183-215.
    12. Chen, Zhiyuan & Li, Yong & Zhang, Jie, 2016. "The bank–firm relationship: Helping or grabbing?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 385-403.
    13. Martinez, Isabelle & Serve, Stéphanie, 2011. "The delisting decision: The case of buyout offer with squeeze-out (BOSO)," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 228-239.
    14. Da Rin, Marco & Hellmann, Thomas, 2002. "Banks as Catalysts for Industrialization," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 366-397, October.
    15. Ester Manna, 2013. "Intinsically Motivated Agents: Blessing or Curse for Firms ?," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2013-37, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    16. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    17. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    18. Marc Berninger & Markus Klug & Dirk Schiereck, 2018. "Börsenrückzüge infolge steigender Corporate-Governance-Anforderungen – Empirische Evidenz von 13 europäischen Kapitalmärkten [Delistings due to Increased Corporate Governance Requirements – Empiric," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 351-391, December.
    19. Simon Burgess & Carol Propper & Marisa Ratto & Emma Tominey, 2017. "Incentives in the Public Sector: Evidence from a Government Agency," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(605), pages 117-141, October.
    20. Iftikhar Hussain, 2012. "Subjective Performance Evaluation in the Public Sector: Evidence from School Inspections," CEE Discussion Papers 0135, Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    agent theory; public health care institutions; health care system; private ownership; public ownership;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    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:noa:journl:y:2017:i:3:p:103-124. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Vlatka Bilas (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.notitia.hr .

    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.