IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v4y2010i3p281-302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder governance of organ transplantation: A desirable model for inducing evidence‐based medicine?

Author

Listed:
  • David L. Weimer

Abstract

Medical governance should secure and apply appropriate expertise, accommodate stakeholder interests, and promote social values. The most common form of governance, public (agency) rulemaking by government agencies, usually involves supplementing in‐house expertise through advisory committees. An alternative, private (stakeholder) rulemaking, involves delegating the authority for developing rules directly to stakeholders, who often command relevant expertise, including that arising out of tacit knowledge. The possible advantages and disadvantages of agency and stakeholder rulemaking in medical governance can be assessed both from what we know about these forms in general and from experience with a prominent example of stakeholder rulemaking; that is, governance of the US organ transplantation system. It appears that this governance has been exceptionally successful in promoting evidence‐based medicine. The stakeholder role in the governance of transplantation could be replicated in other areas by creating meaningful stakes to engage stakeholders and by increasing isolation from legislative politics through an independent funding source and circumscribed oversight.

Suggested Citation

  • David L. Weimer, 2010. "Stakeholder governance of organ transplantation: A desirable model for inducing evidence‐based medicine?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3), pages 281-302, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:4:y:2010:i:3:p:281-302
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01082.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01082.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01082.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morris Fiorina, 1982. "Legislative choice of regulatory forms: Legal process or administrative process?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 33-66, January.
    2. Jonathan Cave & Stephen W. Salant, 1996. "Cartel Quotas under Majority Rule," Contributions to Economic Analysis, in: Agricultural Markets, pages 273-309, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    3. McCubbins, Mathew D & Noll, Roger G & Weingast, Barry R, 1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-277, Fall.
    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. Miltos Makris, 2003. "Administrative Bureaus with Standard Operating Procedures," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 03/062, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    2. John Brehm & Scott Gates, 1994. "When Supervision Fails to Induce Compliance," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 6(3), pages 323-343, July.
    3. Sean Farhang, 2008. "Public Regulation and Private Lawsuits in the American Separation of Powers System," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 821-839, October.
    4. P. Hägg, 1997. "Theories on the Economics of Regulation: A Survey of the Literature from a European Perspective," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 337-370, December.
    5. Virginia Rivas, 2018. "La reputación técnica y el emprendimiento de políticas como fuente de poderes: el caso de la Fiscalía Nacional Económica," Estudios Públicos, Centro de Estudios Públicos, vol. 0(152), pages 91-137.
    6. Christopher Li, 2021. "Indirect accountability of political appointees," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 33(3), pages 383-396, July.
    7. John M. de Figueiredo & Edward H. Stiglitz, 2015. "Democratic Rulemaking," NBER Working Papers 21765, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Marín Uribe, Pedro Luis & Sicotte, Richard, 2003. "Does the Separation of Regulatory Powers Reduce the Threat of Capture? Evidence from the US Maritime Bureaucracy," CEPR Discussion Papers 4093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. David Epstein & Sharyn O'Halloran, 1999. "Asymmetric Information, Delegation, and the Structure of Policy-Making," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(1), pages 37-56, January.
    10. Deepak Hegde & Bhaven Sampat, 2015. "Can Private Money Buy Public Science? Disease Group Lobbying and Federal Funding for Biomedical Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2281-2298, October.
    11. Stavins, Robert & Keohane, Nathaniel & Revesz, Richard, 1997. "The Positive Political Economy of Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-25, Resources for the Future.
    12. Jørn Rattsø & Rune J. Sørensen, 2012. "Political control of government enterprises: Who controls whom?," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2012-02-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    13. Sanghee Park, 2018. "Understanding Public Sector Debt: Financial Vicious Circle under the Soft Budget Constraint," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 71-92, March.
    14. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    15. Lehmann, Markus A., 2002. "Error minimization and deterrence in agency control," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 373-391, May.
    16. Tonja Jacobi, 2009. "The Role of Politics and Economics in Explaining Variation in Litigation Rates in the U.S. States," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(1), pages 205-233, January.
    17. Stavins, Robert, 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-53, Resources for the Future.
    18. Pablo T. Spiller, 2003. "The Institutional Foundations of Public Policy: A Transactions Approach with Application to Argentina," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 281-306, October.
    19. Lehr, William & Sicker, Douglas, 2017. "Communications Act 2021," 28th European Regional ITS Conference, Passau 2017 169478, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    20. Mireille Chiroleu‐Assouline & Thomas P. Lyon, 2020. "Merchants of doubt: Corporate political action when NGO credibility is uncertain," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 439-461, April.

    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:wly:reggov:v:4:y:2010:i:3:p:281-302. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.