No abstract

This article is a comparative study of three Scandinavian countries--Norway, Denmark, and Sweden--all of which have provided the individual patient with extensive rights to choose the hospital where he/she wishes to receive treatment. In the paper, we present an analysis of the utilization of the opportunity to choose between hospitals in these three countries. The analysis addresses two questions: (i) How many patients are exercising the right to choose between hospitals in these countries and who is making use of this opportunity? (ii) How can we explain the observed utilization pattern? The results of the study reveal clear similarities between the three countries and suggest that few patients have actually chosen their hospital. However, a gradual increase can be observed over the years. Few formal, legislative, or economic barriers exist for patients. Instead, limited knowledge amongst patients regarding reforms, combined with insufficient support from GPs and limited information, can explain why few patients choose to receive care outside of their local region.

Manuscript Type: ConceptualResearch Question/Issue: The aim of this research study is to theorize about the antecedents of the "board independence norm" (BIN), defined as the standard of having independent directors on corporate boards. The research approach is a comparative analysis of two governance settings -Sweden and the UK. Research Findings/Insights: The UK governance system uses a BIN of power balance from a shareholder perspective, while the Swedish governance system uses a BIN of social connectedness from a stakeholder perspective. However, our findings also suggest that exogenous variables such as pressures to conform to global "best practice" are antecedents of the BIN in the governance codes. Theoretical/Academic Implications: Any global theory of board independence must integrate differences in board structure and ownership patterns, as well as social connectedness in corporate networks. Furthermore, in addition to economic welfare, social welfare and stakeholder balance should also be considered. A synthesis of the "Varieties of Capitalism" and "New Institutional" perspectives considers that corporate governance is embedded in economic, cultural, and social contexts, yet also addresses institutional forces of conformity that are exogenous to the governance system. This seems to be a more promising framework for comparative governance research than "Contingent Agency Theory." Practitioner/Policy Implications: Multi-national regulative frameworks should focus on general principles of board independence. Local standard setters might then focus on developing a BIN that fits the specific institutional setting. We provide suggestions about how standard setters in Sweden and the UK can make their BINs more consistent with their settings.

Most conceptualizations of organizational learning are generally underpinned by some notion of unitarism. Theories typically assume shared visions, values, conceptions or identities. This paper, however, considers the dilemmas faced in organizations where identities and visions are not shared, and where conceptions and ideologies are diverse and possibly in conflict. Such organizations, here called hypocrisies, are characterized by divergent norms and stakeholder identities. Seeing learning as changes in shared conceptions between actors at different levels, a case is presented of change in a multinorm white-collar trade union. This shows the difficulty of promoting unitaristically conceived notions of organizational learning from the centre and that learning is problematic where power is dispersed within the organization. This challenges the view that learning organizations can be associated with empowerment. The paper concludes by arguing for the setting-aside of unitaristic assumptions of organizational learning and, instead, conceiving interventions in terms of local learning arenas for democratic dialogue in a context of organizational diversity.

No abstract