We use administrative personnel records of a large British financial sector employer to investigate how workers' behaviour responds to remuneration differences and 'luck' in the promotion system. The main methodological innovation is the use of the early part of a panel dataset to construct an individual specific measure of the importance of luck in the promotion process. The measure of luck is used to analyse workers' behaviour in the later part of the panel.The substantive results should probably be treated with caution until confirmed by evidence from other firms and contexts. In a nutshell, we confirm that workers respond to larger remuneration spreads by working harder. They are not prepared to work so hard, though, if the promotion system operates in an unpredictable fashion.Our evidence also bears on behavioural differences between men and women, and between workers at different levels of the hierarchy. We are unable to detect any difference between men's and women's reactions to the incentives provided by pay and promotion. The large and robust gender differences displayed in the raw data are therefore not due to incentives. We need to look elsewhere for an explanation. Similarly large and robust differences in absence behaviour between different levels of the hierarchy are actually reversed when the effect of incentives is factored out.
BackgroundPopulation-based funding formulae act as an important means of promoting equitable health funding structures. To evaluate how policy makers in different jurisdictions construct health funding formulae and build an understanding of contextual influences underpinning formula construction we carried out a comparative analysis of key components of funding formulae across seven high-income and predominantly publically financed health systems: New Zealand, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, the state of New South Wales in Australia, the Canadian province of Ontario, and the city of Stockholm, Sweden.MethodsCore components from each formula were summarised and key similarities and differences evaluated from a compositional perspective. We categorised approaches to constructing funding formulae under three main themes: identifying factors which predict differential need amongst populations; adjusting for cost factors outside of needs factors; and engaging in normative correction of allocations for ‘unmet’ need.ResultsWe found significant congruence in the factors used to guide need and cost adjustments. However, there is considerable variation in interpretation and implementation of these factors.ConclusionDespite broadly similar frameworks, there are distinct differences in the composition of the formulae across the seven health systems. Ultimately, the development of funding formulae is a dynamic process, subject to availability of data reflecting health needs, the influence of wider socio-political objectives and health system determinants.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.