IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/applec/v47y2015i24p2500-2513.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does organizational ownership matter? Objectives of employees in public, nonprofit and for-profit nursing homes

Author

Listed:
  • Stijn Van Puyvelde
  • Ralf Caers
  • Cind Du Bois
  • Marc Jegers

Abstract

Does organizational ownership matter for employees? We conducted a discrete choice experiment to reveal employees' objectives in for-profit, nonprofit and governmental nursing homes. The results indicate that differences in objectives among nursing home staff are at least partially related to differences in ownership type. More specifically, we find that employees of public nursing homes are less extrinsically motivated than their for-profit and nonprofit counterparts. However, the results also show that employees of for-profit, nonprofit and governmental nursing homes are trading off output quality and output quantity differently, in line with the view that public providers of elderly care are pursuing a supplier-of-last-resort objective function.

Suggested Citation

  • Stijn Van Puyvelde & Ralf Caers & Cind Du Bois & Marc Jegers, 2015. "Does organizational ownership matter? Objectives of employees in public, nonprofit and for-profit nursing homes," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(24), pages 2500-2513, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:applec:v:47:y:2015:i:24:p:2500-2513
    DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2015.1008767
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00036846.2015.1008767
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00036846.2015.1008767?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William D. Spector & Thomas M. Selden & Joel W. Cohen, 1998. "The impact of ownership type on nursing home outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 639-653, November.
    2. Joseph Lanfranchi & Mathieu Narcy & Makram Larguem, 2010. "Shedding new light on intrinsic motivation to work: evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 75-93, February.
    3. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
    4. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    5. Fernando San Miguel & Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Irrational’ stated preferences: a quantitative and qualitative investigation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 307-322, March.
    6. Grabowski, David C. & Hirth, Richard A., 2003. "Competitive spillovers across non-profit and for-profit nursing homes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-22, January.
    7. Chou, Shin-Yi, 2002. "Asymmetric information, ownership and quality of care: an empirical analysis of nursing homes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 293-311, March.
    8. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    9. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    10. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    11. Joseph Lanfranchi & Mathieu Narcy & Makram Larguem, 2010. "Shedding new light on intrinsic motivation to work: evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 75-93, February.
    12. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    13. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2006. "Deleting ‘irrational’ responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 797-811, August.
    14. Basu, Debasis & Hunt, John Douglas, 2012. "Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1465-1476.
    15. Kanika Kapur & Burton A. Weisbrod, 2000. "The Roles of Government and Nonprofit Suppliers in Mixed Industries," Public Finance Review, , vol. 28(4), pages 275-308, July.
    16. Grabowski, David C. & Feng, Zhanlian & Hirth, Richard & Rahman, Momotazur & Mor, Vincent, 2013. "Effect of nursing home ownership on the quality of post-acute care: An instrumental variables approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 12-21.
    17. Mandy Ryan & Angela Bate, 2001. "Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 59-63.
    18. Denise Doiron & Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Deborah J. Street, 2014. "Job preferences of students and new graduates in nursing," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(9), pages 924-939, March.
    19. Anna A. Amirkhanyan & Hyun Joon Kim & Kristina T. Lambright, 2008. "Does the public sector outperform the nonprofit and for-profit sectors? Evidence from a national panel study on nursing home quality and access," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 326-353.
    20. Hirth, Richard A., 1999. "Consumer information and competition between nonprofit and for-profit nursing homes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 219-240, April.
    21. Ting Ren, 2013. "Sectoral Differences in Value Congruence and Job Attitudes: The Case of Nursing Home Employees," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 213-224, January.
    22. McIntosh, E. & Ryan, M., 2002. "Using discrete choice experiments to derive welfare estimates for the provision of elective surgery: Implications of discontinuous preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 367-382, June.
    23. Becker, Boris W. & Connor, Patrick E., 2005. "Self-selection or socialization of public- and private-sector managers?: A cross-cultural values analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 111-113, January.
    24. Caers, Ralf & Du Bois, Cindy & Jegers, Marc & De Gieter, Sara & De Cooman, Rein & Pepermans, Roland, 2009. "A micro-economic perspective on manager selection in nonprofit organizations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(1), pages 173-197, January.
    25. Ben-Ner Avner & Karaca-Mandic Pinar & Ren Ting, 2012. "Ownership and Quality in Markets with Asymmetric Information: Evidence from Nursing Homes," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-33, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Stijn VAN PUYVELDE & Marc JEGERS, 2016. "Heterogeneity and self-selection into nonprofit management," CIRIEC Working Papers 1603, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.

    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. Stijn Van Puyvelde & Ralf Caers & Cind Du Bois & Marc Jegers, 2016. "Managerial Objectives and the Governance of Public and Non-Profit Organizations," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 221-237, February.
    2. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Lexicographic Preferences in Discrete Choice Experiments: Consequences on Individual-Specific Willingness to Pay Estimates," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12224, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Ben-Ner Avner & Karaca-Mandic Pinar & Ren Ting, 2012. "Ownership and Quality in Markets with Asymmetric Information: Evidence from Nursing Homes," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-33, October.
    4. Campbell, Danny, 2007. "Combining mixed logit models and random effects models to identify the determinants of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements," 81st Annual Conference, April 2-4, 2007, Reading University, UK 7975, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Soliño, Mario & Farizo, Begoña A. & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2012. "Generating electricity with forest biomass: Consistency and payment timeframe effects in choice experiments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 798-806.
    6. Paleti, Rajesh, 2018. "Generalized multinomial probit Model: Accommodating constrained random parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 248-262.
    7. Herr, A. & Saric, A., 2016. "The Welfare Effects of Single Rooms in German Nursing Homes: A Structural Approach," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/23, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. Sean Shenghsiu Huang & John R. Bowblis, 2019. "Private equity ownership and nursing home quality: an instrumental variables approach," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 273-299, December.
    9. Campbell, Danny & Hutchinson, W. George & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2006. "Using Discrete Choice Experiments to Derive Individual-Specific WTP Estimates for Landscape Improvements under Agri-Environmental Schemes: Evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Irel," Sustainability Indicators and Environmental Valuation Working Papers 12220, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    10. Semra Özdemir & Ateesha F. Mohamed & F. Reed Johnson & A. Brett Hauber, 2010. "Who pays attention in stated‐choice surveys?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 111-118, January.
    11. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    12. Mandy Ryan & Verity Watson & Vikki Entwistle, 2009. "Rationalising the ‘irrational’: a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 321-336, March.
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    14. Pepermans, Guido, 2014. "Valuing smart meters," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 280-294.
    15. Johnson, F. Reed & Ozdemir, Semra & Phillips, Kathryn A., 2010. "Effects of simplifying choice tasks on estimates of taste heterogeneity in stated-choice surveys," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 183-190, January.
    16. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Using mixed logit models to derive individual-specific WTP estimates for landscape improvements under agri-environmental schemes: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Working Papers 0607, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    17. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Danny Campbell & George Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2006. "Integrating landscape improvement indices and discrete choice experiments: evidence from the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Working Papers 0609, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.

    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:taf:applec:v:47:y:2015:i:24:p:2500-2513. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAEC20 .

    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.