External consequences of public policy implementation based on social responsibility dimensions at the Universities of medical sciences
Social Determinants of Health,
Vol. 8 (2022),
1 Dey 2022
,
Page 1-10
https://doi.org/10.22037/sdh.v8i1.37373
Abstract
Background: The implementation of public policy in the presence of social responsibility dimensions is an opportunity to gain the support and trust of citizens. The present study aimed to investigate the external consequences of public policy implementation based on the dimensions of social responsibility in the Universities of Medical Sciences.
Methods: In a mix method research, in the qualitative phase twenty experts were selected by purposive sampling method with snowball approach. In the qualitative part 681 employees of these units were selected by relative sampling method. The data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and structural equation modeling were used when appropriate. MAXQDA11, SPSS and Smart PLS3 software were used for analysis.
Results: In the first phase, 14 categories were finally identified, of which 7 categories were identified as components of social responsibility and 7 categories for the external consequences of implementing public policy in three stages of coding. Findings of the research in the qualitative section, introduced 6 categories as causal factors, pivotal phenomenon, strategy, intervening and contextual factors and consequences of implementing a policy based on social responsibility in the Universities of Medical Sciences. In the quantitative part, the two propositions of balance of social values and public acceptance and motivation as the most effective criterion in promoting social values were selected by the managers.
Conclusion: Public policy implementation with a focus on social responsibility dimensions can help increase the socially sustainable development of the Universities of Medical Sciences.
- Meta-Analysis
- Policy Making
- Social Responsibility
- Universities
How to Cite
References
Min S, Kim N, Lo C. CSR-enhancing factors for business vs public stakeholders: evidence from Hong Kong. Journal of Asia Business Studies. 2020;14(3):399-419. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-03-2018-0108
Nowruzi M, Danaifard H, Fanny H, Hassanzadeh AL. Theoretical processing of Social Responsibility based on the foundation's data theory. Improved management. 2014; 10-16:(8)26
Grandia J, Meehan J. Using procurement to reach desired outcomes in society. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2017;30(4):302-309. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-03-2017-0066
Javier JR, Brumberg HL, Sanders L, Hannon TS, Shah S. How gaps in policy implementation cause public health malpractice. The Lancet. 2018 Jun 16;391(10138):2414.
Sanan NK. Impact of board characteristics on firm dividends: evidence from India. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society. 2019;19(6):1204-1215. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-12-2018-0383
Ertan G. Collective action, civil society, and public policy in Turkey. Journal of comparative policy analysis: research and practice. 2020 Jan 2;22(1):66-81.
Sharafi, Shahin, Manzari Tavakoli, Alireza, Selajgeh, Sanjar. Investigating the relationship between related factors, with the implementation of virtual social network policies in Iran with respect to the mediating role of social responsibility. Social Sciences, 2019; 13 (1):179-204.
Scarano G. Alternative models of activation policies: the experience of public oriented services. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 2020;40(3/4):382-408. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-01-2020-0011
Bruce V, Warren M. Progressive public administration and new public management in public sector accountancy. Meditari Accountancy Research. 2018;26(1):44-69.
Marotta G, Nazzaro C. Public goods production and value creation in wineries: a structural equation modelling. British Food Journal. 2020;122(5):1705-1724. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2019-0656
Uyarra E, Ribeiro B, Dale-Clough L. Exploring the normative turn in regional innovation policy: responsibility and the quest for public value. European Planning Studies. 2019 Dec 2;27(12):2359-75.
Watandoost, Babak, Amiri, Alinaghi, Emami, Seyed Mojtaba, Divandari, Tehrani. Understanding the key dimensions of public policy leadership: A conceptual framework for typology of different approaches. Strategic Management Thought (Management Thought). 2019 Sep 23;13 (2):205-33.
Hajatpour, Daneshfard, Karamollah, Amirnejad, Ghanbar, & Taban. Provide a model for evaluating public policies (after implementation) with a network governance approach (Case study: Social Security Organization). General Policy Making in Management, 8 (4 (consecutive 28 winter 2017)),13-25.
Uyarra E, Zabala-Iturriagagoitia JM, Flanagan K, Magro E. Public procurement, innovation and industrial policy: Rationales, roles, capabilities and implementation. Research Policy. 2020;49(1):103844.
Hajatpour, Sara, Daneshfard, Karamollah, Taban, Mohammad, Amirnejad, Ghanbar. Presenting a successful model for evaluating the general policies of the Social Security Organization based on professional ethics. Quarterly Journal of Ethical Research (Iranian Association of Islamic Education), 2019;37(10):111-128.
Amos GJ. Researching corporate social responsibility in developing-countries context: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Law and Management. 2018;60(2):284-310. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-04-2017-0093
Arrigoni A. Exploring the “relational” link between responsibility and social ontology: Ethical, organisational, institutional dimensions of shared agency, collective responsibility, collective intentionality. Journal of Global Responsibility. 2019;10 (1):31-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-10-2018-0047
- Abstract Viewed: 118 times
- PDF Downloaded: 113 times