The primacy of management over planning in Brazilian states.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2022.186475Keywords:
Governmental planning, Governmental management, Political cycleAbstract
We assume that there is currently a primacy of management over planning and seek to investigate the relationship between the primary and nominal budget balances and investments in Brazilian states and verify the effect that political cycles had on this relationship during the period from 2001 to 2018. To accomplish this, we use multiple linear regression models with errors clustered by state and year. The results demonstrate the existence of a positive relationship between fiscal management and planning in the Brazilian states, confirming the literature’s findings and our research hypothesis. In addition, we demonstrate that electoral cycles interfere with the relationship between fiscal management and governmental planning, given that investments increase in pre-election years.
Downloads
References
Bercovici, G. (2015). Estado, Planejamento e Direito Público no Brasil Contemorâneo. In J. C. Cardoso Jr. & E. A. V. dos Santos (Eds.), PPA 2012-2015: experimentalismo institucional e resistência burocrática. (Livro 2, p. 310). Brasília, DF: IPEA.
Bervian, P.A. Cervo, A.L. & Silva, R (2007). Metodologia Científica. São Paulo: Pearson.
Brasil. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicaocompilado.htm
Cardoso Jr., J. C. (2010). Estado, instituições e democracia: desenvolvimento. (C. J. J. Celso., Ed.), IPEA, Série perspectivas do desenvolvimento brasileiro. (Vol. 3). Brasília, DF: IPEA.
Cardoso Jr, J. C. (2014). Estado, planejamento, gestão e desenvolvimento. Balanço da experiência brasileira e desafios no século XXI, 35. Disponível em: https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/36635
De Toni, J. (2009). Em busca do planejamento governamental do século XXI: novos desenhos. In: REPETTO, F. et al. (Org.). Reflexões para Ibero-América: planejamento estratégico. Brasília: Enap, 2009. p. 21-36. Disponível em: https://repositorio.enap.gov.br/bitstream/1/712/1/Reflex%c3%b5es%20para%20Ibero-Am%c3%a9rica%20Planejamento%20Estrat%c3%a9gico.pdf
Evans, P. (2008). In search of the 21st century developmental state. The Centre for Global Political Econom, 4.
Fávero, L. P., Belfiore, P., Silva, F. L., & Chan, B. L. (2009). Análise de Dados: Modelagem multivariada para tomada de decisões. São Paulo: Elsevier.
Giambiagi, F., & Além, A. C. (2016). Finanças Públicas: Teoria e Prática no Brasil (5th ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Gremaud, A. P., & Pires, J. M. (1999). II Plano Nacional de Desenvolvimento–II PND (1975-1979). In A. (Org) Kon (Ed.), Planejamento no Brasil II (pp. 67–101). São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Hasan, M. M. & HABIB, A. (2017). Firm life cycle and idiosyncratic volatility. International Review of Financial Analysis, v. 50, p. 164-175.
Kalecki, M. (1943). Political aspects of full employment. The Political Quarterly, 14(4), 322–330. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.1943.tb01016.x
Keynes, J. M. (2012). Teoria geral do emprego, do juro e da moeda. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Klein, N. (2008). A doutrina do choque: a ascensão do capitalismo de desastre. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira.
Maciel, E. (1989). A crise do planejamento brasileiro. Revista Do Serviço Público, 117(1), 37–47. Disponível em: http://repositorio.enap.gov.br/handle/1/2613
Nakaguma, M. Y., & Bender, S. (2006). A emenda da reeleição e a Lei de Responsabilidade Fiscal: impactos sobre ciclos políticos e performance fiscal dos Estados (1986-2002). Economia Aplicada, 10(3), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1413-80502006000300005
Nordhaus, W. D. (1975a). The Political Business Cycle. The Review of Economic Studies, 42(2), 169. https://doi.org/10.2307/2296528
Nordhaus, W. D. (1975b). The Political Business Cycle. The Review of Economic Studies, 42(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.2307/2296528
Novaes, L., & Mattos, E. (2010). O efeito da intenção de reeleição sobre gastos em saúde: uma análise com base no modelo de reputação política. Revista de Economia Política, 30(1), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0101-31572010000100009
Orair, R. O., Gouvêa, R. R., & Leal, É. M. (2014). Ciclos políticos eleitorais e investimentos das administrações públicas no Brasil. Brasília, DF.
Pares, A., & Valle, B. (2006). A retomada do planejamento governamental no Brasil e seus desafios. In J. Giacomoni & J.L. Pagnussat (Eds.), Planejamento e orçamento governamental (pp. 229-270). Brasília, DF.
Petersen, M. A. Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: Comparing approaches. The Review of financial studies, v. 22, n. 1, p. 435-480, 2009.
Pollin, R. (2015). Greening the Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rezende, F. (2010). Planejamento no Brasil: auge, declínio e caminhos para a reconstrução. Textos para discussão. Brasília, DF.
Rocha, F. J., & Brilhante, Á. A. (2014). Ciclos Político-Orçamentários nos Estados Brasileiros: um exemplo de problema de delegação na relação principal-agente. Política & Sociedade, 13(26), 113–132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7984.2014v13n26p113
Rogoff, K. (1990). Equilibrium Political Budget Cycles. The American Economic Review, 80(1), 21–36. Disponível em: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006731?seq=1
Santos, E. A. V. dos. (2011). O confronto entre o planejamento governamental e o PPA. In J. C. Cardoso Jr. (Ed.), A reinvenção do planejamento governamental no Brasil. (4th ed.). Brasília, DF: IPEA.
Schuknecht, L. (2000). Fiscal Policy Cycles and Public Expenditure in Developing Countries. Public Choice, 102(1–2), 113–128. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005026806998
Shi, M., & Svensson, J. (2006). Political budget cycles: Do they differ across countries and why? Journal of Public Economics, 90(8–9), 1367–1389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.09.009
Souza, A. R. de. (2004). As trajetórias do planejamento governamental no Brasil: meio século de experiências na administração pública. Revista Do Serviço Público, 55(4), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v55i4.254
United Nations. E-Government Survey. (2016). New York. Disponível em: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2016-Survey/E-Government%20Survey%202016.pdf
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Robson Zuccolotto, Juliani Nunes Campos Johanson , Luiz Cláudio Louzada, Janilson Suzart
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The RCO adopts the Free Open Access policy, under the standard Creative Commons agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The agreement provides that:
- Submission of text authorizes its publication and implies commitment that the same material is not being submitted to another journal. The original is considered definitive.
- Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g. publish in an institutional repository or as a book chapter), with necessary recognition of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their personal page) before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes as well as increase the impact and citation of published work (See The Effect of Free Access).
- The journal does not pay copyright to the authors of the published texts.
- The journal's copyright holder, except those already agreed in the Free Open Access Agreement (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), is the Accounting Department of the Faculty of Economics, Administration and Accounting of Ribeirão Preto of the University of São Paulo.
No submission or publication fees are charged.
Up to 4 authors per article are accepted. Exceptionally duly justified cases may be reviewed by the Executive Committee of the RCO. Exceptional cases are considered as: multi-institutional projects; manuscripts resulting from the collaboration of research groups; or involving large teams for evidence collection, construction of primary data, and comparative experiments.
It is recommended that the authorship be ordered by contribution of each of the individuals listed as authors, especially in the design and planning of the research project, in obtaining or analyzing and interpreting data, and writing. Authors must declare the actual contributions of each author, filling the letter to the editor, at the beginning of the submission, taking responsibility for the information given.
Authors are allowed to change throughout the evaluation process and prior to the publication of the manuscript. The Authors should indicate the composition and final order of authorship in the document signed by all those involved when accepted for publication. If the composition and authoring order is different than previously reported in the system, all previously listed authors should be in agreement.
In the case of identification of authorship without merit or contribution (ghost, guest or gift authorship), the RCO follows the procedure recommended by COPE.
