Medindo o Nível da Influência Colaborativa dos Stakeholders e das Ações de Orçamento Aberto Outros Idiomas

ID:
50655
Resumo:
A influência colaborativa dos stakeholders e as ações de orçamento aberto são elementos importantes na governança para promover o desenvolvimento social (Ansell e Gash, 2008). No entanto, um ponto que precisa ser esclarecido é como medir esses elementos supostamente independentes. Nesse sentido, o objetivo deste artigo é identificar maneiras de medir a influência colaborativa dos stakeholders e das ações de orçamento aberto. Os aspectos metodológicos centram-se na coleta de dados por meio de entrevistas e na análise de conteúdo para identificação dos resultados. Conclui-se que o número de organizações da sociedade civil e a presença de iniciativas no âmbito dos conselhos sociais são formas de medir a influência colaborativa dos stakeholders e nas ações de orçamento aberto, respectivamente. Além disso, este trabalho destaca a importância de se integrar a influência colaborativa dos stakeholders e das ações de orçamentos abertos. Por fim, propõe-se uma agenda de pesquisa.
Citação ABNT:
ABREU, W. M.; GOMES, R. C. Medindo o Nível da Influência Colaborativa dos Stakeholders e das Ações de Orçamento Aberto. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 52, n. 4, p. 593-609, 2018.
Citação APA:
Abreu, W. M., & Gomes, R. C. (2018). Medindo o Nível da Influência Colaborativa dos Stakeholders e das Ações de Orçamento Aberto. Revista de Administração Pública, 52(4), 593-609.
DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612173451
Link Permanente:
http://www.spell.org.br/documentos/ver/50655/medindo-o-nivel-da-influencia-colaborativa-dos-stakeholders-e-das-acoes-de-orcamento-aberto/i/pt-br
Tipo de documento:
Artigo
Idioma:
Português
Referências:
ABREU, Welles M.; GOMES, Ricardo C. Do open budget institutional changes improve social development? Contabilidade, Gestão e Governança, v. 19, n. 3, p. 422-439, 2016.

ABREU, Welles M.; GOMES, Ricardo C. The Brazilian public budget and the emancipatory perspective: is there any empirical evidence supporting this approach? Rev. Adm. Pública, v. 47, n. 2, p. 515-540, mar./abr. 2013.

ABREU, Welles M. Orçamento público. Brasília, DF: Enap, 2013.

ACKERMAN, John. Co-governance for accountability: beyond ‘exit’ and ‘voice’. World Development, v. 32, n. 3, p. 447-463, 2004.

ADADEVOH, Eyram A. New wine in new wine skins: the anti-corruption framework of Ghana. The Journal of World Energy Law & Business, v. 7, n. 3, p. 202-219, jun. 2014.

ALMEIDA, Rafael A. Gestão democrática na formatação de políticas públicas. 2015. 201f. Tese (doutorado) - Instituto de Economia, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Políticas Públicas, Estratégias e Desenvolvimento, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2014.

ALT, James E.; LOWRY, Robert C. Transparency and accountability: empirical results for U.S. states. Journal of Theoretical Politics, v. 22, n. 4, p. 379-406, 2010.

ANSELL, Chris; GASH, Alison. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, v. 18, n. 4, p. 543-571, 2008.

ANSELL, Chris; GASH, Alison. Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, v. 28, n. 1, p. 16-32, jan. 2018.

ARMSTRONG, Kenneth A. Inclusive governance?Civil society and the open method of co-ordination. In: SMISMANS, Stijn (Ed.). Civil society and legitimate European governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006. p. 42-67.

BARDIN, Laurence. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70, 1977.

BOAZ, Annette; NUTLEY, Sandra. Evidence-based policy and practice. Londres: Routledge, 2003.

BOULDING, Carew; WAMPLER, Brian. Voice, votes, and resources: evaluating the effect of participatory democracy on well-being. World Development, v. 38, n. 1, p. 125-135, 2010.

BOVAIRD, Tony. Public governance: balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, v. 71, n. 2, p. 217-228, 2005.

BROWN, William A. Inclusive governance practices in nonprofit organizations and implications for practice. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, v. 12, n. 4, p. 369-385, 2002.

BRYMAN, Alan. Social research methods. Bristol: Oxford University Press, 2012.

BURGE, Richard. Final report learning from DFID’s governance and transparency fund (GTF): tools, methods and approaches. Unpublished report. TripleLine/KPMG, jun. 2010.

CRESWELL, John W. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2013.

DAVIS, Gloria. A history of the social development network in The World Bank, 1973-2003. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2004.

DENHARDT, Janet V.; DENHARDT, Robert B. The new public service: serving, not steering. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 2007.

DE RENZIO, Paolo; GOMEZ, Pamela; SHEPPARD, James. Budget transparency and development in resource‐dependent countries. International Social Science Journal, v. 57, n. 1, p. 57-69, 2009.

DE RENZIO, Paolo; MASUD, Harika. Measuring and promoting budget transparency: the open budget index as a research and advocacy tool. Governance, v. 24, n. 3, p. 607-616, 2011.

DE RENZIO, Paolo; WEHNER, Joachim. The impacts of fiscal openness: a review of the evidence. The World Bank Research Observer, v. 32, n. 2, p. 185-210. 2017.

DFID. Department for International Development. Governance, development and democratic politics. Londres: Department for International Development, 2006.

EMERSON, Kirk; NABATCHI, Tina; BALOGH, Stephen. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, v. 22, n. 1, p. 1-29, 2012.

FREEMAN, Robert E. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Massachusetts: Pitman, 1984.

FRIIS-HANSEN, Esbern; COLD-RAVNKILDE, Signe M. Social accountability mechanisms and access to public service delivery in rural Africa. Copenhagen: DIIS Reports, Danish Institute for International Studies, 2013.

FUNG, Archon. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, v. 66, n. s1, p. 66-75, 2006.

FUNG, Archon; WRIGHT, Erik O. Deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Brooklyn: Verso, 2003.

GAVENTA, John; MCGEE, Rosemary. The impact of transparency and accountability initiatives. Development Policy Review, v. 31, n. s1, p. s3-s28, 2013.

GOETZ, Anne M.; JENKINS, Rob. Hybrid forms of accountability: citizen engagement in institutions of public-sector oversight in India. Public Management Review, v. 3, n. 3, p. 363-383, 2001.

GOMES, Ricardo C.; GOMES, Luciana O. M. Who is supposed to be regarded as a stakeholder for public organizations in developing countries? Public Management Review, v. 10, n. 2, p. 263-275, mar. 2008.

GOMES, Ricardo C.; LIDDLE, Joyce; GOMES, Luciana O. M. A five-sided model of stakeholder influence: a cross-national analysis of decision making in local government. Public Management Review, v. 12, n. 5, p. 701-724, 2010.

IBP. Annual report 2008-09: open budget initiative. Washington: International Budget Partnership, 2014.

JINGUANG, Hu; XIANYONG, Zhang. On the value and path of open budget. Nankai Journal (Philosophy, Literature and Social Science Edition), v. 2, p. 72-83, 2011.

JUSTICE, Jonathan B.; MCNUTT, John G. Social capital, e-government, and fiscal transparency in the states. Public Integrity, v. 16, n. 1, p. 5-24, 2013.

KASYMOVA, Jyldyz T.; SCHACHTER, Hindy L. Bringing participatory tools to a different level. Public Performance & Management Review, v. 37, n. 3, p. 441-464, 2014.

KEIJZERS, Gerard. Creating sustainable directions: evolving stakeholder approach in seven multinationals. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, n. 10, p. 79-89, 2003.

KHAGRAM, Sanjeev; ALI, Salim. Transnational transformations: from government-centric interstate regimes to cross-sectoral multi-level networks of global governance? In: LARK, Jacob et al. (Ed.). Globalization and environmental governance: toward a new political economy of sustainability. Londres: Routledge, 2008. p. 132-162.

KHAGRAM, Sanjeev; FUNG, Archon; DE RENZIO, Paolo. Open budgets: the political economy of transparency, participation, and accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2013.

KOONTZ, Tomas M. We finished the plan, so now what?Impacts of collaborative stakeholder participation on land use policy. Policy Studies Journal, v. 33, n. 3, p. 459-481, 2005.

LEE, Nick; LINGS, Ian. Doing business research: a guide to theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2008.

LING, Cristina; ROBERTS, Dawn K. Evidence of development impact from institutional change: a review of the evidence on open budgeting. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. 2014.

MANSURI, Ghazala; RAO, Vijayendra. Communitybased and-driven development: a critical review. The World Bank Research Observer, v. 19, n. 1, p. 1-39, 2004.

MEIJER, Albert. Understanding modern transparency. International Review of Administrative Sciences, v. 75, n. 2, p. 255-269, 2009.

MEIJER, Albert. Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Administration Review, v. 73, n. 3, p. 429-439, 2013.

MITCHELL, Ronald K.; AGLE, Bradley R.; WOOD, Donna J. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, v. 22, n. 4, p. 853-886, 1997.

NOWAK, Robert. Transparency and good governance in transition economies. Switzerland: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 2000. p. 10.

OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. OECD best practices for budget transparency. Paris: OECD, 2002.

O’TOOLE, Laurence J.; MEIER, Kenneth J. Modeling the impact of public management: implications of structural context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, v. 9, n. 4, p. 505-526, 1999.

SARKER, Abu E.; HASSAN, Mostafa K. Civic engagement and public accountability: an analysis with particular reference to developing countries. Public Administration and Management, v. 15, n. 2, p. 381, 2010.

SAVAGE, Grant T. et al. Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, v. 5, n. 2, p. 61-75, 1991.

SHAH, Anwar. Participatory budgeting. Washington, DC: World Bank Group, 2007.

SIAU, Keng; LONG, Yuan. Using social development lenses to understand e-government development. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), v. 14, n. 1, p. 47-62, 2006.

SILVERMAN, David. Qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2010.

STREECK, Wolfgang; THELEN, Kathleen. Beyond continuity: institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

SVENDSEN, Ann. The stakeholder strategy: profiting from collaborative business relationships. Oakland: Berrett-Koehler, 1998.

TANAKA, Susan. Engaging the public in national budgeting. OECD Journal on Budgeting, v. 7, n. 2, p. 139-177, 2007.

TISNÉ, Martin. Transparency, participation and accountability: definitions. Nota conceitual não publicada para Transparency and Accountability Initiative, 2010.

WAMPLER, Brian. Participation, transparency and accountability: innovations in South Korea, Brazil, and the Philippines. GIFT, 2012. .

WORLD BANK. Social development. . Acesso em: 13 dez.2014.

YILMAZ, Serdar; BERIS, Yakup; SERRANOBERTHET, Rodrigo. Linking local government discretion and accountability in decentralization. Development Policy Review, v. 28, n. 3, p. 259-293, 2010.

YOU, Jong-Sung; LEE, Wonhee. A mutually reinforcing loop: budget transparency and participation in South Korea. In: KHAGRAM, Sanjeev; FUNG, Archon; DE RENZIO, Paolo (Ed.). Open budgets: the political economy of transparency, participation, and accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2013. p. 105-129.

ZUCCOLOTTO, Robson. Fatores determinantes da transparência do ciclo orçamentário estendido: evidências nos estados brasileiros. 2014. 202 f. Tese (doutorado em ciências) - Faculdade de Economia, Administração e Contabilidade, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2014.