Palavras-chave
Como Citar
Resumo
A “terceira onda“ de democratização foi acompanhada pela proliferação de novas instituições, que permitem aos cidadãos deliberar e decidir sobre o resultado das políticas adotadas. Organizações internacionais de prestígio, como o Banco Mundial e as Nações Unidas, disseminaram programas de “boas práticas“, associados a esforços de reformar políticas apoiadas na idéia de “boa governança“. Um dos programas mais conhecidos, o Orçamento Participativo (OP), foi adotado pela primeira vez pelo Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) no Brasil em 1989, como forma de promover justiça social, responsabilidade e transparência. A adoção do orçamento participativo no Brasil se ampliou, capitaneada pelo partido. Não obstante seu pioneirismo, por volta de 2001, quase a metade dos programas de OP haviam sido adotados por governos de outros partidos. O que pode explicar por que governos municipais no Brasil, em especial governos de outros partidos, adotaram programas de OP? Este artigo procura avaliar a probabilidade de que um município adote o OP, recorrendo à análise de regressão logística para testar um modelo que inclua variáveis eleitorais, econômicas, regionais e de redes de políticas públicas. Na conclusão, avalia-se concisamente se os governos que adotam o OP são capazes de produzir resultados similares aos resultados iniciais que inspiraram a designação de “boa prática“, o que leva a enfrentar a questão: sob que condições a eventual adoção de programas de “boas práticas“ deveria ser promovida?
Abstract:
The “third wave” of democratization has been accompanied by the spread of new institutions that allow citizens to deliberate and decide policy outcomes. Leading international organizations, such as the World Bank and the United Nations, have disseminated “best practice” programs identified with “good government” policy reform efforts. One of the most well-known programs, Participatory Budgeting (PB), was first adopted by Brazil’s Workers’ Party (PT) in 1989 as a means to promote social justice, accountability, and transparency. There has been widespread adoption of PB in Brazil, led by the PT. Yet, by 2001, nearly half of PB programs had been adopted by non-PT governments. What explains why municipal governments in Brazil, especially non-PT governments, would adopt PB programs? This article estimates the probability that a municipality would adopt PB using logistic regression analysis to test a model that included electoral, economic, regional, and policy network variables. This article concludes by briefly analyzing whether governments that adopt PB are able to produce policy outcomes similar to the initial results that inspired the “best practice” label. This introduces the question: When should best practice programs be promoted for possible adoption?
Keywords: diffusion, participatory democracy, public policy, participatory budget, Brazil.
Referências
ABERS, R. Inventing Local Democracy: Grassroots Politics in Brazil. Boulder: Westview, 2000.
AVRITZER, L. Democracy and the public space in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.
BAIOCCHI, G. Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005.
BAUMGARTNER, F. & JONES, B. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
BERRY, F. S. “Sizing up state policy innovation research“. Policy Studies Journal, vol.22, nº3, 1994.
BERRY, F. S. & BERRY, W. D. ”State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis“. American Political Science Review, vol.84, nº2, 1990.
CABANNES, Y. Municipal finance and participatory budgeting: Base Document. Manuscrito. New York: United Nations, s.d.
COLLIER, D. & MESSICK, R. E. “Prerequisites versus diffusions: Testing alternative explanations of social security adoption.” The American Political Science Review, vol.69, nº4, 1975.
ELKINS, Z. Designed by Diffusion: International Networks and the Spread of Democracy. Tese de Doutorado. Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, 2003.
FEDOZZI, L. Orçamento participativo: Reflexões sobre a experiência de Porto. Porto Alegre: Tomo Editorial, 1998.
GENRO, T. Utopia Possível. 2a. ed. Porto Alegre: Artes e Ofícios, 1995.
GUIDRY, J. “Not Just Another Labor Party: The Workers’ Party and Democracy in Brazil.” Labor Studies Journal, vol.28, nº1, 2003.
HISKEY, J. & CANACHE, D. “The Demise of One-Party Politics in Mexican Municipal Elections.” British Journal of Political Science, vol.35, 2005.
HUNTER, W. From opposition movement to government party: Growth and expansion of the Workers’ Party in Brazil. Texto apresentado ao 100o. Encontro Anual da American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois. 4 a 6 de setembro de 2004.
KECK, M. E. The Workers' Party and Democratization in Brazil. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
KINGDON, J. W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd. edition. New York: Longman, 1995.
MINTROM, M. “Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation”. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 41, nº3, 1997.
MONTERO, A. P. Devolving Democracy? Political Decentralization and the New Brazilian Federalism. In: KINGSTONE, P. R. & POWER, T.J. (eds.). Democratic Brazil: Actors, Institutions, and Processes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000.
MONTERO, A. & SAMUELS, D. Decentralization and democracy in Latin America. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004.
NYLEN, W R. Participatory Democracy versus Elitist Democracy: Lessons from Brazil. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
PIRES, V. “Limites e Pontencialidades do Orçamento Participativo.” Revista ABOP (Associação Brasileira de Orçamento Público), vol. 43, nº43, 2002.
RIBEIRO TORRES, C. A. & GRAZIA, G. de. Experiências de Orçamento Participativo no Brasil: Período de 1997 a 2000. São Paulo: Editora Vozes, 2003.
SAMUELS, D. “From Socialism to Social Democracy: Party Organization and the Transformation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil.” Comparative Political Studies, vol. 37, nº9, 2004.
SIMMONS, B. & ELKINS, Z. “The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy.” American Political Science Review, vol. 98, nº1, 2004.
SUGIYAMA, N. Ideology & Networks: Social Policy Diffusion in Decentralized Brazil. Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 15 a 18 de março de 2006.
TEIXEIRA, A. C. C. e ALBUQUERQUE, M. C. A. Orçamentos Participativos: rojetos politicos, partilha de poder e alcance democrático. São Paulo: Instituto Polis, 2005.
VILLAS BOAS, R. & TELLES, V. (eds.). Poder local, participação popular, construção da cidadania. São Paulo: Fórum Nacional de Participação Popular nas Administrações Municipais, 1995.
WALKER, J. “The diffusion of innovations among the American States.” The American Political Science Review, vol. 63, nº3, 1969 WAMPLER, B. and AVRITZER, L. “The spread of Participatory Democracy in Brazil: From Radical Democracy to Participatory Good Government. Journal of Latin American Urban Studies, vol. 7, 2006.
WALKER, J. “Participatory publics: Civil society and new institutions in democratic Brazil“. Comparative Politics, vol. 36, nº3, 2004.
WAMPLER, B. Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. University Park: Pennsylvania State Press, 2007.
WEYLAND, K. Learning from Foreign Models in Latin American Policy Reform. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2004.
A Opinião Pública utiliza a licença do Creative Commons (CC), preservando assim, a integridade dos artigos em ambiente de acesso aberto.
Downloads
