Esta pesquisa analisa etnograficamente os processos de construção e transformação de capacidades estatais no Ministério Público Federal (MPF) no contexto de implementação da usina de Belo Monte. Desde 2001, procuradores vêm mobilizando uma série de ações – judiciais e extrajudiciais – que contestam o modo como a barragem está sendo implementada e buscam mitigar seus impactos socioambientais. Neste artigo, exploro como três tipos de práticas de procuradores – os recrutamentos de aliados, as articulações internas e as bricolagens – mudaram as maneiras pelas quais o órgão vem atuando em processos de implementação de grandes projetos. Argumento que essas práticas geraram aprendizagens organizacionais que se traduziram na construção e transformação de diferentes tipos de capacidades no MPF, ressaltando assim o caráter dinâmico das capacidades estatais e a importância de olhar para o que estão efetivamente fazendo os agentes estatais que dão vida a essas capacidades.
There is growing interest in how activist bureaucrats change policies; however, it remains unclear how bureaucrats become activists. This article develops a framework for the emergence of bureaucratic activism using the case of Brazilian prosecutors in the Belo Monte dam, a project that drew attention due to its social and environmental impacts. I show that two different types of prosecutors were involved in this case: activist prosecutors, who were committed to the proactive defense of affected communities, and conventional prosecutors, neutral agents that resorted to traditional tactics. Based on 82 interviews, document analysis, and participant observation, I argue that rather than being self-selected, prosecutors within conducive settings engaged in activism after they joined the state by developing long-term ties with local groups. By discovering the problems faced by affected communities and mediating their struggles with other policy actors, prosecutors internalized the grievances of these groups, building commitments to defend their causes.
The administrative quality of states is typically measured at the level of national governments, tacitly presuming organizational strength is evenly distributed throughout the organizations comprising central state administration. However, those organizations vary substantially in providing impartial, effective, and honest administration. This chapter examines variation in the quality of government within central state administrations, a newly consolidating subfield identified with “pockets of effectiveness” or “islands of integrity.” This scholarship analyzes how some state agencies manage to offer high-quality administration in challenging institutional contexts where many peer organizations are weak, ineffectual, or corrupt. The chapter discusses methodological challenges and traces the history of first- and second-wave scholarship in this subfield. Then through meta-analysis, it identifies four major theoretical themes in prior scholarship: technical competence and incentives, external networks, autonomy, and organizational culture. The chapter concludes with promising avenues for future research, identifying ways scholars and practitioners interested in quality of government broadly can benefit from the findings of this subfield.
Dominant explanations for variation in performance between state organizations focus on macro-level factors, such as political support, and meso-level factors, such as civil service capacity. However, these factors cannot account for why different groups within the same state organization perform better than others. I leverage a comparative analysis of state officials working under particularly challenging circumstances—task forces of prosecutors investigating high-level corruption in Brazil—to develop a framework to explain how small-group communication and decision-making processes affect performance. Drawing on document analysis and 124 original interviews with federal investigators, I argue that, even when we account for macro- and meso-level factors, prosecutors performed better when they cultivated frequent communication and collective decision-making. This study shows the mechanisms through which these processes affect performance: while frequent communication enables group members to generate knowledge connections that help them make unforeseen discoveries, collective decision-making helps build defensive alignment, which allows members to protect the group from external pressures and manage internal tensions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.