2011
DOI: 10.1353/lar.2011.0051
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Descentralización y focalización del gasto social en los municipios brasileños

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 3 summarizes the Brazilian literature on decentralization, which attributes decentralization to several key factors: the bottom-up nature of the drafting of the 1988 Constitution during the transition to democracy (Abrucio, 1998;Souza, 1998), the vertical intergovernmental conflict (Montero, 2001;Falleti, 2005), the fiscal and social policy autonomy acquired by subnational governments before and during democratization (Arretche, 2004;Falleti, 2005;Rodden, 2006), and the federal institutional design that granted important powers to state governments (Abrucio, 1998;Samuels and Abrucio, 2000;Samuels, 2003). Centralization, on the other hand, is attributed to the following causes: the Brazilian Chief Executive's ability to increase political leverage and policy capacity through constitutional prerogatives (Arretche, 2007(Arretche, , 2009(Arretche, , 2012Melo, 2005), the policy inefficiencies under decentralization (Almeida, 2005;Abrucio, 2005;Dickovich, 2007;Fenwick, 2009;Palotti and Machado, 2014), and the need for effective social policies and programs (Rich and Gómez, 2012;Rodrigues-Silveira, 2011;Sugiyama, 2011).…”
Section: Contributions To the De/centralization Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 3 summarizes the Brazilian literature on decentralization, which attributes decentralization to several key factors: the bottom-up nature of the drafting of the 1988 Constitution during the transition to democracy (Abrucio, 1998;Souza, 1998), the vertical intergovernmental conflict (Montero, 2001;Falleti, 2005), the fiscal and social policy autonomy acquired by subnational governments before and during democratization (Arretche, 2004;Falleti, 2005;Rodden, 2006), and the federal institutional design that granted important powers to state governments (Abrucio, 1998;Samuels and Abrucio, 2000;Samuels, 2003). Centralization, on the other hand, is attributed to the following causes: the Brazilian Chief Executive's ability to increase political leverage and policy capacity through constitutional prerogatives (Arretche, 2007(Arretche, , 2009(Arretche, , 2012Melo, 2005), the policy inefficiencies under decentralization (Almeida, 2005;Abrucio, 2005;Dickovich, 2007;Fenwick, 2009;Palotti and Machado, 2014), and the need for effective social policies and programs (Rich and Gómez, 2012;Rodrigues-Silveira, 2011;Sugiyama, 2011).…”
Section: Contributions To the De/centralization Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the territorial dimension, the emergence of CCTs is characterized by the attempt of the Brazilian national executive branch to circumvent Brazilian governors through social policies that seemed to favor Brazilian municipalities in federal social programs (Fenwick, 2009) and by the expansion of the federal government's regulatory capacity in some policy areas (Rich & Gómez, 2012). Indeed, centrally designed social policies with programs that were centrally managed were on the rise in Brazil (Rodrigues‐Silveira, 2011). Critical to the exercise of federal government authority was a mushrooming of intergovernmental coordinating institutions whose internal dynamics seem to have consolidated the federal government as an agenda setter in several policy areas (Abrucio, 2005; Palotti & Machado, 2014), which in turn required greater intergovernmental coordination.…”
Section: Territorial Dimension Of Innovationmentioning
confidence: 99%