Comparative analysis of the quality level of public governance from the information, communication and technology (ICT)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32586/rcda.v17i1.459
Keywords:
Governance. Public Sector. Evaluation. Indicator.Abstract
Governance is intimately related to the state structure available to citizens, while suggesting how it intends to return the state to its normal course. The objective of this study is to evaluate the level of governance of a certain group of entities of the Federal Government, taking as assumptions the governance model proposed by the Federal Audit Office (TCU). Three groups of criteria were selected (Group I – Risk Control and Internal Control, Group II – Internal Audit, Group III – Accountability / Transparency). The sample was based on federal institutions based in the State of Ceará. The results were considered satisfactory due to the average result around 78%. The highest score managed to reach BNB (85%), while the lowest score achieved the CFU (69%). There was still a trend of a more favorable outcome to the organs of direct administration, when compared to those belonging to indirect administration.
Metrics
References
AHMAD, F.; ALI, A. Need for a new public governance system: issues and challenges. Indian Journal of Public Administration, New Delhi, v. 57, n. 4, 2011.
ALLEN, B. A.; JUILLET, L.; PAQUET, G.; ROY, J. E-governance & government on-line in Canada: partnerships, people & prospects. Government Information Quarterly, Amsterdam, v. 18, n. 2, p. 93-104, 2001.
ANGELES, L.; NEANIDIS, K. C. The persistent effect of colonialism on corruption. Economica, London, v. 82, p. 319-349, 2015.
AYHAN, B.; USTUNER, Y. Governance in public procurement: the reform of Turkey’s public procurement system. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Thousand Oaks, v. 81, n. 3, p. 640-662, 2015.
BANCO MUNDIAL. Governance Matters: indicadores de governança 1996-2007. Research at the World Bank. Washington: World Bank Institute, 2008. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2UcBZq0. Acesso em: 22 out.2018.
BAO, G.; WANG, X.; LARSEN, G. L.; MORGAN, D. F. Beyond new public governance: a value-based global framework for performance management, governance and leadership. Administration & Society, Thousand Oaks, v. 45, n. 4, p. 443-467, 2013.
BIRNER, R. WITTMER, H. Better public sector governance through partnership with the private sector and civil society: the case of Guatemala’s forest administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Thousand Oaks, v. 72, n. 4, 2006.
BOVAIRD, T. Public governance: balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Thousand Oaks, v. 71, n. 2, p. 217-228, 2005.
BOVAIRD, T.; LOFLLER, E. Evaluating the quality of public governance: indicators, models and methodologies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Thousand Oaks, v. 69, n. 3, p. 313-328, 2003.
BRASIL. Tribunal de Contas da União. Referencial para avaliação de governança do centro de governo. Brasília, DF: Secretaria de Controle Externo da Administração do Estado, 2016.
BRASIL. Decreto Federal n° 9.203, de 22 de novembro de 2017. Dispõe sobre a política de governança da administração pública federal direta, autarquia e fundacional. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2Pftwo7. Acesso em: 22 out. 2018.
BRIÈRE, S.; JOBERT, S.; POULIN, Y. Enhancing public governance in fragile states. Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, Toronto, v. 65, n. 3, p. 653-667, 2010.
BRUNETTI, A.; WEDER, B. A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics, Amsterdam, v. 87, n. 7-8, 2003.
BRYSON, J. M.; CROSBY, B. C.; BLOOMBERG, L. Public value governance: moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration, Danvers, v. 74, p. 445-456, 2014.
BHUIYAN, S. H.; & AMAGOH, F. Public sector reform in Kazakhstan: issues and perspectives. International Journal of Public Sector Management, v. 24, n. 3, p. 227-249, 2011.
CHATFIELD, A. T. Public service reform through e-government: a case study of “e-tax” in Japan. Electronic Journal of e-Government, Amsterdam, v. 7, n. 2, p. 135-146, 2009.
CHRISTENSEN T.; LAEGREID P. (Ed.). The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011.
COLLIER, M. W. Explaing corruption: an institutional choice approach. Crime, law & social change, Berlin, v. 38, n. 1, 2002.
DIMANT, E.; TOSATO, G. Causes and effects of corruption: what has past decade’s empirical research taught us? A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, Oxford, v. 32, n. 2, p. 335-356, 2018.
DOORNBOS, M. Good governance: the metamorphosis of a policy metaphor. Journal of International Affairs, Oxford, v. 57, n. 1, 2003.
EETEN, M. J. G van; Mueller, M. Where is the governance in Internet governance? New Media & Society, Thousand Oaks, v. 15, n. 5, p. 720-736, 2012.
FISMAN, R.; GATTI, R. Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries. Journal of Public Economics, Amsterdam, v. 83, n. 3, 2002.
GIL, A. C.. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 6. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2008.
GRAAF, G. D. Causes of corruption towards a contextual theory of corruption. Public Administration Quarterly, Towson, v. 31, n. 1, 2007.
GRECO, G.; SCIULLI, N.; D’ONZA, G. The influence of stakeholder engagement on sustainability reporting: evidence from Italian local councils. Public Management, Abingdon, v. 17, p. 465-488, 2015.
HOOD C. What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance? Public Management, Abingdon, v. 9, p. 191-210, 2007.
HOWLETT, M. Administrative styles and regulatory reform: institutional arrangements and their effects on administrative behavior. International Public Management Journal, Abingdon, v. 7, 317-333, 2004.
IRVIN, R. A.; STANSBURY, J. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, Washington, DC, v. 64, n. 1, 2004.
JANCSICS, D. Interdisciplinary perspectives on corruption. Sociology Compass, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 4, p. 358-372, 2014.
KHAZAELI, S.; STOCKEMER, D. The Internet: a new route to good governance. International Political Science Review, Thousand Oaks, v. 34, n. 5, p. 463-482, 2013.
KICKERT, W. Distinctive characteristics of State and administrative reform in southern Europe. In: IRSPM Conference, 11. Proceedings. Potsdam, 2007.
KIS-KATOS, K.; SCHULZE, G. G. Corruption in Southeast Asia: a survey of recent research. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, Camberra, v. 27, n. 1, p. 79-109, 2013.
LEE, M. H; Lio, M. C. The impact of information and communication technology on public governance and corruption in China. Information Development, Thousand Oaks, v. 32, n. 2, p. 127-141, 2016.
LIGOURI, M.; STECCOLINI, L.; ROTA, S. Studying administrative reforms through textual analysis: the case of Italian central government accounting. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Thousand Oaks, v. 84, n. 2, p. 308-333, 2018.
LÖFGREN, K. The governance of e-government: a governance perspective on the Swedish e-government strategy. Public Policy and Administration, New York, v. 22, n. 3, p. 335-352, 2007.
LYHNE, I. et al. Land Use Policy, Amsterdam, v. 72, p. 433-442, 2018.
MABILLARD, V.; ZUMOFEN, R. The complex relationship between transparency and accountability: A synthesis and contribution to existing frameworks. Public Policy and Administration, New York, v. 32, n. 2, p. 110-119, 2016.
MEIJER, A. E-governance innovation: barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly, Amsterdam, v. 32, p. 198-206, 2015.
MEIJER, A.; BURGER, N.; EBBERS, W. Citizens4Citizens: mapping participatory practices on the internet. Eletronic Journal of e-Government, Reading, v. 7, n. 1, p. 99-112, 2009.
MELLO, G. R. de; SLOMSKI, V. Índice de governança eletrônica dos estados brasileiros no âmbito do poder executivo em 2010. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, São Paulo, v. 7, n. 2, p. 375-408, 2010. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2RQsErm. Acesso em: 22 out. 2016.
MERGEL, I.; BRETSCHNEIDER, S. I. A three-stage adoption process for social media use in government. Public Administration Review, Washington, DC, v. 73, n. 3, p. 390-400, 2013.
MEZZAROBA, O. MONTEIRO, C. S. Manual de metodologia da pesquisa no Direito. 2. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2003.
MILAKOVICH, M. E. Digital governance: new technologies for improving public service and participation. [s. l.]: The Amazon Book Review, 2012. p. 356.
MULGAN, R. Accountability: an ever-expanding concept? Public Administration Review, Washington, DC, v. 78, n. 3, 2000.
NANDA, V. P. The good governance concept revisited. Law, society, and democracy, [S. l.], v. 603, p. 269-283, 2006.
NASCIMENTO, R. S. do. Análisis empírico de la acción internacional em la lucha contra la corrupción en los contextos europeo y americano. Saarbrücken: Editora Académica Española, 2012.
OCHARA, N. M. Assessing irreversibility of an e-government project in Kenya: implication for governance. Government Information Quarterly, Amsterdam, v. 27, n. 1, p. 89-97, 2010.
ONU. Public Governance Indicators: a literature review. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2B1vLCl. Acesso em: 18 jul. 2018.
PAROSKI, M.; KONJOVI, Z.; SURLA, D. Implementation of e-government at the local level in underdeveloped countries. The Electronic Library, Bingley, v. 31, n. 1, p. 99-118, 2013.
PAULO, M. The role of e-Governance in Europe’s image of the Chinese Communist Party. The International Communication Gazette, Amsterdam, v. 78, n. 1-2, p. 39-63, 2016.
PERSSON, T.; TABELLINI, G.; TREBBI, F. Electoral rules and corruption. Journal of the European Economics Association, Oxford, v. 1, n. 4, 2003.
PEZZANI, F. Introduzione: l’accountability negli enti locali. In: CAPERCHIONE, E.; PEZZANI, F. (Ed.). Responsabilità e trasparenza nella gestione dell’ente locale. Milão: Egea, 2000.
PILLAY, S.; KLUVERS, R. An institutional theory perspective on corruption: the case of developing democracy. Financial Accountability & Management, Hoboken, v. 30, n. 1,2014.
REGINATO, E. Local government accountability in European continental and anglo-saxon countries: an international comparison. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, 2008. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2CJjnqi. Acesso em: 10 fev. 2018.
RODRÍGUEZ BOLÍVAR, M. P.; GALERA, A. N. The role of fair value accounting in promoting government accountability. A Journal of Accounting, Finance and Businesses Studies, Sidney, v. 48, n. 3, 2012.
SHARMA, G., BAO, X.; PENG, L. Public participation and ethical issues on e-governance: a study perspective in Nepal. Eletronic Journal of e-Government, [S.l.], v. 12, n. 1, p. 80-94, 2014.
STOCKEMER, D. The Internet: a new route to good governance. International Political Science Review, Thousand Oaks, v. 34, n. 5, p. 463-482, 2013.
VALOTTI, G. La riforma delle autonomie locali: dal sistema all’azienda. Milão: Egea, 2000.
WAGNER, S. A.; VOGT, S.; KABST, R. The future of public participation: empirical analysis from the viewpoint of policy-makers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Amsterdam, v. 106, p. 65-73, 2016.
ZALOZNAYA, M. The social psychology of corruption: why it does not exist and why it should. Sociology Compass, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 2, p. 187-2002, p. 2014.
References
AHMAD, F.; ALI, A. Need for a new public governance system: issues and challenges. Indian Journal of Public Administration, New Delhi, v. 57, n. 4, 2011.
ALLEN, B. A.; JUILLET, L.; PAQUET, G.; ROY, J. E-governance & government on-line in Canada: partnerships, people & prospects. Government Information Quarterly, Amsterdam, v. 18, n. 2, p. 93-104, 2001.
ANGELES, L.; NEANIDIS, K. C. The persistent effect of colonialism on corruption. Economica, London, v. 82, p. 319-349, 2015.
AYHAN, B.; USTUNER, Y. Governance in public procurement: the reform of Turkey’s public procurement system. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Thousand Oaks, v. 81, n. 3, p. 640-662, 2015.
BANCO MUNDIAL. Governance Matters: indicadores de governança 1996-2007. Research at the World Bank. Washington: World Bank Institute, 2008. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2UcBZq0. Acesso em: 22 out.2018.
BAO, G.; WANG, X.; LARSEN, G. L.; MORGAN, D. F. Beyond new public governance: a value-based global framework for performance management, governance and leadership. Administration & Society, Thousand Oaks, v. 45, n. 4, p. 443-467, 2013.
BIRNER, R. WITTMER, H. Better public sector governance through partnership with the private sector and civil society: the case of Guatemala’s forest administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Thousand Oaks, v. 72, n. 4, 2006.
BOVAIRD, T. Public governance: balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Thousand Oaks, v. 71, n. 2, p. 217-228, 2005.
BOVAIRD, T.; LOFLLER, E. Evaluating the quality of public governance: indicators, models and methodologies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Thousand Oaks, v. 69, n. 3, p. 313-328, 2003.
BRASIL. Tribunal de Contas da União. Referencial para avaliação de governança do centro de governo. Brasília, DF: Secretaria de Controle Externo da Administração do Estado, 2016.
BRASIL. Decreto Federal n° 9.203, de 22 de novembro de 2017. Dispõe sobre a política de governança da administração pública federal direta, autarquia e fundacional. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2Pftwo7. Acesso em: 22 out. 2018.
BRIÈRE, S.; JOBERT, S.; POULIN, Y. Enhancing public governance in fragile states. Canada’s Journal of Global Policy Analysis, Toronto, v. 65, n. 3, p. 653-667, 2010.
BRUNETTI, A.; WEDER, B. A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics, Amsterdam, v. 87, n. 7-8, 2003.
BRYSON, J. M.; CROSBY, B. C.; BLOOMBERG, L. Public value governance: moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration, Danvers, v. 74, p. 445-456, 2014.
BHUIYAN, S. H.; & AMAGOH, F. Public sector reform in Kazakhstan: issues and perspectives. International Journal of Public Sector Management, v. 24, n. 3, p. 227-249, 2011.
CHATFIELD, A. T. Public service reform through e-government: a case study of “e-tax” in Japan. Electronic Journal of e-Government, Amsterdam, v. 7, n. 2, p. 135-146, 2009.
CHRISTENSEN T.; LAEGREID P. (Ed.). The Ashgate Research Companion to New Public Management. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011.
COLLIER, M. W. Explaing corruption: an institutional choice approach. Crime, law & social change, Berlin, v. 38, n. 1, 2002.
DIMANT, E.; TOSATO, G. Causes and effects of corruption: what has past decade’s empirical research taught us? A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, Oxford, v. 32, n. 2, p. 335-356, 2018.
DOORNBOS, M. Good governance: the metamorphosis of a policy metaphor. Journal of International Affairs, Oxford, v. 57, n. 1, 2003.
EETEN, M. J. G van; Mueller, M. Where is the governance in Internet governance? New Media & Society, Thousand Oaks, v. 15, n. 5, p. 720-736, 2012.
FISMAN, R.; GATTI, R. Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries. Journal of Public Economics, Amsterdam, v. 83, n. 3, 2002.
GIL, A. C.. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 6. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2008.
GRAAF, G. D. Causes of corruption towards a contextual theory of corruption. Public Administration Quarterly, Towson, v. 31, n. 1, 2007.
GRECO, G.; SCIULLI, N.; D’ONZA, G. The influence of stakeholder engagement on sustainability reporting: evidence from Italian local councils. Public Management, Abingdon, v. 17, p. 465-488, 2015.
HOOD C. What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance? Public Management, Abingdon, v. 9, p. 191-210, 2007.
HOWLETT, M. Administrative styles and regulatory reform: institutional arrangements and their effects on administrative behavior. International Public Management Journal, Abingdon, v. 7, 317-333, 2004.
IRVIN, R. A.; STANSBURY, J. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, Washington, DC, v. 64, n. 1, 2004.
JANCSICS, D. Interdisciplinary perspectives on corruption. Sociology Compass, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 4, p. 358-372, 2014.
KHAZAELI, S.; STOCKEMER, D. The Internet: a new route to good governance. International Political Science Review, Thousand Oaks, v. 34, n. 5, p. 463-482, 2013.
KICKERT, W. Distinctive characteristics of State and administrative reform in southern Europe. In: IRSPM Conference, 11. Proceedings. Potsdam, 2007.
KIS-KATOS, K.; SCHULZE, G. G. Corruption in Southeast Asia: a survey of recent research. Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, Camberra, v. 27, n. 1, p. 79-109, 2013.
LEE, M. H; Lio, M. C. The impact of information and communication technology on public governance and corruption in China. Information Development, Thousand Oaks, v. 32, n. 2, p. 127-141, 2016.
LIGOURI, M.; STECCOLINI, L.; ROTA, S. Studying administrative reforms through textual analysis: the case of Italian central government accounting. International Review of Administrative Sciences, Thousand Oaks, v. 84, n. 2, p. 308-333, 2018.
LÖFGREN, K. The governance of e-government: a governance perspective on the Swedish e-government strategy. Public Policy and Administration, New York, v. 22, n. 3, p. 335-352, 2007.
LYHNE, I. et al. Land Use Policy, Amsterdam, v. 72, p. 433-442, 2018.
MABILLARD, V.; ZUMOFEN, R. The complex relationship between transparency and accountability: A synthesis and contribution to existing frameworks. Public Policy and Administration, New York, v. 32, n. 2, p. 110-119, 2016.
MEIJER, A. E-governance innovation: barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly, Amsterdam, v. 32, p. 198-206, 2015.
MEIJER, A.; BURGER, N.; EBBERS, W. Citizens4Citizens: mapping participatory practices on the internet. Eletronic Journal of e-Government, Reading, v. 7, n. 1, p. 99-112, 2009.
MELLO, G. R. de; SLOMSKI, V. Índice de governança eletrônica dos estados brasileiros no âmbito do poder executivo em 2010. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, São Paulo, v. 7, n. 2, p. 375-408, 2010. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2RQsErm. Acesso em: 22 out. 2016.
MERGEL, I.; BRETSCHNEIDER, S. I. A three-stage adoption process for social media use in government. Public Administration Review, Washington, DC, v. 73, n. 3, p. 390-400, 2013.
MEZZAROBA, O. MONTEIRO, C. S. Manual de metodologia da pesquisa no Direito. 2. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2003.
MILAKOVICH, M. E. Digital governance: new technologies for improving public service and participation. [s. l.]: The Amazon Book Review, 2012. p. 356.
MULGAN, R. Accountability: an ever-expanding concept? Public Administration Review, Washington, DC, v. 78, n. 3, 2000.
NANDA, V. P. The good governance concept revisited. Law, society, and democracy, [S. l.], v. 603, p. 269-283, 2006.
NASCIMENTO, R. S. do. Análisis empírico de la acción internacional em la lucha contra la corrupción en los contextos europeo y americano. Saarbrücken: Editora Académica Española, 2012.
OCHARA, N. M. Assessing irreversibility of an e-government project in Kenya: implication for governance. Government Information Quarterly, Amsterdam, v. 27, n. 1, p. 89-97, 2010.
ONU. Public Governance Indicators: a literature review. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2B1vLCl. Acesso em: 18 jul. 2018.
PAROSKI, M.; KONJOVI, Z.; SURLA, D. Implementation of e-government at the local level in underdeveloped countries. The Electronic Library, Bingley, v. 31, n. 1, p. 99-118, 2013.
PAULO, M. The role of e-Governance in Europe’s image of the Chinese Communist Party. The International Communication Gazette, Amsterdam, v. 78, n. 1-2, p. 39-63, 2016.
PERSSON, T.; TABELLINI, G.; TREBBI, F. Electoral rules and corruption. Journal of the European Economics Association, Oxford, v. 1, n. 4, 2003.
PEZZANI, F. Introduzione: l’accountability negli enti locali. In: CAPERCHIONE, E.; PEZZANI, F. (Ed.). Responsabilità e trasparenza nella gestione dell’ente locale. Milão: Egea, 2000.
PILLAY, S.; KLUVERS, R. An institutional theory perspective on corruption: the case of developing democracy. Financial Accountability & Management, Hoboken, v. 30, n. 1,2014.
REGINATO, E. Local government accountability in European continental and anglo-saxon countries: an international comparison. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, 2008. Disponível em: https://bit.ly/2CJjnqi. Acesso em: 10 fev. 2018.
RODRÍGUEZ BOLÍVAR, M. P.; GALERA, A. N. The role of fair value accounting in promoting government accountability. A Journal of Accounting, Finance and Businesses Studies, Sidney, v. 48, n. 3, 2012.
SHARMA, G., BAO, X.; PENG, L. Public participation and ethical issues on e-governance: a study perspective in Nepal. Eletronic Journal of e-Government, [S.l.], v. 12, n. 1, p. 80-94, 2014.
STOCKEMER, D. The Internet: a new route to good governance. International Political Science Review, Thousand Oaks, v. 34, n. 5, p. 463-482, 2013.
VALOTTI, G. La riforma delle autonomie locali: dal sistema all’azienda. Milão: Egea, 2000.
WAGNER, S. A.; VOGT, S.; KABST, R. The future of public participation: empirical analysis from the viewpoint of policy-makers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Amsterdam, v. 106, p. 65-73, 2016.
ZALOZNAYA, M. The social psychology of corruption: why it does not exist and why it should. Sociology Compass, [S.l.], v. 8, n. 2, p. 187-2002, p. 2014.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 Revista Controle - doutrinas e artigos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Autores que publicam na Revista Controle – Doutrina e Artigos concordam com os seguintes termos:
1 A Revista Controle – Doutrina e Artigos não se responsabiliza pelas opiniões, ideias e conceitos emitidos nos textos, por serem de inteira responsabilidade de seu(s) autor(es), não significando necessariamente o posicionamento do Tribunal de Contas do Estado do Ceará e do Instituto Plácido Castelo;
2. O periódico segue o padrão Creative Commons (CC BY NC 4.0), que permite o compartilhamento e adaptação de obras derivadas do original, mas não pode usar o material para fins comerciais. As novas obras devem conter menção ao(s) autor(es) nos créditos;
3 O(s) responsável(is) pela submissão de artigos declara(m), sob as penas da Lei, que a informação sobre a autoria do trabalho é absolutamente completa e verdadeira;
4 O(s) autor(es) garante(m) que o artigo é original e inédito e que não está em processo de avaliação em outros periódicos;
5 A responsabilidade por eventuais plágios nos artigos publicados é de responsabilidade do(s) autor(es);
6 É reservado aos Editores o direito de proceder ajustes textuais e de adequação dos artigos às normas da publicação;
7 A Revista Controle – Doutrina e Artigos não realiza cobrança de nenhuma taxa ou contribuição financeira em razão de submissão de artigos ou de seu processamento;
8 A publicação dos artigos na Revista Controle – Doutrina e Artigos não gerará direito à remuneração de qualquer espécie; e
9 O(s) autor(es) autoriza(m) a publicação do artigo na Revista Controle – Doutrina e Artigos.