Análise comparativa do nível de qualidade da governança pública a partir dos recursos da tecnologia da informação e da comunicação (TIC)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32586/rcda.v17i1.459
Palabras clave:
Governança. Setor Público. Avaliação. Indicador.Resumen
A governança está intimamente relacionada à estrutura estatal disponível aos cidadãos e, ao mesmo que tempo, sugere como intenção retornar o Estado ao seu curso normal. Assim, o presente estudo tem por objetivo avaliar o nível de governança de determinado grupo de entes do Governo Federal, tomando como pressupostos o modelo de governança proposto pelo Tribunal de Contas da União (TCU). Foram eleitos três grupos de critérios (grupo I – Controle de Riscos e Controle Interno; grupo II – Auditoria Interna; grupo III – Accountability/transparência). A amostra tomou por base instituições federais sediadas no estado do Ceará e os resultados foram considerados satisfatórios devido à média em torno de 78%. O Banco do Nordeste (BNB) atingiu a maior pontuação (85%), enquanto a Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC), a menor (69%). Evidenciou-se, ainda, tendência de resultado mais favorável aos órgãos da administração direta, quando comparados aos da administração indireta.
##plugins.themes.gdThemes.metrics##
Referencias
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.
Referencias
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.
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2019 Revista Controle - doutrinas e artigos
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
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.