The formalist transparency of Brazilian Courts of Accounts determinations: an opportunity to improve accountability
DOI: https://doi.org/10.32586/rcda.v23i1.947
Keywords:
Accountability, Transparência, Tribunais de ContasAbstract
This paper analyzes how the determinations imposed by the Brazilian Courts of Accounts (TCs) on state administration entities are disseminated, from the perspective of providing structured data capable of instrumentalizing accountability models. Studies have shown that the quality of transparency given to the results of inspections by official auditing bodies can help to effectively correct the dysfunctions found. To this end, a descriptive, qualitative study was carried out by analyzing the websites and applying questionnaires to the 33 Brazilian TCs, with the aim of verifying the mechanisms for organizing data on determinations and how they are made available to society. As a result, it was identified that more than 93% of the Brazilian Courts of Accounts provide information about their orders in a formalistic and fragmented way, making it complex for potential interest groups to consult and exercise vertical accountability; 41.7% of the courts that answered the questionnaire stated that they do not organize the data inherent in their orders for internal use, which creates a challenge for their own auditors to have a panoramic view of the "agenda of obligations" imposed on the bodies under their jurisdiction; and even among the 14 TCs that claim to organize databases on their orders, only one freely discloses the information, to the general public. Thus, this work is in line with research suggesting a deficit in the permeability of Brazilian CTs, but it also offers practical prospects for reducing this gap through technology.
Metrics
References
ABRUCIO, F. L.; LOUREIRO, M. R. Finanças Públicas, Democracia e Accountability. In: Editora Campus (ed.). Economia do Setor Público no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Ciro Biderman e Roberto Arvate, v. 1, p. 75-102, 2005.
ACKER, W. VAN; BOUCKAERT, G. The impact of supreme audit institutions and ombudsmen in Belgium and The Netherlands. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 35, n. 1, p. 55-71, fev. 2019.
ALEKSOVSKA, M.; SCHILLEMANS, T.; GRIMMELIKHUIJSEN, S. Management of Multiple Accountabilities Through Setting Priorities: Evidence from a Cross‐National Conjoint Experiment. Public administration review, v. 82, n. 1, p. 132-146, 2022.
ALI, U. et al. Innovative Citizen’s Services through Public Cloud in Pakistan: user’s privacy concerns and impacts on adoption. Mobile Networks and Applications, v. 24, n. 1, p. 47-68, 15 fev. 2019.
ARLINDO, A. et al. A coprodução do controle como bem público essencial à accountability, ANPAD. Anais... 2012
BATISTA, M.; ROCHA, V.; SANTOS, J. L. A. dos. Transparency, corruption, and mismanagement: an analysis of brazilian municipalities. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 54, n. 5, p. 1382-1401, 1 set. 2020.
BONOLLO, E. Measuring supreme audit institutions’ outcomes: current literature and future insights. Public Money & Management, v. 39, n. 7, p. 468-477, 3 out. 2019.
BONSÓN, E.; BEDNÁROVÁ, M. Blockchain and its implications for accounting and auditing. Meditari Accountancy Research, v. 27, n. 5, p. 725-740, 7 out. 2019.
BOVENS, M.; GOODIN, R. E.; SCHILLEMANS, T. The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2014.
BOVENS, M.; WILLE, A. Indexing watchdog accountability powers a framework for assessing the accountability capacity of independent oversight institutions. Regulation & Governance, v. 15, n. 3, p. 856-876, 2021.
BRINGSELIUS, L. Efficiency, economy and effectiveness, but what about ethics? Supreme audit institutions at a critical juncture. Public Money & Management, v. 38, n. 2, p. 105-110, 23 fev. 2018.
BUSUIOC, E. M. Friend or Foe? Inter-Agency Cooperation, Organizational Reputation, and Turf. Public Administration, v. 94, n. 1, p. 40-56, mar. 2016.
BUSUIOC, M.; LODGE, M. Reputation and Accountability Relationships: Managing Accountability Expectations through Reputation. Public administration review, v. 77, n. 1, p. 91-100, 2017.
CARPENTER, D. P.; KRAUSE, G. A. Reputation and Public Administration. Public Administration Review, v. 72, n. 1, p. 26-32, jan. 2012.
CARVALHO, F. L. D.; RODRIGUES, R. S. The court of accounts in Brazil and its European counterparts: a comparative study. A&C: Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional, v. 18, n. 71, p. 225-248, 2018.
CASTRO, A.; ANSARI, S. Contextual “Readiness” for Institutional Work. A Study of the Fight Against Corruption in Brazil. Journal of Management Inquiry, v. 26, n. 4, p. 351-365, 29 out. 2017.
CORDERY, C. J.; HAY, D. Supreme audit institutions and public value: demonstrating relevance. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 35, n. 2, p. 128-142, 4 maio 2019.
CUCCINIELLO, M. et al. 25 Years of Transparency Research: evidence and future Directions. Public administration review, v. 77, n. 1, p. 32-44, 2017.
DENZIN, N. K.; LINCOLN, Y. S. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. [S. l.] Sage Publications Ltd, 2005.
DESMEDT, E. et al. Impact of performance audit on the Administration: a Belgian study (2005-2010). MANAGERIAL AUDITING JOURNAL, v. 32, n. 3, p. 251-275, 2017.
DRĂGUSIN (TRINCU-DRĂGUSIN), C. P.; PITULICE, I. C.; ȘTEFĂNESCU, A. Harmonisation and Emergence Concerning the Performance Audit of the EU Member States’ Public Sector. Romania’s Case. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), v. 13, n. 7, p. 3673, 2021.
DYE, K. M.; STAPENHURST, R. Pillars of Integrity: the importance of supreme audit institutions in curbing corruption. Washington, D. C. [S. n.]. Disponível em: https://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01006/WEB/IMAGES/WBI37133.PDF. Acesso em: 8 ago. 2022.
FAN, J.; YANG, W. Study on e-government services quality: the integration of online and offline services. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, v. 8, n. 3, p. 693-718, 19 maio 2015.
FILGUEIRAS, F. Indo além do gerencial: a agenda da governança democrática e a mudança silenciada no Brasil. Revista de administração pública (Rio de Janeiro), v. 52, n. 1, p. 71-88, 2018.
FOX, J. A. Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say? World Development, v. 72, p. 346-361, ago. 2015.
GILAD, S. Political Pressures, Organizational Identity, and Attention to Tasks: illustrtations from pre-crisis financial regulation. Public Administration, v. 93, n. 3, p. 593-608, set. 2015.
GOETZ, A. M.; JENKINS, R. Hybrid Forms of Accountability: citizen engagement in institutions of public-sector oversight in India. Public Management Review, v. 3, n. 3, p. 363-383, set. 2001.
GOODE, W. J.; HATT, P. K. Métodos em Pesquisa Social. 4. ed. São Paulo: [S. n.].
GUSTAVSON, M.; SUNDSTRÖM, A. Organizing the Audit Society: Does Good Auditing Generate Less Public Sector Corruption? Administration & Society, v. 50, n. 10, p. 1508-1532, 16 nov. 2018.
HAZGUI, M.; TRIANTAFILLOU, P.; CHRISTENSEN, S. E. On the legitimacy and apoliticality of public sector performance audit: exploratory evidence from Canada and Denmark. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2022.
HIDALGO, F. D.; CANELLO, J.; LIMA-DE-OLIVEIRA, R. Can Politicians Police Themselves? Natural Experimental Evidence From Brazil’s Audit Courts. Comparative political studies, v. 49, n. 13, p. 1739-1773, 2016.
JOHNSEN, A. Public sector audit in contemporary society: a short review and introduction. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 35, n. 2, p. 121-127, 2019.
JOHNSEN, A. et al. Supreme audit institutions in a high-impact context: a comparative analysis of performance audit in four Nordic countries. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 35, n. 2, p. 158-181, 2019.
KARABAYEV, E. B. et al. The role of external public audit in ensuring the financial stability of the budgets of developing countries. Public Policy and Administration, v. 20, n. 1, p. 108-117, 2021.
KLUVERS, R.; TIPPETT, J. Mechanisms of Accountability in Local Government: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Business and Management, v. 5, n. 7, p. 46-53, 19 jun. 2010.
KOCK, N.; GASKINS, L. The Mediating Role of Voice and Accountability in the Relationship Between Internet Diffusion and Government Corruption in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. Information Technology for Development, v. 20, n. 1, p. 23-43, 2 jan. 2014.
KOPPELL, J. G. Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of “Multiple Accountabilities Disorder”. Public Administration Review, v. 65, n. 1, p. 94-108, jan. 2005.
LASSOU, P. J. C.; HOPPER, T.; NTIM, C. How the colonial legacy frames state audit institutions in Benin that fail to curb corruption. Critical Perspectives On Accounting, v. 78, 2021.
LINO, A. F. et al. Fighting or supporting corruption? The role of public sector audit organizations in Brazil. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, v. 83, 1 mar. 2022.
LINO, A. F.; AQUINO, A. C. B. DE. Organizational wrongdoing in courts of accounts. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 54, n. 2, p. 220-242, 1 mar. 2020.
LÓPEZ-ARCEIZ, F. J.; BELLOSTAS PÉREZGRUESO, A. J.; RIVERA TORRES, M. P. Accessibility and transparency: impact on social economy. Online Information Review, v. 41, n. 1, p. 35-52, 13 fev. 2017.
LOUREIRO, M. R.; TEIXEIRA, M. A. C.; PRADO, O. Construção de instituições democráticas no Brasil contemporâneo: transparência das contas públicas. Organizações & Sociedade, v. 15, n. 47, p. 107-119, dez. 2008.
LUZ, B. B. DE C.; FILHO, E. R. G.; SOUSA, M. DE M. Legal, normative, and responsive frames in the debate about the reform of Brazilian courts of accounts. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 55, n. 4, p. 861-880, 2021.
MARSCHALL, M. J. Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context: a new look at the coproduction of local public goods. Political Research Quarterly, v. 57, n. 2, p. 231-244, 2 jun. 2004.
MATTAR, F. N. Pesquisa de marketing: metodologia, planejamento, execução e análise. 2. ed. São Paulo: [S. n.]. v. 2.
MEZA, O.; PÉREZ‐CHIQUÉS, E. Corruption consolidation in local governments: a grounded analytical framework. Public Administration, v. 99, n. 3, p. 530-546, 12 set. 2021.
MONCRIEFFE, J. Relational accountability: complexities of structural injustice. [S. l.: s. n.].
MORIN, D. Democratic Accountability During Performance Audits under Pressure: a recipe for institutional hypocrisy? Financial Accountability & Management, v. 32, n. 1, p. 104-124, fev. 2016.
NASCIMENTO, J. C. H. B. DO et al. Corrupção governamental e difusão do acesso à Internet: evidências globais. Revista de administração pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 53, n. 6, p. 1011-1039, 2019.
NEU, D.; EVERETT, J.; RAHAMAN, A. S. Internal Auditing and Corruption within Government: the case of the Canadian sponsorship program. Contemporary Accounting Research, v. 30, n. 3, p. 1223-1250, set. 2013.
O’ DONNELL, G. Accountability horizontal e novas poliarquias. Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, v. 44, n. 44, p. 27-54, 1998.
OTIA, J. E.; BRACCI, E. Digital transformation and the public sector auditing: the SAI’s perspective. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 38, n. 2, p. 252-280, 2022.
PARKER, L. D.; SCHMITZ, J.; JACOBS, K. Auditor and auditee engagement with public sector performance audit: an institutional logics perspective. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 37, n. 2, p. 142-162, 13 maio 2021.
RAUDLA, R. et al. The Impact of Performance Audit on Public Sector Organizations: The Case of Estonia. Public Organization Review, v. 16, n. 2, p. 217-233, 7 jun. 2016.
RAUPP, M. F. Prestação de Contas de Executivos Municipais de Santa Catarina: uma Investigação nos Portais Eletrônicos Accountability Santa Catarina’s Municipal Executive Branches: a Research on Electronics Portals. Administração Pública e Gestão Social, v. 6, n. 3, p. 151-158, 2014.
REICHBORN-KJENNERUD, K. et al. Sais work against corruption in Scandinavian, South-European and African countries: an institutional analysis. The British accounting review, v. 51, n. 5, p. 100842, 2019.
REICHBORN-KJENNERUD, K.; JOHNSEN, Å. Performance Audits and Supreme Audit Institutions’ Impact on Public Administration: the case of the office of the Auditor General in Norway. Administration & society, v. 50, n. 10, p. 1422-1446, 2018.
REICHBORN-KJENNERUD, K.; VABO, S. I. Performance audit as a contribution to change and improvement in public administration. Evaluation, London, England. 1995, 2017.
RITA LOUREIRO, M. et al. Democratização e reforma do Estado: o desenvolvimento institucional dos tribunais de contas no Brasil recente*. Rio de Janeiro, v. 43, n. 4, p. 739-72, 2009.
ROBERTS, J. The ‘subject’ of corruption. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, v. 28, p. 82-88, maio 2015.
ROCHA, D. G. DA; ZUCCOLOTTO, R.; TEIXEIRA, M. A. C. Insulados e não democráticos: a (im)possibilidade do exercício da social accountability nos Tribunais de Contas brasileiros. Revista de administração pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 54, n. 2, p. 201-219, 2020.
RODRIGUES, K. F. Desvelando o conceito de transparência: seus limites, suas variedades e a criação de uma tipologia. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, v. 18, n. 2, p. 237-253, jun. 2020.
ROMZEK, B. S.; LEROUX, K.; BLACKMAR, J. M. A Preliminary Theory of Informal Accountability among Network Organizational Actors. Public Administration Review, v. 72, n. 3, p. 442-453, maio 2012.
SANTOS, N. DE M.; SOUZA, E. C. L. DE. Evolution and trend of studies on e-government: Mapping the area- from 1992 to 2018. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 55, n. 5, p. 1124-1148, 2021.
SCHOMMER, P. C. et al. Accountability and co-production of information and control: social observatories and their relationship with government agencies. Revista de administração pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 49, n. 6, p. 1375-1400, 2015.
SIDDIQUEE, N. A. E-government and transformation of service delivery in developing countries. Transforming Government: people, process and policy, v. 10, n. 3, p. 368-390, 15 ago. 2016.
SIKKA, P.; LEHMAN, G. The supply-side of corruption and limits to preventing corruption within government procurement and constructing ethical subjects. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, v. 28, p. 62-70, maio 2015.
TORRES, L.; YETANO, A.; PINA, V. Are Performance Audits Useful? A Comparison of EU Practices. Administration & Society , v. 51, n. 3, p. 431-462, 2019.
TRANFIELD, D.; DENYER, D.; SMART, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, v. 14, n. 3, p. 207-222, set. 2003.
URBINATI, N. O que torna a representação democrática? Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, n. 67, p. 191-228, 2006.
VIEGAS, R. R. et al. A comunicação dos Tribunais de Contas e Ministérios Públicos nas redes sociais: os desafios da accountability na democracia digital. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 56, n. 3, p. 324-348, jun. 2022.
WILKINS, P. Watchdogs as Satellites of Parliament. Australian Journal of Public Administration, v. 75, n. 1, p. 18-27, mar. 2016.
YETANO, A.; CASTILLEJOS, B. I. Performance Audit in Latin America: improving trust in governments? Gestion Y Politica Publica, v. 28, n. 2, p. 407-440, 2019.
References
ABRUCIO, F. L.; LOUREIRO, M. R. Finanças Públicas, Democracia e Accountability. In: Editora Campus (ed.). Economia do Setor Público no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Ciro Biderman e Roberto Arvate, v. 1, p. 75-102, 2005.
ACKER, W. VAN; BOUCKAERT, G. The impact of supreme audit institutions and ombudsmen in Belgium and The Netherlands. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 35, n. 1, p. 55-71, fev. 2019.
ALEKSOVSKA, M.; SCHILLEMANS, T.; GRIMMELIKHUIJSEN, S. Management of Multiple Accountabilities Through Setting Priorities: Evidence from a Cross‐National Conjoint Experiment. Public administration review, v. 82, n. 1, p. 132-146, 2022.
ALI, U. et al. Innovative Citizen’s Services through Public Cloud in Pakistan: user’s privacy concerns and impacts on adoption. Mobile Networks and Applications, v. 24, n. 1, p. 47-68, 15 fev. 2019.
ARLINDO, A. et al. A coprodução do controle como bem público essencial à accountability, ANPAD. Anais... 2012
BATISTA, M.; ROCHA, V.; SANTOS, J. L. A. dos. Transparency, corruption, and mismanagement: an analysis of brazilian municipalities. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 54, n. 5, p. 1382-1401, 1 set. 2020.
BONOLLO, E. Measuring supreme audit institutions’ outcomes: current literature and future insights. Public Money & Management, v. 39, n. 7, p. 468-477, 3 out. 2019.
BONSÓN, E.; BEDNÁROVÁ, M. Blockchain and its implications for accounting and auditing. Meditari Accountancy Research, v. 27, n. 5, p. 725-740, 7 out. 2019.
BOVENS, M.; GOODIN, R. E.; SCHILLEMANS, T. The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2014.
BOVENS, M.; WILLE, A. Indexing watchdog accountability powers a framework for assessing the accountability capacity of independent oversight institutions. Regulation & Governance, v. 15, n. 3, p. 856-876, 2021.
BRINGSELIUS, L. Efficiency, economy and effectiveness, but what about ethics? Supreme audit institutions at a critical juncture. Public Money & Management, v. 38, n. 2, p. 105-110, 23 fev. 2018.
BUSUIOC, E. M. Friend or Foe? Inter-Agency Cooperation, Organizational Reputation, and Turf. Public Administration, v. 94, n. 1, p. 40-56, mar. 2016.
BUSUIOC, M.; LODGE, M. Reputation and Accountability Relationships: Managing Accountability Expectations through Reputation. Public administration review, v. 77, n. 1, p. 91-100, 2017.
CARPENTER, D. P.; KRAUSE, G. A. Reputation and Public Administration. Public Administration Review, v. 72, n. 1, p. 26-32, jan. 2012.
CARVALHO, F. L. D.; RODRIGUES, R. S. The court of accounts in Brazil and its European counterparts: a comparative study. A&C: Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional, v. 18, n. 71, p. 225-248, 2018.
CASTRO, A.; ANSARI, S. Contextual “Readiness” for Institutional Work. A Study of the Fight Against Corruption in Brazil. Journal of Management Inquiry, v. 26, n. 4, p. 351-365, 29 out. 2017.
CORDERY, C. J.; HAY, D. Supreme audit institutions and public value: demonstrating relevance. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 35, n. 2, p. 128-142, 4 maio 2019.
CUCCINIELLO, M. et al. 25 Years of Transparency Research: evidence and future Directions. Public administration review, v. 77, n. 1, p. 32-44, 2017.
DENZIN, N. K.; LINCOLN, Y. S. The Sage handbook of qualitative research. [S. l.] Sage Publications Ltd, 2005.
DESMEDT, E. et al. Impact of performance audit on the Administration: a Belgian study (2005-2010). MANAGERIAL AUDITING JOURNAL, v. 32, n. 3, p. 251-275, 2017.
DRĂGUSIN (TRINCU-DRĂGUSIN), C. P.; PITULICE, I. C.; ȘTEFĂNESCU, A. Harmonisation and Emergence Concerning the Performance Audit of the EU Member States’ Public Sector. Romania’s Case. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), v. 13, n. 7, p. 3673, 2021.
DYE, K. M.; STAPENHURST, R. Pillars of Integrity: the importance of supreme audit institutions in curbing corruption. Washington, D. C. [S. n.]. Disponível em: https://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01006/WEB/IMAGES/WBI37133.PDF. Acesso em: 8 ago. 2022.
FAN, J.; YANG, W. Study on e-government services quality: the integration of online and offline services. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, v. 8, n. 3, p. 693-718, 19 maio 2015.
FILGUEIRAS, F. Indo além do gerencial: a agenda da governança democrática e a mudança silenciada no Brasil. Revista de administração pública (Rio de Janeiro), v. 52, n. 1, p. 71-88, 2018.
FOX, J. A. Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say? World Development, v. 72, p. 346-361, ago. 2015.
GILAD, S. Political Pressures, Organizational Identity, and Attention to Tasks: illustrtations from pre-crisis financial regulation. Public Administration, v. 93, n. 3, p. 593-608, set. 2015.
GOETZ, A. M.; JENKINS, R. Hybrid Forms of Accountability: citizen engagement in institutions of public-sector oversight in India. Public Management Review, v. 3, n. 3, p. 363-383, set. 2001.
GOODE, W. J.; HATT, P. K. Métodos em Pesquisa Social. 4. ed. São Paulo: [S. n.].
GUSTAVSON, M.; SUNDSTRÖM, A. Organizing the Audit Society: Does Good Auditing Generate Less Public Sector Corruption? Administration & Society, v. 50, n. 10, p. 1508-1532, 16 nov. 2018.
HAZGUI, M.; TRIANTAFILLOU, P.; CHRISTENSEN, S. E. On the legitimacy and apoliticality of public sector performance audit: exploratory evidence from Canada and Denmark. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 2022.
HIDALGO, F. D.; CANELLO, J.; LIMA-DE-OLIVEIRA, R. Can Politicians Police Themselves? Natural Experimental Evidence From Brazil’s Audit Courts. Comparative political studies, v. 49, n. 13, p. 1739-1773, 2016.
JOHNSEN, A. Public sector audit in contemporary society: a short review and introduction. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 35, n. 2, p. 121-127, 2019.
JOHNSEN, A. et al. Supreme audit institutions in a high-impact context: a comparative analysis of performance audit in four Nordic countries. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 35, n. 2, p. 158-181, 2019.
KARABAYEV, E. B. et al. The role of external public audit in ensuring the financial stability of the budgets of developing countries. Public Policy and Administration, v. 20, n. 1, p. 108-117, 2021.
KLUVERS, R.; TIPPETT, J. Mechanisms of Accountability in Local Government: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Business and Management, v. 5, n. 7, p. 46-53, 19 jun. 2010.
KOCK, N.; GASKINS, L. The Mediating Role of Voice and Accountability in the Relationship Between Internet Diffusion and Government Corruption in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. Information Technology for Development, v. 20, n. 1, p. 23-43, 2 jan. 2014.
KOPPELL, J. G. Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of “Multiple Accountabilities Disorder”. Public Administration Review, v. 65, n. 1, p. 94-108, jan. 2005.
LASSOU, P. J. C.; HOPPER, T.; NTIM, C. How the colonial legacy frames state audit institutions in Benin that fail to curb corruption. Critical Perspectives On Accounting, v. 78, 2021.
LINO, A. F. et al. Fighting or supporting corruption? The role of public sector audit organizations in Brazil. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, v. 83, 1 mar. 2022.
LINO, A. F.; AQUINO, A. C. B. DE. Organizational wrongdoing in courts of accounts. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 54, n. 2, p. 220-242, 1 mar. 2020.
LÓPEZ-ARCEIZ, F. J.; BELLOSTAS PÉREZGRUESO, A. J.; RIVERA TORRES, M. P. Accessibility and transparency: impact on social economy. Online Information Review, v. 41, n. 1, p. 35-52, 13 fev. 2017.
LOUREIRO, M. R.; TEIXEIRA, M. A. C.; PRADO, O. Construção de instituições democráticas no Brasil contemporâneo: transparência das contas públicas. Organizações & Sociedade, v. 15, n. 47, p. 107-119, dez. 2008.
LUZ, B. B. DE C.; FILHO, E. R. G.; SOUSA, M. DE M. Legal, normative, and responsive frames in the debate about the reform of Brazilian courts of accounts. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 55, n. 4, p. 861-880, 2021.
MARSCHALL, M. J. Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context: a new look at the coproduction of local public goods. Political Research Quarterly, v. 57, n. 2, p. 231-244, 2 jun. 2004.
MATTAR, F. N. Pesquisa de marketing: metodologia, planejamento, execução e análise. 2. ed. São Paulo: [S. n.]. v. 2.
MEZA, O.; PÉREZ‐CHIQUÉS, E. Corruption consolidation in local governments: a grounded analytical framework. Public Administration, v. 99, n. 3, p. 530-546, 12 set. 2021.
MONCRIEFFE, J. Relational accountability: complexities of structural injustice. [S. l.: s. n.].
MORIN, D. Democratic Accountability During Performance Audits under Pressure: a recipe for institutional hypocrisy? Financial Accountability & Management, v. 32, n. 1, p. 104-124, fev. 2016.
NASCIMENTO, J. C. H. B. DO et al. Corrupção governamental e difusão do acesso à Internet: evidências globais. Revista de administração pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 53, n. 6, p. 1011-1039, 2019.
NEU, D.; EVERETT, J.; RAHAMAN, A. S. Internal Auditing and Corruption within Government: the case of the Canadian sponsorship program. Contemporary Accounting Research, v. 30, n. 3, p. 1223-1250, set. 2013.
O’ DONNELL, G. Accountability horizontal e novas poliarquias. Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, v. 44, n. 44, p. 27-54, 1998.
OTIA, J. E.; BRACCI, E. Digital transformation and the public sector auditing: the SAI’s perspective. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 38, n. 2, p. 252-280, 2022.
PARKER, L. D.; SCHMITZ, J.; JACOBS, K. Auditor and auditee engagement with public sector performance audit: an institutional logics perspective. Financial Accountability & Management, v. 37, n. 2, p. 142-162, 13 maio 2021.
RAUDLA, R. et al. The Impact of Performance Audit on Public Sector Organizations: The Case of Estonia. Public Organization Review, v. 16, n. 2, p. 217-233, 7 jun. 2016.
RAUPP, M. F. Prestação de Contas de Executivos Municipais de Santa Catarina: uma Investigação nos Portais Eletrônicos Accountability Santa Catarina’s Municipal Executive Branches: a Research on Electronics Portals. Administração Pública e Gestão Social, v. 6, n. 3, p. 151-158, 2014.
REICHBORN-KJENNERUD, K. et al. Sais work against corruption in Scandinavian, South-European and African countries: an institutional analysis. The British accounting review, v. 51, n. 5, p. 100842, 2019.
REICHBORN-KJENNERUD, K.; JOHNSEN, Å. Performance Audits and Supreme Audit Institutions’ Impact on Public Administration: the case of the office of the Auditor General in Norway. Administration & society, v. 50, n. 10, p. 1422-1446, 2018.
REICHBORN-KJENNERUD, K.; VABO, S. I. Performance audit as a contribution to change and improvement in public administration. Evaluation, London, England. 1995, 2017.
RITA LOUREIRO, M. et al. Democratização e reforma do Estado: o desenvolvimento institucional dos tribunais de contas no Brasil recente*. Rio de Janeiro, v. 43, n. 4, p. 739-72, 2009.
ROBERTS, J. The ‘subject’ of corruption. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, v. 28, p. 82-88, maio 2015.
ROCHA, D. G. DA; ZUCCOLOTTO, R.; TEIXEIRA, M. A. C. Insulados e não democráticos: a (im)possibilidade do exercício da social accountability nos Tribunais de Contas brasileiros. Revista de administração pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 54, n. 2, p. 201-219, 2020.
RODRIGUES, K. F. Desvelando o conceito de transparência: seus limites, suas variedades e a criação de uma tipologia. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, v. 18, n. 2, p. 237-253, jun. 2020.
ROMZEK, B. S.; LEROUX, K.; BLACKMAR, J. M. A Preliminary Theory of Informal Accountability among Network Organizational Actors. Public Administration Review, v. 72, n. 3, p. 442-453, maio 2012.
SANTOS, N. DE M.; SOUZA, E. C. L. DE. Evolution and trend of studies on e-government: Mapping the area- from 1992 to 2018. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 55, n. 5, p. 1124-1148, 2021.
SCHOMMER, P. C. et al. Accountability and co-production of information and control: social observatories and their relationship with government agencies. Revista de administração pública, Rio de Janeiro, v. 49, n. 6, p. 1375-1400, 2015.
SIDDIQUEE, N. A. E-government and transformation of service delivery in developing countries. Transforming Government: people, process and policy, v. 10, n. 3, p. 368-390, 15 ago. 2016.
SIKKA, P.; LEHMAN, G. The supply-side of corruption and limits to preventing corruption within government procurement and constructing ethical subjects. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, v. 28, p. 62-70, maio 2015.
TORRES, L.; YETANO, A.; PINA, V. Are Performance Audits Useful? A Comparison of EU Practices. Administration & Society , v. 51, n. 3, p. 431-462, 2019.
TRANFIELD, D.; DENYER, D.; SMART, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, v. 14, n. 3, p. 207-222, set. 2003.
URBINATI, N. O que torna a representação democrática? Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, n. 67, p. 191-228, 2006.
VIEGAS, R. R. et al. A comunicação dos Tribunais de Contas e Ministérios Públicos nas redes sociais: os desafios da accountability na democracia digital. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 56, n. 3, p. 324-348, jun. 2022.
WILKINS, P. Watchdogs as Satellites of Parliament. Australian Journal of Public Administration, v. 75, n. 1, p. 18-27, mar. 2016.
YETANO, A.; CASTILLEJOS, B. I. Performance Audit in Latin America: improving trust in governments? Gestion Y Politica Publica, v. 28, n. 2, p. 407-440, 2019.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista: apenas para a 1ª Publicação.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 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.