Do State capacity dimensions differently affect policy areas performance?

IF 0.2 Q4 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
P. Cavalcante, A. Pereira
{"title":"Do State capacity dimensions differently affect policy areas performance?","authors":"P. Cavalcante, A. Pereira","doi":"10.21118/apgs.v14i2.12439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research objective: To analyze the determinants of governmental performance, assuming that policy sectors have different state capacities and produce heterogeneous effects on their performance.  \nTheoretical Framework: Grounded in the neo-Weberian bureaucracy and public governance debates, the inquiry tests if policy sectors (government core; infrastructure; productive development; security/citizenship, and social/environmental) present different state capacities and produce heterogeneous effects on outputs and outcomes. \nMethodology: The research uses a survey applied to over three thousand civil servants of the Brazilian federal public administration to create composite variables of performance and state capacities dimensions, then descriptively compare these variables and run a multivariate regression to test the hypotheses.  \nResults: The paper confirms that the degree of state capacity development impacts the bureaucrats’ perception of performance and, secondly, these effects are quite diverse on the organizational outputs and outcomes. However, their variation among policy areas is not as expressive as expected. The findings reinforce recent studies that claim that governmental investment in state capacity became broader and more inclusive as it incorporated several agencies that do not belong to the classical “pocket of efficiency.” \nOriginality: Based on an original dataset, the research shows insights at advancing the study of state capacity, governance, and public sector performance. The comparative analyzes are unprecedented as it encompasses simultaneously crucial dimensions of the public service in Brazil, such as meritocracy, autonomy, relationship, skills, resources and, accountability.  \nTheoretical and Practical Contributions: In theoretical terms, the paper tests essential hypotheses concerning the federal government bureaucracy and performance, mostly restricted to the international literature. It also explores the policy sectors' heterogeneity and how it affects their performance, shedding light on the need for a more inclusive and comprehensive civil service and management policy.","PeriodicalId":42150,"journal":{"name":"Administracao Publica e Gestao Social","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administracao Publica e Gestao Social","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21118/apgs.v14i2.12439","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Research objective: To analyze the determinants of governmental performance, assuming that policy sectors have different state capacities and produce heterogeneous effects on their performance.  Theoretical Framework: Grounded in the neo-Weberian bureaucracy and public governance debates, the inquiry tests if policy sectors (government core; infrastructure; productive development; security/citizenship, and social/environmental) present different state capacities and produce heterogeneous effects on outputs and outcomes. Methodology: The research uses a survey applied to over three thousand civil servants of the Brazilian federal public administration to create composite variables of performance and state capacities dimensions, then descriptively compare these variables and run a multivariate regression to test the hypotheses.  Results: The paper confirms that the degree of state capacity development impacts the bureaucrats’ perception of performance and, secondly, these effects are quite diverse on the organizational outputs and outcomes. However, their variation among policy areas is not as expressive as expected. The findings reinforce recent studies that claim that governmental investment in state capacity became broader and more inclusive as it incorporated several agencies that do not belong to the classical “pocket of efficiency.” Originality: Based on an original dataset, the research shows insights at advancing the study of state capacity, governance, and public sector performance. The comparative analyzes are unprecedented as it encompasses simultaneously crucial dimensions of the public service in Brazil, such as meritocracy, autonomy, relationship, skills, resources and, accountability.  Theoretical and Practical Contributions: In theoretical terms, the paper tests essential hypotheses concerning the federal government bureaucracy and performance, mostly restricted to the international literature. It also explores the policy sectors' heterogeneity and how it affects their performance, shedding light on the need for a more inclusive and comprehensive civil service and management policy.
国家能力维度对政策领域的表现有不同的影响吗?
研究目的:假设政策部门具有不同的国家能力并对其绩效产生异质性影响,分析政府绩效的决定因素。理论框架:在新韦伯主义官僚主义和公共治理辩论的基础上,调查测试了政策部门(政府核心;基础设施;生产发展;安全/公民身份和社会/环境)表现出不同的国家能力,并对产出和结果产生异质影响。研究方法:本研究采用对巴西联邦公共行政部门3000多名公务员的调查,创建绩效和国家能力维度的复合变量,然后对这些变量进行描述性比较,并运行多元回归来检验假设。结果:国家能力发展程度影响了官员的绩效感知;其次,这些影响对组织产出和结果的影响是不同的。然而,它们在政策领域之间的差异并不像预期的那样具有表现力。这些发现加强了最近的研究,即政府对国家能力的投资变得更广泛,更具包容性,因为它纳入了几个不属于经典“效率口袋”的机构。原创性:基于原始数据集,本研究展示了对推进国家能力、治理和公共部门绩效研究的见解。这种比较分析是前所未有的,因为它同时涵盖了巴西公共服务的关键方面,如任人唯贤、自治、关系、技能、资源和问责制。理论和实践贡献:在理论方面,本文检验了关于联邦政府官僚主义和绩效的基本假设,这些假设大多局限于国际文献。它还探讨了政策部门的异质性及其对其绩效的影响,揭示了制定更具包容性和全面性的公务员制度和管理政策的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Administracao Publica e Gestao Social
Administracao Publica e Gestao Social PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信