Capacities and Policy Work in Brazilian

Introduction

Public policy analysis presupposes that results depend on inputs and that variations in types or amount of input explain the differences in results. From a structural approach, the concept of state capacity encompasses a set of macro- structural inputs that are necessary for policies to be implemented and produce results and impact. In this sense, the greater the capacities of the State, the greater the effectiveness of public policies.

This work aims to address two criticisms towards this macro-structural perspective of state capacity. The first one relates to the assumption of homogeneity and uniformity which does not acknowledge individuals’ agency and its influence in the policy production (Hsu, 2015; Williams, 2017). The second one involves the concept’s intrinsic limitation of empirical observation given that its analytical power resides in the potentialities of the state action and not in the action per se (Cingolani, 2013; Mazucca, 2012; Gomide et al., 2017).

In view of that, this investigation argues that policy capacity and policy work debates can provide additional resources to explore the Brazilian federal context of policy production and to raise hypothesis to test associations between individual and organizational capacities and their possible effects on policy results.

The purpose of this article is thus to analyze policy capacities by observing how these capabilities are distributed in policy functions and how they are taken into consideration in the Brazilian federal civil service. By means of analyzing policy work performance, this paper sustains that contributions can be made towards broadening the comprehension on styles and capacities for policy production in the Brazilian federal government. In this sense, one argues that this work can provide additional data and discussion to either the studies on cross-countries comparisons of policy work (Howlett and Wellstead, 2011; Veselý, Wellstead, and Evans, 2014; Saguin et al., 2018) or the studies on the dynamics and effects of policy capacity (Painter and Pierre, 2005; Wu et al., 2015; Ramesh et al., 2016)

This article is based on some assumptions. First, capacity analysis must observe the performance of public managers in fulfilling policy functions, which differ across policy sectors. Second, these functions are performed in organizational

1 contexts, in which individuals act based on choices and interests that delimit organizational objectives. Individuals matter in capacity analysis and the way they organize their tasks implies different patterns of organizational capacity building.

The first section of the article will analyze the concept of capacity and policy work, in order to develop a framework for performance of policy functions. The second section will present the institutional context of the federal civil service in Brazil. In the third section, the methodology of the research will be discussed. The following three sections will present the results found in relation to the characterization of the Brazilian case in terms of: 1) performance of policy work, 2) specificities of the analytical capacity and 3) differences of policy functions across policy areas. The last section will discuss final considerations and future intended research agendas.

State, Capacities, and Policy Work – a Framework of Analysis

The concept of state capacity means different things to different scholars (Cingolani, 2013, Jessop, 2001). Part of these works conceive that the concept involves the creation of a political order and degree of institutionalization of the state within a territory. This perspective defines state capacity as a set of norms and rules that make governments sovereign, backed by coercive apparatus, which is the basis for effective (Tilly, 1979, Skocpol, 1985). Thus, state capacity is related to the actions of the state to assert its autonomy, collect taxes and manage conflicts in order to transform the economy and society (Levi, 1988, Besley and Persson, 2009, Knutsen, 2013). But, in general, the concept of state capacities involves an understanding of the infrastructure of the state apparatus associated with a macro-historical construction.

One argues that the conception of state capacity as organizational and institutional stock needs to consider the role of individuals in the context of . In this way, state bureaucracies are collective actors whose behavior is reflected in state capacity vis-a-vis the organizations of which they are part (Cyert and March, 1963). State capacity, therefore, depend on individuals' actions in the context of complex organizational structures. It involves, therefore, thinking about the institutional framework bringing together individuals in the context of organizations (March and Olsen, 1984).

The study of capacities poses deep theoretical challenges. Firstly, the problem of information and incentives for individuals to collaborate with the organizations of which they are part. The second problem is how to best allocate individuals according to their competences within the organization.

2

Third, organizations are made of multiple individual and management mechanisms according to contract terms and organizational culture that affect performance (March and Olsen, 1985, Simon, 1951).

Policy capacity literature has advanced in the debate on the analysis of the capabilities for policy implementation taking into account the role of bureaucracies. It seeks to understand the role of bureaucracies by bringing together a perspective based on the interaction between individuals and organizations. Policy capacity also has multiple definitions. The premise is that policy capacity is an implementation predictor. Policy capacity is "... the ability to marshal the necessary resources to make intelligent collective choices, in particular to set strategic directions, for the allocation of scarce resources to public ends" (Painter and Pierre, 2005). This assumption involves a conception of skills such as the construction of competences relevant to the implementation of policies based on knowledge that involves the use of research for policy problems, effective use of communications and strategic management of stakeholders (Howllet, 2009). The development of policy capacity involves the application of resources to review, formulate and implement public policies (Fellegi, 1996). It can also be defined as "... set of skills and resources - or competences and capabilities - necessary to perform policy functions" (Wu, Ramesh and Howllet, 2015, 166).

From this perspective of skills and abilities, the concept of policy capacity brings together the necessary skills and resources for policy implementation, taking into account individual, organizational and systemic elements. These three factors bring together the resources and skills that would be predictors for the production of results in policies, broken down by analytical, operational and political competencies (Wu, Ramesh and Howllet, 2015).

The concept of policy capacity seeks to observe the resources needed to implement policies, in the level of individuals (Hsu, 2015) and organizations (Pattyn and Brans, 2015). The concept of policy capacity becomes attractive in the eyes of the studies. It incorporates both dimensions: the collective actors of state bureaucracies and the political elements of legitimacy building. Political elements become essential in building the legitimacy of policies (Moore, 1995).

However, the understanding of policy capacity continues to address bureaucratic dynamics as a stock of capacities that are analytically predictors of policy outcomes. The understanding of the stock of capacities does not consider some theoretical hypotheses. First, it can be said that a given organization may have a high stock of capacities. But in this organization do not want to collaborate with policies, or there may be problems with the policy process that negatively impact outcomes. On the other hand,

3 there may be a low stock of capabilities, but even with this low inventory, policies can yield good results (Williams, 2017).

More than the objectives of organizations and the stock of bureaucratic capacities, it is necessary to understand the dynamics of agents in institutional contexts. Therefore, this investigation focus on the policy capacity debate by means of an analytical approach that looks precisely at the work and the dynamics of the agents to implement a public policy.

In line with other investigations that associate policy capacity and policy work literature (Howlett and Wellstead, 2011; Saguin, Ramesh and Howlett, 2018), this research claims that relevant contributions from the policy work debate can be identified to discuss the role and performance of bureaucracy in policy production. One may argue that policy capacity debate can benefit from policy work explorations in terms of providing some level of stability and observability to capacity concept. The concept of policy work seeks more than a dynamic of stock of capabilities. Policy work is dynamic and involve attitudes and beliefs of bureaucratic agents. It addresses policy styles and the set of attitudes and tasks performed by bureaucratic agents, so that the production of results in public policies depends on a more complex bureaucracy (Brodkin, 2011). Policy work is the set of activities disbursed by bureaucrats who bring together attitudes, tasks and abstract world conceptions that specify the dynamics of policy formulation, implementation and evaluation (Colebatch et al., 2011; Howlett and Wellstead, 2011; Veselý, Wellstead, and Evans, 2014).

In addition, policy work approach starts from the observation of the field and not from prescriptive models, allowing thus a broader comprehension of flows and dynamics embedded in specific policy existing contexts (Colebatch et al., 2011). As a consequence, this approach provides elements to recognize a wider range of roles and functions played by bureaucrats in policy production, which are not restricted to the traditional separation in the policy cycle model neither to the role of policy analysts. Instead, it considers producing formal analysis and managing demands of the governmental process as well as mediating, translating and building shared meaning amongst all policy interested parts among others (Colebatch et al., 2011; Howlett and Wellstead, 2011).

Bureaucratic agents mobilize their individual capacities in a complex flow of public policies, which involves different sources of knowledge, dimensions and expected results. These dynamics involve a complex framework of activities that need to be performed by bureaucrats for policy outcomes to be produced. Understanding these activities and how they are mobilized by agent’s matters directly in the construction of a public policy (Brodkin, 2011). These dynamics

4 need to be analyzed in a framework that allows the understanding of internal and external activity of bureaucratic agents, as well as the interaction between the individual and the organization. Adapted from Wu, Ramesh and Howlett (2015)’s model, the framework below presents the following dimensions of policy work and capacities to interpret the Brazilian case.

Table 1. Analytical Framework of Policy Work Capacities Dimensions Outcome Description Functions

Data collection and analysis Analytical Specific technical knowledge Knowledge of norms and Conditions regulations guaranteeing Efficiency Administrative technical and Administrative skills and Efficacy administrative Managerial performance Human resource management Allocation of financial resources Technology resources Coordinated decision-making Conditions that process ensure the Internal Inter and intraorganizational Agency operation and coordination formal and informal internal structures coherence Monitoring and control Social participation and Relational accountability Conditions that Spaces of participation promote the necessary Levels of negotiation and Politics Legitimacy interaction with interlocution between the the external , legislative and environment judicial branches Relationship with international organizations Source: authors’ elaboration

The framework presented above brings together a complex set of activities aimed at understanding the dynamic capabilities of bureaucracy in the form of policy work. Capacities do not represent a rational organization of governments but a collection of individuals who perform functions and activities in a context of bounded rationality, of undefined goals and in a game of discretion and obligations (Simon, 1991, March, 1994, March and Simon, 1958). This means

5 that these capacities can be mobilized or not in the dynamics of policy implementation. The degree to which these skills and competences are mobilized or not can impact policies in a varied way, demonstrating that implementation is complex. Policy workers may be oriented towards formal strategies to implementation, such as a managerial strategy. However, they adapt and adjust the implementation of policies in the context in which they act, adjusting the processes in the field of practice (Brodkin, 2011).

First, capacities can be understood within bureaucracy. The capacities required for a public policy to be implemented involve skills and competences within organizations, regarding analytical and managerial dimension. The analytical dimension of policy work involves the dynamics with which bureaucracy agents generate capacity to produce data to inform the public policies being implemented. These capacities require the agents of the bureaucracy to gather and analyze data, as well as specific knowledge to produce evidence in public policies, to improve information management and to generate institutional learning during implementation (Wu et al., 2015; Carney, 2016). This capacity of policy workers involves the building of knowledge on data production and the technical expertise involving the specific policy, in order to allow the development of this analytical capacity.

The second dimension of these capacities of policy workers involves management knowledge and skills, norms and regulations of a given policy, administrative skills of the policy workers, personnel management, allocation and management of financial resources and technological resources of organizations. This second dimension concerns a set of public administration back-office activities, which aim to guarantee technical conditions for the performance of policy workers. They involve punctual managerial attitudes to support implementation activities, which may impact or not policy outcomes.

The first two dimensions involve the activities of the administrative back-office. But the activities of policy workers are not restricted to this back-office, nor are they restricted to the conditions most closely linked to the administration's infrastructure. Policy work also involves the mobilization of relational capacities, which aim to ensure internal operational conditions for public management (Peters and Pierre, 2001), aiming at the coherence of public policy, as well as political support that provides the conditions of legitimacy and public value production (Moore, 1995).

The relational capacities that can be mobilized by policy workers involves two dimensions. The dimension of internal coordination relates to a set of activities aimed at improving the state agency. They aim to ensure institutional conditions for the operation of the policy and the maintenance of internal coherence (Peters, 2004). This involves a decision-making process that needs to be

6 coordinated, given the fact that bureaucracies have multiple principals (Wilson 1989, Dixit 1996). Internal coordination relates to the constitution of elements of monitoring and control of the policy, aiming to ensure its legality and probity in the public management (Doig and McIvor, 2003). It also draws in the creation of inter and intraorganizational informal or formal structures that allow this process of coordination of the activities of policy workers, involving both intraorganizational coordination and the coordination of organizations involved in the implementation - interorganizational coordination (Alexander, 1993; Peters, 2004).

The challenge of institutional coordination requires a multi-level governance system, with shared strategy of governing as well as decision-making and coordination bodies that define a coordinated and negotiated pattern of public action, taking into consideration the involvement of various institutions. This perspective on coordination of institutional action involves non-hierarchical structure to exchange between institutions in different levels (Smith, 1997; Hix, 1998; Peters and Pierre, 2001). Moreover, as stated by Peters (2004), it recognizes that “ideas play a crucial role in creating a more integrated pattern of governance. […] These ideas need to be relevant to range of policy areas, and they also need to be sufficiently powerful to pressure organizations and actors which might as soon persist in their established patterns of action”.

Finally, relational capacities also involve political dimension. It acknowledges the diversity of sources of power and the multiple interests and ideologies distributed in society (Repetto, 2004). State action does not develop in isolation and is not neutral in relation to the issues of power which, in contemporary states, originate not only from the state apparatus, but also from civil society and the international environment (Repetto, 2004). This policy dimension of policy work means mobilizing capacities to promote the necessary interactions with the external environment of management. First, policy work demands activities that aim to promote social participation and accountability. Social participation is a fundamental element for promoting the legitimacy and publicity of public policy (Avritzer, 2012), increasing the conditions of accountability (Filgueiras, 2016). This demands that policy-makers be able to act in participatory spaces, representing governments in contexts of civil society participation in the decision-making process and implementation of public policy (Avritzer, 2012). In addition, the democratization of the state requires that policy makers act within the administration to build bridges with civil society through participatory institutions (Warren, 2009). Thirdly, relational capacities in the political dimension include negotiation skills to dialogue with the legislative and judicial branches. The legitimacy of public policy demands that there be permanent interlocution with the powers, in order to secure spaces of negotiation (March and Olsen, 1995). Finally, relational capacities must account for international communities, in order to disseminate social policies

7 and technologies in order to promote international improvement and interlocution (Olsen, 2010, Underdal, 1995). Relational capacities require managers to engage in networks with transnational policy actors so that they can gain operational and analytical support for the adoption of implementation practices (Stone, 2004, Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000).

This analytical framework presupposes a set of activities that policy workers need to play in the implementation process. It is important to emphasize that the study of policy work demands the mobilization of individual capacities inserted in organizational contexts. Policy work involves understanding this relationship between the individual capacities of bureaucrats and organizational contexts in order to provide a robust framework for analyzing bureaucratic predictors for public policy. The next section looks at the Brazilian case, addressing the decision-making process and the implementation of public policies.

The Case of Brazil – Policy Work and Bureaucratic Organization

This investigation selected as the main unit of analysis the Brazilian federal civil service. The initial discussion to address is the issue of definition and delimitation of that universe. As debated in international comparative works, there is no common definition of civil service and its scope and size strongly vary according to each country´s public employment trajectory and structure (Evans, 2008; Rao, 2013).

A Weberian delimitation of civil service, identified in the Organization for Economic Co-operation Development (OECD)´s countries and some developing countries, involves the category of public civil servants that are under a merit-based system which provides some level of standard regulations and procedures regarding servants ‘selection, appointment and discretionarily (Evans, 2008).

This investigation acknowledges that delimitation but includes two additional functional aspects also recognized in the comparative studies in the field, which are civil servants´ permanence and relevance for core activities of the state (Rao, 2013). To sum up, for the purpose of this research, civil service is concerned with the civil servants that work in the Federal Executive Branch, are under a merit-based system, resulting in more permanent and directly involved body in the public policy production. One shall not include in that delimitation teachers, health workers and policemen given the fact that, for the Brazilian case, each of these groups have specific employment regimes and precise roles in the policy production.

8

Breaking down that delimitation, it should be considered the universe of federal civil servants that work for the direct administration. It was included, thus, federal civil servants working in all ministries, vice-presidency and presidency and it was not included workers from the public enterprises and indirect federal agencies.

In the Brazilian federal system, which resulted from a decentralization process, municipalities and state governments are essential parts of the policy implementation. In many policies, such as in health and educational fields, local governments hold authority and autonomy for making decisions and for managing different sort of resources for service delivery (Abrucio and Franzese, 2007). Moreover, federal indirect agencies also play fundamental roles in the policy production process, particularly in the territory (Paula et al., 2017).

Notwithstanding the relevance of both groups of public servants in local governments or in indirect federal agencies, this investigation looks at the specific context of the civil servants that work in the direct agencies. Two main reasons support that decision. The first one relates to the still reduced literature that analyzes in depth this particular group functions´ specificities and conditions for policy production (Howllet, 2011; Pires, 2012; Cavalcante and Lotta, 2015). The second one is a practical reason related to the size and heterogeneity of the three groups which would make the data collection unfeasible for the project time framing.

Another aspect that must be highlighted regarding the justification of this investigation´s design is the adoption of Colebatch et al.´s (2011) assumption that policy work is apprehended and developed in practice. As mentioned in the first section, contingencies matter and distinct national contexts produce different forms of action and combinations of policy functions.

In this sense, it is worth noting that policy analysis in Brazil is not understood as a professional field with specific training, techniques and methodologies, which comprises a community with shared identify and agenda, such as in the Anglo-Saxon countries where the field of knowledge firstly evolved. However, this does not mean that this role is not being played in the Brazilian (Vaitsman et al., 2014; Farah, 2016). Though, there is no formal distinction between the professionals who can work with policy analysis and the ones who can formulate or implement policies (Farah, 2016). Recent investigations contest that a vast and more complex range of policy works can be identified in the field examination, challenging thus the traditional dichotomy between technical and political roles in the policy production (Howllet, 2011; Howlett and Wellstead, 2011; Veselý et al., 2014). To provide mediation between the state and policy stakeholders, to clarify meaning, to democratize information related to the policy production are some of these

9 other policy works found in empirical investigations in different countries (Mayer et al., 2004; Lotta, 2010; Pires, 2012; Colebatch et al., 2011; Veselý et al., 2014).

To conclude, this investigation intends to explore how policy work and policy functions are played by the Brazilian federal civil service and what are the existing resources and conditions for that performance.

Methodology

In this section of the article, will be presented the methodology used by the research in order to understand the composition and the different functions performed by the federal bureaucracy belonging to the Brazilian Civil Service.

With a view to understanding the performance of policy workers in Brazil, it was adopted as research technique the survey application, in the self- administered format, for two reasons, namely: i) potential to capture as many perceptions as possible; and ii) the possibility of generating new research hypotheses from the data provided by the field (Babbie, 1990).

The development of instrument survey was conducted from March to July of 2017, starting from the adaptation of the instrument proposed by Ramesh et al. (2016) to the Brazilian context. Additional questions related to policy work were added and the instrument was pre-tested with professionals of different agencies of the Brazilian federal government from August to September of 2017.

For the construction of the sample, based on the Brazilian Civil Service universe described in the previous section, it was adopted the technique of simple stratified sampling by a Brazilian federal public administration body. A total of 101,283 civil servants1 from the Federal Executive Branch were therefore selected to pick a random sample of 6,474 servants representing all 25 agencies in the Integrated System for Human Resources Administration (SIAPE) referring to March 2017.

The survey was hosted by an online platform and was sent by email directly to the professionals. Data collection took place from October to December 2017. We obtained, after data processing, a database composed of 2,000 responses,

1 For the purposes of this research, based on SIAPE for the month of March 2017, we define Brazilian Civil Service as the core of the Federal Executive Branch, including professionals who work in agencies and entities that support the formulation, development and the implementation of public policies and public management. Thus, out of a total of 672007 employees working in the Brazilian Federal Executive Branch, the analysis of the survey focuses on 101283 that work directly in federal agencies of direct administration. Information regarding the universe of the research, the definition of the sample and the collection of valid data are available in Appendix A. 10 representing a total response rate of 32%2, which is a significant achievement given the known difficulties involved in surveying current public servants.

In relation to the analysis of the data, a multivariate exploratory analysis was carried out in order to find possible associations between the variables of the questionnaire studied. In this sense, it was used factor analysis to reduce the number of initial variables, with the lowest possible loss of information, in factors. The application of this technique made it possible to evaluate interrelationships between variables, so that these could be adequately described by new groups of basic categories, namely 'factors' (Pestana and Gageiro, 2005).

From the application of these techniques, it was possible to observe different profiles and functions of public policies performed by federal bureaucrats of the Brazilian Civil Service, as it will be discussed in the next section.

What do Policy Workers do in Brazil?

The Brazilian policy-makers who responded the questionnaire have a high degree of education. 59.4% have some graduate qualification. They are relatively older, with an average age of 45. They are mostly male (56,30%), slightly lower than the government average of 59%.

In relation to the government sectors in which they operate, the respondents are relatively distributed, with greater participation in social and security area (33,15%). In relation to the time of performance in public policy, they are experienced: 34.5% have been working for more than 10 years in the same policy, with higher rate of those that are located in the area of territorial sovereignty and management (38%) and lower rate of those located in the area of infrastructure (24%)3.

With regard to the trajectory of being in positions of trust within the bureaucracy, the respondents showed a high occupancy rate: 57.15% said they had already held some strategic position in the .

Table 2, below, shows a high heterogeneity in respondents´ perception towards their main policy functions. The primary functions informed by respondents were related to operationalization of policy instruments (17,6%), delivery of frontline services (14,4%) and project management (11,2%). Analytical and

2 Information regarding the response rate is available in Appendix A. 3 In order to define the areas of action of civil service bureaucrats, the areas defined in the Pluriannual Planning of the Brazilian federal government were adopted. The Pluriannual Planning is a management tool of the Brazilian government provided for in the 1988 Constitution, which defines the areas of action, projects, and goals to be achieved by public managers and establishes the mechanisms of budget allocation. The Pluriannual Planning is done every 4 years, in order to establish planning of governmental actions in Brazil. 11 formulation functions, which were discussed in the former sections as expected policy functions for that group appeared only in 8,3% and 8,8%, respectively. Moreover, relational functions such as interactions within the state apparatus and with external actors are the less performed.

Table 2: Primary Policy Functions Ranked 1 Ranked 2 Ranked 3 Ave- Policy Function % Count % Count % Count % rage Formulation and definition of policy 176 8,8 127 6,4 135 6,8 146 9% guidelines, objectives and strategies Research and production of information 166 8,3 167 8,4 113 5,7 and evaluation that support public policy 149 9% implementation and revision Management and monitoring of activities, 223 11,2 241 12,1 178 8,9 214 14% projects and programs related to the policy Operationalization of policy instruments 352 17,6 239 12,0 130 6,5 and tools (e.g. standards, oversight, procurement, contracts, cooperation terms, 240 15% public loans, insurance, informational systems, etc.) Coordination with secretariats of the same 60 3,0 67 3,4 69 3,5 federal agency and other agency of the 65 4% federal government Inter-federative coordination and agreement 43 2,2 46 2,3 36 1,8 between federal, state and municipal 42 3% governments. Relationship with civil society (participation 76 3,8 94 4,7 93 4,7 in public policy councils, conferences, 88 6% negotiation with interest groups, etc.) Relationship with other Powers (Legislative 69 3,5 117 5,9 79 4,0 and Judiciary) and non-governmental actors 88 6% (e.g. politicians, media, control bodies, international organization, etc.) Advice to high ranking administrators 185 9,3 146 7,3 142 7,1 158 10% Management of budgetary, financial, human 164 8,2 119 6,0 88 4,4 124 8% and technological resources Delivery of frontline services, attend to 288 14,4 173 8,7 142 7,1 public concerns and/or beneficiaries of 201 13% public policy Others 93 4,7 36 1,8 59 3,0 63 4% Total 1895 94,8 1572 78,6 1264 63,2 1577 100% Source: National School of Public Administration, Capacities for Policy Implementation, 2018.

Table 3 below shows that data on the tasks that respondents said that they most frequently perform corroborate to the heterogeneous portrait of policy work in Brazil. Managerial and administrative tasks are the ones performed more frequently by the highest percentage of the respondents. However, analytical tasks are also frequently carried out by a significant percentage of the respondents. 62% said that they “always” or “frequently” produce material to support decision-making, and 47% said that they operate database and

12 informational systems with the same frequency. Analyzing this data in conjunction with the former one presented in Table 1, this may mean that, despite the fact that not many respondents (9%) see the analytical task as their main task, a significant part of the sample performs analytical tasks in some level.

Another data that calls attention relates to the high level of individuals dedicated to meet accountability agencies recommendation. 35% of respondents said that they always or frequently work on that task. As it will be further discussed below, this data shed light to the influence of the accountability system in the Brazilian public service work.

Relational tasks, in turn, which involve the interaction with other federal agencies or local governments, seem to be performed by a more restrict group of individuals. Finally, tasks that seem to demand specific expertise such as to create legislation and to prospect funds are never or rarely performed by most of the respondents.

Table 3: Policy Tasks Eventuall Frequentl Mode Never Rarely y y Always Vali Specification Qtd % Qtd % Qtd % Qtd % Qtd % Qtd % d Produce reports, opinions, technical notes and other 5 32% 179 10% 174 360 19% 547 30% 587 32% 1847 information to support decision-making Manage a team 5 28% 415 23% 230 1773 353 20% 282 16% 493 28% 1773 Carry out 5 25% 395 22% 291 1763 292 17% 346 20% 439 25% 1763 administrative activities Operate databases and informational systems 4 24% 308 17% 231 1766 391 22% 431 24% 405 23% 1766 that support policy implementation Participate in working groups or joint projects 3 29% 257 14% 269 1773 512 29% 444 25% 291 16% 1773 within the agency Meet accountability agencies 3 28% 341 19% 308 1749 488 28% 361 21% 251 14% 1749 recommendation Represent the agency in external events, 3 26% 419 24% 347 1742 447 26% 351 20% 178 10% 1742 meetings and activities Prepare normative texts (e.g. bills, decrees, 1 45% 775 45% 342 1735 329 19% 199 11% 90 5% 1735 ordinances, etc.) Monitor compliance with rules and 1 33% 560 33% 261 1713 247 14% 276 16% 369 22% 1713 regulation

13

Prospect funds to enable actions, 1 70% 1178 70% 201 1679 169 10% 85 5% 46 3% 1679 projects, and programs Prepare, negotiate, manage and supervise 1 54% 927 54% 232 1714 220 13% 166 10% 169 10% 1714 contracts Design, negotiate, manage and supervise 1 53% 898 53% 255 1693 223 13% 168 10% 149 9% 1693 partnership agreements Negotiate and coordinate actions with 1 37% 624 37% 298 1697 361 21% 245 14% 169 10% 1697 other federal agencies Make agreements and manage actions 1 54% 911 54% 278 1684 234 14% 175 10% 86 5% 1684 between state and municipal entities Consult and meet interest groups on 1 31% 520 31% 339 1693 378 22% 283 17% 173 10% 1693 policy-related issues Organize events 1 23% 395 23% 291 1729 292 17% 346 20% 439 25% 1729 Source: National School of Public Administration, Capacities for Policy Implementation, 2018.

As shown in Table 4, factor analysis below, which cumulatively explains 59,3%, reveals four main components of works performance. The first one shows a relational type of work, involving representation, negotiation and coordination tasks with internal and external partners of policy. The relational component reveals capacity of policy workers to build interactions with other partner organizations in the implementation of policies, in order to provide networks and synergy that facilitate the process. The fulfillment of this policy function builds policy capacity outlined as political skills of public managers.

The second component revealed an analytical-oversee work that grouped analytical tasks – such as data analysis and technical recommendations production - with activities related to compliance with accountability agencies recommendations. This data raises relevant questions on the use that is being made of the Brazilian federal government’s analytical capacity. It implies that analytical capacity is being deviated from the improvement of the policy production process towards the effort of accomplishing external control and oversight demands. Besides pointing out a dysfunctionality within the process of policy production, this data also suggests a context of imbalance between Executive, Legislative and Judiciary powers in Brazil.

The third component relates to a managerial role which involves technical tasks of resource mobilization regarding dealing with contracts, agreements and prospect funding. This policy function involves a set of tasks performed by policy workers in a back office required work for public policy. This back-office work involves elements of management in organizational processes.

14

Finally, a fourth component corresponds to administrative work that deals with operational tasks. These administrative tasks involve human resources activities, prosecuting and day-to-day operational tasks for maintaining organizations.

Table 4 – Factorial Analysis of Policy Work Componente Analytical/ Specification Relational Oversee Managerial Administrative Negotiate and coordinate actions ,8010 with other federal agencies Represent the agency in external ,7977 events, meetings and activities Participate in working groups or ,7259 joint projects within the agency Consult and meet interest groups ,6965 on policy-related issues Organize events ,6171 Make agreements and manage ,5726 actions between state and municipal entities Prepare normative texts (e.g. bills, ,5316 decrees, ordinances, etc.) Manage a team ,4913 Monitor compliance with rules and ,6661 regulation Operate databases and informational ,6281 systems that support policy implementation Produce reports, opinions, technical ,6109 notes and other information to support decision-making Meet accountability agencies ,6024 recommendation Design, negotiate, manage and ,7858 supervise partnership agreements Prepare, negotiate, manage and ,7753 supervise contracts Prospect funds to enable actions, ,5484 projects, and programs Carry out administrative activities ,8952 Tests: KMO: 0.902 ; ꭓ² = 10860.379 ; df - 120; p - 0.00 Total variance explained: 59,3% Eigenvalue: Factor 1: 5702; Factor 2: 1557; Factor 3: 1219; Factor 4: 1107 Notes: Only loadings higher than 0.5 are presented. Varimax rotation method used is Kaiser normalization. KMO value of 0.902 suggests sampling adequacy, justifying the use of Factorial Analysis. Source: National School of Public Administration, Capacities for Policy Implementation, 2018.

Looking this data in face of the proposed analytical framework in Table 1, one must highlight that the portrait above suggests that the analytical capacity of the

15

Brazilian civil service is mostly aimed at attending accountability demands, not prioritizing policy production or policy development, as stated by the literature.

Moreover, it also suggests that internal coordination and political relational capacities are hold by the same group of individuals. There is in fact a group dedicated to managerial tasks which is distinct from the group responsible for more operational activities.

The Analytical Capacity of the Brazilian civil service

Taking into account the contentious data presented in the last section on the analytical function, this section focuses attention on additional data collected in this investigation regarding conditions and capabilities for the performance of the analytical work amongst the Brazilian civil service.

Graph 1 below shows results on the sources of data and information that Brazilian civil service use in order to perform their policy work. The sources that were reported as the ones more frequently used were traditional media (16%), social media and social networks (13%), recommendations or directives from control bodies or legal opinions and judicial decisions (both with 12%). Statistical data (6%), monitoring data (7%) and experts opinions (5%), which were traditionally associated with analytical work, were not remembered as the main sources. Beneficiaries’ opinions (6%) and recommendations from social participation bodies (5%) were amongst the less influential sources.

Graph 1 – Sources of data and information for policy work Sources of data and information

Traditional media 28% 26% 18% 12% 16% Social media or social networks 38% 23% 15% 11% 13% Information produced by interested groups 36% 33% 18% 9%4% Policy beneficiaries' experiences or opinions 33% 35% 18% 8%6% Experts or international organizations opinions 39% 33% 16% 7%5% Recommendatioins from social formal participation bodies 35% 37% 16% 7%5% Recommendations or directives from control bodies 18% 36% 21% 13% 12% Legal opinions or judicial decisions 23% 28% 23% 14% 12% Monitoring data and Program evaluation results 27% 33% 21% 12% 7% Survey and statistical data 31% 31% 19% 12% 6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Never % Sometimes in the year % Sometimes in the month % Every week % Every day %

Source: National School of Public Administration, Capacities for Policy Implementation, 2018.

16

The low variety of informational resources applied in the policy work, particularly from technical and societal sources, makes one question the quality of policy production in the Brazilian federal government.

In addition, data also suggests that recommendations and decisions produced by external accountability sources seem to play an influential role in the policy production. In this sense, accountability system is not only consuming the government’s analytical effort, as showed in Tables 3 and 4, but it might also be defining policy production process. Additional data must be collected in order to understand the causes and implications of that apparently dysfunctional dynamic.

Table 5 below shows data concerning levels of different technical knowledge. Respondents were asked to rate in a scale from 1 to 10 their level of knowledge on six different technical aspects. Mode in all cases were high (8), as usually reported in surveys undertook in Brazil. However, if one looks average results, it can be said that the lowest level resides on the capability to define indicators and methodologies for policy monitoring and assessment (5,42), the type of knowledge which is critical to perform the analytical work. To use new information and communication tools and technologies, which reached an average of 5,96, can also affect the performance of analytical work.

Table 5 – Level of technical knowledge Variables Mode Average Standard Level of Education deviation Option % Correlation N Define indicators and methodologies 8 13,3 5,42 2,68 0,247** 1738 for policy monitoring and assessment Use new information and 8 13,65 5,96 2,71 0,018 1760 communication tools and technologies to optimize work (e.g. social networks, Business Intelligence tools, Java programming, Python or R, etc.) Design, monitor and supervise a 8 14,45 5,98 2,72 0,031 1750 service contracting process Prepare and monitor the 8 14,15 6,1 2,71 0,141** 1731 implementation of a partnership instrument (e.g. agreement, cooperation agreements, terms of support and collaboration, etc.) Develop clear and coherent regulations 8 13,25 5,81 2,87 0,196** 1730 (e.g. bills, minutes of decrees and ordinances, etc.) Carry out the accountability process to 8 12,8 5,64 2,81 0,077** 1718 the internal or external audit ** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 extremities). Source: National School of Public Administration, Capacities for Policy Implementation, 2018.

17

One may interpret that data shown in Tables 3 to 5 and in Graph 1 are evidence of insufficiency and dysfunction of the analytical capacity in the Brazilian federal government. Nevertheless, this investigation contends that further investigation are necessary in order to make conclusions on what are the causes and effects of that and, in the same token, on what sort of capacity building measures should be carried out. In order to do that, this work argues that it is essential to understand the associations between policy work and policy capacity acknowledging the contingencies and specificities of each policy field.

The Policy Functions in policy areas

The policy functions performed by the Brazilian Civil Service vary according to each of the components and each of the policy areas. It is interesting to observe in the charts below how the factorial indices highlighted in Table 4 are distributed in the percentiles, if observed in the dimension of the policy areas.

The analysis of the different distributions allows one to raise hypothesis to be tested in a further investigations that aim to explore the internal dynamics of the four depicted policy functions and their association with different dimensions and levels of capacities.

The relational function as discussed above is related to the capacity for internal and political coordination. That is, it involves the ability to interact with other entities and actors in order to translate contexts, negotiate, coordinate actions, integrate projects, among other roles. This type of work in public policies is increasingly demanding due to the increasing complexity of public problems that require an intersectorial, interdepartmental and external governance of policies. This type of work demands articulation, interaction and coordination capacities to produce the results of public policies.

As can be seen from data in Graph 2 below, there is a significant heterogeneity of relational function performance between the different policy areas, drawing attention to a more frequent performance in areas such as Urban Planning, Housing, Sanitation and Land Use; Diversity, Citizenship and Public Security; Environment; Economic Policy and Public Management and a lower performance in areas such as Urban Mobility and Transport, Social Promotion and Rural Development.

These data raise questions about the real adequacy of efforts related to the nature of specific public policies. Different hypotheses can be raised. The cases of policies in which there is a greater relational effort indicate that the relational function is more distributed across its organizations? In some policy areas, there is a more horizontal style of policy production? Or does it indicate that they are policies that in fact need more of this relational effort? Would those policies

18 with less relational effort indicate a low stock of relational capabilities that need to be developed or would they merely indicate that they are policies that have less interaction with other actors?

Graph 2. Relational Function and Policy Areas

<25% <50% <75% <100%

SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORY 30% 24% 19% 27% ECONOMIC POLICY AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 17% 25% 28% 30% ENVIRONMENT 21% 22% 26% 31% PRODUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT 22% 24% 25% 29% URBAN PLANNING, HOUSING, SANITATION AND … 24% 17% 26% 33% URBAN MOBILITY AND SPORTS 23% 41% 21% 14% ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS 29% 22% 35% 14% SOCIAL SECURITY 30% 25% 21% 24% SOCIAL PROMOTION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 33% 32% 21% 13% DIVERSITY, CITIZENSHIP, AND SECURITY 19% 24% 23% 34%

Source: National School of Public Administration, Capacities for Policy Implementation, 2018.

The analytical / accountability function, which can be interpreted as having a high technical-scientific complexity, appears to be performed in significant frequency when compared to other functions, for most policy areas. The question raised in the former sections of this paper about the effects of the association between analytical and accountability activities need to be explored considering the peculiarities of the public policy areas. Is this function more present in policies areas which are under greater control and judicialization? Are there policy areas that require more data production and evidence? Are the accountability bodies functioning as substitutes of the Executive Power? How does agents from the Executive Power see the interaction with External accountability bodies? Are they providing the analytical capacities that are lacking in the Executive Power? Is that a contingent phenomenon or a feature of the Brazilian style of policy implementation?

Graph 3. Analytical / Oversee Function and Policy Areas

19

<25% <50% <75% <100%

SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORY 28% 28% 22% 22% ECONOMIC POLICY AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 29% 22% 23% 26% ENVIRONMENT 19% 26% 31% 24% PRODUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT 21% 27% 26% 27% URBAN PLANNING, HOUSING, SANITATION AND … 20% 15% 22% 43% URBAN MOBILITY AND SPORTS 9% 21% 38% 32% ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS 8% 35% 37% 20% SOCIAL SECURITY 22% 19% 29% 30% SOCIAL PROMOTION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 31% 24% 17% 28% DIVERSITY, CITIZENSHIP, AND SECURITY 29% 32% 22% 17%

Source: National School of Public Administration, Capacities for Policy Implementation, 2018.

Data presented in the table below indicate a lower performance of the resource management function in most policy areas compared to the results of other functions. As already mentioned in former sections, given the specificity of the technical knowledge required to perform such tasks, this data could indicate that there is a specialization of professionals dedicated to the performance of this function. Future analyzes also need to consider the representativeness and specificities of the instruments used to operationalize each type of public policy.

Graph 4. Managerial Functions and Policy Areas

<25% <50% <75% <100%

SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORY 28% 26% 22% 23% ECONOMIC POLICY AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 16% 28% 23% 33% ENVIRONMENT 37% 24% 20% 20% PRODUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT 24% 21% 27% 27% URBAN PLANNING, HOUSING, SANITATION AND … 26% 20% 24% 30% URBAN MOBILITY AND SPORTS 32% 18% 27% 23% ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS 33% 18% 20% 29% SOCIAL SECURITY 19% 31% 23% 27% SOCIAL PROMOTION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 26% 35% 24% 15% DIVERSITY, CITIZENSHIP, AND SECURITY 35% 28% 20% 17%

Source: National School of Public Administration, Capacities for Policy Implementation, 2018.

The administrative function that corresponds to more operational activities for the performance of day-to-day tasks is often performed in most public policy cases. That is, a significant part of the work of the federal direct civil service seems to involve performing such tasks. However, the cases in which this trend has not been evidenced deserve further analysis, such as Energy and Communications or Social Security and Protection. Would they be cases of

20 greater efficiency in internal processes and, therefore, of higher administrative capacity?

Graph 5. Administrative Functions and Policy Areas

<25% <50% <75% <100%

SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORY 26% 27% 26% 22% ECONOMIC POLICY AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 26% 26% 29% 19% ENVIRONMENT 30% 27% 22% 22% PRODUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT 23% 27% 24% 25% URBAN PLANNING, HOUSING, SANITATION AND … 15% 28% 33% 24% URBAN MOBILITY AND SPORTS 23% 21% 30% 25% ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS 35% 27% 14% 24% SOCIAL SECURITY 29% 25% 22% 23% SOCIAL PROMOTION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 23% 21% 23% 34% DIVERSITY, CITIZENSHIP, AND SECURITY 16% 19% 32% 33%

Source: National School of Public Administration, Capacities for Policy Implementation, 2018.

Looking at the four graphs above, one can deduce that capacities are fluid and different, depending on the policy areas and the organizational contexts in which they operate. This work assumes that these capacities can be mobilized differently by the areas and according to the activities that are demanded. Capacities are dynamic and depend on the performance of policy functions and not necessarily on an organizational macro-structure that operates above individuals. Organizational contexts matter, but within a set of behaviors, actions, beliefs and attitudes of the individuals that making work in a policy.

Conclusion – Capacity Building and Policy Work

Capacity building in the public service cannot be understood only as a set of organizations that fulfill delegated goals for the realization of public policies. These policies depend on a set of actions performed by individuals who carry with them different individual capacities, which are brought together in a complex set of organizations, which demand commitment and motivation to achieve their ends.

The concept of state capacities does not necessarily represent what bureaucracies do. What bureaucracies do depend on a set of contingent actions for the performance of various public policy functions. These public policy functions fulfill the role of complex activities that, in the aggregate of all organizations, comprise a complex and highly differentiated map that cannot be interpreted only within the scope of organizational objectives. The functions that are performed by public managers compose a complex framework that can explain the performance of policies. This demonstrates that the concept of

21 capabilities should not only focus on a macro conception of organizations, but on a more nuanced concept of capacity, which is associated with the concept of policy work.

Data shown in this paper points out that understanding what public managers do and what gaps are related to relational, analytical, managerial and administrative capabilities can serve to outline a more effective public policy perspective. This nuance can make reformers better understand the performance of functions and to cover the institutional and managerial incentives for the realization of policy work. Also, it can serve to understand eventual management failures in a more realistic way, including the specifics policy domains.

This research sought to understand this nuance of the policy works performed by public managers in Brazil and how this policy work aggregates in different capacities. The examination of the specificities of the analytical work ad capacity in the Brazilian case, for instance, points out the necessity of deepening the analysis in order to understand associations between policy works, capabilities and results acknowledging the contingencies of policy areas and political demands, which is intended to be done in further investigations.

Capacity building and change promoted in bureaucracies depend on institutional incentives and on an organization based on motivation and leadership. In the case of public bureaucracies, with civil service in mind, political leadership must play a central role, not in the sense of creating abstract organizational goals, but in producing incentives that are capable of mobilizing a complex set of individuals who perform actions based on attitudes, beliefs and interests within bureaucracies.

References

Abrucio, F. and Franzese, C., 2007. Federalismo e Políticas Públicas: o Impacto das Relações Intergovernamentais no Brasil. In: Araújo, M. F. I.; Beira, L. (orgs.). Tópicos de Economia Paulista para Gestores Públicos, v. 1. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Edições FUNDAP, 2007, 13-31.

Alexander, E. R., 1993. Interorganizational Coordination: Theory and Practice. Journal of Planning Literature, 7 (4), 328-343.

Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., Woolcock, M. 2017. Building State Capability. Evidence, Analysis, Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22

Avritzer, L. 2012. The Different Designs of Public Participation in Brazil: Deliberation, Power Sharing and Public Ratification. Critical Policy Studies, 6 (2), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2012.689732

Babbie, Earl. 1990. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Ball, S.J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., Hoskins, K. 2011. Policy Actors: Doing Policy Work in Schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32 (4), 625- 639, https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601565

Besley, T., Persson, T. 2009. The Origins of State Capacity: Property Rights, Taxation, and Politics. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1218-1244.

Brodkin, E.Z. 2011. Policy Work: Street-Level Organizations Under New Managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (Issue suppl_2), 253-277, DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq093

Cavalcante, P., Lotta, G. 2015. Burocracia de Médio Escalão: Perfil, Trajetória e Atuação. Brasília: Enap.

Carney, P. 2016. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policymaking. London: Palgrave Pivot.

Centeno, M., Kohli, A., Yashar, D. 2017. Unpacking States in the Developing World. Capacity, Performance, and Politics, in: Mistree, D. Centeno, M., Kohli, A., Yashar, D. (eds.) States in the Developing World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-32, DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316665657.002

Cingolani, L., 2013. The State of State Capacity: A review of concepts, evidence and measures. UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series on Institutions and Economic Growth, IPD WP13. #2013-053.

Colebatch, H. K., Hoppe, R., Noodgegraaf, M. 2006. Understanding Policy Work, in: Colebatch, H. K, Hoppe, R., Noodgegraaf, M (eds). Working for Policy. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Cyert, R., March, J. 1963. Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Dixit, A. 1996. The Making of Economic Policy: A Transaction-Cost Politics Perspective. London: The MIT Press

23

Doig, A.; McIvor, S. 2003. National Integrity Systems. Assessing Corruption and Reform. Public Administration and Development, 23 (4), 317-332, https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.287

Dolowitz, D. P., Marsh, D. 2000. Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making. Governance, 13 (1), 5–23, https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00121.

Evans, P., 1995. Embedded Autonomy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Evans, A. (2008). Civil Service and Administrative Reform: Thematic Paper. IEG Working Paper 2008/8. Washington D.C.: World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPUBSECREF/Resources/civil_serv ice_thematic_paper.pdf

Farah, M. 2017. An Analysis of Public Policies in Brazil: From an Unnamed Practice to the Institutionalization of the “Public Field”. Revista de Administração Pública, 50 (6), 959-979, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612150981 .

Fellegi, I. 1996. Strengthening our Policy Capacity. Ottawa: Deputy Ministers Task Forces.

Filgueiras, F. 2016, Transparency and Accountability: Principles and Rules for the Construction of Publicity. Journal of Public Affairs 16 (2), 192-202, https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1575.

Geddes, B., 1996. Politician's Dilemma: Building state capacity in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hix, S. 1998. The Study of the European Union II: a New Institutionalist Approach. Journal of Public Policy, 13, 351–80, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501768880000031.

Howlett, M. 2009. Government Communication as a Policy Tool: A Framework for Analysis. The Canadian Political Science Review, 3 (2), 23-37.

Howlett, M. 2011. Public Managers as the Missing Variable in Policy Studies: an Empirical Investigation Using Canadian Data. Research of Policy Research, 28 (30), 247-263, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2011.00494.x. Gomide, A.; Pereira, A., Machado, R. 2017. O conceito de capacidade estatal e a pesquisa científica. Revista Sociedade e Cultura, 20 (1).

24

Howlett, M. and Wellstead, A.M. 2011 Policy analysts in the bureaucracy revisited: The nature of professional policy work in contemporary government. Politics & Policy.

Hsu, A. 2015. Measuring Policy Analytical Capacity for the Environment: A Case for Engaging New Actors. Policy and Society, 34, 197-208, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.003

Jessop, B., 2001. Bringing the State Back In (Yet Again): Reviews, Revisions, Rejections, and Redirections. International Review of Sociology, 11(2), 149-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/713674035

Knutsen, C.H. 2013. Democracy, State Capacity, and Economic Growth. World Development, 43, 1-18, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.10.014

Levi, M., 1988. Of Rule and Revenue. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lipsky, M. 2010. Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lotta, G. 2010. Ações, Atitudes e Competências para Construção de Políticas Públicas Compartilhadas. São Bernardo do Campo: Universidade Metodista.

Mann, M., 1993. The Sources of Social Power: The Rise of Classes and Nation-States, 1760-1914. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

March, J. 1994. A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: The Free Press.

March, J., Olsen, J.P. 1995. Democratic Governance. New York: The Free Press.

March, J. Olsen, J.P. 1984. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review, 78 (3), 734-749, https://doi.org/10.2307/1961840.

March, J., Olsen, J.P. 1985. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

March, J., Simon, H. 1958. Organizations. John Wiley and Sons.

Matthews, F., 2012. Governance and State Capacity. In D. Levi-Faur, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25

Mazzuca, S.L. 2012. Legitimidad, Autonomiá y Capacidad: Conceptualizando (una vez mas)́ los Poderes del Estado. Revista de Ciencia Politicá (32) 3, 545 – 560, http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-090X2012000300002.

Moore, M. H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Olsen, J.P. 2010. Governing through Institution Building. Institutional Theory and Recent European Experiments in Democratic Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (Eds.). 2005. Challenges to State Policy Capacity: Global Trends and Comparative Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Pattyn, V., Brans, M. 2015. Organisational Analytical Capacity: Policy Evaluation in Belgium. Policy and Society, 34, 183-196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.009.

Paula, J., Palotti, P., Cavalcante, P., Alves, P. 2017. Burocracia Federal de Infraestrutura Econômica: Reflexões sobre Capacidades. Brasília: Enap.

Peters, B.G., Pierre, J. 2001. Developments in Intergovernmental Relations: Towards Multi-Level Governance. Policy & Politics, 29 (2), 131-135.

Peters, B. G. 2005. The Search for Coordination and Coherence in Public Policy: Return to the Center? Pittsburgh: Department of Political Science, University of Pittsburgh.

Pires, R.R.C. 2009. Estilos de Implementação e Resultados de Políticas Públicas: Fiscais do Trabalho e o Cumprimento da Lei Trabalhista no Brasil. Dados – Revista de Ciências Sociais, 52 (3), 735-769, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0011-52582009000300006.

Pires, R.R.C.. 2012. Burocracias, Gerentes e suas “Histórias de Implementação”: Narrativas de Sucesso e Fracasso de Programas Federais. In: Faria, C (ed.) Implementação de Políticas Públicas: Teoria e Prática. Belo Horizonte: Editora PUC Minas, 182-220.

Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., and Saguin, K. 2016. "Measuring Individual-Level Analytical, Managerial and Political Policy Capacity: A Survey Instrument." Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Research Paper (16-07).

26

Rao, S. 2013. Civil Service Reform: Topic Guide. Birmingham, UK: GSDRC, University of Birmingham. http://www.gsdrc.org/go/topic-guides/civil- service-reform

Repetto, F. 2004. Capacidad Estatal: Requisito para el Mejoramiento de la Política Social en América Latina. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo

Kidjie Saguin, M. Ramesh & Michael Howlett (2018) Policy work and capacities in a developing country: evidence from the Philippines, Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 40:1, 1-22, DOI: 10.1080/23276665.2018.1436427

Simon, H. 1991. Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning. Organization Science. 2 (1), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.125

Simon, H. 1951. A Formal Model of the Employment Relationship. Econometrica 19, 293-305.

Skocpol, T., 1985. Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research. In P. Evans; D. Rueschemayer & T. Skocpol, eds. Bringing the State Back in. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, M. 1997. Studying Multi-Level Governance: Examples from French Translations of the Structural Funds. Public Administration, 75 (4), 711–29, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00083.

Stone, D. 2004. Transfer Agents and Global Networks in the “Transnationalization” of Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 11 (3), 545– 566, https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760410001694291.

Tilly, C., 1975. The Formation of National States in Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Underdal, A. 1995. The study of International Regimes. Journal of Peace Research, 32 (1), 113-119.

Veselý, A., Wellstead, A., Evans, B. 2014. Comparing Subnational Policy Workers in Canada and the Czech Republic: Who are They, What They Do, and Why it Matters? Policy and Society, 33 (2), 103-115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.04.005

Warren, M. 2009. Governance-Drive Democratization. Critical Policy Studies, 3 (1), 3-13, https://doi.org/10.1080/19460170903158040.

27

Williams, M.J. 2017. Beyond State Capacity: Bureaucratic Performance, Policy Implementation, and Reform. Unpublished paper. Access: https://martinjwilliamsdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/williams_beyon d-state-capacity_171005.pdf

Wilson, J. 1989. Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books.

Wu, X., Ramesh, M., Howllet, M. 2015. Policy Capacity: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Policy Competences and Capabilities, Policy and Society, 34, 165-171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.001.

About the authors:

Fernando Filgueiras is PH.D. in Political Science from the University Research Institute of Rio de Janeiro (Iuperj). Director for Research and Graduate Studies of the National School of Public Administration (Enap). Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG). Researcher of the INCT - Digital Democracy at the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA). Researcher of the Institute of Advanced Studies of the University of São Paulo (USP). E-mail: [email protected].

Natália Massaco Koga is PH.D. in Political Science from University of Westminster. Coordinator for Research of the National School of Public Administration (ENAP). Public Manager of Ministry of Planning, Development, and Management of the Brazilian Federal Government. E-mail: [email protected]

Rafael Viana is MSC in Political Science from University of Brasília. Researcher of National School of Public Administration (ENAP). E-mail: [email protected]

Appendix 1 – Civil Service in Federal Government, Brazil Organization N % % N %

28

Selected Valid Error Population sample sample (%) Ministry of Agriculture and 8971 9,29% 5,85% 153 7,65% 7,86% Food Supply Ministry of Municipalities 328 0,34% 1,81% 46 2,30% 13,42% Ministry of Science, Technology, 3835 3,97% 5,57% 190 9,50% 6,93% and Communications Ministry of Defense 2602 2,70% 5,33% 72 3,60% 11,39% Ministry of Agrarian 343 0,36% 1,89% 57 2,85% 11,87% Development Ministry of Development, 701 0,73% 3,86% 91 4,55% 9,59% Industry, and Commerce Ministry of Social Development 797 0,83% 4,16% 75 3,75% 10,78% Ministry of Sports 226 0,23% 1,24% 31 1,55% 16,39% Ministry of Education 1000 1,04% 4,46% 111 5,55% 8,77% Ministry of Finance 28720 29,75% 6,01% 71 3,55% 11,62% Ministry pf National Integration 549 0,57% 3,02% 66 3,30% 11,32% Ministry of Culture 593 0,61% 3,26% 60 3,00% 12,00% Ministry of Justice 2668 2,76% 5,35% 92 4,60% 10,04% Ministry of Environment 800 0,83% 4,18% 77 3,85% 10,62% Ministry of Mines and Energy 429 0,44% 2,36% 48 2,40% 13,35% Ministry of Planning, 4381 4,54% 5,61% 123 6,15% 8,71% Development, and Management Ministry of Social Security 609 0,63% 3,35% 75 3,75% 10,61% Ministry of Foreing Affairs 1092 1,13% 4,56% 79 3,95% 10,62% Ministry of Health 24690 25,58% 5,99% 122 6,10% 8,85% Ministry of Transports 858 0,89% 4,26% 63 3,15% 11,89% Ministry of Work and 6849 7,09% 5,78% 112 5,60% 9,18% Employment Ministry of Transparency and 2179 2,26% 5,22% 68 3,40% 11,70% General Comptroller Ministry of Tourism 261 0,27% 1,44% 32 1,60% 16,26% Presidency 73 3,65% 10,42% 3053 3,16% 5,43% Vice-Presidency 13 0,65% Total 96534 100,00% 6,27% 2000 2,07% Source: Integrated System for Human Resources Administration (SIAPE), March, 2017.

29