Capacidades estatais para o desenvolvimento: entre a burocratização e a política como elementos de ação do Estado

Abstract

The main objective of this work is to analyze the political-institutional arrangements that give the state capabilities for solving, balance and building synergies with the various component groups within the social fabric of development of their projects. Although the bureaucratic state capacities are patents and recognized as being significant under developmentalism (Chang, 1995; North, 1998), the current scenario requires the actor a lot more capacity to improve policies of legitimacy in the implementation of their respective socioeconomic projects. Such capabilities, ie, not restricted to the mere prospect of partnership with private economic groups (Evans, 1995), the ability to manage conflict between such groups (Chang, 1995), or even the search for meta-institutions capable of pragmatically systematize the processes of interaction (Rodrik, 1999; North, 2003). The political capacities are expressed mainly in the constant search for synergies and consultations with the various movements and groups in society, the guise of the thematic field work object state. This means that the State has the task to establish interactions with various groups eventually connected to its development projects, regardless of whether these groups are closely linked to the economic sphere or are connected to other spheres of social activity, such as the environment, social protection, education, grassroots movements, among others. Thus, it can be said that in the current scenario, state programs and actions that can align bureaucratic autonomy and ability to cope with the demands arising from work of socioeconomic and political groups tend to be those most innovative and successful because congregate at the same time, technical and operational capacity for the job of understanding the needs and inputs of the agents involved in the process network capabilities. Attention is drawn to the importance of institutional analysis focused on pathways by which actors share experiences, values, interests and preferences along the interactions established by remodeling their own decisions and perspectives in such proceedings (Rodrik, 1998). Deprives the centrality of specific analytical observation of the results of interactive processes and sheds light on the more dynamic construction and routine maintenance of relationships established between the actors (Edigheji, 2010; Evans, 2011). In the case of this study, this implies greatly shift the theoretical focus of the bureaucratic state capacities to implement their developmental processes to a focus on the political skills necessary in this context (and Gomide Pires, 2013). What are the main features of the arrangements that allow state action today? They should vary over area of public policy or may be the same in all fields? Why? The main conclusions are that, in fact, there are significant correlations between major bureaucratic and political skills and ability to deliver better outcomes in public policy. In particular, the development of political skills seem to intensify their own bureaucratic capabilities, generating a movement of feedback that only tends to promote the improvement of public administration in general.