Administração pública e políticas públicas

01/2011; 45:813-36.

ABSTRACT Su m á r i o : 1. Administração pública como disciplina e a dicotomia entre adminis-tração e política; 2. Incorporação das políticas públicas pela administração pública; 3. Redefinição de "público", reforma do Estado e constituição de novas abordagens teóricas na análise de políticas públicas pela administração pública; 4. A constitui-ção e o desenvolvimento da disciplina administração pública no Brasil e a análise de políticas públicas; 5. A administração pública e a abordagem interdisciplinar no estudo de políticas públicas. Summary: 1. Public administration as a discipline and the dicotomy between admin-istration and politics; 2. The inclusion of public policy analysis by public administra-tion; 3. Redefinition of public, state reform and the constitution of new theoretical approaches in policy analysis in the field of public administration; 4. Emergence and development of public administration as a discipline in Brazil and the presence of policy analysis; 5. Public administration and the multidisciplinary approach in the study of public policies. Pa l av r a S -c h av e : políticas públicas; análise de políticas públicas; administração pública; formação e pesquisa em políticas públicas; história da administração pú-blica.

Download full-text


Available from: Marta Ferreira Santos Farah, Nov 04, 2014
107 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper suggests that a gap exists between policy theorists who are formulating postpositivist models of analysis and the beliefs of practitioners whose labor is guided by the traditional hand of positivism. The tension between postpositivist theory and traditional practice has created a dialectic that contributes to both, but the postpositivist theory is not likely, for reasons discussed in the paper, to spark a revolution in practice. The paper maintains that members of the discipline's intellectual infrastructure can assist the evolution to a policy analysis paradigm that includes elements of postpositivism by introducing incremental changes in practice that reinforce it. For this purpose, one important incremental change is the introduction of Q-methodology as a common tool for policy analysis. The use of Q-methodology-a method for the study of subjectivity-would help subvert the assumptions of dominant objectivism that underlie the R-methods typically learned and used by traditional analysts and could influence analysts to adopt a postpositivist perspective of their work. © 1999 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
    Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 01/1999; 18(3):389-410. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199922)18:33.0.CO;2-S · 0.93 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Various conceptual schemes have been employed to make sense of the diverse policy literature. Attempting to understand policy analysis in terms of its political and historical significance, this essay points to three distinct faces, distinguished with regard to differing relationships between knowledge and politcs: one where knowledge purports to replace politics, one where politics masquerades as knowledge, and one where knowledge and politics attain a measure of reconciliation. Historically, these three faces may be viewed, to an extent, as periods in the development of policy analysis: from positivism, to its critique, to present post-positivist efforts.
    Policy Sciences 02/1986; 19(1):33-59. DOI:10.1007/BF02124483 · 2.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Policy analysis was conceived in controversy. Beginning in the 1960s, critics such as Lawrence Tribe, Edward Banfield, Charles Lindblom, Richard Nelson, and Martin Rein have attacked the way policy analysis skills are conceived, taught, and applied in practice. Within the field, policy analysts trained as political scientists have jousted with policy analysts trained as economists. Public policy schools have been evaluated and found wanting on various grounds by insiders and outsiders. Presidents of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management regularly urge new directions in research and practice on the profession. The contexts of policy analysis practice have, moreover, changed dramatically from the time when the Planning-Programming-Budgeting System first defined the activist role of what was then called systems analysis. Once centered in federal executive agencies, which monopolized relevant numbers, policy analysis practice is now dispersed throughout the polity. Though training and scholarship may seem unduly slow to recognize and adapt to such changes, policy analysis has nonetheless been shaped and reshaped by changes in the environments of policy making and by the ongoing discourse and debate over policy analysis training and practice.
    Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 02/1999; 18(3). DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199922)18:33.0.CO;2-G · 0.93 Impact Factor
Show more