The one of 1946 determined that, for the first time, 10% of the municipalities, except those of the capitals. It was the first version of the Municipal Participation Fund (FPM).
The father of the proposal, the deputy Pernambuco Barros Carvalho criticized those who claimed that “the mayors would stick that money in their own pocket.” It argued: “It is possible that some bandits and adventurers can also be able to take the money from the federal quota. It will be an evil, but a lesser evil than the abandonment in which Union leaves the interior of the country. (…) If they steal today the federal quota, the money will still make a regional redistribution of income, will be in the region, the thief may always assemble a cotton disruption or a root. to your farm “.
Barros Carvalho, at the same time he seemed to point out the “steals, but does” and the so -called “Trickle Down”, also referred to a collective action dilemma: if the other regions were benefiting from, better than everyone did. He was optimistic and there is some evidence that his argument has a real grain; It conjectured that local improvement would engender democratic controls: “It will improve the quality of life of the place and people, who will once know how to oversee thieves politicians.” The dilemma is universal as reconciling territorial equity with control and efficiency.
Transfers went to 15%in 1961, and the transferred taxes were expanded; In 1966 and 1993 they reached 23%. Discretionary transfers have multiplied and today focus on budget amendments that respond for more than 1/3 of discretionary spending.
But alongside local, municipalized corruption, there is the “federal”. , in “The Dry Industrials and the Galileans of Pernambuco” (1960), a role book that became bestseller, noted that throughout the northeast “federal” is synonymous with a big, fabulous thing. He added: “To some dictionary interested in ascertaining the origin of this slang I suggest that the source is the deeds of the DNOCS, they are the colossal dams, the roads and the scandals.” The great scandal, even territorially delimited, is “federal”. I use Federal, however, also in another sense, complementary due to the scale, to the one in which the protagonists are in the federal executive like oe now, where figures can reach $ 90 billion.
The idea has been spread-which is not disinterested-that corruption manifests itself mainly in transfers to interior localities of Archaic Brazil, where controls are weak. Nothing further from the truth. This is just one of its manifestations. The control imagined by Barros Carvalho, which would come with economic development, was never effective here. There has been a breakthrough, yes, but it has suffered a huge setback in recent years. The incentive structure became “free”. And it could not be different after the widespread annulment of evidence, and the focused focus to the issues of democracy. Paradoxically, its defense has wickedly fulfill the role of weakening control of corruption.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
