A study by the (Institute of Applied Economic Research) on concluding that there is “robust evidence” of influence on vote, but lack of connection with specific public policy areas.
The analysis was commissioned by federal deputy Eduardo Bandeira de Mello (PSB-RJ), between and (Supreme Federal Court) due to the mechanism, which gave rise to the call.
Ipea evaluates that parliamentary amendments have been used in recent years as an instrument to meet “particular interests of parliamentarians”, specifically focused on electoral use.
This happens, on the one hand, because the executive branch has lost control over the mechanism and, on the other, because the parties began to control campaign funds, “which may have led parliamentarians to intensify the use of amendment spending for their individual electoral goals.”
The Institute ponders that in the health area, which concentrates much of these resources, there is “punctual evidence” that the problem is less serious, but even so, the direction of this money does not “universalize the provision of services” of the sector.
In Ipea’s opinion, the few evidence found that amendments have some “positive effect on quality of life and the provision of public services” are “dubious quality”.
“The main conclusion that is reached after this literature review is that evidence on budget amendments policy, the logic of allocation of amendments spending and its impacts on well-being need to be updated, in order to contemplate the current context, the most protagonism of Congress in budget execution,” concludes the agency.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
