Implementing a Subnational Results- Oriented Management and Budgeting System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a century of political centralization in Colombia, the first public election of city mayors in 19861 began a decentralization trend, which was later reinforced by a constitutional reform in 1991. Subnational governments (departments and municipalities) were made responsible for the planning and management of social and economic development in their jurisdictions. Administrative and political reforms were accompanied by fiscal decentralization, including the transfer of central government revenues. Since 1991 the growth of fiscal transfers has accelerated. Departments and municipalities are now responsible for public health, education, water supply, and sanitation expenditures through earmarked transfers. Out of the total amount of central government expenditures (21.8 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 2008) almost one-quarter represent regional transfers (5 percent of GDP), which finance half of all regional expenditures (10.2 percent of GDP). The purpose of this paper is to describe the budget process reform implemented in Medellin, and to analyze its actual performance and evaluate its success. The reform is changing the way public resources are allocated and executed, while gradually institutionalizing supply and demand-side practices beyond the government's political cycles. This paper describes and analyzes how the Results-oriented budgeting (RoB) was designed and implemented, and the achievements of the system to date, in terms of resource allocation and the policy-making process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".