Brazil's Public Administration and the Challenge of New Democracies: Promoting Social Inclusion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Brazil's public administration (PA) has sought to strengthen democratic governance through an emphasis on social inclusion. Since democratization in 1988, reforms have aimed to address entrenched inequalities along with decentralization and professionalism spurring innovations in social inclusion. This article examines Brazil's PA and highlights its key PA innovations, specifically: (a) inclusive public policy councils with substantial oversight of implementation; (b) legislative public accountability bodies with authority to impose penalties; (c) devolution granting far‐reaching administrative, political, and financial constitutional autonomy to cities to enhance responsiveness and innovation; and (d) wide‐ranging guaranteed income programs to reduce poverty. This article also draws attention to co‐existing PA “islands of excellence” and efforts to address such challenges as rule‐bound bureaucracies, clientelism, and weak institutional capacities in the Global South. It concludes with implications for strengthening public managers' leadership in democratic governance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it