Planeamiento Estratégico en la Promoción de Proyectos de Inversión Pública: Revisión de Literatura 2013-2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strategic planning (SP) is central to strengthening public management and promoting public investment projects (PIPs). This literature review assessed the impact of SP on PIPs from 2013 to 2024, following PRISMA. We searched Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Scielo in Spanish and English using terms related to SP, public investment, and management. From 221 records identified, 89 were screened and 30 peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria (focus on public management/PIPs, 2013–2024). We extracted context, methods, and findings, and appraised quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results indicate that well-designed SP aligned with budgets improves efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability; however, constraints persist regarding technical capacity, institutional fragmentation, and governance. Comparative evidence suggests that good practices—civil-service professionalization, process modernization, ex-ante/ex-post evaluation, and monitoring—enhance implementation and sustainability. We conclude SP is vital to resource allocation, project prioritization, and public value; its impact hinges on inter-institutional coordination and stable macroeconomic contexts.
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 | 0.022 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".