Suchergebnisse

In Brazil's battle against corruption over the past two decades, there has been significant progress associated with the systems of oversight and investigation but very little progress in holding corrupt actors legally accountable for their transgressions. We suggest that until very recently this could be partially explained by the fact that there was institutional multiplicity (i.e., duplication of functions) in oversight and investigative institutions, while at the punishment stage, a single and underperforming institution—the judiciary—exercised monopolistic authority. To circumvent the limits associated with Brazilian courts, the government is increasingly relying on administrative sanctions for corruption. It is in this context that Brazil has enacted legislation to punish legal persons for both foreign and domestic corruption: The Clean Company Act (Lei Anti-Corrupção), enacted in August 2013, has used institutional multiplicity in an attempt to circumvent the well-known problems that plague the Brazilian anti-corruption system. We suggest that this approach looks promising, as it follows the same structure of recent reforms that have been successful in Brazil.

Democratic backsliding has multiplied "unprincipled" political principals: governments with weak commitment to the public interest. Why do some bureaucrats engage in voice and guerrilla sabotage to thwart policies against the public interest under "unprincipled principals," yet others do not? Despite its centrality in contemporary governance, this conundrum has not seen quantitative research. We address this gap with survey evidence from 1,700 Brazilian public servants during the Temer Presidency, widely perceived to lack democratic legitimacy and integrity. We focus on one key explanator: public service motivation (PSM). We argue that bureaucrats with greater PSM are more likely to engage in voice and sabotage of "unprincipled policies," and exit to avoid implementing "unprincipled policies." Structural equation models support these hypotheses. Public service-motivated bureaucracies are thus short-run stalwarts against "unprincipled" political principals. Over time, they look to depart, however, leaving "unprincipled" principals a freer hand to pursue policies against the public interest.

AbstractDemocratic backsliding has multiplied "unprincipled" political principals: governments with weak commitment to the public interest. Why do some bureaucrats engage in voice and guerrilla sabotage to thwart policies against the public interest under "unprincipled principals," yet others do not? Despite its centrality in contemporary governance, this conundrum has not seen quantitative research. We address this gap with survey evidence from 1,700 Brazilian public servants during the Temer Presidency, widely perceived to lack democratic legitimacy and integrity. We focus on one key explanator: public service motivation (PSM). We argue that bureaucrats with greater PSM are more likely to engage in voice and sabotage of "unprincipled policies," and exit to avoid implementing "unprincipled policies." Structural equation models support these hypotheses. Public service-motivated bureaucracies are thus short-run stalwarts against "unprincipled" political principals. Over time, they look to depart, however, leaving "unprincipled" principals a freer hand to pursue policies against the public interest.

Democratic backsliding has multiplied "unprincipled" political principals: governments with weak commitment to the public interest. Why do some bureaucrats engage in voice and guerrilla sabotage to thwart policies against the public interest under "unprincipled principals," yet others do not? Despite its centrality in contemporary governance, this conundrum has not seen quantitative research. We address this gap with survey evidence from 1,700 Brazilian public servants during the Temer Presidency, widely perceived to lack democratic legitimacy and integrity. We focus on one key explanator: public service motivation (PSM). We argue that bureaucrats with greater PSM are more likely to engage in voice and sabotage of "unprincipled policies," and exit to avoid implementing "unprincipled policies." Structural equation models support these hypotheses. Public service-motivated bureaucracies are thus short-run stalwarts against "unprincipled" political principals. Over time, they look to depart, however, leaving "unprincipled" principals a freer hand to pursue policies against the public interest.