Development of an Indicators Model for Transparency of Brazilian Municipalities Institutional Development (BR0059)
Overview
At-a-Glance
Action Plan: Brazil Second Action Plan
Action Plan Cycle: 2013
Status:
Institutions
Lead Institution: Institute for Applied Economic Research
Support Institution(s): NA
Policy Areas
Capacity Building, Local CommitmentsIRM Review
IRM Report: Brazil End-of-Term Report 2013-2016, Brazil Progress Report 2013-2014
Early Results: Did Not Change
Design i
Verifiable: Yes
Relevant to OGP Values: Yes
Ambition (see definition): High
Implementation i
Description
to develop a proposal of indicators for transparency of the institutional development of the Brazilian municipalities with the aim of providing comparative information for public managers and citizens on the progresses and basic challenges of the municipal management.
IRM End of Term Status Summary
Commitment 2.22. Development of an Indicators Model for Transparency of Brazilian Municipalities Institutional Development
Commitment Text: To develop a proposal of indicators for transparency of the institutional development of the Brazilian municipalities with the aim of providing comparative information for public managers and citizens on the progresses and basic challenges of the municipal management.
Responsible institution: Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA)
Supporting institution: None
Start date: Not specified End date: 14 December 2014
Commitment aim
The commitment sought to use the methodology and reach of the Survey of Basic Municipal Information (MUNIC) to create indicators on key questions that can impact transparency, such as the existence of transparency portals and specific legislation. The lack of a municipal transparency index was the motivation for the commitment.
Status
Midterm: Substantial
As a result of the June 2013 technical cooperation agreement between the Institute for Applied Economic Research (IPEA) and the Office of the Comptroller General (CGU), a questionnaire with municipal transparency indicators was formulated and applied nationally in 2014. The new questions dealt with topics such as free public access in access centres, the creation of tele-centres, the installation of computers with Internet access at public schools, and the existence of access to information legislation and transparency portals. At the midterm review, however, the MUNIC had not yet been published.
End of term: Substantial
According to the government’s self-assessment, IPEA published the proposal of indicators for municipal institutional development.[Note 80: Brazilian Institute for Applied Economic Research, “Proposta Ipea sobre Modelo de indicadores de gestão para cidadania municipal plena CGU OGP,” 4 August 2016, http://bit.ly/2hWfUvq. ] The document was created on 4 August 2016, outside the dates of the action plan. As a result, completion of the commitment remained substantial.
Did it open government?
Access to information: Did not change
The key product of the commitment that could have improved open government practices (i.e., city-level transparency indicators) was completed after the end of the action plan. As such, this commitment did not change the status quo of open government in the country during the period evaluated by this report.
Carried forward?
The commitment is not included in the next action plan. If the government revisits it in the future, the IRM researcher advises promoting open data records, and making use of structured mechanisms for participation to discuss the research survey with civil society.