Governança e coordenação em arranjos multinível de políticas públicas transversais: assistência social, educação e saúde no Programa Bolsa Família

Este estudo apresenta o desenvolvimento teórico e a aplicação de um modelo voltado à análise de arranjos de governança de políticas públicas que ocorrem quando múltiplas organizações estão envolvidas em lidar com questões complexas. A seguinte pergunta de pesquisa foi proposta: Como opera o conjunto de instrumentos de coordenação empregados na governança de uma política pública transversal? Um estudo de caso exploratório sobre o Programa Bolsa Família foi realizado, especificamente na sua dimensão relacionada à coordenação entre os setores de assistência social, educação e saúde. Os métodos de pesquisa consistiram em análise de conteúdo de documentos e transcrições de entrevistas semiestruturadas com atores-chave do Programa nos três setores de políticas. Os resultados demonstram como diferentes modos de governança coexistem no arranjo multinível estudado, revelando diversos elementos de coordenação cuja operação concomitante resulta em um modo de governança misto. Contribui-se, assim, para o aperfeiçoamento do Programa e para o desenvolvimento teórico, metodológico e aplicado dos conceitos de governança e de coordenação, ficando demonstrado ser possível integrá-los na análise de políticas públicas transversais.

Business diplomacy: the compass rose of foreign markets

With transnational corporations (TNCs) around the world today numbering over 60,000 and more than 800,000 affiliates working abroad, it is easy to understand how modern day international business could have transformed into a major global player serving at the axis of politics, social and environmental responsibility. Additionally, with accountability to a large variety of both public and private stakeholders, all exerting significant power and influence, today’s global corporate structure is reinventing modern international relations, and in some cases, dominating it. (Muldoon 2005) This transformative nature of globalization today can also serve as a source of friction among this growing chorus of players and is bringing irreversible change to these relationships and how they impact and influence business around the world. (Muldoon 2005) From the largest to the smallest international corporation seeking to expand into new international markets, the challenges that come with corporate ambition can mean the difference between success and failure and they find a home at the intersection of international relations, diplomacy and economics. To successfully navigate these challenges, especially in emerging economies, a company must now factor in more than just the “bottom line” and address complex issues that include human rights differences, environmental regulations, labor rights and values of each country. (Henisz, 2014) Combined with modern-day mobility achieved through technology and the Internet, corporations today have a great capacity to reach targeted audiences and establish a presence, but it is this same technology that also allows for immediate response to any corporate action. This constant, 24-hour news cycle, where everyone is made to be a real-time reporter through social media, has created a situation that demonstrably necessitates the ability to not only 3 respond immediately, but also to have real-time understanding of the challenges faced by a corporation as it looks toward global expansion. International Business Diplomacy, or simply Business Diplomacy as it will be referred to in this paper, combines all of these nuanced factors into a relatively new discipline that offers companies looking to expand into new markets, guidelines and directives so that they can more strategically map corporate direction, limit risk and achieve their objectives. This paper will examine the history of diplomacy and how the concept of statecraft became intertwined with the increasing globalization of business. Following a scholarly examination of how modern Business Diplomacy came into being, and the unique challenges that come with its application, particularly the liabilities needed to be overcome, this paper will apply the concept to the Brazilian aerospace manufacturer Embraer, tracking its strategic emergence from a small, regionally focused aircraft producer to global leader in the regional and executive jet market platforms. It will then examine Embraer’s entrance into the Chinese market, where the company suffered from several missteps and eventually had to refocus its business model from commercial to executive jets. Finally, as globalization continues to “emancipate international business from its institutional and social constraints,” (Muldoon 2005) this paper will address how the relatively new and emerging discipline of Business Diplomacy is continuing to mature and grow in stature and influence through the proposition of a new challenge or “liability” that corporations must also overcome as they expand into new markets. Through the analysis of Embraer in China, this paper will introduce the Liability of Governance to the lexicon of Business Diplomacy and propose specific steps that a company can undertake to avoid it.

The Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETmundial)

This case study examines NETmundial, the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, which was held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 23 and 24 of 2014. The meeting was convened by 1net, a coalition of This case study examines NETmundial, the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, which was held in Sao Paulo, Brazil on April 23 and 24 of 2014. The meeting was convened by 1net, a coalition of stakeholder groups involved in Internet governance discussions, in partnership with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), in response to revelations of mass surveillance of communications by the United States. It sought to develop a set of universally acceptable Internet governance principles as well as a way forward for the evolution of the Internet governance system, which together could serve as a framework for the governance and use of the Internet. It convened 930 participants from 110 different countries, representing civil society, the private sector, academia, the technical community, governments and intergovernmental organizations, as well as over 1000 remote participants from 23 countries around the globe. It also employed a content contribution platform that sought to crowd source inputs from stakeholders for the production of the outcome document. The meeting served as a demonstration of the multistakeholder process in action: in the production of the outcome document, stakeholders with a diverse range of backgrounds and interests collectively negotiated the inclusion or exclusion of highly sensitive and complex issues. While the process of achieving rough consensus involved sometimes messy debates and there were procedural imperfections, the case is informative for its structured production of bottom-up multistakeholder outcomes.groups involved in Internet governance discussions, in partnership with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), in response to revelations of mass surveillance of communications by the United States. It sought to develop a set of universally acceptable Internet governance principles as well as a way forward for the evolution of the Internet governance system, which together could serve as a framework for the governance and use of the Internet. It convened 930 participants from 110 different countries, representing civil society, the private sector, academia, the technical community, governments and intergovernmental organizations, as well as over 1000 remote participants from 23 countries around the globe. It also employed a content contribution platform that sought to crowd source inputs from stakeholders for the production of the outcome document. The meeting served as a demonstration of the multistakeholder process in action: in the production of the outcome document, stakeholders with a diverse range of backgrounds and interests collectively negotiated the inclusion or exclusion of highly sensitive and complex issues. While the process of achieving rough consensus involved sometimes messy debates and there were procedural imperfections, the case is informative for its structured production of bottom-up multistakeholder outcomes.