Service to demands and corruption tolerance: brazilian voters' perception of “rouba, mas faz” policy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21680/2176-9036.2024v16n2ID36730Keywords:
Rouba, mas faz; Corruption; Policy.Abstract
Purpose: The research aimed to verify the influence of meeting public demands on the perception of tolerance of Brazilian voters towards the “rouba, mas faz” policy. Although a social unison of rejection of corruption in politics is perceived, there is a possibility that voters relax this disapproval in the face of the results that managers offer to communities.
Methodology: Study of quantitative approach, as for the procedures, a survey was used, with a questionnaire and study of scenarios, of tolerance to “rouba, mas faz”, as a research instrument. To analyze the data, descriptive statistics and presentation in percentages were used for the answers to assertions and scenarios.
Results: The results indicate that Brazilians demand honest politicians, although for almost 25% of the population every politician is corrupt, without distinction; for 80% of respondents the main cause of problems in Brazilian public management is political corruption; approximately 70% of voters do not use transparency portals to decide their vote, although 80% claim to research the candidates' history before making their decision.
Contributions of the Study: Aspects related to the median voter theory were perceived, since, although Brazilian voters demonstrate intolerance to corruption, the profile with the average characteristics of the population tends to vote for that candidate who promises to meet their needs. In addition, in general terms, 7% of the sample would re-elect a very corrupt politician, as long as he is very productive, while 24% would tolerate corruption, as long as it occurs on a small scale and is accompanied by works and benefits to society, implying that there is, in general terms, to a certain degree, the influence of meeting public demands on voters' tolerance of the “rouba, mas faz” policy in Brazil.
Downloads
References
Abade, D. N. (2019). Derecho internacional anticorrupción en Brasil. Revista de la Secretaría del Tribunal Permanente de Revisión, 213-232.
https://doi.org/10.16890/rstpr.a7.n13.p213
Almeida, A. C. (2007). A cabeça do brasileiro. São Paulo: Record.
Alves, D. G. (2018). A corrupção enquanto fenômeno social: elemento pernicioso nas estruturas estatais ou graxa sobre as rodas da economia?. Revista de Doutrina e Jurisprudência, 109(2), 159-172.
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. 2020. Report to the nations on occupational fraud and abuse. https://legacy.acfe.com/report-to-the-nations/2020/
Avritzer, L. (2012). Corrupção: ensaios e críticas. 2ª Ed. Editora UFMG.
Bonifácio, R. (2013). A afeição dos cidadãos pelos políticos mal-afamados: identificando os perfis associados à aceitação do “rouba, mas faz” no Brasil. Opinião Pública, 19(2), 320-345.
Buchanan, J. M. (2000). Politics as Public Choice, in The Collected Works of James M. Volume 13. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Buchanan, J. M. (1991). Constitutional Economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Butler, E. (2015). Escolha pública: um guia. São Paulo: Bunker Editorial.
Castro, M. M. (1997). O comportamento eleitoral no Brasil: diagnóstico e interpretações. Revista Teoria & Sociedade, 1(1), 126-168.
Cotta, L. C. V. (2008). Adhemar de Barros (1901-1969): a origem do “rouba, mas faz”. Dissertação de Mestrado em História Econômica, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Cressey, D. R. (1953). A study in the social psychology of embezzlement: Other people’s money. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Cruz, C. F. D. (2015). Responsabilidade na Gestão Fiscal: um estudo em grandes municípios com base nos pilares da Lei de Responsabilidade Fiscal no período de 2010-2013. Tese de Doutorado em Controladoria e Contabilidade, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
DaMatta, R. (1997). A casa e a rua. Rio de janeiro: Rocco, 5.
Dias, M. A. (2009). James Buchanan e a “política” na escolha pública. Ponto-e-Vírgula: Revista de Ciências Sociais, (6).
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of political economy, 65(2), 135-150.
Filgueiras, F. (2009). A tolerância à corrupção no Brasil: uma antinomia entre normas morais e prática social. Opinião Pública, 15(2), 386-421.
https://doi:10.1590/S010462762009000200005
Ipsos Public Affairs. (2016). What Worries the World (Setembro, 2016). Versão 1. Recuperado em 17 novembro, 2019 de https://www.ipsos.com/pt-br
Jancsics, D. (2019). Corruption as resource transfer: An interdisciplinary synthesis. Public Administration Review, 79(4), 523-537.
Jankélévitch, V. (2008). O Paradoxo da Moral. Martins Fontes.
Katzarova, E. (2019). The Social Construction of Global Corruption. Political Corruption & Governance. Ed. Palgrave Macmillan.
Klašnja, M., & Tucker, J. A. (2013). The economy, corruption, and the vote: Evidence from experiments in Sweden and Moldova. Electoral Studies, 32(3), 536-543.
Kubbe, I; Engelbert, A. (2018). Corruption and Norms; Why informal rules matter. Political Corruption & Governance. Ed. Palgrave Macmillan.
Maragno, L. M. D., & Borba, J. A. (2017). Mapa conceitual da fraude: configuração teórica e empírica dos estudos internacionais e oportunidades de pesquisas futuras. Revista de Educação e Pesquisa em Contabilidade (REPeC), 11. https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v11i0.1665
Moisés, J. Á. (2010). Democracia e confiança: por que os cidadãos desconfiam das instituições públicas. São Paulo: Edusp.
Mueller, D. (1997). Public Choice II. A Revised Edition of Public Choice, 1989. Cambridge University Press, 1, 1-39.
Oates, W. E. (1972). Fiscal Federalism. New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Oates, W. E. (2008). On the Evolution of Fiscal Federalism: Theory and Institutions. National Tax Journal, Washington, v. 15, n. 2, p. 313-334.
OECD. (2018). Behavioural insights for public integrity. Harnessing the human factor to counter corruption.
Oliveira Júnior, T. M., da Costa, F. J. L., & Mendes, A. P. (2016). Perspectivas teóricas da corrupção no campo da administração pública brasileira: características, limites e alternativas. Revista do Serviço Público, 67, 111-138. https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v67i0.881
Pereira, C., & Melo, M. A. (2015). Reelecting corrupt incumbents in exchange for public goods: Rouba mas faz in Brazil. Latin American Research Review, 88-115.
https://doi.org/10.1353/lar.2015.0054
Petrucelli, J. R. (2012). Detecting fraud in organizations: Techniques, tools, and resources. John Wiley & Sons.
Petrucelli, J. R., & Peters, J. R. (2017). Preventing fraud and mismanagement in government: Systems and structures. John Wiley & Sons.
Rodrigues, C. G. (2010) Determinantes da composição do gasto público nos estados brasileiros. Dissertação de Mestrado em Economia do Setor Público, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Rose, R; Peiffer, C. (2019). Bad Governance and Corruption. Political Corruption & Governance. Ed. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rothstein, B. (2009). Anti Corruption: a Big Bang Theory. Gotemburgo: QoG Working Papper Series. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1338614
Rothstein, B., & Varraich, A. (2017). Making sense of corruption. Cambridge University Press.
Shaw, J. S. (2005). Public Choice Theory. Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
Souza, J. (2001). A sociologia dual de Roberto Da Matta: descobrindo nossos mistérios ou sistematizando nossos auto-enganos?. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 16(45), 47-67.
Tomasic, R. (2011). The financial crisis and the haphazard pursuit of financial crime. Journal of Financial Crime.
Tribunal Superior Eleitoral. (2019). Brasil tem 147,3 milhões de eleitores aptos a votar nas eleições de 2018. Recuperado em 21 outubro, 2019 de https://www.tse.jus.br/imprensa/ noticias-tse/2018/Agosto/brasil-tem-147-3-milhoes-de-eleitores-aptos-a-votar-nas-eleicoes-2018.
Trompeter, G. M., Carpenter, T. D., Desai, N., Jones, K. L., & Riley Jr, R. A. (2013). A synthesis of fraud-related research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(sp1), 287-321. http://dx.doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50360
Winters, M. S., & Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2013). Lacking information or condoning corruption: When do voters support corrupt politicians?. Comparative Politics, 45(4), 418-436.
https://doi.org/10.5129/001041513X13815259182857
Winters, M., & Weitz-Shapiro, R. (2010). “Rouba, mas faz” or not? Exploring voter attitudes toward corruption in Brazil. In Trabalho apresentado no Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 REVISTA AMBIENTE CONTÁBIL - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this magazine agree with the following terms:
Authors keep the copyrights and concede the right of its first publication to the magazine. The work piece must be simultaneously licensed on the Creative Commons Attribution Licence which allows the paper sharing, and preserves both the author identity and the right of first publication to this magazine.
Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, to not-exclusively distribution of the paper version published in this magazine (e.g.: publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with the author identity recognition and its first publication in this magazine.
Authors are permitted and stimulated to publish and distribute their papers online (e.g.: in institutional repository or on their personal webpage), considering it can generate productive alterations, as well as increase the impact and the quotations of the published paper.
Creative Commons - Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional.
Português (Brasil)
English
Español (España)
