Autonomie et Discrétion
clarifiant les concepts clés pour l’étude de la bureaucratie
Mots-clés :
Mise en œuvre, Politiques Publiques, Bureaucratie, Discrétion, AutonomieRésumé
La compréhension des processus de mise en œuvre des politiques publiques et les transformations dans les modèles de gestion publique ont mis la bureaucratie et le contexte de leurs actions au centre de nombreuses études de politiques publiques. Deux concepts occupent une place centrale dans ce débat : la discrétion et l’autonomie. Les deux sont largement utilisés afin de caractériser les actions du bureaucrate qui ne sont pas limitées à la relation principal-agent. Cependant, ils sont généralement traités comme des synonymes, sans s’interroger sur leurs différences conceptuelles et leurs implications analytiques. Notre objectif est de développer une analyse critique des concepts de discrétion et d’autonomie, cherchant à comprendre leurs implications en termes d’études empiriques sur les actions du bureaucrate d’Etat. On focalise les différentes approches de l’étude des deux concepts, leurs différents usages et conséquences analytiques, basés sur la cartographie des littératures de la science politique et de l’administration publique qui les étudient historiquement. Par conséquence, on souligne la possibilité de différencier quatre conceptions différentes : l’autonomie des organisations ; la discrétion en tant qu’espace d’action délégué aux sujets ; la discrétion en tant que l’action prise par des sujets ; et l’autonomie des sujets en tant que capacité d’action.
Téléchargements
Références
ABERS, R. Bureaucratic activism: pursuing environmentalism inside the Brazilian State. 2016. No prelo.
ABERS, R.; KECK, M. Practical authority: agency and institutional change in Brazilian water politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
ABERS, R.; TATAGIBA, L. Institutional activism: mobilizing for women’s health from inside the Brazilian bureaucracy. In: ENCONTRO ANUAL DA ANPOCS, 38., 2014, Caxambu. Anais… Caxambu: Hotel Glória, 2014.
ARRETCHE, M. Uma contribuição para fazermos avaliações menos ingênuas. In: MOREIRA, M. C. R.; CARVALHO, M. C. B. (Org.). Tendências e perspectivas na avaliação de políticas e programas sociais. São Paulo: IEE/PUC-SP, 2001.
BALLOU, K. A concept analysis of autonomy. Journal of Professional Nursing, Amsterdam, v. 14, n. 2, p. 102-110, 1998.
BANASZAK, L. A.; BECHWITH, B.; RUCHT, D. Women’s movements facing the recon figured State. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
BATEY, M.; LEWIS, F. Clarifying autonomy and accountability in nursing service: Part 1. The Journal of Nursing Administration, Hagerstown, MD, v. 12, n. 9, p. 13-18, 1982.
BENDIX, R. Bureaucracy and the problem of power. In: MERTON, R. K. et al. (Ed.). Reader in bureaucracy. 4. ed. New York: Free Press, 1952. p. 114-135.
CARPENTER, D. The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Woodstock: Princeton University Press, 2001.
CAVALCANTE, P.; LOTTA, G. (Org.). Burocracia de médio escalão: perfil, trajetória e atuação. Brasília, DF: Enap, 2015.
DAVIS, K. Discretionary justice: a preliminary inquiry. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1971.
DUBOIS, V. La vie au guichet: relation administrative et traitement de la misère. Paris: Economica, 1999. (Collection Études Politiques).
ELLIS, K. “Street-level bureaucracy” revisited: the changing face of frontline discretion in adult social care in England. Social Policy and Administration, Hoboken, v. 45, n. 3, p. 221-244.
EVANS, P. O Estado como problema e solução. Lua Nova, São Paulo, n. 28-29, p. 1-23, 1993.
EVANS, P.; RUESCHEMEYER, D.; SKOCPOL, T. Bringing the State back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
EVANS, T. Professionals, managers and discretion: critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, New York, v. 41, p.368-386, 2011.
EVETTS, J. New directions in state and international professional occupations: discretionary decision-making and acquired regulation. Work, Employment and Society, Thousand Oaks, v. 16, n. 2, p. 341-353, 2002.
FARIA, C. Ideias, conhecimento e políticas públicas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, São Paulo, v. 18, n. 51, p. 21-30, fev. 2003.
GOMIDE, A.; PIRES, R. Capacidades estatais e democracia: arranjos institucionais de políticas públicas. Brasília: Ipea, 2014.
HUPE, P. Dimensions of discretion: specifying the object of street-level bureaucracy research. DMS-Der Moderne Staat, [S.l.], v. 2, p. 425-440, 2013.
HUPE, P.; HILL, M.; BUFFAT, A. Understanding street-level bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press, 2015.
KATO, J. Institutions and rationality in politics: three varieties of neo-institutionalists. British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge, v. 26, n. 4, p. 553-582, 2013.
Kooiman, J. Governing as governance. London: Sage, 2003.
LIPSKY, M. Toward a theory of street-level bureaucracy. Madison: Institute for Research on Poverty, 1969. p. 48-69.
______. Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. 30. ed. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 2010.
LOUREIRO, M.; ABRUCIO, F.; PACHECO, R. (Org.). Burocracia e política no Brasil contemporâneo. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV, 2010.
LOTTA, G. Burocracia e implementação de políticas de saúde: os agentes comunitários na Estratégia Saúde da Família. Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz, 2015.
MATLAND, R. E. Synthesizing the implementation literature: the ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Oxford, UK, v. 5, n. 2, p. 145-174, 2009.
MAYNARD-MOODY, S.; MUSHENO, M. Cops, teachers, counselors: stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003.
MAZZUCA, S. Legitimidad, autonomía y capacidad: conceptualizando (una vez más) los poderes del Estado. Revista de Ciencia Política, Santiago, v. 32, n. 3, p. 545-560, 2012.
PEREIRA, A. K. A construção de capacidade estatal por redes transversais: o caso de Belo Monte. 2014. 264 f. Tese (Doutorado em Ciência Política) – Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, 2014.
PETERS, G. Still the century of bureaucracy? The roles of public servants. Public Policy and Administration, Vinius, v. 1, n. 30, p. 7-21, 2009.
PETERS, G.; PIERRE, J. Handbook of policy administration. London: Sage, 2003.
PETTINICCHIO, D. Institutional activism: reconsidering the insider/outsider dichotomy. Sociology Compass, Rochester, NY, v. 6, p. 499-510, 2012.
PIRES, R. Flexible bureaucracies: discretion, creativity, and accountability in labor market regulation and public sector management. 2009. Thesis (PhD in Urban Studies and Planning) – Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2009.
PRESSMAN, J.; WILDAVSKY, A. Implementation. 3. ed. London: University of California Press, 1984.
ROCHA, C. V. Neoinstitucionalismo como modelo de análise para as Políticas Públicas. Civitas, Porto Alegre, v. 5, n. 1, p. 11-28, 2005.
SABATIER, P.; MAZMANIAN, D. Can regulation work? The implementation of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative. New York: Plenum Press, 1972.
SAKS, M. A review of theories of professions, organizations and society: the case for neo-Weberianism, neo-institucionalism and eclecticism. Journal of Professions and Organization, Oxford, v. 3, n. 2, p. 1-18, 2016.
Riley, Dennis D. and Bryan E. Brophy-Baermann. Bureaucracy and the Policy Process. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006.
SCHMIDT, V.. A. Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, Palo Alto, v. 11, p. 303-326, 2008.
SKOCPOL, T. Bringing the State back in: strategies of analysis in current research. In: EVANS, P.; RUESCHEMEYER, D.; SKOCPOL, T. (Ed.). Bringing the State back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
TAYLOR, I.; KELLY, J. Professionals, discretion and public sector reforms in the UK: re-visiting Lipsky. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Wagon Lane, v. 19, n. 7, p. 629-642, 2006.
TILLY, C. War making and State making as organized crime. In: EVANS, P.; RUESCHEMEYER, D.; SKOCPOL, T. (Ed.). Bringing the State back in. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. p. 169-191.
VAN METER, D.; VAN HORN, C. The policy implementation process: a conceptual framework”. Administration & Society, Thousand Oaks, v. 6, n. 4, p. 445-488, 1975.
WEBER, M. The essentials of bureaucratic organization: an ideal-type construction. In: MERTON, R. K. et al. (Ed.). Reader in bureaucracy. 4. ed. New York: The Free Press, 1952. p. 18-28.
WILSON, J. Bureaucracy: what governments do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books, 1989.
