Relação da governança pública com o desempenho social, econômico e fiscal das capitais brasileiras

Abstract

The differences in management capacity and results among Brazilian capitals still constitute a central challenge for the effectiveness of public policies and the reduction of social and territorial inequalities. In this context, the study aimed to investigate the relationship between public governance and the social, economic, and fiscal performance of Brazilian capitals, considering associations between indicators, differences according to population size and geographic region, and patterns of similarity among the capitals, in the period from 2017 to 2023. This is an applied, quantitative, descriptive, explanatory, and exploratory research, based on secondary data from the CFA Municipal Governance Index (IGM-CFA), FIRJAN Municipal Development Index (IFDM), Infant Mortality Rate (IMR), Basic Education Development Index (IDEB – 9th grade), Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP per capita), and FIRJAN Fiscal Management Index (IFGF). Methodologically, descriptive statistics, correlation, panel regression with robust standard errors, mean comparison tests (MANOVA, one-way and Welch ANOVAs, and Tukey HSD and Games-Howell post-hoc tests), and hierarchical cluster analysis were applied. The regression results showed a positive and statistically significant effect of municipal governance on educational (IDEB – 9th grade) and fiscal (IFGF) performance; for municipal development, income, and infant mortality, the coefficients maintained the expected sign, but were not statistically significant at 5%. Mean tests indicated significant differences by size and region. Large capitals showed better results in municipal development, education, income, and health; medium-sized capitals had a relatively favorable position in governance and, above all, in fiscal management; and small capitals had less favorable results, especially in governance, municipal development, health, education, and income. In regional terms, the South and Southeast stood out in governance and municipal development; the South, with the lowest infant mortality rate; The Central-West and Southeast regions registered specific advantages in education; the Central West, Southeast, and South regions presented higher levels of GDP per capita; and, in fiscal management, the North, Northeast, Southeast, and South regions did not differ statistically from each other, while the Central-West revealed relative fragility. Cluster analysis identified three profiles: Capitals with low structural development, with less favorable results in municipal development, health, education, income, and governance, but fiscal management at an acceptable level; Capitals with high structural development, with better relative conditions in municipal development, income, health, and governance, good educational performance, but relatively less favorable fiscal management; and Capitals with intermediate development and educational excellence, characterized by superior educational performance, relatively more favorable fiscal management, and an intermediate position in the other dimensions. The construction of the qualitative governance scale, based on the IGM-CFA score ranges, facilitates the applied reading of municipal governance levels; the typology of clusters and the systematization of strategic subsidies offer a basis for diagnosis and definition of priorities in public management. In summary, the findings allow managers to recognize the weaknesses and strengths of their capital cities and guide decisions according to size, region, and cluster profile, contributing to more effective public policies for society.