Coelho Thereza Christina Bahia, Paim Jairnilson Silva
Departamento de Saúde, Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana, Feira de Santana, Bahia.
Cad Saude Publica. 2005 Sep-Oct;21(5):1373-82. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2005000500009. Epub 2005 Sep 12.
This case study is based on research performed by the Bahia State Health Secretariat (SESAB), aimed at analyzing management practices during the implementation of a State government administrative reform. The institutional agenda shows evidence of limited participation by civil society and technical and operational staff in problem selection and prioritization, resulting from a work process pressured by high-level executive government staff. Decisions regarding "output" (projects, services, and activities) were made under the responsibility of subordinate operational levels and did not appear as issues in the institutional routine. Concerns related to "input" (financial and human resources) consumed most of the high-level efforts, with internal and external negotiations and compromises to assure access to them. Meanwhile the possible "outcome", namely public health status, represents the "occult subject" of the institutional discourse. Information emerges in institutional disputes as a technical "power resource" in its medical, epidemiological, health, and administrative dimensions. The issue of government "representation" and allied interests is based on ideological dispositions and authoritarian practices, thus contradicting the need for management transparency and modernization.
本案例研究基于巴伊亚州卫生秘书处(SESAB)开展的研究,旨在分析州政府行政改革实施过程中的管理实践。机构议程显示,由于高层政府工作人员施压的工作流程,民间社会以及技术和业务人员在问题选择和优先级确定方面的参与有限。关于“产出”(项目、服务和活动)的决策由下属业务层面负责,在机构日常工作中并未作为议题出现。与“投入”(财政和人力资源)相关的问题消耗了高层的大部分精力,通过内部和外部谈判及妥协来确保获取这些资源。与此同时,可能的“结果”,即公共卫生状况,是机构话语中的“隐性主题”。信息在机构争端中作为医学、流行病学、卫生和行政层面的技术“权力资源”出现。政府“代表性”及相关利益问题基于意识形态倾向和独裁做法,因此与管理透明度和现代化的需求相矛盾。