Portaria nº , 02/12/ - IAP (PDF kb) - Portuguese Portaria nº 9, 20/03/ - IBAMA (PDF 11kb) - Portuguese Portaria nº , 20/12/ - MMA (JPG. A PNM, aprovada pela Portaria /98, tem como propósito garantir a .. de Medicamentos Essenciais ¾ Rename ¾, aprovada pela Portaria N.º , de Everything you need to know about every hillclimb race in Europe can be found on


Author: Sydney Walsh
Country: Netherlands
Language: English
Genre: Education
Published: 10 February 2017
Pages: 416
PDF File Size: 31.85 Mb
ePub File Size: 42.14 Mb
ISBN: 564-1-35467-145-9
Downloads: 86626
Price: Free
Uploader: Sydney Walsh

Download Now

In this regard, I intend to explore to what extent the current mechanisms of controlover government-NPO partnerships constitute appropriate instruments for theimplementation of federal programs in Brazil.

In other words, the purpose of thispaper is to analyze whether the legal regime applied to government-NPOcollaborative agreements contributes to - or undermines - the achievement of publicpolicy goals and, more importantly, how and why this happens.

In this paper, I argue that government-NPO collaborative agreements are inadequateinstruments for the implementation of federal programs by the government inconjunction with nonprofit organizations. This happens because collaborativeagreements rely on a legal regime which provides poor guidance for administrators toanalyze and approve proposals filed by nonprofit institutions with the aim ofimplementing federal programs.

In this regard, legislation regarding collaborativeagreements confers too much discretion on administrations for monitoring NPOsactivities on substantive grounds. Conversely, portaria 507 is excessively intrusive inimposing procedural obligations for the spending of public funds transferred by thegovernment to NPOs.

In other words, rather than controlling NPOs by the activitiesthey realize, portaria 507 agencies monitor their nonprofit partners by the way theymanage public funds, an approach which has proved not to foster effective policyimplementation.

Hotel apartments in Portaria and Villas – Holiday Lettings - Holiday Rentals Portaria

With these objectives in mind, in part Portaria 507 of this paper I will identify the purposes impliedor declared by the enactors of collaborative agreement laws. In part II, I will describethe legal regime of collaborative agreements in its core aspects.

In part III, I willpresent a critical perspective of the issue, pointing out some of the loopholes anddrawbacks of this legal regime which I identified through the conduction of qualitativeresearch.

Finally, cooperation and coordination between government and NPOs in portaria 507 andimplementation of social policy programs take the form of certain types of collaborative agreements.

Since I ammainly concerned with the functionality of the government-NPO partnership legal forms, the second frameworkis more suitable for the objectives of this paper.

VI - 2 collaborative agreements aimed to solve when it was passed.

Such a description isimportant in order to assess the internal consistency between the instruments andgoals of public procurement laws involving nonprofit institutions. This paper will deal with two legal regimes that apply to portaria 507 agreementsbetween federal agencies and NPOs.

Decentralization was the portaria 507 platformused in a broader reform movement that took place in in Brazil with the purposeof reorganizing the entire bureaucracy.

It should be noted that this type of delegation was originally designed only to affectgovernment entities: This information is important because the legal regime applied to public delegationsof government authority was later on extended — with no major adaptations — toprivate delegations of administrative actions.

As it will be discussed later, this lack portaria 507 produces nonefficient results, since it forces portaria 507 institutions todeviate their time and energy from the accomplishment of their mission to thecompliance of excessively burdensome procedural rules. As it will be discussed later, the regulation of collaborative agreements is stringentwhen it obligates the nonprofit private partner to follow burdensome procedures to manage the public resourcestransferred by the government.

Sales of detached in Portaria (Magnesia) -

S local governments pay another entity for-profit, nonprofit or public to perform aspecific service or provide a specific good.

The rationale portaria 507 this contractual practicerelies on the presumption that the government should only spend its time andresources in the execution of its core functions - namely planning, coordination,oversight, portaria 507 and regulation activities.


Unlikecollaborative agreements, however, in which the government is only allowed toestablish partnerships with nonprofit institutions besides portaria 507 actors 8, nonprofitinstitutions will have to compete on equal terms against for-profit institutions if theywant to portaria 507 in ordinary government contracting.

Implications of this ordinary type of government contract will not be discussed in thispaper. However, a brief explanation should be made regarding some core differencesbetween ordinary government contracts and the collaborative agreements thatconstitute the object of this paper.

One of the remarkable differences betweencollaborative agreements and regular government contracts is the method by whichthe government may choose partners in the former and contractors in the latter.

While the federal government has more flexibility to choose its partners incollaborative agreements, it is much more constrained to select its contractors ingovernment contracts.


As a mandatory requirement to formalize the latter, thegovernment is constrained to portaria 507 contractors through bid processes whose stagesand procedures are prescribed in minute details in portaria 507.

Another striking difference is the way private contractors are entitled to manage fundsreceived by the government. In ordinary portaria 507 contracts, the government payscontractors in return to the acquisition of goods and services.

In this contractualrelationship, the government retains control over the manner and method in whichthe work is performed, but does not trace the use of the money paid as compensationto private contractors.

Therefore, any money received by private contractors in returnto the services and goods they provide is considered their personal property andcannot be controlled by the government. Lessons for Nonprofit Managers.


Other Posts: