THE FACES OF POWER MATERIALIZED IN BUDGET PLANNING FROM AN IFES
Name: DOUGLAS RORIZ CALIMAN
Publication date: 04/09/2023
Examining board:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| ROBSON ZUCCOLOTTO | Advisor |
Summary: The objective of the study is to explain how the faces of power manifest themselves in the budgetary process of an IFES
and how they materialize power in practice. The thesis of the study establishes that the budget is not only an instrument
of economic rationality, but also of power, as institutions, through their interventions and social relations, create a fertile
field for power relations that cross instrumental and fiscal boundaries, as they trigger new policies and new plans. The
study started from the synthesis on Organizational Power carried out by Fleming & Spicer (2014), moving on to the
authors highlighted by them in each facet of power. The methodology used for the case study is qualitative and descriptive.
The data was collected through documentary research, based on videos of University Council meetings, the Minutes of
these meetings, Management Reports, Accountability Reports, Explanatory Notes and Ordinances. Non-participant
observation was also used. The resulting data was processed and analyzed using Saldaña's Content Analysis technique
(2009), with the help of the MAXQDA qualitative analysis software. The data reveal that the face of coercion materializes
the exercise of power budget process through authority and pressure to force budget decisions. The face of manipulation
materializes the exercise of power budget process through a biased influence to favor interests over others. The face of
domination materializes the exercise of power budget process through authoritarianism incorporated in significant control
over decision-making, restricting the participation and influence of others. The face of subjectivation materializes the
exercise of power budget process through knowledge and constructions of discourses and ideologies, as well as
surveillance that shape the way institutional actors perceive and accept budget decisions. As final considerations, firstly,
the materialization of the exercise of power through coercion is more prevalent in the existence of a significant inequality
of power between the actors and institutional groups involved in the budget process; secondly, that the materialization of
the exercise of power through manipulation is associated with some type of political influence; thirdly, that the
materialization of the exercise of power through domination occurs through the inaction of actors and institutional groups
that are in a dominated position; and finally, that the materialization of the exercise of power through subjectivation occurs
through emotion and strategic use of social and institutional identities. Therefore, the budget functions as an instrument
of political rationality, acting as a rearranger of interests.
