What if we were a political party?
Directions for public policy in Brazil, with costs, implementation and the possibility of a party organisation under study.
A research agenda for Brazil, not a government programme that has already been approved or funded. Each direction requires design, funding, evaluation and debate. The election and management model explains how to choose, implement and monitor projects.
Directions under study
The references for the starting points describe existing institutions and rules; they do not demonstrate the success of the proposals. Checked on . An assessment of each intervention remains necessary.
Education: learning, thinking and building paths
Ensure literacy, foundations in mathematics, scientific understanding, cultural knowledge and the capacity for judgement. Expand pathways to technical training and further academic study.
Starting point
Education networks, Fundeb (funding for public basic education) and national experience. Technical training should connect with existing structures.
- How it could work
- Educational support for schools, teacher development, assessment that enables intervention, cooperation across areas and learning pathways linked to work.
- What requires care
- Incentives for results can encourage the exclusion of pupils who face greater difficulties. The design needs to reward improvement with equity, without weakening core funding.
Status: A consistent direction; the instruments and their expansion depend on evaluation and funding.
- Full cost
- Staff, training time, facilities, materials, transport and maintenance.
- How to evaluate
- Learning, attendance, completion and inequalities, with follow-up of those who drop out. Later employability matters, but does not capture the full value of education.
Health: effective access and continuity
Improve prevention, primary care, referrals and continuity of care.
Starting point
The Unified Health System (SUS) and regional networks. Information systems should support clinical decisions.
- How it could work
- Managing waiting lists according to clinical need, regional coordination, interoperable information and transparency about capacity and waiting times.
- What requires care
- A uniform deadline may favour easy procedures or encourage waiting lists to be concealed. Priority should reflect risk, severity and the potential for benefit.
Status: A clear priority. A national guarantee with a fixed number of days requires demonstrated capacity and funding.
- Full cost
- Teams, specialist services, patient transport, digital infrastructure, security and maintenance.
- How to evaluate
- Time from recognised need, access actually received, clinical outcomes, continuity and differences between areas.
Care: freedom for those receiving it and those providing it
Expand support for childhood, disability and dependency associated with ageing.
Starting point
The National Care Policy and health, social assistance and education networks.
- How it could work
- A combination of home, community and institutional provision, training and pay for workers, and support for family members.
- What requires care
- Transferring money to the family can expand choice, but may also leave the burden of care unchanged if services are unavailable.
Status: A consistent direction; the design depends on the pattern of demand. Care has value even when it generates no additional tax revenue.
- Full cost
- Staff, supervision, facilities, travel, quality and continuity.
- How to evaluate
- The wellbeing and safety of the person receiving care, the burden on carers, quality and economic participation when desired.
Income protection: making transitions understandable
Prevent taking a job or increasing income from causing disproportionate and unpredictable losses.
Starting point
Current rules and their transitions. Auxílio-Inclusão already connects certain situations involving the Continuous Cash Benefit (BPC) and work; it should be considered in the assessment.
- How it could work
- Gradual withdrawal of support, clear communication and predictable restoration when income falls, while preserving adequate protection for children and people with specific needs.
- What requires care
- A gentler withdrawal can cost more and cover families for longer. It may change incentives in other income bands.
Status: A promising hypothesis; this study has not demonstrated an optimal rate.
- Full cost
- Benefits, administration, registration errors, oversight and service provision.
- How to evaluate
- Disposable income, poverty, employment stability, a secure transition and exclusion errors. The withdrawal rate should be the outcome of simulation and an explicit choice.
Work and portable protection
Reduce losses of protection when changing jobs, becoming self-employed or combining forms of employment.
Starting point
The General Social Security Regime (RGPS), the Length-of-Service Guarantee Fund (FGTS), unemployment insurance and existing contribution schemes.
- How it could work
- Coordination of records, coverage and funding across employment situations, with rules workers can understand.
- What requires care
- Broad coverage and low contributions require defining the solidarity component and who funds it. Individual accounts alone do not insure against risks that exceed accumulated savings.
Status: A field of research. Changing the entire system at once would create substantial transition risks.
- Full cost
- Transition, subsidised contributions, administration and pension liabilities.
- How to evaluate
- Coverage gaps, ease of transition, adequacy of protection and actuarial sustainability.
Entrepreneurship and productivity
Make it easier for productive businesses to start, grow and close responsibly.
Starting point
Consumption tax reform, economic freedom rules and existing innovation instruments.
- How it could work
- Simplifying obligations, licensing in proportion to risk, integration between agencies, competitive access to markets and support for the spread of technology and management practices.
- What requires care
- Benefits tied to business size may hinder growth by creating thresholds. Sectoral subsidies may protect less productive businesses.
Status: Specific simplifications can be evaluated early. Broad tax relief requires a fiscal and distributional assessment.
- Full cost
- Systems, training, forgone tax revenue, guarantees called upon and evaluation.
- How to evaluate
- Time actually spent meeting obligations, productivity, income, additional investment and competition. Counting new CNPJ registrations is insufficient.
Security and justice
Enable people to live, work and run businesses safely, respecting rights and due process.
Starting point
Responsibilities across levels of government and existing institutions. Responsibility for each intervention should be identified.
- How it could work
- Investigation, forensic analysis, problem-oriented prevention, protection for victims and witnesses, police integrity and coordination between agencies.
- What requires care
- Pressure for quick numbers may encourage wrongful arrests, underreporting or abusive use of force.
Status: An original priority of the project that requires dedicated investigation. It should not be reduced to rhetoric about punishment or to a single indicator.
- Full cost
- People, information, training, equipment, justice and effects on the prison system.
- How to evaluate
- Victimisation, crimes solved, reoffending where measurable, trust, abuse and unequal treatment.
Infrastructure, housing and territory
Reduce barriers to mobility, sanitation, energy, connectivity and access to adequate housing.
- How it could work
- Project selection according to need, analysis of alternatives, maintenance, urban coordination and evaluation of effects on households and economic activity.
- What requires care
- Improving infrastructure can raise land values and displace families. A locally useful project may be costly compared with another solution.
Status: Adopt a standard of analysis now; concrete priorities depend on an assessment of local conditions. Inauguration is not the final outcome.
- Full cost
- Design, compulsory acquisition, construction, operation, maintenance, environmental impact and climate adaptation.
- How to evaluate
- Time, reliability, effective coverage, safety, user costs and distributional effects.
Public finances, assets and procurement
Improve the quality of spending, reduce privileges and sustain services and investment.
- How it could work
- Periodic review of spending and tax benefits, comparison of alternatives, professional procurement, publication of contracts and monitoring of assets.
- What requires care
- An accounting saving may reduce quality or shift costs to another agency. Centralised procurement can gain scale while also concentrating suppliers.
Status: Desirable functions; figures for national savings need to be demonstrated. The review itself should be accountable and open to challenge.
- Full cost
- Evaluation, transition, systems, oversight and the risk of shortages.
- How to evaluate
- Net savings actually achieved, quality, competition, delivery and maintenance.
Understandable and interoperable government
Make it easier to access rights, meet obligations and follow decisions.
- How it could work
- Integrated services, clear language, accessible assistance, authorised information exchange and a verifiable record of decisions.
- What requires care
- Integrating data can reduce bureaucracy and increase the risk of misuse. Automation may speed up a process and also make an error harder to correct.
Status: This can begin with clearly defined services. Human assistance must be preserved and opaque decisions about rights avoided.
- Full cost
- Technology, integration, support, security, migration and operational continuity.
- How to evaluate
- Actual resolution, users' time, failures, appeals against decisions and access for those facing digital barriers.
Before making a commitment
Those responsible, capacity and transition need to be part of the design, not left until after the announcement.
Where should we start?
Identify the problem, the people affected, existing institutions and the available alternative. Improving what already works is also an option.
Who is accountable?
Define who decides, funds, implements, verifies and is accountable. Responsibilities need to match the remit of each intervention.
What needs to be ready?
Map the authorisations, people, systems, resources and other deliverables needed. Set-up, operation, maintenance and transition all enter the calculation.
How can change be managed carefully?
State what changes, for whom and when, along with the risks of transition. Define before implementation what would lead to correcting or ending the intervention.
These are preparatory questions. No teams, authorisations or resources have been assigned to real projects in this agenda.
Funding and next steps
A permanent proposal needs to show funding compatible with its permanence.
Expected gains from efficiency, growth or reduced fraud are not guaranteed money to sustain new obligations. The calculation needs to distinguish:
What would already happen under current rules.
What the proposal changes in addition.
Recurring revenue and exceptional revenue.
Set-up costs and operating costs.
Social benefits and actual cash savings.
The government entity that saves and the one that takes on the new expenditure.
A policy can be socially valuable even without paying for itself in the budget. In that case, we need to decide how to fund it and what to prioritise. The national package has not yet been settled.
Understanding public moneyWhich rules would apply to us?
The values demanded of public authorities would also need to constrain any future party organisation.
Accountability, conflicts of interest and the review of decisions are already part of the model's design. Here, the questions translate these values into a possible party organisation, which would require its own rules. These are questions under study, not approved statutes.
Who decides and is accountable?
How would priorities be approved and representatives chosen? The rules would need to explain participation, representation, controls and the possibility of alternation.
How can people disagree?
How can objections be recorded and review allowed? Learning through OpenGov3 would not require party allegiance, and disagreement would not justify belittling anyone.
Who funds it, and with what ties?
How can resources, interests and conflicts between any future party activity, information and evaluation be made clear?
Who checks decisions?
How can the implementer be prevented from being the sole judge of their own performance? Criteria, evidence and the opportunity to challenge would need to be accessible.
Would the rules apply to everyone?
How would the same criteria be applied to allies, funders and founders? A good cause would not authorise privilege, corruption or favouritism.
How can the course be corrected?
How would corrections be published and failed instruments reviewed? A consultation would need a response: what was adopted, what was not, and why.
What remains open
Statutes, rules for choosing representatives, responsibilities, funding the organisation, handling conflicts and channels of appeal still require their own design and decisions. This section does not announce an established party, candidacies, oversight bodies or operating partnerships.