De forma a contornar as restrições que enfrenta na concessão do Seguro Defeso, o INSS adotou uma política de gestão colaborativa, por meio de parcerias com as entidades representativas dos pescadores artesanais. Este artigo verifica a hipótese de que a política adotada pode ser capaz de promover ganhos de desempenho sob as dimensões de efetividade e equidade, na perspectiva do próprio pescador, na região do litoral sul da Bahia. É empregado o método de diferenças em diferenças, comparando indicadores entre os pescadores atendidos de forma convencional e aqueles objetos da intervenção, durante os períodos de defeso do camarão no Nordeste em 2015 e 2016. Os resultados são complementados com informações levantadas em entrevistas com gestores do INSS e representantes dos pescadores. Não apenas são verificados ganhos significativos de desempenho, mas também são apontadas restrições de natureza qualitativa.Palavras-chave: avaliação de desempenho; seguro defeso; gestão colaborativa. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ON INSS COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE ON SEGURO DEFESOThe Brazilian National Social Security Agency (INSS), Brazil's main social allowance provider, recently adopted a new design for collaborative management policy initiatives on service delivery processes. This paper intends to assess its performance in the case of "Seguro Defeso", a benefit paid to artisanal fishermen during the closed fishing seasons, in the southern coast of Bahia. The evaluation is carried out in two dimensions of performance: effectiveness and equity, strictly from the perspective of the artisanal fisherman targeted by the Seguro Defeso program. The differencesin-differences method is used, comparing conventionally treated fishermen with those subject to the intervention in 2015 and in 2016. Results are complemented by interviews with agency managers and fishermen's representatives. The conclusion shows significant performance gains; however, qualitative restrictions are also reported.

No abstract

Bureaucratic selectivity mechanisms are the true colours of welfare states, stigmatising benefit recipients while hampering their trust in institutions and society at large. Universal policies such as the Universal Basic Income (UBI) could protect recipients’ trust by circumventing selectivity paraphernalia. By analysing regressions on the Finnish UBI experiment’s survey data, we assess the links from policy selectivity to trust in the benefit-providing institution and generalised trust through the pathway of reduced bureaucratic experience. More specifically, we analyse whether receipt of UBI leads to greater trust directly or while accompanied by an actual or perceived reduction in bureaucracy. According to our results, UBI is accompanied by greater trust, while selectivity does not necessarily lead to less trust or perception of less bureaucracy. However, in our analysis, policy selectivity did not directly correlate to recipients’ reported bureaucratic experiences, and their relationship with trust proved tricky: selectivity did not risk recipients’ trust in the policy-implementing institution, but generalised trust in other people was lowered. Thus, selective benefit recipients might be prone to self-inflicted stigma, hampering their trust in other people, regardless of actual bureaucratic experiences or trust in the welfare system.

Drawing on existing European research findings, we assess factors driving Brazilian social security street-level officials' deservingness perceptions through survey and administrative data. Ordered regression analyses gauge the effects of socioeconomic status, social work academic background and face-to-face contact with the public on these officials' perceptions towards social assistance beneficiaries under seven deservingness criteria. A middle-class socioeconomic status increased the odds that beneficiaries are seen as undeserving under the criteria of social investment, control and reciprocity, while a high socioeconomic status is linked to benevolent perceptions of their need. A social work academic background is strongly linked to higher overall deservingness perceptions, whereas frequent face-to-face contact with the public can reduce them under the control deservingness criterion. The research takes a new step in the direction of deservingness survey studies, suggesting the formulation of new analytical frameworks and increasing policymakers' awareness of the importance of variables driving bureaucracy decisions.