Performance and accountability:

Making government work

Governments have always been keen to achieve results, but calls to improve public sector performance in OECD countries have become particularly loud and insistent over the last couple of decades.

Reasons include increasing claims on public expenditure, particularly pensions, healthcare and education, expectations of higher quality public services in line with rising living standards and, in many cases, reluctance on the part of citizens to pay ever higher taxes. Government also has to be more competitive in the face of other potential suppliers in areas like transport, communications and energy. It must show it can do the job it sets out to do.

That is why governments across the OECD have responded by setting goals and shifting the emphasis of government management and budgeting away from how much money to spend towards what is actually being achieved. New Zealand was among the first to adopt this results-oriented budgeting and management approach in the late 1980s, and was followed in the 1990s by Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the US. Later, Austria, Germany and Switzerland launched similar moves, and Turkey has recently begun a pilot phase of this process.

At the same time, these developments have pushed governments to modernise their accountability and control procedures. In particular, over the last 15 years or so, OECD governments have been engaged in reviewing and reforming the ways in which they keep control over large and complex operations in public services and how those responsible are held to account. Technological innovation and changes in the size and structure of government, in part reflecting privatisation and decentralisation, are also playing an important role in fostering these developments.

But these initiatives have by no means run their course, and their widespread implementation gives rise to some fundamental questions. What is meant by performance in the public service context, and how can it best be measured? Should a service be judged by, say, its accessibility or its financial cost, and who should do the judging? How can moves to increase the managerial responsibilities and decision-making powers of public servants be reconciled with democratic control and effective auditing procedures?

It is clearly not enough to argue that a reform works because it is based on sound research, or on an accepted procedure, or indeed that the government spent billions on its implementation. The main challenge is how to make reforms achieve their goal. This is the basic idea underlying performance-oriented budgeting and management: to shift the emphasis away from controlling inputs and towards achieving results. However, OECD countries are at different stages in this process and approaches to implementation vary.

Note: The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is celebrating its 50th anniversary, but its roots go back to the rubble of Europe after World War II. Determined to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors in the wake of World War I, European leaders realised that the best way to ensure lasting peace was to encourage co-operation and reconstruction, rather than punish the defeated.

(adapted from http://www.oecd.org)

The title implies that the aim of this text is to make public administration

Performance and accountability:

Making government work

Governments have always been keen to achieve results, but calls to improve public sector performance in OECD countries have become particularly loud and insistent over the last couple of decades.

Reasons include increasing claims on public expenditure, particularly pensions, healthcare and education, expectations of higher quality public services in line with rising living standards and, in many cases, reluctance on the part of citizens to pay ever higher taxes. Government also has to be more competitive in the face of other potential suppliers in areas like transport, communications and energy. It must show it can do the job it sets out to do.

That is why governments across the OECD have responded by setting goals and shifting the emphasis of government management and budgeting away from how much money to spend towards what is actually being achieved. New Zealand was among the first to adopt this results-oriented budgeting and management approach in the late 1980s, and was followed in the 1990s by Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the US. Later, Austria, Germany and Switzerland launched similar moves, and Turkey has recently begun a pilot phase of this process.

At the same time, these developments have pushed governments to modernise their accountability and control procedures. In particular, over the last 15 years or so, OECD governments have been engaged in reviewing and reforming the ways in which they keep control over large and complex operations in public services and how those responsible are held to account. Technological innovation and changes in the size and structure of government, in part reflecting privatisation and decentralisation, are also playing an important role in fostering these developments.

But these initiatives have by no means run their course, and their widespread implementation gives rise to some fundamental questions. What is meant by performance in the public service context, and how can it best be measured? Should a service be judged by, say, its accessibility or its financial cost, and who should do the judging? How can moves to increase the managerial responsibilities and decision-making powers of public servants be reconciled with democratic control and effective auditing procedures?

It is clearly not enough to argue that a reform works because it is based on sound research, or on an accepted procedure, or indeed that the government spent billions on its implementation. The main challenge is how to make reforms achieve their goal. This is the basic idea underlying performance-oriented budgeting and management: to shift the emphasis away from controlling inputs and towards achieving results. However, OECD countries are at different stages in this process and approaches to implementation vary.

Note: The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is celebrating its 50th anniversary, but its roots go back to the rubble of Europe after World War II. Determined to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors in the wake of World War I, European leaders realised that the best way to ensure lasting peace was to encourage co-operation and reconstruction, rather than punish the defeated.

(adapted from http://www.oecd.org)

The recommendation of this text is that governments should shift their focus from

Performance and accountability:

Making government work

Governments have always been keen to achieve results, but calls to improve public sector performance in OECD countries have become particularly loud and insistent over the last couple of decades.

Reasons include increasing claims on public expenditure, particularly pensions, healthcare and education, expectations of higher quality public services in line with rising living standards and, in many cases, reluctance on the part of citizens to pay ever higher taxes. Government also has to be more competitive in the face of other potential suppliers in areas like transport, communications and energy. It must show it can do the job it sets out to do.

That is why governments across the OECD have responded by setting goals and shifting the emphasis of government management and budgeting away from how much money to spend towards what is actually being achieved. New Zealand was among the first to adopt this results-oriented budgeting and management approach in the late 1980s, and was followed in the 1990s by Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the US. Later, Austria, Germany and Switzerland launched similar moves, and Turkey has recently begun a pilot phase of this process.

At the same time, these developments have pushed governments to modernise their accountability and control procedures. In particular, over the last 15 years or so, OECD governments have been engaged in reviewing and reforming the ways in which they keep control over large and complex operations in public services and how those responsible are held to account. Technological innovation and changes in the size and structure of government, in part reflecting privatisation and decentralisation, are also playing an important role in fostering these developments.

But these initiatives have by no means run their course, and their widespread implementation gives rise to some fundamental questions. What is meant by performance in the public service context, and how can it best be measured? Should a service be judged by, say, its accessibility or its financial cost, and who should do the judging? How can moves to increase the managerial responsibilities and decision-making powers of public servants be reconciled with democratic control and effective auditing procedures?

It is clearly not enough to argue that a reform works because it is based on sound research, or on an accepted procedure, or indeed that the government spent billions on its implementation. The main challenge is how to make reforms achieve their goal. This is the basic idea underlying performance-oriented budgeting and management: to shift the emphasis away from controlling inputs and towards achieving results. However, OECD countries are at different stages in this process and approaches to implementation vary.

Note: The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is celebrating its 50th anniversary, but its roots go back to the rubble of Europe after World War II. Determined to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors in the wake of World War I, European leaders realised that the best way to ensure lasting peace was to encourage co-operation and reconstruction, rather than punish the defeated.

(adapted from http://www.oecd.org)

However in “However, OECD countries are at different stages” has the same meaning as

ESCREVA BEM, É SIMPLES

Não é preciso ser professor de língua portuguesa para conhecê-la. Os gramáticos não são os únicos capazes de produzir textos coerentes, concisos e adequados. Não, a língua portuguesa não é a mais difícil de ser entendida. Não, português não é difícil de aprender. Acredite, você é capaz de produzir textos concisos, caprichados e perfeitamente entendíveis às pessoas que você deseja que tenham acesso a eles.

Para começar, defina seu assunto, ou seja, sobre o que você pretende falar ou discursar. Entenda que não é o título (ao concluir seu texto, não se esqueça dele), mas o assunto a ser desenvolvido, aquele que será seu objeto de análise, tal como uma matéria-prima que precisa ser moldada para ter os formatos de acordo com o estilo de cada um

Uma das dicas para isso é inserir em seu cotidiano a leitura em suas formas verbais e não verbais, tendo um olhar atencioso a todas as formas de textos que o rodeiam, tais como propaganda, folder, charge, placa de trânsito, anúncio de emprego, discurso de algum político, enfim, atente-se a tudo o que é capaz de transmitir uma mensagem. Aproveite para se questionar sobre como esses exemplos conseguem fazer com que uma mensagem seja entendida por um determinado grupo de pessoas.

Bom, escolhido o assunto, defina, indispensavelmente, seu público-alvo, pois ninguém escreve bem se não souber para quem vai escrever. Essa dica vale até mesmo se você desejar que seu texto seja lido por um grande número de pessoas. Nesse caso, utilize-se de uma linguagem simples e formal, ou seja, não utilize palavras que parecem existir apenas em dicionários e, muito menos, não utilize expressões grosseiras e gírias.

Observadas essas dicas, você pode, enfim, começar seu rascunho. Isso mesmo! Rascunho, pois um bom texto, na maioria das vezes, é o resultado de uma releitura realizada pelo próprio autor. Isso acontece porque, ao reler o que escrevemos, vamos identificando outras formas de passar a mesma informação. Nesse processo, aumentamos nossa garantia de que a mensagem será entendida pelos nossos receptores.

Além dessas regras que podem ser lembradas mais facilmente, vale uma dica muito importante: peça que outra pessoa leia seu texto, pois nada como um olhar diferente para apontar algumas falhas que, mesmo após nossa releitura, não conseguimos identificar.

(Adaptado de Erika de Souza Bueno, O Globo, 17-03-2012)

Em “Entenda que não é o título (ao concluir seu texto, não se esqueça dele), mas o assunto a ser desenvolvido...”, a observação colocada entre parênteses nos faz ver que, na concepção da autora, o título de um texto

Performance and accountability:

Making government work

Governments have always been keen to achieve results, but calls to improve public sector performance in OECD countries have become particularly loud and insistent over the last couple of decades.

Reasons include increasing claims on public expenditure, particularly pensions, healthcare and education, expectations of higher quality public services in line with rising living standards and, in many cases, reluctance on the part of citizens to pay ever higher taxes. Government also has to be more competitive in the face of other potential suppliers in areas like transport, communications and energy. It must show it can do the job it sets out to do.

That is why governments across the OECD have responded by setting goals and shifting the emphasis of government management and budgeting away from how much money to spend towards what is actually being achieved. New Zealand was among the first to adopt this results-oriented budgeting and management approach in the late 1980s, and was followed in the 1990s by Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and the US. Later, Austria, Germany and Switzerland launched similar moves, and Turkey has recently begun a pilot phase of this process.

At the same time, these developments have pushed governments to modernise their accountability and control procedures. In particular, over the last 15 years or so, OECD governments have been engaged in reviewing and reforming the ways in which they keep control over large and complex operations in public services and how those responsible are held to account. Technological innovation and changes in the size and structure of government, in part reflecting privatisation and decentralisation, are also playing an important role in fostering these developments.

But these initiatives have by no means run their course, and their widespread implementation gives rise to some fundamental questions. What is meant by performance in the public service context, and how can it best be measured? Should a service be judged by, say, its accessibility or its financial cost, and who should do the judging? How can moves to increase the managerial responsibilities and decision-making powers of public servants be reconciled with democratic control and effective auditing procedures?

It is clearly not enough to argue that a reform works because it is based on sound research, or on an accepted procedure, or indeed that the government spent billions on its implementation. The main challenge is how to make reforms achieve their goal. This is the basic idea underlying performance-oriented budgeting and management: to shift the emphasis away from controlling inputs and towards achieving results. However, OECD countries are at different stages in this process and approaches to implementation vary.

Note: The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is celebrating its 50th anniversary, but its roots go back to the rubble of Europe after World War II. Determined to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors in the wake of World War I, European leaders realised that the best way to ensure lasting peace was to encourage co-operation and reconstruction, rather than punish the defeated.

(adapted from http://www.oecd.org)

When the text informs that governments have been focusing on “their accountability”, this means they have had to

Assinale a alternativa que apresenta instruções corretas em sintaxe válida JSP para inicializar e imprimir o valor da variável num.

Suponha que seja dada a relação R = (A, B, C, D, E) com as seguintes dependências funcionais

{CE !$ \rightarrow !$ D, D !$ \rightarrow !$ B, C !$ \rightarrow !$ A}

A respeito de R pode-se afirmar que

I. R está na primeira forma normal.

II. R está na segunda forma normal.

III. a única chave candidata é {C, E}.

Assinale:

Com relação ao tema data warehouse, analise as afirmativas a seguir.

I. É um grande repositório de dados operacionais com tamanhos significativos e tem como objetivo apoiar a tomada de decisões por meio de consultas ad hoc de elevada complexidade por parte de usuários finais.

II. A modelagem dimensional de dados não é muito diferente da abordagem de normalização seguida pelos bancos de dados transacionais. Os principais paradigmas de modelagem são o esquema star e snowflake. Ambos utilizam tabelas centrais de fatos que são constituídas por atributos de dimensões e de medidas.

III. É orientado aos processos de negócio, mantém grandes volumes de dados não normalizados, sofre atualizações em batch e é principalmente utilizado por parte de gestores e analistas de negócio.

Assinale:

O DBA é a principal autoridade responsável pela gerência de um sistema gerenciador de banco de dados. Ele é capaz de criar contas, conceder ou revogar privilégios e designar os níveis de segurança das contas dos usuários.

Suponha que o DBA precise conceder acesso para atualização do atributo PARTIDO na tabela SENADOR para a conta PEV01.

O comando utilizado será:

Observe a tabela e a consulta SQL a seguir

SELECT SUM(CASE WHEN tipo='P' THEN valor END) AS prototipo,

SUM(CASE WHEN tipo='D' THEN valor END) AS desenvolvimento,

SUM(CASE WHEN tipo='S' THEN valor END) AS suporte

FROM despesas;

Os valores retornados para prototipo, desenvolvimento e suporte serão, respectivamente: