Os impactos da criação das coordenações regionais de negociação na Procuradoria Geral da União

Resumo

Purpose: this study aims to analyze the impacts of establishing “Coordenações Regionais de Negociação”, focusing on both the economic savings generated and the reduction of ongoing legal cases. The objective is to understand how the selection of cases influences the outcomes, measuring not only the overall results but particularly the specific outputs delivered by each “Coordenações Regionais de Negociação”. Methodology: the research was divided into two parts, with the first being quantitative, in which we employed tools of descriptive statistics to analyze the outcomes in terms of economic savings, reduction of legal cases, and agreements reached. We utilized existing statistical documents from the AGU's Jurimetrics, as well as requested specific data extractions from various agencies, both within the AGU and external bodies, such as the “Secretaria do Orçamento Federal” and the “Conselho da Justiça Federal”. We also relied on statistical tests based on Benford's Law to determine whether the results were due to probability or human intent. With the statistical data in hand, we commenced the second part of the study, which was conducted through semi-structured interviews of an exploratory nature, aiming to understand the rationale behind the decision-making process of Union attorneys when selecting judicial cases to initiate negotiations and offer agreements. The method used for interpretation was Content Analysis. Delimitations: the focus of this research is to understand whether the efforts made within the CRN's yield better outcomes by generating savings or concluding legal proceedings. We have delimited the results within the timeframe from 2017 to 2023. We analyzed the outcomes of all the “Procuradorias Regionais da União” before and after the establishment of the CRN's. Our data source universe was limited to existing statistical documents and extractions from public databases. We did not examine the content of the legal matters involved in the agreements. Our analysis was confined to the economic and quantitative aspects of the selected processes. To comprehend the decision-making process, we relied on interviews, predominantly with attorneys who had held leadership positions in recent years, although they may no longer hold these positions, or who had decision-making authority regarding the selection of processes. Research limitations: studies on the execution of agreements by the Union are still in their nascent stages, hence, there is a lack of extensive specific literature, especially concerning the outcomes produced. The economic profile of legal cases processed in each of the different Federal Justice Regions was also excluded from this research to make the study feasible. It is possible that the unique characteristics of each Federal Justice Region may also influence the outcomes of each CRN, warranting further investigation and future research. Findings: the overall outcomes, particularly in terms of direct savings, are substantial, with significant increases following the establishment of the CRNs, indicating that this institutional initiative has borne fruit in this indicator. Regarding the reduction in the number of cases, the results are positive, though less prominent. The outcomes delivered by the five studied CRNs are quite varied. A significant portion of the overall results stems from the activities of the CRN in the 1st Region. In terms of the average profile of agreements per case, the CRNs of the 1st and 5th Regions exhibit higher monetary values. The CRNs of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Regions show lower average values of agreements, largely due to their involvement in mass demands and cases guided by National Negotiation Plans as operational directives. Despite the significant overall results in terms of savings generated, it is evident that there is room for improvement in each CRN, particularly those of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Regions, given that the average profile of agreements per case in these CRNs falls below the threshold of jurisdiction and 30 minimum wages, established by the PGU as a range where agreements should not be made. Moreover, it was recorded that, after the creation of the CRNs, 57.10% of the proposed agreements did not exceed R$ 10,000.00, and the savings generated in this value range accounted for only 0.33% of the total, revealing a space for institutional improvements and more robust outcomes than those already presented. Practical implications: the record on administrative structures; on the outcomes presented; on the differential contributions of each CRN in composing the whole; as well as the rationale behind the decision-making process captured through interviews. Furthermore, it is recorded that the data from this research has already been utilized at the VII ENACON, a national meeting of all AGU bodies dealing with debt agreements in judicial processes. This is particularly relevant since, as noted in this study, there is an intent among current agents to enhance the economic profile of the cases they handle, aiming to achieve better institutional results. Data on the average profile of the agreements were presented, in order to numerically demonstrate how work distribution occurs across each regional division by value range. Moreover, at the conclusion of this work, we suggest a Nudge that may be useful for future decision-making. Social implications: this study contributes to the body of research on how the Union, through the AGU, conducts its agreements in judicial processes, an area that remains underexplored. Furthermore, we aim to theoretically establish a link between Economic Analysis of Law and Public Administration, as this field is promising in providing objective work tools that can boost an organization's outcomes. Based on these algebraic tools, we suggest that the selection of cases should not only be based on the Union's defeat in certain legal issues but also on the potential agreement zone, whose inequalities presented in the research can assist in future decision-making. Finally, the data from this study reveal that the agreements in judicial processes as practiced by the Union today have a fiscal function that predominates over the function of containing litigation. The economic impacts of the agreements have proven to be an important tool, also to be used as a mechanism for controlling the growing court payment order, thereby assisting in achieving the desired fiscal balance. Originality: during the course of our research, we were not aware of other academic studies that investigated the outcomes produced by the CRNs and the decision-making processes utilized, although there is a growing interest in the topic, particularly concerning the Union's consensual practices and some research already conducted in the field.

Ficha do documento

Tipo

Dissertação

Ano

2024

Instituição

Fundação Getulio Vargas

Fonte

Repositório da FGV

Idioma

Português

Acesso

Acesso aberto

Identificador

oai:repositorio.fgv.br:10438/35755

Temas

Finanças PúblicasDesenvolvimento RegionalAdministração Pública

Palavras-chave

Administração PúblicaAdministração da JustiçaAcordos em processos judiciais envolvendo débitos da UniãoResultadosRacionalidade e tomada de decisõesPublic administrationAdministration of justiceAgreements in judicial processes involving Union debtsOutcomesRationality and decision-makingProcesso decisórioAção judicialOrganização judiciária