Impacts of the evaluation on accounting records of municipalities by the ranking of the national treasury secretariat of Brazil
Abstract
Objective: The article aims to analyze the impacts on the accounting records of Municipal Governments through the annual disclosure of the Quality Ranking of Accounting Information managed by the National Treasury Secretariat (STN).
Method: The research adopts a quantitative approach, starting from the percentage of correct answers from municipalities between the periods 2019 to 2021, using mean tests for analysis based on previously established hypotheses.
Relevance: The results contribute to the literature that has discussed the effects of the creation of automated control mechanisms, such as indicators and rankings, indicating determinants of organizational factors.
Contributions: The study presents three main implications. First, for the organizers of rankings, it highlights the effects of the indicators created on the practices of ranked organizations. Second, it indicates to regulators that the definition of deadlines has not been the main driver to guide compliance actions, therefore, other elements that are affecting prioritization should be observed. Third, it indicates that the Courts of Audit must pay attention to the impacts caused by the lack of standardization of understandings regarding the STN, as the information used in audits may be divergent.
Results: The results suggest that, in general, municipalities respond to the ranking disclosure by seeking improvement in the metrics used, and those that meet the deadlines for submitting information show greater compliance with the defined indicators. Furthermore, the prioritization of accounting practices is influenced by the computer systems of external control agencies and not necessarily by the deadlines defined in regulations, and the organizational structure of the agencies influences the potential for better achievement of indicators.
Downloads
References
Agostino, D., Saliterer, I., & Steccolini, I. (2022). Digitalization, accounting and accountability: A literature review and reflections on future research in public services. Financial Accountability and Management, 38(2), 152–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12301
Altbach, P. (2015). The Dilemmas of Ranking. International Higher Education, 42, 2–3. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2006.42.7878
Altoé, S. M. de L., Ribeiro, F., & Colauto, R. D. (2015). Tempestividade da informação contábil e prática da suavização de resultados no mercado de capitais brasileiro Timeliness of accounting information and practice of income smooting in the Brazilian capital marketing. Revista Mineira de Contabilidade, 16(3), 17–25.
Aquino, A. C. B. de, Lino, A. F., & Azevedo, R. R. de. (2022). The embeddedness of digital infrastructures for data collection by the Courts of Accounts. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 33(88), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1590/1808-057x202111600
Avelino, B. C., Fully Bressan, V. G., & Alves da Cunha, J. V. (2013). Estudo sobre os fatores contábeis que influenciam o índice firjan de desenvolvimento municipal (ifdm) nas capitais brasileiras. Revista de Educação e Pesquisa Em Contabilidade (REPeC), 7(3), 2520–2533. https://doi.org/10.17524/repec.v7i3.993
Azevedo, R. R. de, Aquino, A. C. B. de, Neves, F. R., & da Silva, C. M. (2020). Deadlines and software: disentangling local government accounting reforms in Brazil. Public Money & Management, 40(7), 509–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1766203
Azevedo, R. R. de, Lino, A. F., & Diniz, J. A. (2019). Efeitos da rotatividade de pessoal sobre práticas das equipes de contabilidade em municípios. Revista de Contabilidade e Organizações, 13, e144691. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-6486.rco.2019.144691
Barcellos, L. P., Costa Júnior, J. V. da, & Laurence, L. D. C. (2014). Determinantes Do Prazo De Divulgação Das Demonstrações Contábeis Das Companhias Não Financeiras Listadas Na Bovespa. Revista de Contabilidade e Organizações, 8(20), 84. https://doi.org/10.11606/rco.v8i20.69265
Brankovic, J. (2021). Why Rankings Appear Natural (But Aren’t). Business & Society, 201, 000765032110156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211015638
Broome, A., & Quirk, J. (2015). Governing the world at a distance: The practice of global benchmarking. Review of International Studies, 41(5), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210515000340
Castro, S. H. R. de, & Carvalho, M. G. de. (2017). Indicador de efetividade da gestão municipal: Contribuição dos tribunais de contas para a melhoria da gestão pública. CICIC 2017 - Septima Conferencia Iberoamericana de Complejidad, Informatica y Cibernetica, Memorias, 40–44.
CFC, C. F. de C. (1993). Resolução CFC 750/93. 315–334.
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/517897
Esposito, E., & Stark, D. (2019). What’s Observed in a Rating? Rankings as Orientation in the Face of Uncertainty. Theory, Culture and Society, 36(4), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276419826276
Fukuda-parr, S. (2022). When indicators fail : SPAR , the invisible measure of pandemic preparedness. 00(00). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac024
Giffinger, R., Haindlmaier, G., & Kramar, H. (2010). The role of rankings in growing city competition. Urban Research and Practice, 3(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2010.524420
Haug, N., Geyrhofer, L., Londei, A., Dervic, E., Desvars-Larrive, A., Loreto, V., Pinior, B., Thurner, S., & Klimek, P. (2020). Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(12), 1303–1312. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-01009-0
Huang, M. H. (2012). Opening the black box of QS world university rankings. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvr003
Humphrey, C., & Gendron, Y. (2015). What is going on? The sustainability of accounting academia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.09.008
Kirch, G., de Lima, J. B. N., & Terra, P. R. S. (2012). Determinantes da Defasagem na Divulgação das Demonstrações Contábeis das Companhias Abertas Brasileiras. Revista de Contabilidade Financeira - USP, 23(60), 173–186.
Klering, L. R., Kruel, A. J., & Stranz, E. (2012). Os pequenos municípios do Brasil – uma análise a partir de índices de gestão. Análise, 23(1), 31–44.
Lima, D. V., Neves, R. P., Reis, C. C. L., & Fialho, G. F. (2022). Uma análise sobre o desempenho dos municípios brasileiros no ranking da qualidade da informação contábil e fiscal. Universidade Federal de Brasília.
Lino, A. F., Carvalho, L. B. de, Aquino, A. C. B. de, & Azevedo, R. R. de. (2019). A falta de trabalho institucional e mudanças organizacionais incompletas em municípios brasileiros. Revista de Administração Pública, 53(2), 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220170404
Luca, M., & Smith, J. (2015). Strategic disclosure: The case of business school rankings. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 112, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.12.023
Passos, G. O., & Amorim, A. de C. (2018). A Construção do Índice de Efetividade da Gestão Municipal (Iegm). Revista FSA, 15(6), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.12819/2018.15.6.14
Pollock, N., D’Adderio, L., Williams, R., & Leforestier, L. (2018). Conforming or transforming? How organizations respond to multiple rankings. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 64(December 2016), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2017.11.003
Power, M., Scheytt, T., Soin, K., & Sahlin, K. (2009). Reputational risk as a logic of organizing in late modernity. Organization Studies, 30(2–3), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608101482
Ringel, L., Espeland, W., Sauder, M., & Werron, T. (2021). Worlds of Rankings. April, 1–30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350710063_Worlds_of_Rankings
Rocha, D. G. da, & Zuccolotto, R. (2017). A Modernização dos Tribunais de Contas do Brasil: Avaliação da implantação do PROMOEX nos Tribunais de Contas subnacionais. Enfoque: Reflexão Contábil, 36(3), 70. https://doi.org/10.4025/enfoque.v36i3.32160
Sacramento, A. A. do, Luft, M. C. M. S., Silva, M. R. dos S. da, & Matos Júnior, J. E. (2021). Terceirização de tecnologia da informação e gestão de contratos no setor público: um estudo na SEFAZ/SE. Revista de Gestão e Secretariado, 12(2), 273–300. https://doi.org/10.7769/gesec.v12i2.1157
Salgado, N. de N. B., & Souza, P. V. S. de. (2021). O Efeito Da Tempestividade Contábil No Gerenciamento De Resultados De Empresas Brasileiras Listadas Na B3. Advances in Scientific and Applied Accounting, 13(2), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.14392/asaa.2021140102
Sauder, M., & Lancaster, R. (2006). Do rankings matter? The effects of U.S. news & world report rankings on the admissions process of law schools. Law and Society Review, 40(1), 105–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00261.x
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2015). Audit culture revisited: Rankings, ratings, and the reassembling of society. Current Anthropology, 56(3), 421–444. https://doi.org/10.1086/681534
Silva, L. L., Silveira, S. F. R., Costa, T. M. T., Faroni, W., & Ferreira, M. A. M. (2013). A influência do desempenho tributário e gestão fiscal no Índice Firjan de Desenvolvimento (IFDM) dos municípios de Minas Gerais. Revista de Ciências Humanas, 9(1), 199–219. https://periodicos.ufv.br/RCH/article/view/3920
STN. (2022). Ranking da Qualidade da Informação Contábil e Fiscal no SICONFI. https://ranking-municipios.tesouro.gov.br/
Turner, D. (2008). World University rankings. In International Perspectives on Education and Society (Vol. 9, pp. 27–61). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3679(08)00002-9
Valmorbida, S. M. I., Rolim Ensslin, S. P., Ensslin, L., & Ripoll-Feliu, V. M. (2016). Rankings universitários mundiais. Que dizem os estudos internacionais? REICE. Revista Iberoamericana Sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio En Educación, 14.2(2016). https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2016.14.2.001
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY AND COPYRIGHTS
I Declare that current article is original and has not been submitted for publication, in part or in whole, to any other national or international journal.
The copyrights belong exclusively to the authors. Published content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0) guidelines, which allows sharing (copy and distribution of the material in any medium or format) and adaptation (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the terms of attribution.
Read this link for further information on how to use CC BY 3.0 properly.
