The administrative traditions in most Latin American countries are more prone to bureaucratic practices concerned in the documentary record of

normative procedures ("compliance") rather than the concrete outputs (or outcomes) of public hospitals as a result of appropriate public health policies.

This situation is mainly understood as one of the consequences of the Iberian colonization heritage, that set up the transmission of customs

of extensive bodies of elaborated written uniform laws and rules for governments in this world region (*).

In my opinion, these administrative practices are somewhat reluctant to introduce M&E (monitoring and evaluation) technics based on academic research work and quantitative-qualitative data collection.

At least for the argentine case, this situation can be verified from the observation of the quotidian work of the External Audit Institutions

-or SAI's- at a federal government level, as well as at subnational levels of government (Courts of Accounts, General Audits, etc.).

In contrast, countries whose public sectors are subject to "performance auditing" or "program evaluations" by their respectives SAI's -such as the Anglo-American administrative traditions or most OECD countries- have not only implemented "compliance audit" methods that verify legal compliance or financial statements, but also applies evaluation methods -supported by INTOSAI guidelines- that audit outcomes of public health policies (**).

(*) Painter, M. and Peters, G. "Tradition and Public Administration", Painter and Peters (Eds.) 2010. Palgrave MacMillan UK.

(**) Barzelay, M. "Central Auditing Institutions and Performance Auditing: A Comparative Analysis of Organizational Strategies in the OECD". Gov.: An Int. Journ. of Pol. and Adm., V.10, No.3, July 1997 (pp.235-260).

More Federico Gimenez's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions