Fiscalizacin y gobernabilidad
Universidad de Costa Rica Facultad de Ciencias Económicas Escuela de Administración Pública Curso de Administración Pública y Gobernabilidad Profesora: Carmen Coto Tema: Gobernabilidad y Fiscalización Externa Integrantes: Geraldin Castaing...........................................A41225 Susana Goñi.........................................................A22193 Sindy López.........................................................A43033 Juan Esteban Varela......................................A55876 7 junio 2008 INDICE Indice 2 Introducción 3 Reseña Histórica del Control en Costa Rica 5 Los comienzos de la Contraloría General de la República 6 Contralores y Subcontralores Generales 7 La Contraloría de hoy 9 Marco Legal 13 Ámbito de competencia 14 Funciones 14 Procedimientos establecidos para el control 19 División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa 24 Comparación teórico - práctico 27 Logros de la Contraloría en materia de fiscalización 32 La Contraloría en su labor asistente de la Asamblea Legislativa 32 Fiscalización posterior 34 Relación de la fiscalización externa y la gobernabilidad en Costa Rica 41 Conclusiones 43 INTRODUCCIÓN La fiscalización o función fiscalizadora se refiere al sometimiento de la actividad económico-financiera del sector público a los principios de legalidad, eficiencia y
![The Sierra Clubs Organizational Repertoires. Over the course of the 20th century, the Sierra Club had gone from a fledgling nature enthusiast social club with less than 600 members in 1902,[3] to a respected and influential environmental organiza](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/941908/listing/941908_1.jpg)
The Sierra Clubs Organizational Repertoires. Over the course of the 20th century, the Sierra Club had gone from a fledgling nature enthusiast social club with less than 600 members in 1902,[3] to a respected and influential environmental organiza
The Sierra Club's Organizational Repertoires When the Sierra Club was incorporated in 1892, its stated mission was to "explore, enjoy and render accessible the mountain regions of the Pacific Coast."1 By 1970 the Club had changed enough that Executive Director Michael McCloskey described the organization as concentrating "specifically on political action to change public policy."2 Over the course of the 20th century, the Sierra Club had gone from a fledgling nature enthusiast social club with less than 600 members in 1902,3 to a respected and influential environmental organization with a membership tallying over 700,000 by 2004.4 How did this happen? The answer is not a simple one. A switch in organizational philosophy led by a new generation of members in the middle part of the 20th century resulted in the Club's entrance into the political arena. That switch was bitterly contested by the old guard within the Club. However, by 1972 and the Supreme Court case Sierra Club v. Morton, the organization had completed its transition. Simply shifting organizational philosophy does not create change, however. The Sierra Club incorporated several strategies to enact its policy goals. These methods, or "organizational repertoire", as labeled by Clemens,5 included letter writing campaigns, newsletter publications, and ultimately litigation. By applying Clemens' theory, we can see how
Communalism in Malaysia
Why is communalism so salient in Malaysian society and politics? In spite of the association through community being the root word of communalism, different communities living in a single state does not imply communalism1. Communalism is rather, a label attributed to a phenomenon in any state where the different communities, whether divided by language, ethnic grouping, religion, or any other factors, harbour a sense of being distant from each other and having this sense of being differentiated from the other communities override any national identity they have as a single nation. Communalism could manifest itself in many forms. In the social sphere, the presence of communalism would mean that the different communities are very conscious of the differences between them. It may also include a sense of suspicion about the other communal groups and would usually preclude the establishment of a strong common identity. There may exist a sense of inequality among some if not all groups and there might be general dissatisfaction and inter-ethnic jealousies. And since politics is the articulation of society's demands and the meeting of those demands, communalism would also be seen in the political arena; Interests definition and articulation by the political parties would most likely be along ethnic lines and the policies implemented are also seen and perceived by the electorate
Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration?
Has Neofunctionalism Been Superseded By A New 'Liberal Intergovernmentalism" As Currently The Most Convincing Theoretical Explanation of European Political Integration? From an ambitious project originally envisaged to remove the catastrophe of war from such a war-torn continent, the European project has proceeded in 'fits and starts'. Since its inception, there has been much debate regarding what forces drive the integration process forward. Why now, when interstate war in Europe seems impossible, do member states continue to 'pool' their sovereignty in so many areas? Two theories have dominated previous attempts to answer the question of "how and why states cease to be wholly sovereign, how and why they voluntarily mingle, merge and mix with their neighbours, so as to lose the factual attributes of sovereignty."1 Neofunctionalism, the idea that the integration process, once started, develops its own momentum for further integration, saw the height of popularity in the 1960s, following the initial success of the ECSC/EEC and the hugely influential theoretical explanation by Ernst Haas. The second theory, Liberal Intergovernmentalism, surfaced in the 1990s and was championed by Andrew Moravcsik. It saw flaws in neofunctionalist thinking and instead offered an alternative account in which the integrative process was always, and remains, in the hands of national governments;
Ministerial Responsibility
Ministerial Responsibility. 'Ministerial Responsibility is an administrative myth' Discuss and analyse this statement with reference to the practice of ministerial responsibility in recent years. The government of Ireland "Rialtas na hEíreann, is the cabinet that exercises executive authority in Ireland. It is headed by a prime minister who is referred to nationally as the Taoiseach and a deputy prime minister called the Tanáiste. The President of Ireland then appoints the remaining members of the government as a minister. These ministers are divided up into allocated departments, where they are "responsible for every single act of his or her department and of the civil servants in that department" (Byrne, 1996). Controversy over the roles carried out by ministers over the last few decades has increased widespread acknowledgment that ministerial responsibility is no longer efficient and "can no longer serve as the sole constitutional touchstone of accountability" (Connaughton, 2006). In this assignment, my first aim is to compare and contrast the roles of ministers and civil servants and their input into our State. Secondly in forming an apprehension of accountability and with the investigation into four case studies of neglected State work in the practice of ministerial responsibility over the last few decades, I hope I will have a worthwhile argument in justifying
Democracies and Peace
Democracies and Peace Intro A number of studies of whether democracies made war on each other have tried to determine if there is a hidden factor accounting for this, such as economic development, industrialization, geographic distance, trade, alliances, and so on. Always, democracy comes out as the best explanation. we have a solution to war the Cold War accounted for the particular lack of war between democracies, but what about other periods. Unity has continued to grow, rather then hostility. once the former enemies became democratic, they have tried to join and are being integrated into a larger Europe The idea that democracies are inherently disposed to peace, can be traced back at least to Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher, who made a similar argument for republics in an essay called "Perpetual Peace ". DP theory,war and peace. That democracies do not make war on each other, that they create a zone of peace among themselves, is now the most firmly established proposition in international relations and the most important. Given this, we have a solid base for forecasting that there never will be a war between democracies and that universalizing democracy will end international wars. the "democratic peace," refers to the idea that democracies do not (or virtually never) make war on each other.; they also have, by far, the least foreign violence, domestic
Should the West Help Spread Democracy?
Should the West Help Spread Democracy? Democracy can be loosely defined as the institutional ability of the citizens of a state to change their government through non-violent action. The fundamental ideology driving the foreign policy of many Western governments following the end of the Cold War has been the promotion of democracy within a set of key principles, headed by freedom of the individual. To quote the US State Department, 'Peace, freedom and prosperity - these fundamental principles fuel...American foreign policy known as American internationalism.'1 George W. Bush in the inauguration speech for his second term as US President gave special emphasis on the need for and policy of promoting democracy. The means of promotion in the past has varied hugely from military force or covert interference to sanctions and positive or negative conditional aid. Equally, the motives and success of such policies differ from state to state. In assessing whether the West should pursue such ends three key areas need to be examined. Firstly, one must examine democracy itself to establish whether or not it is desirable as a universal form of government as its benefits must outweigh the costs of its installation. Secondly, this essay will examine the moral issues of a states intervention in the domestic affairs of another. Finally, this essay will examine the practicality of promoting
Regionalism in China and India. In India regionalism is accommodated through the federal system and the formation of states along linguistic and ethnic lines. In contrast China adopts a unitary system which rests authority solely on a centralized power,
A region is an area in which its citizens are unified on the basis of language, culture, economic and political interests. Regionalism can be defined as a feeling of pride or loyalty to a region or community and individual belongs to. This ideology may stem a notion of superiority of one region over another and it produces dependability to a community rather than to the nation as a whole. Furthermore, Regionalism is an ideological concept in politics, which focuses on the interests of a particular region, or group of regions, by increasing the regions influence, and political power by means or measures of delegation, states' rights, decentralization, autonomy, and separation from sovereignty. While still connected to some sort of central government, regionalism affects development by promoting and strengthening self-governing bodies, forming a more effective form of allocation of local resources, which would benefit local populations, raise competition levels and stimulate competition levels amongst the regions. In addition Regionalism affects the issue of development because it divides cities, states into separate administrative regions. The decentralization of power in India unlike the centralization of power in China provides the uppermost levels of democracy. Regionalism becomes an impediment to development when it encourages protectionist economy and a closed culture not
A failure of leadership: The decay of Indonesian parliamentary democracy 1950 - 1957.
A failure of leadership: The decay of Indonesian parliamentary democracy 1950 - 1957. SYNOPSIS The failure of parliamentary democracy in Indonesia in the years 1950 to 1957 was due to the limited ideological basis upon which the Indonesian elite based and understood it. To the elites, democracy was an ideal and a symbol, which in practice should be kept firmly within the hands of themselves. The parliamentary system they set-up, based on the Dutch model of multi-party representation, became little more than a venue for the parties to fight amongst themselves. While unstable coalition governments spent more time handing out patronage and working to secure their own power, than governing the country. In such a political climate the parties remained the political tools of a small self- serving elite, who saw themselves as being above the rest of Indonesian society. The 955 elections which were to have solved some of these problems, failed to do so however, and ended up discrediting the very democratic system they were supposed to have strengthened. Yet the main cause of the failure of parliamentary democracy in Indonesia, was the political parties and the politicians. It was they who created the system, and it was they who failed to make it work. The period of parliamentary democracy in Indonesia between 1950 and 1957 was a time of great opportunity and
Democracy is an ideal rather than a reality.
DEMOCRACY IS AN IDEAL RATHER THAN A REALITY Introduction The purpose of this essay is to discuss the issue of democracy. First we will begin with the invention and evolution of democracy in ancient Athens, its main characteristics and critics. Then we will proceed with the defining elements of modern political democracies, and the contemporary challenges these face. With the analusis of the ancient Athenian democracy - which is considered to be the original - and of the modern Western democracy, we will try to show that in both cases the ideal of democracy was never totally achieved; that the ideal democracy never became a reality. Finally we will examine democracy as an ideal, and the functions it acquires as such. Our main argument will be that democracy is an ideal like 'freedom', 'justice', 'equality', and 'human rights', and as such it is always differently interpreted by people, according to their historical, social and economic realities. Therefore, it does not have and it will probably never achieve a single agreed meaning; it will remain an ideal that will serve as a corrective to all our present and future political systems. Definition and invention of democracy The term 'Democracy' is an originally Greek word, which combines two shorter words, 'demos' and 'kratos' - both having more than one meaning. 'Demos' could mean the whole citizen body living within a