Performance Management: Brazil

  • Ricardo GomesEmail author
Living reference work entry


Performance appraisal; Performance assessment; Performance management; Performance measurement

According to Hatry (2002, p. 352) “performance management is defined as the use of performance information to affect programs, policies, or any other organization actions aimed at maximizing the benefits of public services.”

Similar to other countries, performance management was introduced in the Brazil’s public administration agenda as a result of the 1980’s managerialism wave. After elected in the 1994 Presidential Elections, President Fernando Henrique Cardoso put to force a series of reforms in order to make public administration more efficient and for ensuring fiscal equilibrium. The agenda put forward that time was based on the idea of minimum State, management by results, treating citizens as costumers, reducing costs, and improving the quality of public services.

These series of administrative reforms came about in the scope of the “ Plano Diretor de Reforma do Aparelho do...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Avellaneda CN (2009) Mayoral quality and local public finance. Public Adm Rev 69(3):469–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avellaneda CN, Gomes RC (2015) Is small beautiful? Testing the direct and nonlinear effects of size on municipal performance. Public Adm Rev 75(1):137–149. Scholar
  3. Berman SL, Wicks AC, Kotha S, Jones TM (1999) Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Acad Manag J 42(5):488–506Google Scholar
  4. Boyne G (2002) Concepts and indicators of local authority performance: an evaluation of the statutory frameworks in England and Wales. Public Money Manag 22:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brasil (1995) Plano Diretor da Reforma do Aparelho do Estado. Câmara da Reforma do Estado, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  6. Bresser-Pereira LC, Spink P (2003) Reforma do Estado e Administração pública gerencial, 5a edn. Editora Fundação Getulio Vargas, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  7. Connolly T, Conlon EJ, Deutsch SJ (1980) Organizational effectiveness: a multiple-constituency approach. Acad Manag Rev 5(2):211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cross KF, Lynch RL (1989) The “SMART” way to define and sustain success. Natl Prod Rev 8(1):23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Souza RG, Cordeiro JS (2010) Mapeamento cognitivo e Balanced Scorecard na gestão estratégica de resíduos sólidos urbanos. Gestão Produção 17:483–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. do Valle AGRM, Gomes RC (2014) Analyzing the importance of financial resources for educational effectiveness: the case of Brazil. Int J Product Perform Manag 63(1):4–21. Scholar
  11. Evangelista de Barros OJ, Wanderley C d A (2016) Adaptation of the balanced scorecard: case study in a fuel distribution company. Rev Contabilidade Finanças 27:320–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fabrino RJG, Siqueira do Valle B, Gomes RC (2014) The cost of educational effectiveness: evidence from financing basic education in Brazil. Int J Manag Edu 12:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Gomes RC, Liddle J (2009) The balanced scorecard as a performance management tool for third sector organizations: the case of the Arthur Bernardes foundation, Brazil. BAR Braz Adm Rev 6(4):354–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomes RC, Alfinito S, Albuquerque PHM (2013) Analyzing local government financial performance: evidence from Brazilian municipalities 2005–2008. Rev Administração Contemp 17(6):704–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatry HP (2002) Performance measurement: fashions and fallacies. Public Perform Manag Rev 25(4):352–358. Scholar
  17. Hillman AJ, Keim GD (2001) Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strateg Manag J 22(2):125–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanji GK (1998) Measurement of business excellence. Total Qual Manag 9(7):633–643. Scholar
  19. Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1996) The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2001) Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part II. Account Horiz 15(2):147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaufmann L, Becker A (2006) Overcoming the barriers during implementation and use of the balanced scorecard by multinational companies in Brazil. Lat Am Bus Rev 6(3):39–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martins HF, Gomes RC (2012) Public sector management trends in Brazil. In: Diamond J, Liddle J (eds) Critical perspectives on international public sector management (Vol. Emerging and potential trends in public management: an age of austerity, pp 73–103). Emerald, BradfordGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyer JW, Rowan B (1991) Institutionalized organizations: formal structure, myth, and ceremony. In: Powell WS, DiMaggio PJ (eds) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 41–62Google Scholar
  24. Neely AD, Adams C, Kennerley M (2002) The performance prism: the scorecard for measuring and managing stakeholder relationships. Prentice Hall Financial Times, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Ogden S, Watson R (1999) Corporate performance and stakeholder management: balancing shareholder and customer interests in the U.K. privatized water industry. Acad Manag J 42(5):526–538Google Scholar
  26. Oliver C (1991) Strategic responses to institutional processes. Acad Manag Rev 16(1):145–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. West WF, Raso C (2012) Who shapes the rulemaking agenda? Implications for bureaucratic responsiveness and bureaucratic control. J Public Adm Res Theory. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculdade de Economia, Administração, Ciências Contábeis e Gestão de Políticas PúblicasUniversity of Brasília – UNBBrasiliaBrazil