Identification of the effects of the law of guarantees on the Colombian electoral process: an analysis from the perspective of territorial contracting
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70254/controlvisible.2022.2.15Keywords:
Public contract, Guarantee Law, Law 996, Fiscal Control, territorial entitiesAbstract
The Law of Guarantees, issued by the Congress of the Republic of Colombia in 2005, seeks to restrict the contracting capacity of the National and territorial governments during electoral campaigns, prohibiting direct contracting and inter-administrative agreements to avoid the use of public resources for electoral purposes. This paper analyzes the effects of the Law of Guarantees on state contracting by territorial entities, using data from the Information System of the General Audit Office of the Republic, which includes approximately 3.2 million public contracts registered between January 2016 and October 2021. The findings indicate that the Law of Guarantees does not impact the behavior of territorial contracting in any selection modality. Neither the aggregate monthly sum of contracting values nor the number of contracts are affected by the Law. One possible explanation is that the territorial political class has learned to smooth public spending throughout the fiscal year, appearing to comply with the law. This conclusion is supported by testimonial and criminological evidence on the ability of territorial political elites to simulate regulatory compliance.
Downloads
References
Allen, J., & Cochrane, A. (2007). Beyond the territorial fix: Regional assemblages, politics and power. REGIONAL STUDIES, 41(9), 1161-1175. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701543348
Arévalo, J. M. C. (2021). El efecto potencial de los informes de auditoría en el ciclo de la política pública. Control Visible, 1, Article 1.
Becker, G. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 169-217.
Departamento Nacional de Planeación. (2014). Guía metodológica para el Seguimiento y la Evaluación a Políticas Públicas. Bogotá: Departamento Nacional de Planeación.
Granger, C. (2007). Construcción de modelos empíricos en economía. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Hempel, C. (1979). La explicación científica. Barcelona: Ariel.
Kalmanovitz, S. (1997). Las instituciones, la ley y el desarrollo económico. Revista del Banco de la República, 28-45.
Lehoucq, F. (2007). ¿Qué es el fraude electoral? Su naturaleza, sus causas y consecuencias. Revista mexicana de sociología.
Navas, G. Q. (2021). ¿Los mecanismos de control fiscal son eficaces en la lucha contra la corrupción? Control Visible, 1, Article 1.
North, D. (1995). Instituciones, cambio institucional y desempeño económico. Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Perkmann, M. (2007). Policy entrepreneurship and multilevel governance: A comparative study of European cross-border regions. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-GOVERNMENT AND POLICY, 25(6), 861-879. 3rd International PRIME Doctoral Conference. https://doi.org/10.1068/c60m
Rosero Rico, D. (2015). ¿Qué significa o cómo afecta la reelección presidencial en Colombia, desde la separación de poderes, en la Constitución Política de 1991. Diálogos de Derecho y Política, 50-68. Obtenido de https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/derypol/article/view/23430
Rundquist, B., & et al. (1977). Corrup politicians and their electoral support: some experimetal observations. American Political Science Review, 954-963.
Simpser, A. (2004). Making votes no count: expectations and electoral corruption. American Political Science Association Meeting.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Juan Paulo Cañon Spell, Manfred Grautoff, Isaac De León Beltrán

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.



























