Public Policies as Platforms: Opening Possibilities for Subsequent Policies^*

Políticas Públicas como Plataformas: Abrindo Possibilidades para Políticas Subsequentes

Les Politiques Publiques en Tant que Plateformes: Possibilités d’Ouverture pour des Politiques Ultérieures

Políticas Públicas como Plataformas: Posibilidades de Apertura para Políticas Posteriores

Abstract

This study demonstrates that public policies with specific characteristics create opportunities for subsequent initiatives. We call them platform policies. This is relevant because the literature has predominantly focused on how early occupants of policy spaces constrain ensuing policies. Our proposition is based on the empirical analysis of the Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola (PDDE, or Direct Money for Schools Program), established in Brazil in 1995, aimed at decentralizing the transfer of financial resources directly to schools to promote autonomy and decentralization. Our methodological approach involved comprehensive data collection and analysis on the PDDE and its subsequent policies, focusing on objectives, target populations, implementation arrangements, key actors, and regulations. Since its creation, many policies have been “attached” to the PDDE, leveraging its experience and structure. This was only possible due to three PDDE’s characteristics necessary for platform policies in general: longevity, connection to a means rather than an end, and flexibility and adaptability.

Keywords:
Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola; policy integration; education; platform; Brazil

Resumo

Este artigo demonstra que políticas públicas com caraterísticas específicas podem abrir possibilidades para políticas subsequentes. Denominamos-lhes políticas-plataforma. Esta contribuição é relevante porque a literatura tem se concentrado predominantemente em como os ocupantes dos espaços de políticas impõem restrições às políticas posteriores. Nossa proposição baseia-se na análise empírica do Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola (PDDE), criado no Brasil em 1995 a fim de descentralizar a transferência de recursos financeiros diretamente para as escolas, para promover a autonomia e a descentralização. A abordagem metodológica envolveu extensa coleta e análise de dados sobre o PDDE e políticas subsequentes, concentrando-se em seus objetivos, populações-alvo, arranjos de implementação, atores-chave e normativas. Desde sua criação, muitas políticas foram “anexadas” ao PDDE, aproveitando sua experiência e estrutura. Isso só foi possível devido a três características do PDDE necessárias para as políticas-plataforma em geral: longevidade, vinculação a um meio em vez de um fim e flexibilidade e adaptabilidade.

Palavras-chave:
Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola; integração de políticas públicas; educação; plataforma; Brasil

Résumé

Cet article démontre que les politiques publiques dotées de caractéristiques spécifiques peuvent ouvrir des possibilités pour des politiques ultérieures. Nous les appelons des politiques-plateformes. Cette contribution est pertinente parce que la littérature s’est concentrée principalement sur la façon dont les occupants des arènes politiques imposent des restrictions aux politiques postérieures. Notre proposition s’appuie sur l’analyse empirique du Programme Dinheiro Direto na Escola (PDDE), créé au Brésil en 1995 pour décentraliser le transfert des ressources financières directement vers les écoles, dans le but de promouvoir l’autonomie et la décentralisation. L’approche méthodologique a impliqué une collecte et une analyse approfondies des données sur le PDDE et les politiques ultérieures, en se concentrant sur ses objectifs, leurs populations cibles, leurs arrangements de mise en œuvre, leurs acteurs clés et leurs normes. Depuis sa création, de nombreuses politiques ont été « adossées » au PDDE, en tirant parti de son expérience et de sa structure. Cela n’a été possible qu’en raison de trois caractéristiques du PDDE considérées comme essentielles pour les politiques-plateformes en général : sa longévité, son ancrage dans un moyen plutôt que dans une finalité, ainsi que sa flexibilité et son adaptabilité.

Mots-clés:
Programme Dinheiro Direto na Escola; intégration des politiques publiques; éducation; plateforme; Brésil

Resumen

Este artículo demuestra que las políticas públicas con características específicas pueden abrir posibilidades para políticas subsecuentes. Las denominamos políticas-plataforma. Esta contribución es relevante porque la literatura se ha concentrado predominantemente en cómo los ocupantes de los espacios de políticas imponen restricciones a las políticas posteriores. Nuestra proposición se basa en el análisis empírico del Programa Dinero Directo en la Escuela (PDDE), creado en Brasil en 1995 con el fin de descentralizar la transferencia de recursos financieros directamente a las escuelas, para promover la autonomía y la descentralización. El enfoque metodológico involucró una extensa recolección y análisis de datos sobre el PDDE y políticas subsecuentes, centrándose en sus objetivos, poblaciones objetivo, arreglos de implementación, actores clave y normativas. Desde su creación, muchas políticas han sido “anexadas” al PDDE, aprovechando su experiencia y estructura. Esto solo fue posible debido a tres características del PDDE necesarias para las políticas-plataforma en general: longevidad, vinculación a un medio en lugar de un fin y flexibilidad y adaptabilidad.

Palabras clave:
programa Dinero Directo en la Escuela; integración de políticas públicas; educación; plataforma; Brasil

Introduction

This paper shows that some public policies, due to their specific characteristics, can create opportunities for subsequent policies. The latter “attach,” take advantage of, and build upon those previous policies. These previous policies that can provide a “launching pad” to ensuing policies are called platform policies. In other words, the study allows us to theorize about specific policies that may enable other public initiatives due to their particular characteristics (longevity, connection to a means rather than an end, and flexibility and adaptability).

This is a critical contribution mainly because the literature has long recognized that new policies are usually implemented in already occupied policy spaces, sometimes even “crowded” ones. However, the focus has been on how early occupants of the policy spaces set limits on subsequent policies that would have to adapt to the existing policies. In the present research, we demonstrate that platform policies, rather than restricting subsequent policies, may actually open up possibilities for the latter, allowing the platform policy to adapt to newcomers rather than the opposite.

The idea of platform policies was put together through the empirical analysis of the Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola (PDDE, or Direct Money for Schools Program in free translation), a public policy established in 1995 aimed at decentralizing the transfer of financial resources directly to schools under the premise of promoting autonomy and decentralization in the management of educational resources. Its implementation is coordinated by the Brazilian Ministry of Education (MEC) in partnership with state and municipal education agencies. More specifically, it is managed by the National Fund for the Development of Education (FNDE), which is part of MEC, but with relative autonomy to formulate and implement policies. The PDDE represents the third most significant resource transfer program for basic education, in budgetary terms (Gomes, 2023), having surpassed R$ 2 billion in 2023 (Brasil, 2023).

Besides its importance in financial terms, its longevity is also worth emphasizing, since it is approaching 30 years of existence. Created during President Cardoso’s first term, it has survived seven different presidential terms and four different presidents, with very different (and even opposing) ideological views and approaches regarding the issue of education.

Since its creation, numerous subsequent policies have been developed and “attached” to the PDDE, leveraging its presence, experience, and structure. The programs cover multiple actions: Multifunctional Resource Room, Accessible School, Water and Sanitation in Rural Schools, Time to Learn, Brazil in School, Education and Family, and Formative Itineraries (among many others). Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the trajectory of the PDDE, from a “standalone” policy to a policy gradually being used by subsequent policies, and propose a theoretical framework to grasp the nature of this journey better. Building mainly on our empirical research on the PDDE and also on the literature on policy change (Mahoney, Thelen, 2010), policy space (Majone, 1989; Wildavsky, 2018), and policy integration (Dery, 1999), as well as the subsequent studies that reflect on Dery’s contribution, we propose the idea of platform policies as a theoretical contribution, arguing that policies with specific characteristics may act as platforms for subsequent policies. The main limitation of the present paper is that it is based on a single policy (the PDDE) and its ensuing policies. This paper is divided into five sections, including the present introduction. The second section presents a literature review of policy spaces and integration, including the concept of “policy by the way.” The following one presents the PDDE, and its subsequent policies. The fourth section presents our analysis, showing how the PDDE can be understood as a platform policy. Finally, the last section presents our final considerations.

Policy Space and Policy Integration

As long recognized by the policy literature, new policies are rarely “written on a tabula rasa,” being frequently written “on a well-occupied or even crowded table of existing laws, organizations, and clients” (Hogwood, Peters, 1982:225–6).¹

In other words, policies are usually formulated and implemented in a context where policies are already in place in a given sector. For Majone (1989:158–9), the idea of policy space² is connected to “a set of policies that are so closely interrelated that it is not possible to make useful descriptions of or analytic statements about one of them without taking the other elements into account.”

Wildavsky (2018:61) mentions that when policy spaces were “lightly filled,” they could be “pursued on their own merits.” However, when policy spaces are “dense,” any significant changes “transform any problem they were originally supposed to solve.” Similarly, Majone (1989:159) states that in “crowded” policy spaces, specific solutions bring about new problems (including problems of jurisdiction and policy overlaps) and unintended consequences. Providing some context to the formulation of the idea of a “crowded policy space,” Börjesson et al. (2017) mention that it was proposed by American policy scientists to reflect on the impressive and cumulative expansion of public policies in the post-Second World War period, for example, the “200 pieces of legislation that were part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ programme” (Börjesson et al., 2017:98).

Therefore, according to Wildavsky, (2018:55) “early occupants of a policy space are fortunate also because newcomers will be forced to adjust to these existing programs.” In other words, “first movers” must be considered because new policies come into being in an existing policy space where other policies already exist.

In other words, if new policies arrive in policy spaces already filled with policies, one must reflect on how those two sets of policies (the early occupants and the latest policies) will interact with each other and the consequences of such interaction. To shed light on this issue, we turn to the concept of Policy by the Way, proposed by Dery (1999).

The idea of policy by the way, presented by Dery (1999), assumes that public policies may produce unexpected effects. He presents the concept of policy taking in contrast with policymaking. While the latter “implicitly presumes control over key variables that shape policy in a given area,” the former “denotes the pursuit of a given set of policy objectives, which is primarily or entirely shaped by the pursuit of other objectives.” The resulting policy is the “policy by the way (i.e., the byproduct of policies that are made and implemented to pursue objectives other than those of the policy in question” (Dery, 1999:165). In other words, each policy makes more sense when analyzed in tandem with the actions of previous policies. Accordingly, policies can be understood, to different degrees, as the by-product of other policies.

The author mentions that producing unintended consequences is not necessarily bad since they could solve public problems initially under the radar. A possible unexpected effect is the restriction of other policies. He further explains that some specific policies tend to restrict more than others: “An important class of a policy’s external effects consists of the effects that constrain other policies” (Dery, 1999:165).

This is not to say that Dery (1999) was the first to bring this issue into the policy literature. As recognized by him, other authors made similar points. The discussion on policy space presented in the beginning of this section is one example. Another one is Lindblom and Cohen (1979:56–7), who present the idea of epiphenomenal or by-product problem-solving. In this sense, they mention how society, when trying to solve a specific problem, often ends up solving others as well.

Dery (1999:164) also mentions that thinking in terms of “policy by the way” further invites us to reflect on the issue of policy change,³ an issue of paramount importance in the policy literature. The first issue is that if a policy can be seen as a by-product of other policies, changing it would require affecting other policies over which it has little control. A second issue is that it opens the possibility of considering how different policies may have varying powers to impose on other policies and whether some policy types are more capable of confining other policies than others.

Following Dery’s (1999) presentation of “policy by the way,” a few other studies have adopted his proposition and considered it in their research, employing different approaches and emphasizing various aspects. Our literature review reveals that citations to Dery (1999) primarily occur in three contexts. The first focuses on the consequences of policymaking in crowded policy spaces, for instance the difficulties of achieving crosscutting policy goals and how “departmentalism” is a common feature of crowded policy spaces (Russel, Jordan, 2009). Other investigations define the policies they focus on as crowded policy spaces (Börjesson et al., 2017; Penney, 2008) and how, in these cases, there is an evident interdependence between policies and how changes in one issue area tend to spill over into others, generating both intended and unanticipated consequences (Howlett, 2006; Penney, 2008). Additionally, the impacts of a particular policy on the planning of others are more substantial in crowded policy spaces (Griggs, Ward, 2013). Finally, Russel and Turnpenny (2009) mention how modern policy space is crowded.

The second, and more common, context is where papers mention Dery (1999) when presenting the concept of policy by the way, often citing it specifically or only its central idea of how policies can be a by-product of other policies. Mainly, authors present the concept and identify the policy they are studying as one where that happens, such as Cohen et al. (2002) and Rayner et al. (2001), among many others.

Two papers mention Dery (1999), providing a more specific and critical insight into the point we are trying to make in the present study. In this sense, they mention that early occupiers of the policy space generate unintended consequences, as discussed by Dery, but those are not necessarily negative, as they may be neutral and even positive (Börjesson et al., 2017). In other words, early occupiers not only generate constraints but may also create possibilities for subsequent public policies (Penney, 2008).

Theoretical discussions are the third context where Dery (1999) is cited. One such example is Cejudo and Michel (2016), who employ the concept of policy coherence, which they present as when the policies within a specific policy space are harmoniously connected to accomplish the particular space’s more significant goals. In other words, thinking in terms of policy coherence means analyzing whether the different policies within a given space provide a clear and distinctive contribution to solving the public problem. Migone et al. (2024) cite four processes through which policies change according to the literature. One of them is the subsystem spillovers, citing Dery (1999), which is explained as when activities in other subsystems transcend old policy boundaries, affecting the current and other subsystems.

Our methodological approach was based on the data collection and analysis of the PDDE and its subsequent policies. In the investigation, we focused on understanding its primary goals, targets, target population, implementation arrangements, the main actors (including top policymakers and managers, as well as civil society) and their responsibilities, rules and regulations, the main political events that influenced it, and the results achieved. The data collection relied on various sources, including government websites and databases, budget information, media outlets, and academic sources.

Finally, to supplement and provide additional insights, we have conducted interviews with officials who were part of the PDDE and its subsequent policies.

PDDE: Trajectory and Transformations

Context

The implementation of public policies is a complex endeavor, especially when multiple layers of government are involved (Hill, Hupe, 2003:477). In this sense, policies, as is the case with the PDDE, are usually formulated and implemented across different layers of government, each with its own competencies and political dynamics (Hill, Hupe, 2003:480-481). In this sense, layers are “separate co-governments exercising authority, with a certain territorial competence and a relative autonomy” (Hill, Hupe, 2003:481). Interestingly, for the present paper, the authors also mention that empirically there are other layers besides the governmental ones to be considered, such as delegation to schools (Hill, Hupe, 2003:477). Additionally, there are considerations regarding the street-level bureaucrats who interact directly with citizens when performing their jobs and who have considerable discretionary powers while carrying out their work, adding up to the complexity of the implementation of public policies (Lipsky, 2010; Hill, Hupe, 2003:477).

Besides the issue of layers, Hill and Hupe (2003:481-483) also reflect on the different levels that indicate the “distinct parts in the policy cycle”. In this sense, they mention three levels: constitutional (the establishment of institutions important for policymaking), collective (policy formation), and operational (implementation). Therefore, the authors invite us to reflect, while dealing with the research of implementation in multi-layer situations, including the multi-level issues, ensuring that layers and levels are distinguished and not confused with one another. In this sense, in a given policy, different layers (for instance, national and state) may have the same level of action (for instance, policy formation).

In this sense, as recognized by the literature (Hill, Hupe, 2003:477; Abrucio, 2022:131), while the power shared between different layers is a characteristic of federations, there are multiple forms of federalism, from “strong” to “weak” ones.

The Brazilian federal system specifically is characterized by a division of powers and responsibilities among the federal, state, and municipal governments. This structure impacts public education management by distributing educational duties and resources across these three levels of government. The Federal Constitution of 1988 establishes that the federal government is responsible for setting national educational policies and guidelines, while state and municipal governments must implement and manage educational services within their respective jurisdictions. According to the 1988 Constitution, municipalities are primarily responsible for primary and early childhood education, while states are responsible for primary and secondary education.

This federative system affects the administration of public education in Brazil by demanding collaboration and coordination among different government levels. The federal government provides funding and general guidelines, while state and municipal governments handle schools’ day-to-day operations and specific needs. This arrangement allows for a more localized approach to education management, addressing the unique demands and challenges of each region. However, effective communication and cooperation among federal, state, and municipal entities are also required to ensure cohesive and efficient delivery of educational services.

As recognized by the literature (Bichir, 2016), there are different interpretations regarding the consequences of the 1988 Constitution for the Brazilian federalist arrangement. Some mention its decentralizing force with negative consequences that would create a non-cooperative and predatory model. However, others stress the decentralization of financial resources rather than responsibilities over policies. In other words, some interpretations recognize its ambiguous nature: combining centralizing and decentralizing forces. Arretche (2009) demonstrated how the 1990s produced reforms that led to a loss of revenues for states and municipalities and new regulations regarding the fiscal expenses and implementation competencies of subnational entities, resulting in greater control from the federal government. However, her point is that those reforms did not represent a disruption from the federal arrangement created by the 1988 Constitution. She stresses continuity because the Constitution had already created an arrangement where the federal government had broad authority regarding public policies, while subnational entities had few veto opportunities. In other words, there was continuity, and “1988 made 1995 easier” (Arretche, 2009:412).

Not by coincidence, 1995 was precisely when the Elementary School Maintenance and Development Program (PMDE, as per its acronym in Portuguese), later renamed PDDE, was created. It must be said, however, that different public policies also had other and specific federalist arrangements, which in turn created distinct coordination capacities (Arretche, 2004). Thus, one may wonder where the PDDE fits in this discussion. On the one hand, the PDDE’s main idea is the decentralization of resources and school self-management, with relative latitude in the use of resources. On the other hand, the federal government defines all the rules and procedures for the Basic PDDE and all the Integrated Actions. That is not to say that the municipal and state governments are entirely bypassed since, as will be shown later, they are included in the implementation arrangements as executing entities. In this capacity, they have specific roles, such as supporting executing units and using the resources on behalf of (and in consultation with) the schools that do not have executing units, among other responsibilities (MEC, 2021b). However, the program’s rationale is precisely to reach schools directly without going through subnational government, with the premise that schools know their needs better and would better use the resources. Another rationale is that direct transfer ensures that resources reach schools, whereas if they are transferred to subnational governments, they could be channeled to other expenses.

The PMDE emerged in the first term of President Cardoso in a context of international diffusion of state reforms, with the influence of the so-called new public management, fiscal, and pro-market reforms (Ferrarezi, Romão, 2024:78). Part of the literature (Almeida et al., 2024:185) identifies the program as a neoliberalist policy, as suggested by authors such as Marinheiro and Ruiz (2017). Be as that may, the fact is that the Cardoso Government implemented a state reform built upon the premise that certain public services should not be delivered directly by the public sector, which should be limited to strategic services only it could provide. They should be delivered through a “non-state public sector,” namely civil society organizations. In this sense, in providing those public services, the main criterion should be efficiency: an optimal relationship between the quality and costs involved (MARE, 1995:41–3). In this sense, the emergence of the PDDE is directly connected to the state reform carried out in Brazil in the mid-1990s (Peroni, Adrião, 2007:49–52).

According to Torres et al. (2019:21), until the late 1980’s, basic education in Brazil had been an issue primarily addressed by subnationals (states and municipalities) with few federal policies on the issue of education quality. Although this started to change in the mid 1990’s, the author considers that decentralization culture was deeply rooted. In this sense, several studies focused on the issue of coordination of educational policies, including the role of intergovernmental bodies (Palotti, Machado, 2014), the consequences of implementation arrangement reforms in education, and their implications for an increase in expenses, policy supply, and reduction of horizontal inequalities in their financing (Vazquez, 2014:997). Besides, it makes sense to differentiate these reforms in terms of measures that generate immediate effects (that create mandatory expenses) and those that depend on the adherence of subnational governments (Gomes, 2009).

General Characteristics of the PDDE

The PDDE is a public policy that stands out for its innovative approach to financing basic education in Brazil, since it transfers resources directly to schools for small expenses necessary for their operation. Before its creation, resources were transferred only to subnational governments, both states and municipalities. Established in 1995, the PDDE aims to decentralize the transfer of financial resources directly to schools, promoting autonomy and decentralization in managing educational resources. Its implementation is coordinated by the Ministry of Education (MEC) in partnership with state and municipal education agencies. More specifically, it is managed by the National Fund for the Development of Education (FNDE, as per its acronym in Portuguese), part of MEC. The PDDE represents the third most significant resource transfer program for basic education, in budgetary terms (Gomes, 2023), surpassing R$ 2 billion in 2023 (Brazil, 2023). According to Ferrarezi and Romão (2024:142),

Despite the difficulties, managers identify several benefits and contributions of the PDDE: financial autonomy, which allows the school to acquire materials and goods with the resources; democratization of management and education, since the PDDE decentralizes the available resources; financial independence to develop school and pedagogical work; maintenance of the school, aiming at improving infrastructure and teaching; and planning of pedagogical actions to enhance student learning.

The rationale behind the PDDE is that schools, by receiving resources directly, would be able to more effectively identify and meet their specific needs, considering the particularities of each school community. This decentralized model would promote more efficient management aligned with the actual demands of educational institutions.

The PDDE funds can be applied to various areas, ranging from physical infrastructure to pedagogical actions and continuing education. This allows schools to allocate resources according to their most pressing needs, thereby enhancing the quality of education. The acquisition of teaching materials, maintenance of facilities, teacher training, and promotion of inclusive practices are just a few examples of the investment areas enabled by the program.

Regarding its implementation arrangement, the FNDE is responsible for operationalizing the PDDE, including the definition of rules and procedures of the program, transferring the resources to the beneficiary schools, and monitoring, overseeing, and evaluating the execution of the resources, among other responsibilities. Despite being a part of MEC, the FNDE is an agency that has relative autonomy in organizing and defining its policies. According to Cruz (2017:37):

The FNDE plays an important role in financing basic education, as the policies it manages enable the federal supplementary and redistributive function concerning states and municipalities since it manages almost all federal resources directed to basic education offered by other federated entities.

The secretariats of MEC are in charge of the Integrated Actions (see table 1), submitting resolutions that define their guidelines to the FNDE, and monitoring and evaluating them. The executing units are civil society organizations that represent a single school or a group, made up of school community members. Every school with more than 50 enrolled students must constitute an executing unit. Schools with up to 50 enrolled students are encouraged to create their own executing units, but they may be represented by executing entities, which are municipalities and state secretariats. Besides, executing entities support the executing units under their jurisdiction. Finally, the maintenance entities represent private special education schools (MEC, 2021b). Therefore, the use of executing units can be seen as a result of the state reform mentioned in the previous section.

Table 1
. PDDE Types and Programs

PDDE Type	Actions Funded/Programs	Year
Basic PDDE	Annual payments are made to all schools that join the program, calculated based on the number of students enrolled. Performance Installment PDDE is an additional annual payment calculated based on the results of the IdeGES-PDDE (Decentralized Management Performance Index), an instrument that measures the performance of decentralized management of Brazilian schools that implement the PDDE.7	1995
PDDE Equity 8	Accessible School Program9	2018
	Multifunctional Resource Room Program	202010
	Water and Sanitation Program in Rural Schools	202111
	Rural Schools PDDE Program: Rural, Indigenous, and “Quilombola”	202112
	Diversities Program13	2024
PDDE Quality	Innovative High School Program14	2009
	Connected Education Innovation Program	2018
	New High School Program	2018
	Emergency PDDE	2020
	Time to Learn Program15	2021
	Brazil in School Program	2021
	Education and Family Program	2021
	Formative Itineraries Program	2021
	Early Childhood in School Program	2022
	Reading Corner Program	2023
	School and Community Program	2024
	School of Adolescence Program	2024
	High School Plus Program	2024

Since its creation almost 30 years ago, in 1995, during President Cardoso’s first term, the PDDE has survived seven different presidential terms and four presidents with very different (often opposing) ideological views and approaches regarding education. The explanation for its longevity is multifactorial. Ferrarezi and Romão (2024:150–2) mention that the PDDE’s goals and principles were consistent with the broader legal and institutional framework of education policies and, more broadly, with constitutional mandates brought by the 1988 Constitution. In addition, it relied on a stable and “protected” (as enshrined in the constitution) source of resources (through the “Salário-Educação”⁴). The authors also emphasize that its longevity is connected to its relevance and coherence. The program’s goals remained stable over time, indicating that the public problem it aims to address remains relevant. Another hypothesis for the PDDE’s longevity is the importance of the FNDE in its implementation vis-à-vis MEC. Therefore, one could argue that, as mentioned in the literature (Bonduki, Palotti, 2021:21; Castro, 2000:75; Cruz, 2017: 53–4), the FNDE may be seen as more than a mere implementing agency, striving to earn more autonomy over the resources under its responsibility, with some policies under its purview and some insulation from MEC. Besides, as mentioned by interviewee 2, the FNDE has always been highly regarded for its technical expertise and minimal political influence. If the FNDE is relatively insulated, less prone to political influence, and has relative autonomy from MEC, that may help to explain the longevity of the PDDE. Another interpretation is provided by interviewee 2, who claims the Basic PDDE is a “state policy,” while the Integrated Actions are government policies and, therefore, more volatile to government changes. If policymakers really perceive the PDDE as a state policy, it may also help explain its longevity across different governments. Finally, the longevity of the PPDE may also be connected to the achieved results. In this sense, the PDDE may have created a successful and cost-effective framework for transferring federal resources to schools. Additionally, evaluations have shown that the PDDE plays a fundamental role in enhancing the quality of education in Brazil, presenting positive results such as improvements in school infrastructure, acquisition of teaching materials, improvement of the learning environment, and increased engagement of the school community (Almeida et al., 2024:238). According to the same study, the literature on the PDDE “attests to the redistributive and equitable nature of the Program at the national level, with regard to regional differences, both in relation to the Basic PDDE (Fachini; Oliveira, 2004; Paixão, 2012; Silva, 2005) and the Integrated Actions (Pinheiro, 2012)” (Almeida et al., 2024:196). Souza and Araujo (2024), in a study on the impact of the PDDE on school indicators in the Northeast region, point out that the intervention of the PDDE program caused a statistically significant and positive impact on approval rates, on the Basic Education Development Index (IDEB), improvement in infrastructure and reduction in the age-grade distortion rate of elementary schools exposed to receiving resources.

The positive results of the PDDE have even inspired the adoption of similar policies in 43 municipalities and 20 states, including the Federal District (Viana, 2022). This indicates the success of the program’s model and its capacity to inspire other levels of government. The diffusion of the PDDE to subnational governments could be further explored in future research.

These positive results help to explain the Program’s longevity, as its capacity to generate concrete improvements in school conditions and educational outcomes reinforces its legitimacy and relevance over time. In this sense, the PDDE stands out not only for its operational efficiency in transferring resources, but also for its effectiveness in promoting educational development and reducing regional inequalities.

The literature (Ferrarezi, Romão, 2024) divides its long trajectory into three periods.⁵ The first (between 1995 and 2002) includes its creation in 1995 as the PMDE. Initially, its implementation was carried out through an agreement between the FNDE and subnational education secretariats. Following the issuance of Provisional Measure 1.784/1998, the program was renamed as PDDE, the need for the aforementioned agreement was revoked, and the creation of executing units became mandatory, among other changes. The second period (2003-2013), deemed as an expansion and strengthening period, leveraged by the sharp increase in the revenues of the “Salário-Educação,” the resources transferred by the PDDE ballooned between 2007 and 2013, and there was also an increase in the coverage of the program. The PDDE also expanded its focus from only public elementary schools to all basic education schools. In the final period (between 2014 and 2022), in the context of a reduction in resources for education in general due to policy decisions and the COVID-19 crisis, the PDDE recorded a reduction of a little more than 50% between 2014 and 2020 (Ferrarezi, Romão, 2024:109–135).

Despite the incremental changes suffered by the PDDE, its essence remained relatively intact during its long trajectory. It has always been a supplementary direct transfer of financial resources to schools (through the executing units). An issue of paramount importance is that the PDDE does not over-specify the purpose of using those financial resources. Therefore, the wording used is comprehensive. The current resolution that governs the PDDE (MEC, 2021b), for instance, states that its purpose is to “contribute to meeting the priority needs of beneficiary educational facilities that help guarantee their operation and promote improvements in their physical and pedagogical infrastructure” for a different and broad range of purposes. Therefore, schools have flexibility⁶ in the use of the resources. Accordingly, there is also flexibility and adaptability from the government’s side regarding the use of the PDDE to provide programs with a wide range of specific purposes.

The PDDE’s longevity has allowed other programs to be “attached” to the original PDDE - now called “Basic PDDE” - so that other lines of action are available to schools directly. These are called “Integrated Actions,” forming a framework consisting of two types of actions: PDDE Equity and PDDE Quality.

To deepen understanding of the use of the PDDE as a platform policy for other educational actions, some of the developments of the original PDDE will be presented. First, the transformation of the original program into a platform will be discussed in more detail. Then, three programs attached to the PDDE will be briefly presented to demonstrate the versatility of the program and its capacity to aggregate different initiatives.

From PDDE to Basic PDDE: The Transformation of a Stand-Alone Policy into a Platform

To understand how the PDDE transitions from supporting schools to a platform policy, it is necessary to revisit another important program in Brazilian educational management: the Education Development Plan - PDE-School. According to Ferrarezi and Romão (2024:116), the program was created in 1998 to improve school management, the quality of teaching, and the retention of children in school. It was aimed at areas with a low Human Development Index (HDI) in the country’s North, Northeast, and Central-West regions. Schools could receive resources if they had an established executing unit, a body that had emerged in the context of the PDDE to be the recipient of program resources. According to Jannuzzi et al., (2024:45), “with this project, the executing units also began to receive and manage PDE-Escola resources and actions linked to it, beginning the process of disseminating the PDDE resource decentralization model to other programs.”

This was the first sign that other programs would become part of the PDDE structure, creating a trajectory of connections over the years. In reality, the figure of the executing unit, which allows the transfer of resources directly to schools, becomes a great attraction for other programs to couple with the PDDE.

After PDE-School, the PDDE program underwent a phase of expansion and strengthening between 2000 and 2010. New target populations and territories were included. However, it was not until 2009 that a new program, the Innovative High School Program (ProEMI, as per its acronym in Portuguese), took advantage of the PDDE, focusing on strengthening the development of innovative curricular proposals in high schools. It was only in 2018 that the program definitively gained its platform character, with the creation of Integrated Actions and the launch of most of its actions in the following years.

According to Gomes (2023), the Integrated Actions emerged throughout the PDDE implementation process, adding other service possibilities to the schools’ financing guidelines to meet the new demands of the new audiences that became part of the Brazilian student group. When populations marginalized from formal education begin to access public schools - riverside, “quilombola,” and indigenous, among others - the PDDE adapts and complements itself to meet the specific needs of these populations.

Examining the resolutions that created the Integrated Actions (see Table 1), it is clear how they all¹⁶ use and build upon the structure created by the PDDE. In this sense, they usually present the goals of these programs as providing financial resources to schools “in the operational and regulatory format of the PDDE.” They also state that the FNDE responsibilities in the programs are the same as their responsibilities in the PDDE and that the executing units must account for the resources received according to the PDDE regulations. In addition, the resolutions mention that the resources transferred through the specific programs should be deposited into particular bank accounts in the same branch where the resources from the PDDE are received. The resolutions usually state that the executing units must express their willingness to participate in the programs and present their action plans through a PDDE information system (the PDDE Interactive). The executing entities also use PDDE Interactive to monitor the process and, in some cases, analyze and approve the action plans. The system is also used to monitor the programs. Therefore, PDDE Interactive is used to fill forms and exchange documents among executing units, executing entities, MEC, and the FNDE. In a few resolutions, another PDDE information system is also mentioned (PDDEWeb), used by executing units to register or update registration information.

Considering the 18 programs created that were attached to the PDDE, it seems evident how utilizing the PDDE’s structure allowed for avoiding the need to develop specific operational and regulatory guidelines, IT systems, and monitoring and accountability mechanisms for each of the programs. Therefore, one may say that the PDDE is much more than a resource transfer policy directly to schools. It provides a framework, or in the terms we are using in the present study, a platform that can be used so that the implementation of the programs created later on can hit the ground running, without the need to develop new norms, procedures, and systems.

The resolution that currently organizes the program (Resolution CD/FNDE/MEC No. 15, of September 16, 2021) is referred to by the Ministry of Education itself as the legislation that provides for the Basic PDDE (MEC, 2024a)^. However, this term does not formally appear in any legislation. The institutional website on Integrated Actions (MEC, 2024b) refers to the same term as “Direct Money for Schools Program – PDDE, called Basic PDDE.”

Despite not having a legal apparatus, adding the term “Basic” in the original modality is an interesting distinction from the programs attached to it later. It reinforces its platform character as a primary version that can be complemented by other actions, as happens through its Integrated Actions.

PDDE Integrated Actions: Accessible School Program, the New High School Program, and the Emergency PDDE

This section will present three Integrated Actions: Accessible School Program, the New High School Program, and the Emergency PDDE.

The Accessible School Program was initially created in 2007, aiming to promote the effective elimination of barriers and the promotion of autonomy for students who are the target audience for special education. It was allocated as part of the PDE-School actions and was later established as one of the first Integrated Actions in 2018.¹⁷ Its focus of action is basic education public schools, preferably with the enrollment of students from the target audience of special education in common classes of regular education, covering operating and capital expenses for promoting accessibility.

Its resources can be used to purchase materials and goods and contract services for the construction and adaptation of toilets for accessibility and placement of visual, tactile, and sound signage; educational games; wheelchairs, accessible drinking fountains, and accessible furniture; and acquisition of other assistive technology products. Schools must formulate their plans for using the resources, submit them to MEC, and report on the actions taken with the resources received. The plans and action reports are formulated through the PDDE Interactive system. Besides, the program leverages the implementation arrangement of the PDDE, with the executing units, executing entities, and the FNDE each assuming their roles and responsibilities and following the rules and procedures defined by the PDDE.

The program emerged in the context of growing socio-educational recognition of the terms ‘accessibility’ and ‘inclusion’ (Andrade, Santos, 2020). Milestones such as the World Conference on Education for All (1990) and the Salamanca Declaration (1994) led to the issue of inclusion being debated in schools. Such inclusion must be achieved not only by ensuring access to school but also by having access to a structure adapted to their needs (Andrade, Santos, 2020).

In 2018, the New High School Program was incorporated into the PDDE to promote conditions for schools to structurally prepare for the conceptual changes proposed by the program.

High schools in Brazil have undergone significant transformations over the decades, reflecting changes in educational demands and the country’s educational policy. In the most recent transformations, Federal Law No. 13.415, enacted on February 16, 2017, proposed a change in the educational system, increasing the minimum time students spend in school and dividing the school year into mandatory and optional hours.

Previously, the high school consisted of a fixed curriculum of 12 subjects, which students were required to take throughout the three years, with no optional hours available. With the introduction of the concept of the “New High School Program,” students were introduced to the proposal of Training Itineraries so they could focus on specific areas of knowledge, professional training, or integrated configurations that cover more than one area or an area together with professional training.

According to the guidelines for using the resources, schools must use them to purchase items or repair classrooms or other educational spaces to ensure the provision of Training Itineraries. This process must include the active participation of teachers and the school community, following the original Basic PDDE guidelines. As is the case with other Integrated Actions, adherence to the program is made through the PDDE Interactive, which should also be used for schools to formulate their curriculum flexibilization proposals and submit them for validation by the executing entities. Monitoring those proposals and the reports on the use of resources will also be done through the PDDE Interactive. Additionally, the program leverages the implementation structure put forward by the PDDE, as well as its rules and procedures.

The use of PDDE resources in the modality for implementing the New High School Program does not guarantee the program’s implementation but supports its development. Other actions need to be coordinated with other educational actors, as in other PDDE modalities, to ensure teaching and student retention in the classroom.

Finally, the Emergency PDDE demonstrates how the coupling in the Basic PDDE has become an easier path to resolving urgent educational issues.

The Emergency PDDE program was created in 2020 on an exceptional basis to assist public schools in making the necessary adjustments according to the safety protocol for returning to in-person activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The resources could be used to purchase items for sanitizing the environment, personal protective equipment, and disinfection services. It was also possible to use it to enable and improve Internet access for students and teachers, and optimize remote teaching during the period.

With the obligation of following all rules and procedures of PDDE to receive the resources, schools had to keep their registries updated in PDDEWeb and provide up-to-date reports on the use of resources from Basic PDDE and other Integrated Actions. The program also utilizes the implementation structure of PDDE, with the executing units, the executing entities, and the FNDE each taking on the roles and responsibilities outlined by the PDDE.

Analysis

As shown, Dery’s (1999) focus of analysis is on the idea that policies can be understood, to different degrees, as the by-product of other policies. Besides, he mentions that policies previously occupying the policy space may restrict subsequent policies. In a similar fashion, Wildavsky (2018) mentions that early occupants of the policy space are fortunate because the new policies that arrive later would have to adjust to the existing programs. However, it is also true that a couple of studies that dialogue with Dery (1999) recognizes that previous policies may create positive unintended consequences, opening possibilities for ensuing policies (Börjesson et al., 2017; Penney, 2008).

Consistent with the comments by Börjesson et al. (2017) and Penney (2008), our empirical analysis has revealed that the existing policy (the PDDE), instead of restricting subsequent policies, created possibilities for them because they used the PDDE as a platform for resource transfer, included in the design of a new and diverse set of education policies. In this sense, in this specific case, we deem latecomers as fortunate, because they can take advantage of the early occupants of a policy space and make them adjust to the newcomers, and not the opposite, as stated by Wildavsky (2018). Dery (1999) points out that some policy types are more prone to restricting other policies than others. Similarly, but in an opposite fashion, we propose the idea that some policies tend to open more possibilities for the policies that arrive later.

We propose to refer to policies, such as the PDDE, which can create possibilities for subsequent policies that “attach,” take advantage of, and build upon those previous policies as platform policies.

Based on the empirical analysis of the PDDE, we consider that some of its characteristics were determinants for its composition as a platform policy. The first one is longevity. The PDDE could only turn into a platform policy because it lasted long enough to demonstrate how it operates until the first subsequent policy was attached to it (in the case of the PDDE, this process took 3 years). It was also long enough to demonstrate how the previous policy and the “attachment” operated so that new policies would take advantage of the platform policy. In the case of the PDDE, it took 10 years between the first and the second “attachments.” After the second one, many other policies were quickly attached to the PDDE, reinforcing its characterization as a platform policy.

The second attribute of the PDDE that is instrumental in its depiction as a platform policy is the fact that it is more connected to a means than to an end. Therefore, different public policies, with any end, can be attached to the platform policy because it only provides a means (in the PDDE, the transfer of resources). In the case of the PDDE, those ends are as diverse as providing water and sanitation in rural schools and programs focused on early childhood, reading, and accessibility, among many others, as presented earlier. In other words, the platform policy occupies a policy space of possible means for implementing policies and does not occupy any “end” policy space. Though not finalistic, it is instrumental for operating the policies that benefit from the platform.

The third characteristic of the PDDE, connected to the preceding one, which is paramount for its classification as a platform, is its flexibility and adaptability. In other words, it is designed in general terms to ensure that the coupling of subsequent policies is virtually seamless and, more importantly, without the need for adjustments (in terms of laws, decrees, and other ordinances) in the platform policy. That is not to say that there were no changes in the PDDE during its long trajectory. As shown previously, the PDDE has undergone gradual changes since its creation in 1995. However, our point is that those changes were not made as a result of or as a means of more easily incorporating the subsequent policies that were later attached to PDDE.

In the process of subsequent policies attaching to the previous existing policies (or, in our terms, the platform policies), one may say that the latter ends up changing very gradually. In this sense, it may be helpful to turn to the points made by Mahoney and Thelen (2010). They observe that once created, institutions often change gradually and subtly rather than in a dramatic, abrupt, and sweeping fashion. Based on the framework proposed by the authors, the changes experienced by the PDDE and platform policies generally seem similar to the layering. In other words, new rules are introduced on top of or alongside the existing ones. In this sense, the new policies attached to the PDDE produced laws, decrees, and other ordinances that did not alter the rules put forward by the PDDE. Therefore, they were added to the existing ordinances outlined by the platform policy, which are relatively untouched. However, the process generates a gradual policy change, since the new policies attached to the PDDE are deemed as Integrated Actions of the PDDE, adding to the Basic PDDE, which would be the original platform policy.

Final considerations

Johnson (2010:16–7) explores the idea of a “space of innovation,” arguing that some environments eliminate new ideas while others create them effortlessly. Besides, he states that some shared properties are recurrent in the more remarkably prolific environments. In this sense, he identified seven patterns of these properties, one of them being precisely platforms. In other words, platforms would lead to more innovation. For the author, platforms create an environment that allows agents to think differently, generating thoughts that can productively recombine. Platforms can also reduce costs since there is no need to build new structures from scratch. Besides, collaboration emerges as a driving force of the process rather than competition. All in all, the author states that the use of platforms allows users not to need specific knowledge that is already supplied by the platforms (Johnson, 2010:189;197;202;210).

In this sense, we could argue that platform policies, as the one analyzed in the present study, may be a force for policy innovation. It may create savings in terms of expenses since each subsequent policy does not have to generate the structure provided by the platform (in the case of the PDDE, the implementation arrangement for transferring resources directly to schools). We could also argue that they may spur collaboration between different policy communities if the communities around the platform and the attached policies differ. Finally, it allows for greater specialization of the subsequent policy and the quest for knowledge of their team, since they do not have to delve into the knowledge needed to put together the structure already provided by the platform.

In contrast to the more common points made in the literature, our empirical analysis has revealed that previous policies, instead of restricting subsequent policies, may create opportunities for the latter, and the early occupants may be the ones to adjust to the newcomers, and not the opposite. This is only true if those previous policies have specific characteristics that make them platform policies. If so, subsequent policies may “attach,” take advantage of, and build upon the platform policies.

The first distinctive characteristic of platform policies is longevity. In other words, the platform policy can only work if it lasts long enough to show how it operates and create a demonstration effect based on the experience of the first subsequent policy attached to it. The second one is the need for a policy to be connected to a means instead of an end. In other words, it is not a finalistic policy but an instrumental vehicle for implementing the subsequent policies that benefit from the platform. The final characteristic is flexibility and adaptability. It must be built in terms general enough to allow for the coupling of subsequent policies.

The main limitation of the present research is that it is based on a single policy (the PDDE), its subsequent policies, and the relationship between them, with the former acting as a platform for the latter. Future research could verify whether other policies can also be characterized as platform policies, as defined in this study, especially policies unrelated to financial resources transfers such as the PDDE. They could also verify whether the characteristics we deemed as constituents of platform policies are present in other platform policies and whether other attributes are instrumental in depicting them as platforms.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments and suggestions provided by the anonymous reviewers. Additionally, we would like to thank Eduardo Marques for his valuable contributions. As always, any remaining errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.

References

• Abrucio, Fernando Luiz. (2022), "Federalismo Brasileiro e Projeto Nacional: Os Desafios da Democracia e da Desigualdade". Revista USP, n. 134, pp. 127-142.
• Almeida, Ana Flávia Cordeiro S. de; Audibert, Paula F.; Fortes, Laís Vasconcelos R.; Jannuzzi, Paulo. (2024), "Uma revisão sistemática da literatura acerca da análise da implementação do Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola (PDDE)", in: Jannuzzi, Paulo; Ferreira, Vicente; Ferrarezi, Elisabete (org.), Avaliação Sistêmica e Multicêntrica do Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola: Proposta Conceitual e Estudos de Avaliabilidade (Volume 1). Goiânia, Cegraf UFG, pp. 171-255.
• Andrade, Edson Francisco de; Santos, Maviael Leonardo Almeida dos. (2020), "Programa Escola Acessível: a Política e o Âmbito Escolar". Revista Brasileira de Política e Administração da Educação, v. 36, n. 3, pp. 1068-1087.
• Arretche, Marta. (2004), "Federalismo e políticas sociais no Brasil: problemas de coordenação e autonomia". São Paulo em Perspectiva, v. 18, n. 2, pp. 17-26.
• Arretche, Marta. (2009), "Continuidades e Descontinuidades da Federação Brasileira? De Como 1988 Facilitou 1995". DADOS, v. 52, n. 2, pp. 377-423.
• Bichir, Renata. (2016), "Novos Instrumentos de Coordenação Federativa: Reflexões a Partir do Programa Bolsa Família". Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas e Internacionais, v. 1, n. 1, pp. 49-78.
• Bonduki, Manuel; Palotti, Pedro. (2021), "Entre Chicotes e Cenouras Orgânicas: Coerção e Cooperação na Implementação das Compras da Agricultura Familiar no Âmbito do Pnae". DADOS, v. 64, n. 4, pp. 1-38.
• Börjesson, Angelica; Karlsson, Lars; Lindgren, Lena. (2017), "Policy Making 'by the way' in a Crowded Education Policy Space: The case of the Swedish teacher certificate reform". Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, v. 21, n.4, pp. 97-119.
• Brasil. (2023), "Lei Orçamentária Anual". Available at: https://www.gov.br/planejamento/pt-br/assuntos/orcamento/orcamentos-anuais/2023/loa Accessed on: 26 nov. 2024.
  » https://www.gov.br/planejamento/pt-br/assuntos/orcamento/orcamentos-anuais/2023/loa
• Castro, Jorge Abrahão de. (2000), "Avaliação do Processo de Gasto Público do Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Educação (FNDE)". Texto para Discussão (IPEA), n. 760, pp. 1-129.
• Cejudo, Guillermo M; Michel, Cynthia. (2016), "Public Policies and Policy Coherence: Goals, Instruments and Target". Gestión y Política Pública, v.25, n.1, pp. 3-31.
• Chang, Ha-Joon. (2006), "Policy Space in Historical Perspective with Special Reference to Trade and Industrial Policies". Economic and Political Weekly, v. 41, n. 7, pp. 627-633.
• Cohen, Galit; Salomon, Ilan; Nijkamp, Peter. (2002), "Information-communications technologies (ICT) and transport: does knowledge underpin policy?". Telecommunications Policy, n. 26, pp. 31-52.
• Cruz, Rosana Evangelista da. (2017), "Financiamento federal para a educação básica pública: relações entre MEC e FNDE na gestão da política educacional". Textura, v. 19, n. 40, pp. 36-57.
• Dery, David. (1999), "Policy by the Way: When Policy is Incidental to Making Other Policies". Journal of Public Policy, v. 18, n. 2, pp. 163-176.
• Fachini, Maria Ângela Bariani de Arruda; Oliveira, Regina Tereza Cestari. (2004), "Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola (PDDE) no contexto de redefinição do papel do Estado". Série-Estudos, n. 18, pp. 113-125.
• Ferrarezi, Elisabete; Romão, Gabriela Araújo. (2024), "Análise do Contexto Institucional, Político e Ideacional do Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola (PDDE)", in: Jannuzzi, Paulo; Ferreira, Vicente; Ferrarezi, Elisabete (org.), Avaliação Sistemática e Multicêntrica do Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola: Proposta Conceitual e Estudos de Avaliabilidade (Volume 1). Goiânia, Cegraf UFG, pp. 70-170.
• Gomes, Beatriz Miranda. (2023), O Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Educação e a gestão descentralizada dos programas de manutenção escolar: estudo comparado sobre os Centros Colaboradores das regiões Centro-Oeste e Norte. Doctoral Dissertation in Sociology, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.
• Gomes, Sandra. (2009), "Políticas Nacionais e Implementação Subnacional: Uma Revisão da Descentralização Pós-Fundef". DADOS, v. 52, n. 3, pp. 659-690.
• Griggs, Gerald; Ward, Gavin. (2013), "The London 2012 Legacy for Primary Physical Education: Policy by the Way?". Sociological Research Online, v. 18, n. 3, pp. 1-7.
• Hill, Michael; Hupe Peter. (2003), "The Multi-Layer Problem in Implementation Research". Public Management Review, v. 5, n. 4, pp. 471-490.
• Hogwood, Brian W.; Peters, Guy B. (1982), "The Dynamics of Policy Change: Policy Succession". Policy Sciences, n. 14, pp. 225-245.
• Howlett, Michael. (2006), "Conclusion: the de/reregulatory cycle: learning and spill-over effects in regulatory policy-making", in: Ramesh, M.; Howlett, Michael (org.), Deregulation and its Discontents: Rewriting the Rules in Asia. Cheltenham, Edgar Elgar, pp. 228-236.
• Jannuzzi, Paulo; Rocha, Vicente; Reis, Fernanda; Ginu, Hugo; Boldrin, Juliana.(2024), "Avaliação Sistêmica e Multicêntrica do Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola: Premissas Epistêmicas e Plano de Avaliação", in: Jannuzzi, Paulo; Ferreira, Vicente; Ferrarezi, Elisabete (org.), Avaliação Sistêmica e Multicêntrica do Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola: Proposta Conceitual e Estudos de Avaliabilidade (Volume 1). Goiânia, Cegraf UFG, pp. 38-69.
• Johnson, Steven. (2010), Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation. New York, Riverhead Books.
• Lindblom, Charles E.; Cohen, David K. (1979), Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven, Yale University Press.
• Lipsky, Michael. (2010), Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York, Russel Sage Foundation.
• Mahoney, James; Thelen, Kathleen. (2010), "A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change", in: Mahoney, James; Thelen, Kathleen (org.), Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-37.
• Majone, Giandomenico. (1989), Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, Yale University Press.
• Ministério da Administração e Reforma do Estado.. (1995), Plano Diretor da Reforma do Aparelho do Estado. Brasília, MARE.
• Marinheiro, Edwylson de Lima; Ruiz, Maria José Ferreira. (2017), "Percurso político e histórico do Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola e a parceria público-privada na gestão escolar". Revista HISTEDBR, v. 17, n. 1, pp. 274-289.
• Ministério da Educação. (2021a), "Índice de Nota Técnica: Desempenho da Gestão Descentralizada do PDDE (IdeGES-PDDE)". Brasília, MEC. Available at: https://www.gov.br/fnde/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/programas/pdde/media-pdde/area-para-gestores/2021/copy_of_NotaTcnicaIDEGES2021.pdf
  » https://www.gov.br/fnde/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/programas/pdde/media-pdde/area-para-gestores/2021/copy_of_NotaTcnicaIDEGES2021.pdf
• Ministério da Educação. (2021b), "Resolução n. 15, de 16 de Setembro de 2021". Available at: https://www.gov.br/fnde/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/legislacao/resolucoes/2021/resolucao-no-15-de-16-de-setembro-de-2021
  » https://www.gov.br/fnde/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/legislacao/resolucoes/2021/resolucao-no-15-de-16-de-setembro-de-2021
• Ministério da Educação. (2024a), "Ações Integradas do Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola - PDDE". Available at: https://www.gov.br/fnde/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/programas/pdde/acoes-integradas-1
  » https://www.gov.br/fnde/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/programas/pdde/acoes-integradas-1
• Ministério da Educação. (2024b), "PDDE - Resoluções e Formulários". Available at: https://www.gov.br/fnde/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/programas/pdde/resolucoes-e-formularios#:~:text=Resolu%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20n%C2%B0%204%2C%20de,do%20Ensino%20Fundamental%20 (PMDE)
  » https://www.gov.br/fnde/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/programas/pdde/resolucoes-e-formularios#:~:text=Resolu%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20n%C2%B0%204%2C%20de,do%20Ensino%20Fundamental%20 (PMDE)
• Migone, Andrea; Howlett, Michael; Howlett, Alexander. (2024), "Paradigmatic stability, ideational robustness, and policy persistence: exploring the impact of policy ideas on policy-making". Policy and Society, v. 43, n. 2, pp. 189-203.
• Paixão, Gleice Aline Miranda. (2012), Escola democrática: a participação dos alunos na gestão financeira da escola. Master's Thesis in Education, Universidade Católica de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil.
• Palotti, Pedro Lucas de Moura; Machado, José Angel. (2014), "Coordenação Federativa e a 'Armadilha da Decisão Conjunta': As Comissões de Articulação Intergovernamental das Políticas Sociais no Brasil". DADOS, v. 57, n. 2, pp. 399-441.
• Penney, Dawn. (2008), "Playing a political game and playing for position: Policy and curriculum development in health and physical education". European Physical Education Review, v. 14, n. 1, pp. 33-49.
• Peroni, Vera Maria Vidal; Adrião, Theresa. (2007), Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola: Uma Proposta de Redefinição do Papel do Estado na Educação. Brasília, INEP.
• Pinheiro, Iara Ferreira. (2012), Programa Dinheiro Direto Na Escola (PDDE) - implicações na gestão, no financiamento e na qualidade do desempenho da Educação Básica: Estudo de Caso - modalidade Tempo Integral. Professional Master's Thesis in Management and Evaluation of Public Education, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Brazil.
• Rayner, Jeremy; Howlett, Michael; Wilson, Jeremy; Cashore, Benjamin; Hoberg, George. (2001), "Privileging the sub-sector: critical sub-sectors and sectoral relationships in forest policy-making". Forest Policy and Economics, n. 2, pp. 319-322.
• Russel, Duncan; Jordan, Andrew. (2009), "Joining up or pulling apart? The use of appraisal to coordinate policy making for sustainable development". Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, v. 41, n. 5, pp. 1201-1216.
• Russel, Duncan; Turnpenny, John. (2009), "The politics of sustainable development in UK government: What role for integrated policy appraisal?". Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, v. 27, n.2, pp. 340-354.
• Silva, Luizete Cordovil Ferreira. (2005), Estado e políticas de gestão financeira para a escola pública: a autonomia da escola no PDDE. Master's Thesis in Education, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Brazil.
• Souza, Adeilson Elias; Araujo, Hyolitta Adrielle Costa. (2024), "Avaliação de impacto do Programa Dinheiro Direto na Escola (PDDE) sobre indicadores de rendimento escolar na região Nordeste". Encontro Nacional de Economia, Natal, ANPEC. Available at: https://www.anpec.org.br/encontro/2024/submissao/files_I/i5-c1509876331d318513027b778dad080b.pdf
  » https://www.anpec.org.br/encontro/2024/submissao/files_I/i5-c1509876331d318513027b778dad080b.pdf
• Torres, Haroldo da Gama; Camelo, Rafael; Castro, Maria Helena Guimarães. (2019), "Dificuldades de Coordenação e Políticas Educacionais no Brasil: O Caso do Ensino Fundamental". DADOS, v. 62, n. 4, pp.1-31.
• Vazquez, Daniel Arias. (2014), "Mecanismos Institucionais de Regulação Federal e seus Resultados nas Políticas de Educação e Saúde". DADOS, v. 57, n. 4, pp. 969-1005.
• Viana, Mariana Peleje. (2022), "Comparando os Recursos Financeiros do PDDE com as chamadas 'Contribuições Espontâneas' arrecadadas pelas Escolas Públicas". FINEDUCA - Revista de Financiamento da Educação, v. 12, n. 16, pp. 1-19.
• Wildavsky, Aaron. (2018), The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. London, Palgrave Macmillan.

Notes

• Data Availability
  All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.
• 1
  . The authors’ point is that most policymaking is actually policy succession, which they describe as replacing an existing policy (program or organization) with another (Hogwood, Peters, 1982:226).
• 2
  . It is worth noting that “policy space” is also a term used by economists to describe a completely different concept. It is usually connected to the degree to which developing countries have the autonomy, vis-à-vis the pressure and influence of developed countries and internal constraints, to pursue an economic and social strategy that would lead to economic development. See, for instance, Chang (2006).
• 3
  . As explained later, Migone et al. (2024), based on Dery (1999), demonstrated that subsystem spillover is precisely one of the four processes through which public policies change.
• 4
  . Salário-Educação is a tax levied on companies corresponding to 2.5% of total compensation paid to employees.
• 5
  . For details, see Ferrarezi and Romão (2024:109–135)
• 6
  . That is not to say that the resources can be used to any end. The resolution (MEC, 2021b) forbids using the resources for personnel expenses and building maintenance (rent and utility bills), among others.
• 7
  . The index calculation considers adherence to the program, execution of resources, and accountability. See more in MEC (2021a).
• 8
  . Formerly known as PDDE Structure. PDDE Equity has replaced the PDDE Structure due to the resolution CD/FNDE/MEC no. 17, of August 15, 2024.
• 9
  . It seems the program has been discontinued, because it is no longer on MEC’s PDDE website.
• 10
  . Resolution CD/FNDE/MEC no. 17, of August 15, 2024, revoked this resolution as of December 31, 2024.
• 11
  . Idem
• 12
  . Idem
• 13
  . The Diversities Program is made of different types: Special Education, Bilingual Deaf Education, Education for Young People and Adults, Education in Rural Areas, Indigenous School Education, Quilombola School Education, Education for Ethnic-Racial Relations, Sustainable Schools, Education for the Youth, and Education in Human Rights.
• 14
  . Created before the emergence of the Integrated Actions. We decided to group it at PDDE Quality due to its characteristics.
• 15
  . It seems the program has been discontinued, because it is no longer on MEC’s PDDE website.
• 16
  . An exception is MEC’s Ordinance no. 635, of July 10, 2024, which does not mention the PDDE a single time despite creating the School of Adolescence Program as an integrated action.
• 17
  . Through CD/FNDE/MEC Resolution No. 20, of October 19, 2018.
• *
  Research supported as Cepid-Fapesp (2013/07616-7).

• Editor responsável:
  Luiz Augusto Campos.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  29 Apr 2026
• Date of issue
  Mar 2026

History

• Received
  19 Dec 2024
• Reviewed
  16 Apr 2025
• Accepted
  13 May 2025