Advertisement

Do government audits reduce dengue? Estimating the impact of federal monitoring lotteries program on dengue incidence

  • Gisléia Benini Duarte
  • André de Souza Melo
  • Diego Firmino Costa da SilvaEmail author
Research article

Abstract

The paper examines the relationship between the supervision carried out in the municipalities by the main Brazilan supervisory institution (Controladoria Geral da UniãoCGU, in portuguese) and the incidence of dengue cases in them. Since the audited municipalities were randomized, this allows the identification of a control group that adequately represents the counterfactual of the treated group. The sample was composed of all municipalities that could be selected for that CGU inspection cycle, that is, 1520 municipalities, of which 70 were drawn and therefore belong to the study treatment group. We identified a negative effect of the policy on the incidence of the disease. However, when we consider a model with lags, we note that this initial impact from the drawing did not persist throughout the year of the inspection. Our analysis suggests that when federal resources are monitored, municipalities reduce irregularities, which may contribute to a decrease in the number of dengue cases.

Keywords

Policy evaluation Randomized Audit Dengue 

JEL Classification

D73 D78 H41 I18 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s compansion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avis, E., Ferraz, C., Finan, F., & Varjão, C. (2017). Money and politics: The effects of campaign spending limits on political competition and incumbency advantage (No. w23508). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  3. Benelli, G. (2016). Spread of Zika virus: The key role of mosquito vector control. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine,6(6), 468–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BRASIL. (2015). Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Monitoramento dos casos de dengue, febre de chikungunya e febre pelo vírus Zika até a Semana Epidemiológica 45. Boletim Epidemiológico, vol. 46, no. 36.Google Scholar
  5. Broutet, N., et al. (2016). Zika virus as a cause of neurologic disorders. New England Journal of Medicine,374(16), 1506–1509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Centers for disease control and prevention-CDC. (2017). Disponível em: < https://www.cdc.gov/dengue/index.html>. Accessed 2017.
  7. CGU. (2016). Relatório geral do 3 ciclo do Programa de Fiscalização em Entes Federativos, Estados, Distrito Federal e Municípios. http://www.cgu.gov.br/assuntos/auditoria-e-fiscalizacao/programa-de-fiscalizacao-em-entes-federativos/3-ciclo/3o-ciclo/arquivos/apresentacao-resultado_3-ciclo.pdf. Accessed 02 Feb 2018.
  8. Economopoulou, A., et al. (2009). Atypical Chikungunya virus infections: clinical manifestations, mortality and risk factors for severe disease during the 2005–2006 outbreak on Reunion. Epidemiology and Infection,137(4), 534–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferraz, C., & Finan, F. (2008). Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of brazils publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,123(2), 703–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ganu, M. A., & Ganu, A. S. (2011). Post-chikungunya chronic arthritis—Our experience with DMARDs over two year follow up. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India,59(2), 83–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica,37(3), 424–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hazin, A. N., et al. (2016). Computed tomographic findings in microcephaly associated with Zika virus. New England Journal of Medicine,374(22), 2193–2195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holmes, E. C., & Burch, S. S. (2000). The causes and consequences of genetic variation in dengue virus. Trends in Microbiology,8(2), 74–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Imbens, G. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. The Review of Economics and Statistics,86(1), 4–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lichand, G., Lopes, M., & Medeiros, M. (2016). Is corruption good for your health? Working paper.Google Scholar
  16. Mlakar, J., et al. (2016). Zika virus associated with microcephaly. New England Journal of Medicine,2016(374), 951–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MS. (2017). Monitoramento integrado de alterações no crescimento e desenvolvimento relacionadas à infecção pelo vírus Zika e outras etiologias infecciosas, até a Semana Epidemiológica 38/2017. Boletim Epidemiológico, Vol. 48, No. 37. Disponível em: http://portalarquivos2.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2017/novembro/16/2017-036.pdf.
  18. Musso, D., Baud, D., & Gubler, D. J. (2016). Zika virus: What do we know? Clinical Microbiology and Infection,22(6), 494–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olken, B. (2007). Monitoring corruption. Journal of Political Economy,115(2), 200–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rasmussen, S. A., et al. (2016). Zika virus and birth defects—Reviewing the evidence for causality. New England Journal of Medicine,2016(374), 1981–1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. WHO. (2009). Dengue and dengue hemorragic fever. In Fact sheet. World Health Organization, ed. (WHO).Google Scholar
  22. World Health Organization (2017) Zika: Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Available at www.who.int/emergencies/zika-virus/en/. Accessed 19 Feb 2017.
  23. Zamboni F. Y. B. (2012). Avaliando o avaliador: evidências de um experimento de campo sobre as auditorias da CGU. [S.l.]: [s.n.]. Thesis. Disponível em: <http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/10163>. Accessed 8 July 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de EconomiaUniversidade Federal Rural de PernambucoRecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations