AGÊNCIAS REGULADORAS

Summary

This video provides an insightful discussion on regulatory agencies in Brazil, focusing on their autonomy, characteristics, and legal frameworks. It explains the concept of regulatory agencies as special autarchies, their role in regulating public services and private activities, and their origins in the 1990s neoliberal reforms. Key topics include the independence of regulatory agencies from direct governmental control, fixed mandates for directors, the concept of 'quarantine' periods after leaving office, and the importance of public participation in decision-making. The video also covers the concept of 'regulatory power' versus 'regulatory authority' and the risks of regulatory capture.

Takeaways

• 😀 Regulatory agencies in Brazil are specialized autarchies with greater autonomy compared to other public agencies.
• 😀 The concept of regulatory agencies was introduced in the 1990s, influenced by American models, as part of a neoliberal reform to create a subsidiary state.
• 😀 Regulatory agencies are governed by Law 9986 of 2000, with updates from Law 13.848 of 2019, which emphasizes their autonomy and independence.
• 😀 Regulatory agencies carry out regulatory activities, which include fostering, sanctioning, and establishing technical regulations for public services and economic activities.
• 😀 Regulatory agencies have a fixed mandate for their directors, which lasts for five years, with no reconduction unless the position becomes vacant.
• 😀 A director can only lose their position through four circumstances: resignation, judicial sentence, disciplinary procedure, or violation of restrictions imposed on them.
• 😀 Directors of regulatory agencies are appointed by the executive branch, but their appointment may also require approval from the legislative body, in line with the federal constitution.
• 😀 Regulatory agencies have a 'cooling-off period' of six months for their former directors, during which they cannot act in the sectors they regulated, to prevent conflicts of interest.
• 😀 Public participation in decision-making is encouraged by regulatory agencies, involving public consultations and hearings to ensure legitimacy and inclusiveness.
• 😀 Regulatory decisions are typically made by a collegiate body, where decisions are taken by majority vote, and are usually final unless there is express legal provision for appeal.
• 😀 Regulatory agencies exercise 'regulatory power' which is distinct from the 'regulatory power' of the executive. The former involves technical regulation and enforcement, while the latter pertains to political acts of law enforcement.
• 😀 The 'capture theory' explains the potential compromise of the agency's independence, either by powerful private interests or through undue influence by the public sector.

Q & A

What are regulatory agencies in Brazil, and how are they classified?

Regulatory agencies in Brazil are special autarchies, which are independent entities responsible for regulating certain economic activities and public services. They are classified as special autarchies due to their greater autonomy compared to other public entities.

What laws govern regulatory agencies in Brazil?

Regulatory agencies in Brazil are governed by Law 9986/2000, which was later amended by Law 13.848/2019. These laws provide the framework for their creation, autonomy, and functioning.

What is the main characteristic that distinguishes regulatory agencies from other autarchies?

The main characteristic that distinguishes regulatory agencies from other autarchies is their greater autonomy. They are designed to perform regulatory functions with a higher degree of independence from the government entity that created them.

How does the concept of 'mandate' apply to the directors of regulatory agencies?

Directors of regulatory agencies in Brazil serve a fixed five-year mandate, which is not subject to reconduction unless there is a vacancy before the end of the term. This mandate provides directors with stability and greater independence in their decision-making.

Under what circumstances can a director of a regulatory agency lose their position?

A director of a regulatory agency can lose their position in four cases: resignation, a final court ruling, a disciplinary process, or a violation of the rules governing their conduct.

What is the significance of the 'quarantine period' for former directors of regulatory agencies?

The 'quarantine period' is a six-month period during which former directors of regulatory agencies are prohibited from working in the sector they regulated. This period aims to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure that information gained during their tenure is not misused.

What role does public participation play in the decision-making process of regulatory agencies?

Public participation is crucial in the decision-making process of regulatory agencies, as it helps address the legitimacy gap by allowing stakeholders affected by decisions to contribute to the discussions. This participation is typically carried out through public consultations and hearings.

How are decisions made within regulatory agencies, and what does 'horizontal and collegial decision-making' mean?

Decisions within regulatory agencies are typically made through a horizontal and collegial process, where decisions are taken by a group of directors or a committee, rather than by a single individual. This ensures that decisions are more democratic and collective in nature.

What is the difference between 'regulatory power' and 'regulatory authority'?

Regulatory power refers to the authority granted to agencies to regulate certain activities, including enforcement, sanctions, and adjudication. This is distinct from 'regulatory authority,' which typically refers to the broader legal framework or responsibility of the executive to create regulations.

What is the 'capture theory,' and how does it relate to regulatory agencies?

The 'capture theory' suggests that regulatory agencies may lose their autonomy and independence due to undue influence from either powerful private entities or the government. This results in decisions that favor these groups instead of the public interest, undermining the agency's regulatory role.