Indicadores de gobernanza territorial de los objetivos del Plan Nacional del Buen Vivir (PNBV 2013-2017), Ecuador.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the variables and their indicators of territorial governance contained on National Secretariat of Planning and Development Report: “Objectives and indicators of support for the National Plan for Good Living 2013-2017”. Using Whittingham’s taxonomy, there are...
- Autores:
-
Bravo, Olga
- Tipo de recurso:
- ttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
- Fecha de publicación:
- 2018
- Institución:
- Universidad Sergio Arboleda
- Repositorio:
- Repositorio U. Sergio Arboleda
- Idioma:
- spa
- OAI Identifier:
- oai:repository.usergioarboleda.edu.co:11232/1345
- Acceso en línea:
- https://doi.org/10.22518/usergioa/jour/ccsh/2018.2/a03
http://hdl.handle.net/11232/1345
- Palabra clave:
- Desarrollo territorial - Ecuador
Planes de desarrollo - Ecuador - 2013-2017
Ecuador - Política y gobierno - 2013-2017
Indicadores sociales - Ecuador
Indicadores políticos
Participación social
Territorial development - Ecuador
Development plans - Ecuador - 2013-2017
Ecuador - Politics and government - 2013-2017
Social indicators - Ecuador
Political indicators
Social participation
Good Living
territorial governance
indicators
Ecuador
buen vivir
gobernanza territorial
indicadores
- Rights
- openAccess
- License
- Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia (CC BY-NC-ND 2.5 CO)
Summary: | The purpose of this article is to analyze the variables and their indicators of territorial governance contained on National Secretariat of Planning and Development Report: “Objectives and indicators of support for the National Plan for Good Living 2013-2017”. Using Whittingham’s taxonomy, there are 37 indicators of territorial governance (25 %), distributed in: efficiency 65%, equity 13.5%, participation 10.8%, accountability 8 % and, human resource development 2.7%; there is omission of important indicators in all these variables, lack of training for the public servant, underestimation of processes of accountability and representation of interest groups, as well as neglect of the institutional mechanisms of citizen participation, revealing a focused governance model in the state. At the regional level, there were improvements in most of the indicators, but stagnation in the field of higher education, committing future processes of generation and transfer of innovations, which are keys for development. |
---|