Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio
Logo

Artículos de Investigación

Vol. 5 Núm. 9 (2025): Criterio, Revista Multidisciplinaria

Percepción de funcionarias sobre descentralización y gestión presupuestaria en centros de atención de violencia de género

Female Officials’ perceptions of decentralization and budget management: evidence from gender-based violence response centers
Publicado
2025-10-23

Este artículo analiza la percepción de las funcionarias del Ministerio de la Mujer (MINMUJER) y de los Centros Regionales de Referencia (CRM) sobre la descentralización y la gestión presupuestaria en Paraguay. A partir de una encuesta aplicada a 27 funcionarias, se identifica una paradoja institucional: si bien el 70,4 % reconoce que la descentralización favorecería la gestión, dos tercios perciben una estructura organizacional centralizada. Además, aunque la planificación presupuestaria se califica como “participativa” (66,7 %) y la articulación como “bien coordinada” (77,8 %), la ejecución nunca se considera “suficiente” y el principal obstáculo percibido es la falta de recursos presupuestarios (70,4 %). El análisis multivariado revela dos perfiles claramente diferenciados: uno crítico, predominante en los CRM, y otro más conformista, asociado al nivel central. Estos hallazgos evidencian una descentralización incipiente y simbólica, que limita la capacidad de los CRM para responder de manera efectiva a las necesidades de las mujeres víctimas de violencia de género. Se recomienda crear un subprograma presupuestario específico para los CRM, fortalecer capacidades técnicas en gestión financiera y formalizar mecanismos de coordinación interinstitucional.

This article examines the perceptions of officials from the Ministry of Women (MINMUJER) and Regional Reference Centers (CRMs) regarding decentralization and budget management in Paraguay. Based on a survey of 27 female officials, the study identifies an institutional paradox: while 70.4% recognize that decentralization could enhance institutional management, two-thirds perceive the organizational structure as centralized. Although budget planning is described as “participatory” (66.7%) and inter-institutional coordination as “well coordinated” (77.8%), budget execution is consistently rated as “insufficient,” with limited financial resources (70.4%) cited as the main obstacle. A multivariate analysis reveals two differentiated profiles: a critical one, predominant among CRM staff, and a more conformist one, associated with central-level officials. Overall, the findings indicate an incipient and largely symbolic decentralization that constrains the CRMs’ capacity to effectively address the needs of women affected by gender-based violence. The study recommends establishing a dedicated budget subprogram for CRMs, strengthening financial management capacities, and formalizing inter-institutional coordination mechanisms.

Número:
Vol. 5 Núm. 9 (2025): Criterio, Revista Multidisciplinaria
Sección:
Artículos de Investigación

Referencias

  1. Annahar, N., Widianingsih, I., Muhtar, E. A., & Paskarina, C. (2023). The road to inclusive decentralized village governance in Indonesia. Sustainability, 15(11), 8616. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118616
  2. Be-Ere, S. (2023). Decentralization and pro-poor participation in Ghana: Unmasking the barriers to inclusive grassroots development. Studies in Comparative International Development, 58(2), 280-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-022-09371-y
  3. Chen, Y., Richter, J. I., & Patel, P. C. (2021). Decentralized governance of digital platforms. Journal of Management, 47(5), 1305-1337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320916755
  4. Dick-Sagoe, C. (2020). Decentralization for improving the provision of public services in developing countries: A critical review. Cogent Economics & Finance, 8(1), 1804036. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2020.1804036
  5. Gupta, D., Lele, S., & Sahu, G. (2020). Promoting a responsive state: The role of NGOs in decentralized forest governance in India. Forest Policy and Economics, 111, 102066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102066
  6. Harguindéguy, J. B. P., Cole, A., & Pasquier, R. (2021). The variety of decentralization indexes: A review of the literature. Regional & Federal Studies, 31(2), 185-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2019.1566126
  7. Hooda, D. S., & Kataria, P. (2022). The gender-responsive budgeting: an approach of handling gender inequalities. SN Social Sciences, 2(9), 175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00473-x
  8. Huynh, C. M., Nguyen, T. L., & Lam, T. H. T. (2023). Fiscal decentralization and income inequality in OECD countries: does shadow economy matter?. Eurasian Economic Review, 13(3), 515-533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40822-023-00241-z
  9. Ikhide, E. E. (2024). The Political Economy of Gender-Responsive Budgeting in Nigeria. In Gender-Responsive Budgeting in Africa: Access and Future Measures (pp. 35-44). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-53333-4_4
  10. Laszlo, S., De Miranda, C., Grimard, F., Insfrán, T., Kokossou, T., Morínigo, L., & Warnick, J. (2025). Norm-Shifting Interventions and Beliefs about Gender Norms in Paraguay. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 73(4), 000-000. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/733348
  11. Lee, J. (2024). Behind and beyond the standard (ization) trap: diversifying power sources by differentiating centralization and standardization. International Review of Public Administration, 29(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2024.2310899
  12. Meagher, K., Khaity, M., Hafez, S., Rodo, M., Achi, N. E., & Patel, P. (2023). Strengthening health systems and peacebuilding through women’s leadership: a qualitative study. Globalization and health, 19(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-00920-1
  13. Meier, K. J. (2019). Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvy004
  14. MINMUJER. (2023). Informe de ejecución presupuestaria 2022: Centros Regionales de Referencia. Ministerio de la Mujer, Paraguay. https://www.mujer.gov.py/transparencia
  15. Nolte, I. M., Polzer, T., & Seiwald, J. (2021). Gender budgeting in emerging economies–a systematic literature review and research agenda. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 11(5), 799-820. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-03-2020-0047
  16. Pérez Rubi, M., & Hack, J. (2021). Co-design of experimental nature-based solutions for decentralized dry-weather runoff treatment retrofitted in a densely urbanized area in Central America. Ambio, 50(8), 1498-1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01457-y
  17. Ran, Q., Zhang, J., & Hao, Y. (2020). Does environmental decentralization exacerbate China's carbon emissions? Evidence based on dynamic threshold effect analysis. Science of The Total Environment, 721, 137656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137656
  18. Rosas Villarrubia, I. (2024). Presupuestos públicos con perspectiva de género en Latinoamérica. Política, globalidad y ciudadanía, 10(19), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.29105/rpgyc10.19-307
  19. Udeagha, M. C., & Ngepah, N. (2023). Towards climate action and UN sustainable development goals in BRICS economies: do export diversification, fiscal decentralisation and environmental innovation matter?. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 15(1), 172-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2023.2222264
  20. Williamson, S., Carson, L., & Foley, M. (2020). Representations of new public management in Australian public service gender equality policies. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 39(2), 235-250. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-05-2019-0145