Analysis of defense coalitions in the regulatory framework of civil society organizations

The paper aims to understand the process of formulation and implementation of the Regulatory Framework of Civil Society Organizations - MROSC, focusing on the type of control exercised by the federal public administration over non-profit entities that receive voluntary transfers of financial resources. In order to fulfill the proposed objective, it was used the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), an analytical model that addresses mature policies based on the subsystem concept, focusing on competing antagonistic coalitions in defining the design of a given policy, with the objective of revealing beliefs, resources and modes of action of the groups in dispute, as well as the interactions among its components. Qualitative research was carried out, consisting of interviews with actors involved in the implementation of the MROSC, as well as documentary analysis of reports, opinions and other of ficial documents of the Public Administration. The application of the ACF model indicated the existence of two defense coalitions. The first, in favor of partnerships, advocates the autonomy and action of Civil Society Organization (CSOs) and the partnership regime, understanding partnerships as a space for social participation, democratization, and diversification of the state's activities, aiming at improving the public service. On the other hand, the coalition against partnerships or "distrustful" is formed by three distinct perspectives - state-centered, budgetary and criminalizing - that share a certain unity of action, hindering or creating rigorous control mechanisms for partnerships.