Theme 27 of 43
Opinion Polls, Public Perception & Political Behavior
Polls show health as the population's top priority, and more than half of all earmarked spending goes there — but not because Congress is listening to voters, it's because a handful of committees control the budget tap.
Election polls compiled by Poder360 record voting intention, the pollster responsible, sample size, and margin of error for thousands of surveys conducted across the country, from municipal to presidential races. The National Health Survey and the continuous PNAD, both from IBGE, round out that picture with the population's perception of public services and well-being. And official TSE election results serve as a reality check: they let you verify whether the voting intention captured in polls actually held up at the ballot box. Cross-referencing this universe of public opinion with budget execution data, the pattern that emerges is of two spheres that barely talk to each other — what the population says it wants and what Congress decides to fund follow their own separate logics.
Health leads earmarked spending — but not because of public opinion
Opinion polls repeat, year after year, that health sits at the top of Brazilians' declared priorities. The budget numbers seem, at first glance, to confirm that demand: the Health function absorbs more than half of all money moved through parliamentary earmarks, ahead of any other area. But the causal link doesn't work the way it appears — allocation follows the bargaining logic of Congress's thematic committees, which decide where the money goes regardless of whether any survey of popular priorities was ever consulted.
| Function | Amount (R$ bn) | % of total |
|---|---|---|
| Health | R$ 79.2 bn | 51.8% |
| Special charges | R$ 25.6 bn | 16.8% |
| Urban planning | R$ 11.6 bn | 7.6% |
| Agriculture | R$ 6.7 bn | 4.4% |
| Education | R$ 5.6 bn | 3.6% |
| Social assistance | R$ 3.9 bn | 2.6% |
More than half of all parliamentary earmarks go to health — not because opinion polls point to that priority, but because that's where the Health Committee wields the most control over the budget.
Four authors control the budget spigot — polls never enter the equation
Public opinion doesn't vote on earmarks one by one. What actually decides is a small group of committees and rapporteurships: together, four authors account for thirty billion reais in directed funds — a concentration of decision-making that no survey of public investment priorities has ever captured or directly influenced.
| Author | Earmarks | Amount (R$ bn) |
|---|---|---|
| HEALTH COMM. | 10 | R$ 9.6 bn |
| REGIONAL DEV. COMM. | 12 | R$ 8.6 bn |
| GENERAL RAPPORTEUR | 23 | R$ 8.6 bn |
| SOCIAL AFFAIRS COMM. | 8 | R$ 3.2 bn |
Four authors control R$ 30 billion in earmarks — a decision concentrated in few hands, shielded from any opinion poll or popular consultation.
Half the budget never leaves the page
Between 2018 and 2021, less than half of the amount authorized in earmarks was actually executed — the rest was booked as "carryover payables" (restos a pagar), an accounting category that pushes spending into future fiscal years, sometimes indefinitely. The execution rate improves from 2022 onward, but stays far from a hundred percent. While opinion polls measure the population's satisfaction with public-service delivery, a large share of the money meant to fund that delivery simply never gets spent in the year it was promised.
| Year | Execution rate |
|---|---|
| 2018-2021 | 44-49% |
| 2022-2024 | 62-70% |
Historically, roughly half the budget authorized in earmarks never gets executed — it becomes an accounting promise, not a delivered service.
Powerful cross-references
- Polls × Budget: public opinion doesn't influence earmark allocation.
- Earmarks × Concentration: four authors dominate R$ 30 billion in directed funds.
- Execution × Opinion: about 50% of the earmark budget becomes "carryover payables," regardless of what the population says it prioritizes.
Explanatory hypotheses
The disconnect between public opinion and budget allocation reveals a captured legislature: thematic committees and the general rapporteur decide where billions in resources go with no direct mechanism for consulting voters, and allocation by budget function reflects each committee's political weight, not surveys of social priority. The low execution rate, in turn, shows the structural incentive to commit funds without actually spending them — formally earmarking money creates immediate political capital for the sponsoring legislator, regardless of whether the promised public service ever materializes.
Policy implications
Active transparency about how earmark decisions are made could bring budget allocation closer to the priorities the population actually expresses in opinion polls. Tying earmarks to execution targets — not just commitment targets — could shrink the gap between the amount authorized and the public service actually delivered, turning the budget promise from a piece of political rhetoric into a measurable commitment.