Congruência entre discursos e ações: uma análise da agenda presidencial nos governos Lula e Dilma

Introduction: The extent to which governmental discourse aligns with policy action is a core dimension of democratic responsiveness. Within agenda-setting research, examining the thematic priorities of the executive branch enables scholars to assess whether publicly stated commitments are translated into concrete governmental decisions. This article analyzes the degree of thematic congruence – measured through statistical correlation – between the rhetorical and decision-making agendas of Brazilian presidents during the administrations of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2003–2010) and Dilma Rousseff (2011–2016), thereby contributing to debates on presidential agenda-setting and democratic responsiveness in Brazilian presidentialism. Materials and Methods: The study applies the methodology of the Comparative Agendas Project (CAP), which is based on standardized thematic coding and the systematic measurement of the distribution of governmental attention across policy areas. The rhetorical agenda was operationalized using government programs, inaugural addresses, and annual Messages to the National Congress, resulting in a total of 7,871 coded quasi-sentences. The decision-making agenda comprises 2,700 executive-initiated normative acts, including decrees, provisional measures, bills, and proposed constitutional amendments. The association between the two agendas was assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results: The analysis reveals substantial variation in the degree of congruence between rhetorical and decision-making agendas across the presidential terms analyzed. Lula’s first administration exhibits a strong correlation between the two agendas, whereas his second term is characterized by a weak correlation. During the Dilma administrations, the correlation is moderate. Congruence is highest in policy areas such as social policy, labor, education, and public administration, while issues such as civil rights, foreign relations, and environmental policy display greater divergence between discourse and action. Discussion: Overall, the findings indicate that presidential responsiveness is strongly shaped by political and institutional contexts, governing constraints, and the executive’s normative authority. The results also suggest that rhetorical agendas tend to be more flexible and adaptive, whereas decision-making agendas are more tightly constrained by institutional arrangements and short-term political dynamics.