Operação Lava Jato, convenções e investimento privado

A Cedeplar-UFMG study (Dias Filho, Resende and Carvalho) estimated, by ARIMAX with quarterly data from 2002.1 to 2023.1, that the Lava Jato intercept dummy (post-plea-agreement period, from 2014.2) has a negative sign and is significant at 5% (coefficient -1.250; standard error 0.499; p = 0.014) in the private investment equation, and that the interaction dummies indicate lower sensitivity of investment to credit.

Source: Operação Lava Jato, convenções e investimento privado — Proceedings of an academic event (even3); authors from Cedeplar-UFMG, 2024 · Section 5, Tables 4 and 5; Final considerations · open original ↗

Study (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026

Limitations: The authors acknowledge that other factors (economic policy errors, the fall in commodities in 2015) contributed to the pessimistic convention and may cause the model to overestimate the influence of Lava Jato: the dummy captures everything that changed in 2014.2. Not an indexed journal (proceedings). The text does not give the publication date.

The Cedeplar study mentions the DIEESE study (2021) and reproduces, in Table 1, DIEESE's results (4.4 million jobs, R$244 bn in value added, R$47 bn in taxes, R$85 bn in wage bill, R$20 bn in social security and FGTS, 3.6% of GDP); it adds its own calculation of the Rasmussen-Hirschman linkage indices with the IBGE matrix of 2010 and 2015.

Source: Operação Lava Jato, convenções e investimento privado — Proceedings of an academic event (even3); authors from Cedeplar-UFMG, 2024 · Section 3, Tables 1 to 3 · open original ↗

Study (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026

Limitations: It is not an independent replication of DIEESE: it reproduces the numbers and uses them as context. It is valuable for showing that DIEESE's result circulates in the literature, not for confirming it.