Abstract
There is broad consensus in the literature concerning the singularity of the Brazilian experience in the post-transition period. The increasing number of institutional channels where non-electoral participation and extra-parliamentary representation takes place – the so-called Brazilian model – would find no parallel in other latitudes. Likewise, the evolution of civil organizations would have become a major phenomenon. Against the backdrop of such expansion, this chapter systematically describes the evolution of councils in Brazilian cities from 1988 to 2009 and associations over one decade (1999–2009) to shed light on the implications this evolution has had on territorially measured socioeconomic inequality. Two questions are put forth: have councils and associations expanded and favored the most prosperous municipalities, thus becoming an additional item on the list of factors reproducing inequality, or have them, at least in principle, allowed their possible effects of inclusion to act as a counterbalance, however modest? What factors are associated with the presence of councils and associations in the socioeconomic “geography” of Brazilian municipalities? The answers vary, sometimes surprisingly, among types of councils and sets of civil organizations.
We are grateful for the suggestions from Monika Dowbor, Lizandra Serafin, and Rosangela Paz for interpretation of the findings presented here. The first author is also grateful to the Institute for European Studies and the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions, both at the University of British Columbia, for institutional support during the writing of this chapter as well as to the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for providing a research grant abroad (Grant No. 2012/18439-6).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Excluding the Federal District, which lacks municipalities and is home to all national councils. Thus, in 1991, it had 4 councils, and 15 councils in 2010.
- 2.
The term FASFIL denotes both research and researched entities. FASFIL is a reclassification of the information contained in CEMPRE, which combines information from the RAIS, the Ministry of Labor and Employment’s general registry of employment and unemployment (CAGED), and other IBGE sectoral surveys. CEMPRE microdata are not public, which enhanced the convenience of using RAIS microdata regarding establishment of organizations provided by the Ministry of Labor and Employment and organized by CEBRAP and the CEPESP-FGV.
- 3.
Changes in the MUNIC questionnaire in its various editions prevent construction of a temporal series on municipal councils. However, in 2009, municipalities were asked about the year of creation of 17 councils. Based on this information, an annual series was rebuilt. However, the series could only consider the year of creation and not the actual existence of councils in each year. Furthermore, the absence of questions regarding some councils in 2009, notably the municipal councils for social assistance, also imposes limitations on this analysis.
- 4.
There are also guardianship councils, administrative councils for local facilities, and program councils, but they go beyond the scope of this chapter.
- 5.
In MUNIC/IBGE we found some councils created prior to 1988, but this year was defined as the basis since there is little empirical or analytical relevance in differentiating previous years. In addition, we decided to use the HDI calculations based on the 2000 census, the midpoint of our series. At the time of writing this chapter, the 2010 HDI had not yet been released by the UNDP. We chose to use only the 2000 HDI to rank municipalities between quintiles. There are four reasons for this choice, which seemed to us the most prudent. The first is that if we varied the HDI according to each year, in 1991 we would have quintiles eventually composed of municipalities different from the quintiles established with the 2000 HDI (which due to the lack of data would also be the 2010 quintiles). The second reason is the absence of 1991 data on associations, which, according to the limitations of RAIS, could only be used from 1999 onward. It would only be possible to vary the HDI when analyzing the evolution of councils. The third reason is that, empirically speaking, it makes little difference to use either 1991 or 2000 as the initial year of the data series on councils. As we note below, the number of councils in the early 1990s is low and HDI groups are not easily distinguishable. Lastly, we can vary the socioeconomic conditions of the municipalities by examining the variables in the 1990, 2000, and 2010 censuses. The results, presented in the penultimate section, confirms the patterns found using 2000 HDI.
- 6.
With the exception of the social assistance municipal council. See footnote 4.
- 7.
The formation of these sets is limited by the national classification of the entities’ economic activity (CNAE) found in the RAIS (Ministry of Labor and Employment), by changes in classification over time, and by the vagueness or inaccuracy of some categories.
- 8.
Only from 1999 onward does it become possible to separate establishments registered in the RAIS based on their legal status and reliably obtain the universe of nonprofit organizations. Thus, this is a limit in data availability one faces when analyzing associations.
- 9.
Condominiums and notary offices represent approximately one-fifth to one-quarter of the 1999 NPE onward, and their presence correlates with factors such as city size and level of urbanization.
- 10.
Most of the economic categories included within this definition contain few organizations, with the exception of the entities in the fourth set.
- 11.
From 1999 to 2005, we only have what CNAE lists as “other associative activities.” From 2006 onward, with changes in the legal classification of organizations, a new category was established, “rights advocacy organization,” which is of special interest to this analysis. The reduced number of organizations classified as “other associated activities,” from 2005 to 2006, when the change occurs, corresponds almost entirely to the new category of “rights advocacy organizations.” Thus, we deemed it safe to treat the sum of these categories from 2006 onward as equivalent to the preexisting category, even if this procedure leads to marginal inaccuracy. Throughout the text this set is referred to as “rights advocacy organizations.”
- 12.
CNPJ is the Brazilian taxpayer ID and stands for “National Registry of Legal Entities.”
- 13.
Sources for the electoral data: Superior Electoral Court (TSE). The TSE does not provide data for the 1992 municipal elections. We expected few municipalities governed by the PT in this mandate however.
- 14.
Since data on councils and associations are from the late 2009, we decided not to include the 2008 elections. Mayors elected in 2008 took office in 2009 and its inclusion would increase the number of municipalities governed by the PT, albeit without enough time for the expected effects to manifest themselves in the variables of interest.
- 15.
Our interest here is merely to observe the association between variables – PT administration and number of councils or associations per inhabitant. The available instruments do not allow us to assess causality.
- 16.
References
Almeida, C., Lüchmann, L., & Ribeiro, E. (2012). Associativismo e representação política feminina no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política, (8), 237–263.
Arretche, M., & Marques, E. (2003). Municipalização da saúde no Brasil: diferenças regionais, poder do voto e estratégias de governo. Ciência e Saúde Coletiva, 7(3).
Cohen, J., & Arato, A. (1992). Civil society and political theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1991). Los dilemas del pluralismo democrático. Autonomía versus control. México: Alianza Editorial/Conaculta.
Duarte, C. M. R. D. (2000). Equidade na legislação: um princípio do sistema de saúde brasileiro? Ciência e Saúde Coletiva, 5(2), 443–463.
Gurza Lavalle, A., & Bueno, N. (2011). Waves of change within civil society in Latin America: Mexico City and Sao Paulo. Politics & Society, 39(3), 415–450.
Gurza Lavalle, A., Houtzager, P., & Castello, G. 2012 La construcción política de las sociedades civiles. In El horizonte de la política − Brasil y la agenda contemporánea de investigación en el debate internacional. 1a ed. México: CIESAS, pp. 207–268, 2011. 1a ed. São Paulo: CEM/Unesp, 2012, pp. 185–259.
Hirst, P. (1994). Associative democracy. New forms of economic and social governance. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
IBGE. 2002. Central Register of Enterprises (Cempre). Rio de Janeiro.
IBGE. 2005. Central Register of Enterprises (Cempre). Rio de Janeiro.
Lopez, F., & Bueno, N. (2012). Transferências federais a entidades privadas sem fins lucrativos (1999–2010). Brasília: IPEA. (Textos para discussão, no. 1778).
Lüchmann, L. (2013). Impactos democráticos do associativismo: questões teóricas e metodológicas. In Encontro Internacional Participação, Democracia e Políticas Públicas. Araraquara: Unesp. April 2013.
Maricato, E. (2006). O Ministério das Cidades e a política nacional de desenvolvimento urbano. Cidades brasileiras: a matriz patrimonialista. Políticas Sociais, 12, 211–220.
Neto, A. F. P. (2012). Conselho de favores – Controle social na saúde: a voz dos seus atores. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond.
Pires, R. R. (Org.). (2011). Efetividade das instituições participativas no Brasil: Estratégias de Avaliação (Vol. 7). Brasília: IPEA.
Pires, R. R., & Vaz, A. C. N. (2010). Participação faz diferença? Uma avaliação das características e efeitos da institucionalização da participação nos municípios brasileiros. In In A dinâmica da participação local no Brasil. São Paulo: Cortez.
Sarmento, D. C. (2005). Criação dos sistemas municipais de ensino. Education and Society, 26(93), Campinas, 1363–1390.
Scatena, J. H. G., & Tanaka, O. Y. (2001). Os instrumentos normalizadores no processo de descentralização da saúde. Saúde Soc., 10(2).
Tatagiba, L. (2005). Conselhos gestores de políticas públicas e democracia participativa: aprofundando o debate. Revista de Sociologia e Política, (25), 209–213.
Tatagiba, L. (2002). Os conselhos gestores e a democratização das políticas públicas no Brasil. In Sociedade civil e espaços públicos no Brasil. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, E. H. (2005). Voice and equality – Civic voluntarism in American politics. London: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lavalle, A.G., Barone, L.S. (2019). Councils, Associations, and Inequality. In: Arretche, M. (eds) Paths of Inequality in Brazil. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78184-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78184-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78183-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78184-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)