The concept of development in the four moments of implementing the Suape port-industrial complex (1955 to 2015)

Abstract:

The Suape Port-Industrial Complex (CIPS) in the Northeastern Brazilian state of Pernambuco, presents a long experiential history of regional planning. The objectives of this article are: first, to understand whether there was a change in the conceptual repertoire of development in the institutional plans of CIPS, from 1955 to 2015; and second, whether there was an equal balance between the federal and state government investments applied in the economic and social areas in the strategic territory of Suape, from 2003 to 2015. The methodology used was conducted in two stages: (1) - an analysis of the institutional discourse contained in the CIPS documents and the Multi-annual plans (MAPs) of the federal and state governments; and (2) - a review of the investment data from the Growth Acceleration Program (PAC) and the National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES) that underlie the socioeconomic indicators of the municipalities, which make up the strategic territory of Suape. It is concluded that the federal government’s concept of development is limited by the PAC and BNDES sectorial investment strategies in the oil and gas industries, concentrated in the energy sector in Suape. There was also a polarization of federal government spending on projects in Ipojuca and Cabo Santo Agostinho from 2007 to 2015.

Keywords:
Suape Port-Industrial Complex; Sectoral development; Growth Acceleration Program; Polarization; strategic points

Resumo

O Complexo Industrial Portuário de Suape (CIPS) possui uma longa trajetória de experiências para o planejamento regional. Os objetivos deste artigo são: primeiro, compreender se houve mudança no repertório do conceito de desenvolvimento dos planos institucionais do CIPS, de 1955 a 2015; segundo, se houve equilíbrio entre os investimentos do governo federal e de Pernambuco na área econômica e social aplicados no território estratégico de Suape, nos anos 2003 a 2015. A metodologia utilizada foi realizada em dois movimentos: (1) a análise do discurso institucional dos documentos do CIPS e dos PPAs do governo federal e de Pernambuco; (2) o balanço de dados de investimentos do programa de aceleração do crescimento (PAC) e do Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (BNDES) subjacente aos indicadores socioeconômicos dos municípios que compõem o território estratégico de Suape. Conclui-se que a concepção de desenvolvimento do governo federal está limitada pela estratégia de investimento setorial, do PAC e do BNDES, nos segmentos de petróleo e gás, centralizados no eixo de energia de Suape e houve polarização de gastos do governo federal em empreendimentos em Ipojuca e Cabo de Santo Agostinho nos anos de 2007 a 2015.

Palavras-chave:
Complexo Industrial Portuário de Suape; desenvolvimento setorial; Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento, polarização, pontos estratégicos

1. Introduction

The Suape Port-Industrial Complex (known as CIPS), is surrounded by a long history of planning experiences for the development of the Northeastern Brazilian state of Pernambuco, in which it is situated. Exploratory studies were begun in the 1950s by Lebret and Oliveira, and supplemented by the regionalist studies of Josué de Castro, Rômulo de Almeida, Hans Singer, and Celso Furtado. Later, in the 1970s, the complex was adopted by the State Government of Pernambuco as a strategy for overcoming the regional asymmetries of the Northeast.

The process of implementing the Suape Port-Industrial Complex may be structured into four moments, organized by chronological and thematic division: the first moment, between 1955 and 1969, in which Louis Lebret and Francisco de Oliveira undertook their pioneering diagnosis of the state of Pernambuco under the auspices of the Economic Development Commission of Pernambuco (referred to as CODEPE); the second moment between 1970 and 1981, when the government of Pernambuco formulated the first master plans for the Suape Port Industrial Complex; the third moment, between 1982 and 2002, when the federal government’s fiscal financial crisis paralyzed state investments in the Suape Port-Industrial Complex; and the fourth moment, between 2003 and 2014, during President Lula’s Government, when the Suape complex emerged as a reference point for investments from the Growth Acceleration Program (known as PAC), the National Economic and Social Development Bank (BNDES), and Petrobrás, and when the New Master Plan - Suape 2030 was created.

The present article proposes two different stages of analysis. The first is to understand whether, between 1955 and 2015, a change occurred in the repertoire of institutional plans for CIPS regarding the concept of development. The second is to analyze whether there was an equal balance between the investments applied by the federal government through PAC and BNDES and those of the State Government of Pernambuco, as announced in the Multi-annual Plans (MAPs) to the economic and social areas in the strategic territory of Suape, between 2003 and 2015.

In this second stage of analysis two questions may be raised regarding the surge of federal government investments in Suape from 2003 to 2015: (1) Did the federal and state authorities collaborate on a joint action plan to overcome social vulnerability? And (2) To what extent did political influence exist between the federal government and the state government of Pernambuco to receive large amounts of investment from 2007 onwards?

From 1955 to 2002, there was unanimity between the institutional plans of CIPS and the strategy of investing in the area of economic productivity, and social policy was obscured from the public policy agenda, thus resulting in an increase in social vulnerability indicators in and around Suape, and inequalities in the distribution of investments throughout the municipalities of the strategic territory. Since the 1990s, research institutes such as the Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA), the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) have collaborated in order to redefine the concept of development by means of variables such as social equality, the social development index (SDI), and the municipal human development index (MHDI), amongst others, for the accountability of development. The break from this interpretation of the concept of development, aligned to the variable of the economic productivity matrix, and the permanence of social vulnerability in Suape, reinforce the hypothesis of this article regarding the need to strengthen the equal balance between federal and state government investments in the economic and social areas, guided by the isonomic distribution of public spending.

According to Monteiro Neto, Vergolino and Santos (2015), the social deficit presented by the social indicators, especially those concerning education and the MHDI, in the municipalities of the strategic territory of Suape, has demonstrated the necessity to invest in social, education and health policies. Spending in the area of social welfare is essential for improving indicators and the quality of life of the population.

The methodology employed for the analysis involved the deployment of two different resources. The first involved an analysis of the following institutional documents: Studies on Development and the Implantation of Industries, of Interest to Pernambuco and the Northeast, by Louis Joseph Lebret (1955); Problems of Economic Development in Pernambuco, Francisco de Oliveira (1959); the Programs and Achievements report by the State Government of Pernambuco 1967-1970 (1971); a study entitled Suape: the idea of an industrial port for the Northeast and the Amazon (1974) and the master plan Suape: a port-industrial complex, (1980), both by the State Government of Pernambuco; the master plan The SUAPE Port-Industrial Complex: inter-industrial relations and investment opportunities, produced by the Special Secretariat for Matters Related to the Implementation of the Suape Port-Industrial Complex (SEAS) and by the Institute of Development for Pernambuco (CONDEPE) (1982); diagnoses from the Consolidated Work Plan (2008), the Situational Diagnostic Master Plan for Suape (2009) and the New Master Plan for Suape 2030 (2011) produced by the State Economic Development Secretariat (SDEC) in partnership with the consortium Projetec & Planave; the federal government’s Multi-annual Plans (MAPs): MAPs 2004-2007, MAPs 2008-2011 and MAPs 2012-2015; and those of the state government of Pernambuco: MAPs 2008-2011 and MAPs 2012-2015.

The second methodological resource deployed quantitative investment data from the federal government, during the administrations of Presidents Lula and Dilma, for an analysis of the PAC and BNDES balance reports related to the Suape Port-Industrial Complex. Reports were used from the PAC Program of Economic Growth(PAC2), the 9^thPernambuco Balance Report 2011-2014, the 3^rdPernambuco Balance Report 2015-2018 and A territorial perspective for development by BNDES, 2014. This analysis was complemented by socioeconomic data from the municipalities in the strategic territory of Suape collected from Atlas Brazil, the State Agency for Planning and Research in Pernambuco (CONDEPE-FIDEM), the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) and from the Annual Report of Social Information (RAIS).

The article is divided into three separate topics and the final considerations. In the first topic, we address the concept of development within the institutional planning, and how it has been redefined throughout the implementation period of the Suape Port-Industrial Complex. The second topic verifies whether there has been an equal balance between the federal government investments, through PAC and BNDES, and those of the Pernambuco government, in the MAPs, for the economic and social dimensions of Suape. The third topic is an assessment of the economic and social indicators for the municipalities in the strategic territory of Suape to verify whether the social vulnerabilities of the territory have reduced or not.

2. The institutional history of the Suape Port-Industrial Complex from 1955 to 2015

The territory in which the Suape Port-Industrial Complex is situated is made up of eight municipalities: Ipojuca, Cabo de Santo Agostinho, Jaboatão dos Guararapes, Moreno, Escada, Ribeirão, Rio Formoso and Sirinhaém. Sixty percent of the port and industrial area of Suape is located in Ipojuca and forty percent in Cabo de Santo Agostinho.

In the 1950s, CODEPE undertook a number of studies for the development of Pernambuco and the Northeast. The research studies: Study on Development and the Implantation of Industries, of Interest to Pernambuco and the Northeast, 1955, authored by Lebret; Problems of Economic Development in Pernambuco, 1959, by Francisco de Oliveira; Studies on the Economic Development of the Northeast, 1954, by Hans Singer; and A critical review of the report by Dr. H. W. Singer on the Northeast, 1954, by Acioly Borges all make part of this collection.

The studies by Lebret (1955) and Oliveira (1959) indicated Pernambuco’s dependence on a sugar-cane monoculture. This phenomenon of underdevelopment was a limiting factor for the supply of jobs, due to the low diversification of production, and insufficient income was generated to enable the growth of the domestic market. These factors, together with the lack of savings by the population, a poorly educated labor force and indicators that demonstrated a deficit in the health and education of the Northeastern population, reaffirmed the vicious circle of poverty.

Lebret and Oliveira’s prognoses placed the state in the position of administrator, implementing investments in infrastructure, electricity and base industries. Oliveira (1959) identified the thesis of sectoral growth as a strategy for state investments in dynamic points of the Northeastern economy so as to provide linkage effects. Lebret (1955) characterized the port as a hub center for receiving industries, chiefly that of oil, to expand the capillarity of the productive segments of the local economy.

The report entitled The Government of Pernambuco 1967-1970 - Programs and Achievements, produced by the government of Pernambuco, received solid contributions from the pioneering studies of Lebret and Oliveira, and the port project was institutionalized as a startup force for expanding the industrial park, which was to stimulate the demand for economic activities to compliment those developed within the territory, thereby injecting dynamism into both the regional and local economy (PERNAMBUCO, 1971).

The government of Pernambuco adopted the project of the Suape Port-Industrial Complex¹ after the publication of Suape: the idea of an industrial port for the Northeast and Amazon in 1974, formulated by Barbalho and aided by the Secretariat of General Coordination of Recife. In the initial project for Suape, the port was to act as a generator of multiplier effects, which would increase employment in the surrounding municipalities, and solve the problem of the labor force migrating to the south central region of the country (to the states of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo).

Social policies were presented as a consequence of installing industries that complemented the demand of the port, i.e., education for qualifying the workforce would support the construction of the shipbuilding, petrochemical, steel, infrastructure (railroad, highways) and electricity sectors (BARBALHO, 1974).

In 1978, the first master plan for Suape was formulated by SEAS, entitled Suape: a port-industrial complex, which demonstrated the competitive advantages of the port for attracting investments, as follows: its geographic location in relation to the great navigation routes; its excellent position between the metropolitan region of Recife and the infrastructure available in terms of mobility (airports, highways, railroad, electricity distribution system); the fiscal incentives for entrepreneurs from Sudene through the Northeast Investment Fund (FINOR), the National Bank for Economic Development (BNDE), the Northeast Development Bank (BNB) and the State Bank of Pernambuco (BANDEPE); support from professional training and qualification centers, such as the National Service for Commercial Apprenticeship (SENAC) and the National Service for Industrial Apprenticeship (SENAI), so as to provide suitably qualified workers to fill the vacancies in the industrial segments (SEAS, 1980).

In 1980, SEAS created a typology for the industrial locations on three scales of the territory. The first industrial zone (ZI-1) would accommodate the main productive segments, composed of fertilizers, cement, metallic aluminum, an iron and steel unit, transference for petroleum derivatives from the port terminal of Recife, sugar industry chemicals, construction of a shipyard and a fishing terminal, since the port terminals were needed to receive raw materials used in the production process. In the second industrial zone (ZI-2), industries were to be installed that produced segments demanded by the industries in ZI-1. The third industrial zone (ZI-3), housed the peripheral and independent industries attracted by the economic dynamics of Suape (SEAS, 1980).

In 1982, the master plan: The SUAPE Port-Industrial Complex: inter-industrial relations and investment opportunities, was published by SEAS in partnership with the Secretariat of Planning in Pernambuco (SEPLAN) and CONDEPE. The investment portfolio was presented to the private sector in order to stimulate hubs for the local economy in the metalwork and mechanics, electrical material, nonmetallic minerals and the sugar chemical sectors (SEAS, 1982).

After the interregnum from 1980 to 2002, the rationale for development policy planning was resumed by the federal government. The State Economic Development Secretariat (SDEC) and the consortium Projetec & Planave formulated the thematic booklets, A Consolidated Work Plan in 2008, A Situational Diagnostic Master Plan for Suape in 2009, and A New Master Plan for Suape 2030 (referred to as NPDS) in 2010

The thematic booklet entitled A Situational Diagnostic Master Plan for Suape redefined Suape’s territorial planning divided into: (1) area of direct influence I, which included the municipalities of Ipojuca and Cabo de Santo Agostinho; (2) area of direct influence II, composed of the municipalities in the Metropolitan Region of Recife (RMR); and (3) area of indirect influence, which included the municipalities of Moreno, Escada, Ribeirão, Rio Formoso and Sirinhaém. The justification for regionalizing the territory into areas of influence was so that municipalities could participate in the economic activities of the industrial complex (GOVERNO DE PERNAMBUCO; PROJETEC & PLANAVE, 2009).

The strategy for the economic dimension of the NPDS was based on the thesis of generating externalities, stimulated by private investments to form industrial districts, to expand the supply of jobs and, consequently, of income, by forming a domestic market. While the federal government’s MAPs for 2004-2007 acted as guidance for the economic dimension, the expansion of the domestic market was fostered by the direct transfer of income to the population. This is similar to the virtuous circle composed of linkages in the mass market, bringing about an evolution in the supply of jobs, in the income of workers and in family consumption. On the other hand, encouraging the domestic market provides entrepreneurs with greater resources with which to invest and increase their productivity (BRAZIL, 2008; GOVERNO PERNAMBUCO; PROJETEC & PLANAVE, 2011).

The concepts of the educational dimension are different for the federal government’s MAP 2008-2011 and the NPDS. The MAPs combined strategies with the Education Development Plan (EDP) to offer the population high school, technical, and university places (in reference to the concept of social empowerment²) and, thus, foster job placement in the marketplace. The NPDS prioritized the training of professionals on technical or university courses depending on the demand for jobs in the Suape.Port-Industrial Complex. Unlike the MAP concept of empowerment through education, the NPDS relied on short-term measures, and limited the possibilities of training professionals within different specialties, which could contribute to the diversification of production (BRAZIL, 2007; GOVERNMENT PERNAMBUCO; PROJETEC & PLANAVE, 2011).

The MAP 2008-2011 instructed both the state and municipal governments to broaden popular participation when producing municipal master plans. The MAP 2012-2015 continued the campaign for a Participatory Master Plan, mediating the local demands and potentialities of the territory. The NPDS sought to foster dialogue with key actors in seminars open to the representative segments of society, who were defined by the master plan as representatives from industrial enterprises, community leaders based in the area of Suape and environmental entities. In these meetings between institution and civil society, environmental balance and social inclusion were sanctioned as priorities.

Although the NPDS elected social inclusion as a priority, its focus on the social dimension was to reorganize the resident population of the strategic territory of Suape into another territorial area, after expanding the area reserved for the installation of new industrial districts and environmental preservation areas. The NPDS then adopted the measure of providing social assistance for the expropriated families from the strategic territory of Suape and for their integration into other territories.

For the MAP 2012-2015, the repertoire of social policies may be divided into: (1) the redistribution of income through valorization of the minimum wage; (2) the expansion of social security and income transfer policies; (3) investments in social infrastructure; (4) Brasil Sem Miséria (Brazil Without Abject Poverty) by guaranteeing income (the social welfare scheme Bolsa Família [Family Benefits]); (5) productive inclusion (Água para Todos [Water for All]); (6) public services (Bolsa Família, Mais Educação [More Education]); (7) social infrastructure provided by PAC and Minha Casa Minha Vida - MCMV (My Home My Life); (8) education through the national pact for literacy at the right age; (9) The Mais Educação Program; (10) PRONATEC; (11) the expansion of higher education; (12) health through health-care networks (the UPAs); (13) the Cegonha (Stork) network; (14) the psychosocial care network; (15) care networks for the disabled; (16) the Mais Médicos (More Doctors) Program; and (17) Justiça e Seguridade Cidadã (Justice and Security for Citizens) (BRAZIL, 2013).

From the 1950s to the 1980s, interpretations of Suape master plans, with regard to the concept of development, were guided by the rationale of economic planning. It was recognized that the path to development lay in economic growth, instituted by a project promoted through investments in the infrastructure (energy and transport) and industrial sectors. The social area and the distribution of social welfare were represented by measures involving access to basic sanitation, drinking water, electricity, housing and education. These actions would be complementary and ex-post to economic measures. During the administrations of Presidents Lula and Dilma, a fresh stance was adopted on social policy, which was considered central to the agenda of public policies. Themes were included, such as the expansion of education in order to democratize higher education, empowerment and the recognition of specific rights for the population through affirmative actions, the preservation of the environment and the expansion of citizenship through the population’s participation in deliberative forums. However, in the strategies of the thematic booklets and in the New Master Plan for Suape 2030 the social area remained secondary, and strategies were centered on expanding the industrial park by receiving new industrial enterprises and through the productive specialization in the oil, steel and shipbuilding segments.

3. The balance of investments from the federal and Pernambuco state governments in the strategic territory of Suape 2007-2015

Brazil's federalism, post-1988, fostered a decentralization process that did not prioritize the issue of regional asymmetries, and in view of the fiscal crisis that had hit subnational finances, it limited the decision-making autonomy of the states. The public policy agenda of the states became committed to rigid fiscal targets, and to reducing the state public sector, which therefore forced the states to apply spending cuts in the economic and social areas. State decisions were weakened by the fiscal war, which gave way to the decision of productive locations, and which transferred private interests to the agenda of state government development policies (BRANDÃO, 2011).

According to Brandão (2011), the federative pact was fragmented and characterized by competitive actions between the federative units. The lack of cooperation and equal distribution of skills and abilities was highlighted by the correlation of political forces, which obstructs the free flow of dialogue marked by responsibilities and skills, and which enables Brazilian federalism to function.

The reverberations of federal public policy design may bring about different results within the federative units, since there are local peculiarities that have depended on the state’s institutional capacities allied to the allocation of resources granted by the federal government to overcome the regional asymmetries (MONTEIRO NETO et al, 2015).

Within this correlation of political forces, the state government of Pernambuco was benefited by federal government resources in projects for the Suape Port-Industrial Complex, such as the Abreu e Lima Refinery, the petrochemical complex and the PROMAR shipyard. These investments helped to increase the capacity of the government of Pernambuco as well as the economic indicators. "In the period 2000-2005, the development of the state’s total GDP was 2.5% per annum, and the GDP per capita was 1.0% per annum. In the subsequent period (2006-2012), both the total and the per capita GDP grew, respectively, at annual rates of 5.5% and 4.6%" (MONTEIRO NETO et al, 2015, p.164) (Author’s translation).

The balance report of investments from PAC in Pernambuco, between 2007 and 2015, demonstrates that the energy sector was the largest recipient of investments. Between 2007 and 2010, investments within this sector soared from R$ 12,147 billion to R$ 41,922 billion in the period 2011-2014. In the social area, the sum of investments for the Cidade Melhor (Better City), Comunidade Cidadão (Citizen Community), Minha Casa Minha Vida) and Água e Luz para Todos (Water and Light for All) programs, totaled R$ 14,422 billion in the period between 2011 and 2014. It may be stated that there was a great disparity between the investments made by PAC to the energy sector and the urban social sector.

Table 1
Investments in Exclusive PAC Projects - Pernambuco 2007-2018

PAC 2007 to 2010 - Sectors	Exclusive Projects 2007-2010(R$ million)	PAC 2 2011 to 2014 - Sectors	Exclusive Projects 2011-2014 (R$ million)	PAC 2015 to 2018	Exclusive Projects 2015-2018 (R$ million)
Logistics	6,590.1	Transport	5,496.75	Logistics	11,848.86
Energetics	12,147.6	Energy	41,922.76	Energetics	11,808.60
Urban Social	8,001.3	Cidade Melhor	2,453.25	Urban Social	6,412.69
		Comunidade Cidadã	468,99
		MCMV	9,503.44
		Água e Luz para Todos	1,997.87
Total	26,739.1	Total	61,843.06	Total	30,070.15

• Source: BRAZIL, 2010; BRAZIL, 2014; BRAZIL, 2016. Produced by the author.

The 9^th Balance Report for PAC Pernambuco 2011-2014 indicated that the oil and natural gas segment, which makes part of the energetics sector, was the main recipient of investment, totaling R$ 39,866.12 billion (BRAZIL, 2014, p.42). The largest projects were Petroquímica Suape, accounting for R$ 13,046 billion, and the Abreu e Lima Refinery, R$ 41,375.358 billion³. The Minha Casa Minha Vida program received R$ 9,503.44 billion, thereby occupying second place in the PAC investments table. However, this was far from the amount invested in the energetics sector. (Table 1)

BNDES may be considered one of the triggers for resources during the administrations of Presidents Lula and Dilma, and its operations in the Northeast served both the traditional economic sectors as well as the new productive niches, such as shipyards for producing large vessels, petrochemical plants, pulp and paper production, the manufacture of wind power generation equipment, petroleum refining, automobile production and pharmaco-chemical plants (GUIMARÃES et al., 2014).

Graph 1 presents the investments made by BNDES in the North-eastern states from 2007 to 2013, and directed towards the shipbuilding, petrochemical, hydroelectric and refinery sectors. In 2009, the Abreu e Lima Refinery attracted R$ 10 billion, which abruptly increased the mean value of investments to Pernambuco. The Suape Port-Industrial Complex influenced the concentration of disbursements for operations in Pernambuco, representing a total of R$ 340,000 in investments (GUIMARÃES et al., 2014).

Graph 1
BNDES disbursement to each North-eastern state 2007-2013 (R$ million)

In Graph 2, which refers to the period between 2007 and 2013, the Northeastern states that received the largest shares of BNDES financing were Bahia, with 28.9% and Pernambuco, 26.9%, followed by Ceará and Maranhão, both with 12.0%. The total amount of BNDES resources allocated to the Northeast was R$ 117.7 billion. There was an intraregional concentration of resources in Bahia, with R$ 34,046 billion and in Pernambuco, with R$ 31,683 billion (GUIMARÃES et al., 2014).

Graph 2
Total amount of BNDES disbursements to each North-eastern state 2007-2013 (R$ million)

The main activities selected to receive BNDES funds between 2007 and 2013, in order of classification, were public administration for state management (10,865,346,205), refined petroleum products (10,741,138,035) and road cargo transportation (8, 791, 210, 181) (Guimarães et al., 2014).

In 2015, it may be observed that the cycle of investments from the federal government in the Suape Port-Industrial Complex decreased. The fourth PAC report for 2017 announced a reduction in investments from R$ 1.05 trillion to R$ 494.6 billion in Pernambuco for the years 2015 to 2018 (BRAZIL, 2017, p.9). The Petrobrás Business and Management Plan encouraged a program of disinvestment, estimated at US$ 13.7 billion over a two-year period - 2015 and 2016⁴. Petroquímica Suape located in Ipojuca was included in this program.

For Monteiro Neto et al. (2015), it is a priority to assess the behavior of the initiatives of the state governments so as to formulate a report on the hits and misses of public policies, thereby taking a fresh stand on new planning actions at a state level due to new problems and social demands.

The Planning Secretariat for the State of Pernambuco (SEPLAG) formulated the regionalization of Pernambuco into twelve different development regions (DR), according to the economic and social structure of the region: Metropolitana, Mata Norte, Mata Sul, Agreste Meridional, Agreste Central, Northern Agreste, Pajeú, Moxotó, Itaparica, São Francisco, Araripe and Central Sertão. The region of Suape was inserted into the Metropolitana DR, including the municipalities Cabo de Santo Agostinho, Ipojuca, Jaboatão dos Guararapes and Moreno. The Mata Sul DR encompassed the municipalities of Escada, Ribeirão, Rio Formoso and Sirinhaém.

The Pernambuco government projects were presented in its MAP, and were divided thematically. The first topic addressed was infrastructure and logistics. In the MAP 2008-2011, the infrastructure sector for the development and self-sustainability of water directed its actions towards expanding transport infrastructure, communication, water resources and energy and provided subsidies for the MAP 2012-2015, which combined projects in the sections for the 2104 World Cup, Increasing and qualifying the infrastructure for development, Improvements for homes and mobility, and in Providing universal access to water and sewage. This was related to the creation of access points for the Suape Port-Industrial Complex and infrastructure linked to the installation of the FIAT automotive center, the Trans-Northeastern Railway, water supply and widespread basic sanitation services. The projects were located in the Metropolitan region, Ipojuca, Jaboatão and Cabo de Santo Agostinho (SEPLAG 2007; SEPLAG 2011).

With regard to the theme of "social inclusion", under Democratizing public access to state-offered goods and services, thus contributing to the expansion of social inclusion, the government of Pernambuco’s MAP 2008-2011 presented programs in education, culture, historical heritage, social rights, public security and management. This section was later improved in MAP 2012-2015, and was included in the sections on Public management, promoting environmental sustainability, Promoting citizenship, Pact for life, Pact for health, Pact for Education, all marked by the promotion of public services, environmental compensation, the expansion of social protection networks for the marginalized population, and focusing on improving the management of the Integrated Health System (SUAS), expanding the Mãe Coruja (Proud Mother) Program, preserving the State's historical and cultural heritage, providing a better-equipped police force to maintain public safety, new hospitals in the interior of Pernambuco and better opportunities for education in the interior of the state, implementing technical schools and offering scholarships for undergraduate university education (SEPLAG 2007; SEPLAG 2011).

On the theme of economic productivity, the state government’s MAP 2008-2011 endorsed the section on economic development for all as its key plank, aimed at recovering traditional segments of the economy in Pernambuco and forming new sectors, supported in the main by PAC investments in the Suape Port-Industrial Complex. The MAP 2012-2015 benefited from the surge of federal government investments and encouraged coordination between the sections on Sustainable rural development and consolidating development, generating jobs and income, promoting the knowledge economy and innovation to create projects: support for family farming; providing water for rural communities of up to 250 families; distributing milk in the Leite de Todos (Milk for All) Program; the Terra Pronta (Land Now) Program; the Support Program for Business Partnerships and ICTs for Technological Innovation and Qualification Training - PITEC; stimulating national and international scientific cooperation; the Paiva Beach development project (Grupo Odebrecht - Brennand), Abreu and Lima Refinery; Petrochemical Complex and the PROMAR Shipyard (SEPLAG 2007; SEPLAG 2011).

The balance report for the Pernambuco state government's investments, according to MAP 2012-2015, ranked Pact for Education in first place, with R $ 1,230 billion, accompanied by Providing access to water and sewage, with R$ 1,068 billion. These were followed by Increasing and qualifying infrastructure for development, with R$ 685,562 million, and Improving skills and mobility, with R$ 640,367 million. The section covering education projects received the greatest amount of resources from the Pernambuco state government, although the concession for investments remained concentrated in the Metropolitana DR and in Recife (SEPLAG, 2011).

Monteiro Neto et al. (2015) state that two distinct dynamics were triggered by the reverberations from the process to intensify economic growth in the Suape Port-Industrial Complex. The first was the effect generated by the attraction of investments to this strategic territory, with an increase in the GDP per capita and a change in the state’s production structure marked by high technology ventures. The second concerns the concentration of investments in the metropolitan region of Recife, Ipojuca, Jaboatão and Cabo de Santo Agostinho, which required the combined actions of the federal, state and municipal governments to resume metropolitan-scale planning associated with a perspective of federal coordination, which had been lost since the 1980s and 1990s.

3.1 An analysis of the socioeconomic indicators in the municipalities of Suape 2003 - 2015

By analyzing the socioeconomic indicators in the municipalities of Suape it is possible to verify whether the federal and state government investments managed to reduce the social vulnerability index in the region. Between 2002 and 2014, there was an increase in the gross domestic product of the eight municipalities. Jaboatão took first place, followed by Cabo de Santo Agostinho, and the Ipojuca, in third place. (Graph 3)

Graph 3
The Gross Domestic Product of the municipalities in the Suape Port-Industrial Complex - at current prices (R$ 1000)

In 2006, the contribution of Ipojuca, Jaboatão and Cabo de Santo Agostinho to the GDP of the state of Pernambuco totaled 21.44%. However, by 2013, this percentage had dropped to 19.70%, due to a decline in Ipojuca’s contribution. The contribution of the other five municipalities (from the indirect area) dropped from 1.58% in 2006 to 1.53% in 2013.

In the period from 2010 to 2014, Ipojuca presented the highest per capita GDP amongst the municipalities in the Suape Port-Industrial Complex. Cabo de Santo Agostinho was in second place. In 2014 however, there was a substantial difference between the per capita GDP in Cabo de Santo Agostinho, which was R $ 42,655.36 and that of Ipojuca, which totaled R $ 80,814.45.

The GDP per capita of the municipalities in the area of indirect influence remained below that of Jaboatão, which intensified the concentration of economic growth in Jaboatão, Cabo de Santo Agostinho and Ipojuca, with fragile effects of linkages (forward and backward) in relation to other municipalities. (Table 2)

Table 2
Economic data from the municipalities in the strategic territory of Suape

Municipality	GDP per capita1 (R$ 1000)			Contribution of the municipalities to the GDP of Pernambuco2 (%)				Population1
	2010	2012	2014	2000	2006	2012	2013	2016
Pernambuco	10,822.00	13,138.00	16,722.05	100	100	100	100	9,410.336
Ipojuca	67,101.47	86,892.04	80,814.45	5.12	7.80	6.02	5.98	92.965
Jaboatão	11,767.04	16,012.06	19,410.36	8.04	8.54	8.17	8.49	691.125
Cabo de Sto Agostinho	23,892.16	33,079.62	42,655.36	4.59	5.10	5.12	5.23	202.636
Moreno	6,038.97	7,150.98	9,282.63	0.33	0.35	0.32	0.35	61.577
Escada	7,854.57	8,856.59	11,202.09	0.52	0.40	0.45	0.49	67.839
Sirinhaém	8,901.84	9,941.68	11,081.46	0.28	0.30	0.32	0.30	44.734
Ribeirão	5,983.70	6,801.50	8,017.98	0.28	0.26	0.24	0.24	46.877
Rio Formoso	8,363.87	10,210.96	9,903.26	0.24	0.27	0.18	0.15	23.282

• Source: IBGE.
• 1 Data obtained from IBGE Contas Regionais and IBGE Cidades. Available at: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/economia/contasregionais/2014/default.shtm and http://cidades.ibge.gov.br/v3/cidades/home-cidades
• 2 Data obtained from Anuário estatístico 2011, 2012 e 2014 from Condepe/Fidem. Available at: http://www.anuario.pe.gov.br/

Social vulnerability indicators decreased in the municipalities of the Suape Port-Industrial Complex, but few were above the national mean. In the "extremely poor" category, only Cabo de Santo Agostinho and Jaboatão, respectively, with indicators of 5.98 and 6.35, were below the national mean of 6.62. In the "poor" category, all municipalities in the Suape territory remained below the national mean of 15.20.

In the years from 2000 to 2010, the Gini index decreased in all municipalities of the Suape Port-Industrial Complex, with the exception of Moreno, which increased from 0.50 to 0.53. All municipalities remained below the Pernambuco mean of 0.62 in 2010. The lowest indices were recorded in Escada, Rio Formoso and Sirinhaém, respectively, and were 0.46; 0.44; and 0.44.

Data from the Municipal Human Development Index (MHDI) demonstrated a move towards the opposite direction. Only Jaboatão, with 0.717, and Cabo de Santo Agostinho, with 0.686, reached higher levels than the state mean of Pernambuco, which was 0.673, despite remaining below the national mean of 0.727 in 2010. (Table 3)

Table 3
Social data from the municipalities in the strategic territory of Suape

Munic.	Gini Index2		MHDI1		% of extremely poor3		% of poor4
	2000	2010	2000	2010	2000	2010	2000	2010
Brasil	0.64	0.60	0.612	0.727	12.48	6.62	27.90	15.20
Pernambuco	0.66	0.62	0.544	0.673	22.30	12.32	45.27	27.17
Cabo Sto Agostinho	0.54	0.53	0.547	0.686	17.49	5.98	43.26	19.71
Escada	0.51	0.46	0.479	0.632	23.66	9.35	55.57	25.31
Ipojuca	0.53	0.50	0.457	0.619	23.10	8.71	54.06	27.22
Jaboatão	0.63	0.58	0.625	0.717	11.22	6.35	32.11	17.61
Moreno	0.50	0.53	0.511	0.652	21.14	12.07	51.68	30.11
Ribeirão	0.58	0.50	0.456	0.602	25.92	9.98	55.01	31.16
Rio Formoso	0.54	0.44	0.420	0.613	35.72	12.51	63.94	34.33
Sirinhaém	0.54	0.44	0.426	0.597	28.79	8.70	67.58	34.24

• Source:
• 1 The Human Development Atlas: At: http://atlasbrasil.org.br/
• 2 United Nations Development Programme / The Institute for Applied Economic Research / The João Pinheiro Foundation.
• 3 Proportion of extremely poor: Individuals with a family income per capita equal to or less than R$ 70,00 per month. CONDEPE/FIDEM - Contas Regionais.
• 4 Proportion of poor: Individuals with a family income per capita equal to or less than R$ 140,00 per month. CONDEPE/FIDEM - Contas Regionais.

With regard to the educational situation of the school-age population, in 2010, in the municipalities of Suape, the percentage of children aged between 11 and 13 years who attended the final years of elementary school was higher than the Pernambuco mean, which stood at 81.7%: Cabo de Santo Agostinho was 83.07%, and Jaboatão 82.21%. Nonetheless, the rates presented by these municipalities remained below the national mean of 84.86%. The proportion of young people aged between 18 and 20 years who completed high school in Pernambuco was 32.64%, which was exceeded in Jaboatão, with 40.83%, and in Cabo de Santo Agostinho, with 36.38%. However, these municipalities remained below the national mean of 41.01%. The index of young people aged 18 to 24 years in higher education in Pernambuco was 9.26%, surpassed only by Jaboatão, with 11.21%. This mean level, however, was below the national mean of 13.19%.

Indicators in Ipojuca for the school-age population in the three above-mentioned modalities presented the lowest rates amongst all the municipalities in the strategic territory of Suape, represented by 73.94%, 22.89% and 2.72%, respectively. Although the municipality of Ipojuca was particularly outstanding as one of the main economic indicators, GDP and GDP per capita, it nonetheless presented low indicators for education, when compared to the mean values of the other municipalities in Suape, as well as the state and national levels. (Table 4)

Table 4
Education indicators in the municipalities in the Suape Port-Industrial Complex

Munic.	11-13 year olds in elementary school			18-20 year olds who completed high school			18-24 year olds in higher education
	1991	2000	2010	1991	2000	2010	1991	2000	2010
Brasil	52	74	88	0.00	30.84	41.01	0.00	7.97	13.19
Pernambuco	28.50	43.47	81.70	9.88	15.71	32.64	3.55	4.60	9.62
Cabo Sto Agostinho	28.18	45.92	83.07	6.76	14.25	36.38	1.27	1.48	5.59
Escada	16.88	35.73	77.67	7.16	13.31	28.55	0.99	0.26	3.37
Ipojuca	15.60	35.17	73.94	4.07	6.47	22.89	0.24	0.94	2.72
Jaboatão	38.22	53.70	82.21	10.87	20.97	40.83	2.58	5.41	11.21
Moreno	28.92	48.65	79.67	6.42	11.49	32.30	0.82	1.61	4.89
Ribeirão	14.93	33.57	80.48	7.34	6.26	24.81	2.64	2.07	3.85
Rio Formoso	8.46	23.98	75.26	4.79	8.16	24.84	0.23	2.43	5.07
Sirinhaém	10.66	30.75	80.71	3.11	3.00	21.36	0.67	0.49	3.92

• Source: The Human Development Atlas: At: http://atlasbrasil.org.br/

In the period from 2009 to 2012, changes occurred in the occupation and the remuneration of the labor force in the municipalities of the strategic territory of Suape. In 2010, the mean monthly incomes of workers employed in the municipalities of Escada, Moreno, Ribeirão, Rio Formoso and Sirinhaém were respectively: R$ 635.13; R$ 661.39; R$ 685.47; R$ 591.31; and R$ 597.01. Compared with the state mean, it was demonstrated that, of those in employment, 10.5% had no income and 60.7% earned up to a minimum wage per month. The mean monthly income of employed persons in Pernambuco was R$ 966.45⁵ (RAIS).

4. Final Considerations

By returning to the documents Suape: the idea of an industrial port for the Northeast and the Amazon, 1974; Suape: a port-industrial complex, 1978; and the The SUAPE Port-Industrial Complex: inter-industrial relations and investment opportunities from 1982, it may be observed that the strategies aimed to foster investments in the oil, steel and chemical industry sectors in order to form an industrial park in Suape. In the referred documents, the port was characterized as a hub center⁶ to stimulate externalities and trigger backward and forward effects across the territory.

The public policy agenda incorporated changes into its repertoire influenced by the renewal of ideas, mobilized by the exchange of dialogue in the deliberative arenas paved by popular participation, through the formation of committees, forums and workshops on popular demands. This was allied to support from the participation of representatives from local, state and national public institutions so as to reverberate through into the formulation of public policies, together with a strong call to resolve local territorial problems.

The master plans of the Suape Port-Industrial Complex prioritized actions as a start-up for the economy, which therefore left little scope for the implementation of social policies. The MAPs 2008-2011 and 2012-2015 of the state government were organized under the binomial investments in economic enterprises and social spending in measures to reduce social vulnerabilities, such as the Integrated Health System (SUAS), the Mãe Coruja Program, preservation of the State’s historical and cultural heritage, strengthening public security, creating new hospitals and technical schools, and offering scholarships for undergraduate university courses.

The federative coordination between the federal and Pernambuco governments regarding social actions became weakened, and the social programs applied by the state government were insufficient to reverse the framework of social vulnerability within the strategic territory of Suape. The state government’s MAPs did not prioritize isonomy when distributing investments around the development regions, which signified that there was a concentration of amounts injected into the most economically dynamic DRs (such as the Metropolitana, Mata Sul and Mata Norte regions, located along the coastline), thereby reinforcing the multi-scale inequalities of the region. Although the economic and social indicators of the Suape municipalities improved, the social indices still remained below the mean state and national levels.

According to Monteiro Neto et al. (2015), there has been a fracture in the federative dialogue, which imposes a restriction on the autonomy of the state government in relation to the federal government, and that then begin to implement policies, which have been formulated at a federal level. This federative relationship discourages the state government from forming a public policy agenda, especially with regard to local popular demands. Subnational governments are urged to pursue a policy that had been deliberated and institutionalized at a federal level, which therefore requires them to submit to political negotiations in order to obtain public resources. The federative pact suffers ruptures, the reverberations of which may result in a reduction of the state government’s capacities to promote economic and social programs.

For Monteiro Neto et al. (2015), the abrupt growth of federal government investments in the Suape Port-Industrial Complex may be associated with two constraints. The first, as of 2004, refers to a fresh stance on the part of the federal government, regarding fiscal and monetary policies for growth, such as increased social spending and investments for infrastructure. PAC stimulated a new cycle of economic growth in Brazil. The second conditioning factor was the refinement of the federative relationship between the federal and state governments from 2007, between the Governor of Pernambuco, Eduardo Campos from the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB) and President Lula da Silva of the Workers Party (PT). The coalition established between PT and PSB could have forged federative dialogue and thus encouraged the financing of investment projects in the Suape Port-Industrial Complex.

In the period from 2007 to 2015, PAC and BNDES resources prioritized investments in Pernambuco for energy projects in the oil and gas sectors, which resulted in substantial resources for the Petroquímica Suape and Abreu e Lima Refinery projects. Because of this, there was a tendency for the phenomenon of intraregional concentration and the polarization of state investments into dynamic northeastern centers to the detriment of other sub-regions.

In view of the difficulties involved in the federative dialogue, one alternative presented by Brandão (2011) was to formulate strategies that reinstated project logic and politicized participatory, planned actions. Within this context, political actions must be multi-scaled for territorial redefinition, and for reconstructing public spaces and institutionalized participation channels. It then becomes the responsibility of the public authorities to provide material and human infrastructure to stimulate democratic discussion, and the inspection and monitoring of this space.

This author reinforces the formulation of dialogue tables, the identification of problems and discussion on the collective capacity of taking it forward, seeking coordination of the spatial scales, and of the government authorities to solve the problematics of the territory. This process should thus stimulate the formation of a public policy agenda and the insertion of questions on identity, diversity, differentiation and variety, which imposes a collective action guided by pedagogics, citizen awareness and political legitimation (BRANDÃO, 2011).

The predominance of investments in the economic and social dimension in Suape polarized resources in Ipojuca, Jaboatão and Cabo de Santo Agostinho, from 2003 to 2015. Inequality in the distribution of investments strengthened social asymmetries. Contrary to what had been ascertained from the discourse in the federal government's MAP, social policy in Suape has not centered on a public policy agenda. Moreover, no measures have been put into place to prioritize the expansion of education in order to democratize higher education, the empowerment and recognition of specific rights of the population for affirmative actions, the preservation of the environment or the expansion of citizenship through public participation in deliberative forums.

In the area of indirect influence around Suape, the economic indicators of Escada, Moreno, Ribeirão, Rio Formoso and Sirinhaém have highlighted the disparity in relation to those of Ipojuca, Cabo de Santo Agostinho and Jaboatão. Although the municipality of Ipojuca is in the direct influence area of the Suape Port-Industrial Complex and has obtained high indicators of economic growth, it did not replicate this performance in the social area and continues to present high levels of social vulnerability, with indices below the national mean, and has accumulated the poorest rates in the education sector in relation to the other municipalities in the strategic territory of Suape.

Referências

• BARBALHO, E. R. Suape: ideia de um porto industrial para o Nordeste e para Amazônia Recife: Secretária de Coordenação Geral, 1974.
• BRANDÃO, C. A. Descentralização enquanto modo de ordenamento espacial do poder e de reescalonamento territorial do Estado: trajetória e desafios para o Brasil. In: DALLABRIDA, V. R. (org). Governança territorial e desenvolvimento: descentralização político-administrativa, estruturas subnacionais de gestão do desenvolvimento e capacidades estatais. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond, 2011. p. 115-136.
• BRASIL. Plano plurianual 2008-2011: projeto de lei / Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão, Secretaria de Planejamento e Investimentos Estratégicos. Brasília: MP, 2007.
• BRASIL. Relatório de Avaliação: Avaliação do Plano Plurianual Volume I - Tomo I Exercício 2008 Ano Base 2007 Plano Plurianual 2004-2007. Brasília, 2008.
• BRASIL. Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC) 2007-2010. Ano 4, 11º Balanço Brasília: Comitê Gestor do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento, Presidência da República, 2010.
• BRASIL. Relatório Anual de Avaliação do PPA 2012-2015: ano base 2013. Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão. Secretaria de Planejamento e Investimentos Estratégicos. Brasília: SPI/MP, 2013.
• BRASIL. Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC2) 2011-2014. Ano 4, 10º BalançoBrasília: Comitê Gestor do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento, Presidência da República , 2014a.
• BRASIL. Programa do Crescimento Econômico (PAC2) Pernambuco 2011-2014 Ano 4. 9º Balanço. Brasília: Comitê Gestor do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento, Presidência da República , 2014b.
• BRASIL. Programa do Crescimento Econômico 1º Balanço. Brasília: Comitê Gestor do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento, Presidência da República , 2015.
• BRASIL. Programa do Crescimento Econômico 2015-2018. 3º Balanço. Brasília: Comitê Gestor do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento, Presidência da República , 2016a.
• BRASIL. Programa do Crescimento Econômico 2015-2018 Pernambuco. 3º Balanço. Brasília: Comitê Gestor do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento, Presidência da República , 2016b.
• CEPÊDA, V. A. Inclusão, democracia e novo-desenvolvimentismo - um balanço histórico. Revista Estudos avançados 26 (75), 2012. DOI: 10.1590/S0103-40142012000200006
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142012000200006
• GOVERNO PERNAMBUCO. PROJETEC & PLANAVE. Plano Diretor de Suape Diagnóstico Situacional Empresa Complexo Industrial Portuário de Suape, 2009.
• GOVERNO PERNAMBUCO. PROJETEC & PLANAVE. Novo plano diretor: Suape 2030 Empresa Complexo Industrial Portuário, 2011.
• GUIMARÃES, P. F. et al. Atuação do BNDES na Região Nordeste. In: GUIMARÃES, P. F. et al. (coord.). Um olhar territorial para o desenvolvimento Nordeste Rio de Janeiro: BNDES, 2014, p. 50-68.
• HIRSCHMAN, A. Estratégia do desenvolvimento econômico Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Fundo de Cultura, 1961.
• LEBRET, L. J. Desenvolvimento e Implantação de Indústrias Interessando a Pernambuco e ao Nordeste Série Planificação Econômica III. Comissão de Desenvolvimento Econômico de Pernambuco: Recife, 1955.
• OLIVEIRA, F. Problemas de Desenvolvimento Econômico de Pernambuco Comissão de Desenvolvimento Econômico de Pernambuco. Recife, 1959.
• MONTEIRO NETO, A.; VERGOLINO, J. R.; SANTOS, V. M. Capacidades governativas no ambiente federativo nacional: Pernambuco (2000-2012). Brasília: IPEA, 2015.
• PERNAMBUCO. O Gôverno de Pernambuco 1967-1970: programas e realizações. Recife, 1971.
• PERNAMBUCO. Suape Complexo Industrial e Portuário Secretaria Extraordinária para Assuntos a Implantação do Complexo Industrial-Portuário de Suape (SEAS). Editora Gráfica e Papelaria Star, sine loco, março de 1980.
• PERNAMBUCO. O complexo industrial portuário de Suape: relações interindustriais e oportunidades de investimento Secretaria Extraordinária para Assuntos a Implantação do Complexo Industrial-Portuário de Suape (SEAS), Instituto de Desenvolvimento de Pernambuco (CONDEPE). Recife, 1982.
• PERNAMBUCO. Plano Plurianual do Estado 2008-2011 Recife: Secretaria de Planejamento e Gestão (SEPLAG). 2007.
• PERNAMBUCO. Plano Plurianual do Estado 2012-2015 Anexo I. Recife, 2011.
• POMPEU, A. B. Análise Crítica do Relatório do Dr. H. W. Singer Sobre o Nordeste. In: SINGER, H. W. Estudo sobre o desenvolvimento econômico do nordeste Recife: Comissão de Desenvolvimento Econômico de Pernambuco, 1962.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Jan-Apr 2018

History

• Received
  31 Mar 2017
• Accepted
  29 Sept 2017