The Middle classes and socio-spatial transformations in the metropolises of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo: 2000-2010

Cardoso, Adalberto; Préteceille, Edmond

doi:10.22296/2317-1529.rbeur.202311en

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Estudos Urbanos e Regionais

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles - Space, Economy and Population • Rev. Bras. Estud. Urbanos Reg. 25 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.22296/2317-1529.rbeur.202311en copy

The Middle classes and socio-spatial transformations in the metropolises of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo: 2000-2010 ¹ 1 This article is the result of cooperation between the Centre de recherche sur les inégalités sociales (CRIS) at Sciences Po, Paris, and the Instituto de Estudos Sociais e Politicos (IESP) at the Universidade do Estado de Rio de Janeiro (UERJ). The project received support through a CNRS-CNPq agreement, and a CAPES-COFECUB agreement Help was also provided by UERJ through inviting Edmond Préteceille as a visiting professor at IESP-UERJ CNPq awarded a Foreign Senior Researcher grant to Adalberto Cardoso for a six-month fellowship at CRIS in the second semester of 2018, and CAPES provided a CAPES-Print grant for Adalberto Cardoso to conclude a four-month fellowship at CRIS in the first semester of 2019. The project was financed by FAPERJ through a Cientista do Nosso Estado (CNE) grant for Cardoso.

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

The first decade of the 21^st century was marked in Brazil by important economic, social and political changes: a significant reduction in income inequalities; important decrease in unemployment and the growth of formal employment; a fair portion of the population got out of poverty through social policies; the increase in investment in education, health, housing, urban infrastructure, culture, among others, which resulted in the reduction of inequalities in multiple dimensions. Against this background, and in view of the historical dual character of the Brazilian city, the question that the article seeks to answer is: has the multidimensional reduction of inequalities resulted in a reduction in segregation and urban inequalities? In view of the aforementioned changes, our hypothesis is that the answer is positive. To demonstrate this, the article makes use of data from the 2000 and 2010 demographic censuses, and compares the metropolitan regions of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, based on important methodological innovations in the way it constructs the categories of analysis, comparing to the existing studies on the subject.

Keywords:
Middle Classes; Urban Segregation; Urban Inequalities; Rio de Janeiro; São Paulo

CS		MRRJ		MRSP
CS		2000	2010	2000	2010
CS10	Farmers	0.1%	0.0%	0.1%	0.0%
CS69	Agricultural Workers	0.4%	0.7%	0.4%	0.8%
Rural occupations		0.6%	0.7%	0.5%	0.8%
CS21	Artisans	7.8%	6.2%	7.0%	5.7%
CS22	Shopkeepers and similar	2.5%	2.4%	2.7%	2.2%
Urban petty bourgeoisie		10.3%	8.6%	9.7%	7.9%
CS23	Business owners (of more than five employees)	0.7%	0.3%	0.9%	0.3%
CS31	Liberal professionals	2.0%	3.0%	1.8%	2.8%
CS33	Senior civil servants	0.8%	1.4%	0.5%	0.6%
CS36	Executives	0.2%	0.2%	0.3%	0.3%
Urban upper classes		3.8%	4.9%	3.6%	4.1%
CS34	Teachers, professionals in scientific and literary activities	2.0%	1.9%	1.6%	1.4%
CS35	Information, arts and entertainment professions	1.3%	1.2%	1.1%	1.0%
CS37	Senior corporate administrative and commercial positions	2.2%	3.0%	2.9%	5.0%
CS38	Engineers and technical professionals in companies	2.0%	3.1%	2.3%	3.7%
Upper middle classes		7.6%	9.2%	7.9%	11.0%
CS42	Primary and secondary school teachers, instructors	3.4%	4.1%	2.7%	3.7%
CS43	Intermediate occupations in health and social work	2.0%	2.6%	1.6%	2.1%
CS44	Clergy and religious occupations	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%
CS45	Intermediate administrative occupations in public administration	1.4%	1.8%	0.9%	0.5%
CS46	Intermediate corporate administrative and commercial occupations	4.1%	4.0%	5.1%	5.0%
CS47	Technicians	2.7%	2.4%	3.0%	2.7%
CS48	Foremen/women, work supervisors	0.4%	0.4%	0.5%	0.5%
Middle-middle classes		14.2%	15.4%	14.0%	14.6%
CS52	Salaried public administration civil service workers and agents	2.0%	1.5%	1.5%	1.0%
CS54	Corporate administrative employees	8.8%	9.8%	10.6%	11.7%
Lower middles classes		10.8%	11.3%	12.1%	12.7%
CS53	Police, surveillance agents and low-ranking military	5.2%	3.7%	3.5%	3.2%
CS55	Commercial employees	10.5%	9.7%	9.5%	8.6%
CS56	Personnel providing direct personal services	5.0%	4.3%	4.9%	3.7%
CS57	Domestic workers	8.8%	9.1%	7.2%	7.3%
Lower service classes		29.6%	26.9%	25.1%	22.8%
CS62	Formal manufacturing-type workers	4.0%	3.9%	8.2%	7.3%
CS63	Formal artisanal-type workers	5.9%	6.6%	5.8%	7.2%
CS64	Drivers	1.7%	1.3%	1.3%	1.0%
CS65	Maintenance, storage and transport workers	2.3%	2.8%	2.2%	2.7%
CS67	Informal manufacturing-type workers	2.2%	1.6%	3.3%	2.4%
CS68	Informal artisanal-type workers	7.1%	6.8%	6.3%	5.5%
Working Class		23.2%	23.0%	27.1%	26.1%
Total		100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

MRRJ 2000	UC	UMC	MMC	LMC	PB	LSC	WC
UC		0.17	0.40	0.47	0.49	0.56	0.65
UMC	0.17		0.25	0.32	0.36	0.44	0.53
MMC	0.40	0.25		0.11	0.16	0.25	0.35
LMC	0.47	0.32	0.11		0.13	0.20	0.30
PB	0.49	0.36	0.16	0.13		0.12	0.21
LSC	0.56	0.44	0.25	0.20	0.12		0.12
WC	0.65	0.53	0.35	0.30	0.21	0.12
MRRJ 2010	UC	UMC	MMC	LMC	PB	LSC	WC
UC		0.16	0.41	0.48	0.50	0.55	0.63
UMC	0.16		0.29	0.36	0.38	0.44	0.52
MMC	0.41	0.29		0.13	0.16	0.23	0.31
LMC	0.48	0.36	0.13		0.14	0.19	0.26
PB	0.50	0.38	0.16	0.14		0.13	0.20
LSC	0.55	0.44	0.23	0.19	0.13		0.12
WC	0.63	0.52	0.31	0.26	0.20	0.12
MRRJ ∆*	UC	UMC	MMC	LMC	PB	LSC	WC
UC		-0.01	0.01	0.01	0.00	-0.01	-0.02
UMC	-0.01		0.04	0.03	0.02	0.00	-0.01
MMC	0.01	0.04		0.02	0.00	-0.02	-0.04
LMC	0.01	0.03	0.02		0.00	-0.01	-0.04
PB	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.00		0.01	-0.01
LSC	-0.01	0.00	-0.02	-0.01	0.01		0.00
WC	-0.02	-0.01	-0.04	-0.04	-0.01	0.00

MRSP 2000	UC	UMC	MMC	LMC	PB	LSC	WC
UC		0,21	0,40	0,48	0,44	0,56	0,64
UMC	0,21		0,23	0,31	0,29	0,42	0,51
MMC	0,40	0,23		0,13	0,11	0,25	0,33
LMC	0,48	0,31	0,13		0,11	0,19	0,28
PB	0,44	0,29	0,11	0,11		0,18	0,27
LSC	0,56	0,42	0,25	0,19	0,18		0,14
WC	0,64	0,51	0,33	0,28	0,27	0,14
MRSP 2010	UC	UMC	MMC	LMC	PB	LSC	WC
UC		0,20	0,40	0,51	0,45	0,57	0,63
UMC	0,20		0,24	0,37	0,31	0,44	0,51
MMC	0,40	0,24		0,16	0,13	0,26	0,32
LMC	0,51	0,37	0,16		0,15	0,16	0,21
PB	0,45	0,31	0,13	0,15		0,20	0,26
LSC	0,57	0,44	0,26	0,16	0,20		0,16
WC	0,63	0,51	0,32	0,21	0,26	0,16
MRSP ∆*	UC	UMC	MMC	LMC	PB	LSC	WC
UC		-0,01	0,00	0,03	0,00	0,01	-0,01
UMC	-0,01		0,01	0,06	0,02	0,02	0,00
MMC	0,00	0,01		0,03	0,02	0,01	-0,01
LMC	0,03	0,06	0,03		0,03	-0,03	-0,07
PB	0,00	0,02	0,02	0,03		0,02	-0,01
LSC	0,01	0,02	0,01	-0,03	0,02		0,02
WC	-0,01	0,00	-0,01	-0,07	-0,01	0,02

MRRJ 2010	UC	UMC	MMC	LMC	PB	LSC	WC
UC	0.13	0.20	0.18	0.10	0.08	0.19	0.12
UMC	0.11	0.17	0.18	0.11	0.08	0.21	0.15
MMC	0.06	0.11	0.17	0.12	0.09	0.25	0.21
LMC	0.04	0.09	0.16	0.12	0.09	0.27	0.22
PB	0.04	0.08	0.15	0.11	0.09	0.27	0.23
LSC	0.03	0.07	0.14	0.11	0.09	0.29	0.25
WC	0.03	0.06	0.14	0.11	0.09	0.29	0.28

Class/Types	UPP1	UPP2	UPMID	LOWMID	LOW1	LOW2	LOWPER	Total
% Column
UC	19.4%	11.3%	4.6%	2.5%	1.4%	0.8%	0.7%	3.7%
UMC	26.2%	19.4%	10.9%	6.6%	4.6%	2.9%	2.3%	7.6%
MMC	18.9%	19.8%	20.7%	17.6%	13.8%	10.0%	7.6%	14.3%
LMC	8.6%	11.3%	15.4%	14.0%	11.6%	8.7%	6.2%	10.8%
PB	8.1%	9.8%	11.1%	11.2%	10.7%	10.0%	9.7%	10.3%
LSC	15.1%	20.5%	25.0%	29.8%	33.7%	36.8%	39.2%	31.2%
WC	3.3%	7.6%	12.0%	18.0%	24.0%	30.1%	32.8%	21.5%
RP	0.1%	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%	0.1%	0.2%	0.4%	0.1%
RW	0.2%	0.2%	0.1%	0.2%	0.3%	0.5%	1.2%	0.4%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
% Row
UC	33.5%	26.0%	15.7%	11.2%	5.7%	5.5%	2.5%	100%
UMC	22.0%	21.8%	18.2%	14.5%	9.3%	10.3%	3.9%	100%
MMC	8.5%	11.9%	18.4%	20.7%	15.0%	18.6%	6.9%	100%
LMC	5.1%	8.9%	18.2%	21.9%	16.6%	21.7%	7.5%	100%
PB	5.1%	8.2%	13.8%	18.3%	16.2%	26.2%	12.3%	100%
LSC	3.1%	5.6%	10.2%	16.1%	16.8%	31.6%	16.5%	100%
WC	1.0%	3.0%	7.1%	14.1%	17.3%	37.5%	20.0%	100%
RP	5.2%	4.3%	2.6%	2.4%	7.0%	34.2%	44.4%	100%
RW	3.2%	4.5%	3.5%	8.7%	10.5%	32.7%	36.9%	100%
Total	6.4%	8.6%	12.7%	16.8%	15.5%	26.8%	13.1%	100%

Class/Types	UPP1	UPP2	UPMID	LOWMID	LOW1	LOW2	LOWPER	Total
% Column
UC	18.5%	9.1%	4.0%	2.0%	1.3%	0.8%	0.7%	3.6%
UMC	25.0%	17.5%	10.6%	6.9%	4.3%	2.5%	2.9%	7.9%
MMC	18.4%	20.4%	19.1%	15.3%	12.4%	8.9%	8.6%	14.0%
LMC	8.7%	13.8%	15.8%	15.4%	11.6%	8.4%	9.3%	12.1%
PB	9.8%	12.0%	11.9%	10.3%	9.2%	7.6%	8.0%	9.7%
LSC	15.2%	17.1%	20.0%	25.9%	27.2%	26.6%	33.8%	25.1%
WC	4.1%	9.9%	18.4%	24.0%	33.5%	44.7%	35.1%	27.1%
RP	0.2%	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%	0.1%	0.1%	0.3%	0.1%
RW	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.1%	0.4%	0.4%	1.3%	0.4%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
% Row
UC	34.8%	26.4%	15.4%	9.9%	7.1%	3.1%	3.5%	100%
UMC	21.3%	22.9%	18.7%	15.6%	10.8%	4.3%	6.3%	100%
MMC	8.9%	15.1%	19.2%	19.6%	17.9%	8.8%	10.4%	100%
LMC	4.9%	11.9%	18.3%	22.9%	19.4%	9.6%	13.0%	100%
PB	6.8%	12.9%	17.3%	19.1%	19.1%	10.9%	14.0%	100%
LSC	4.1%	7.1%	11.2%	18.5%	21.8%	14.7%	22.8%	100%
WC	1.0%	3.8%	9.5%	15.9%	24.9%	22.9%	22.0%	100%
RP	10.0%	6.4%	3.1%	3.9%	16.5%	9.3%	50.7%	100%
RW	1.5%	2.8%	4.9%	6.2%	18.5%	14.8%	51.4%	100%
Total	6.8%	10.4%	14.0%	17.9%	20.1%	13.9%	16.9%	100%

2000 Type/ 2010 Type	UP1	UP2	UPMID	LOWMID	LOW1	LOW2	LOWPER	Total 2000
UP1	17							17
UP2	12	14						26
UPMED		9	29	2				40
LOWMED		1	20	41	5			67
LOW1				7	54	2		63
LOW2		1		1	30	84	7	123
LOWPER					1	30	43	74
Total 2010	29	25	49	51	90	116	50	410

2000 Type/ 2010 Type	UP1	UP2	UPMID	LOWMID	LOW1	LOW2	LOWPER	Total 2000
UP1	55							55
UP2	28	53						81
UPMED		50	59	6				115
LOWMED		5	46	84	6		2	143
LOW1		1	5	56	82	3	10	157
LOW2				2	37	75	15	129
LOWPER				8	14	2	107	131
Total 2010	83	109	110	156	139	80	134	811

Associação Nacional de Pós-graduação e Pesquisa em Planejamento Urbano e Regional - ANPUR FAU Cidade Universitária, Rua do Lago, 876, CEP: 05508-080, São Paulo, SP - Brasil, Tel: (31) 3409-7157 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@anpur.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN9] Source: Own elaboration based on microdata from the 2000 and 2010 Demographic Censuses (IBGE, 2002IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Documentação do Censo 2000. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE, 2002.; 2012IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Censo Brasileiro de 2010. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE , 2012.).