The paper investigates the policy of solidarity economy in the federal government, implemented since 2003 with the creation of the National Secretariat of Solidarity Economy (SENAES). Based on the theoretical model of Kingdon (1995), the article examines, first, the political process (in a broad sense) who succeeded his inclusion as a public policy to generate jobs and income. Next, we analyze the projects and actions developed in the program between 2003 and 2010, with emphasis on their guidelines, internal structure, budget allocation and executionFinally, the article analyzes also what the main partners of SENAES these years to the development of other programs that interface with the solidarity economy, and thus could improve the adherence of the subject within the government. The analysis suggests that the model of Kingdon explains the process of inserting the solidarity economy as public policy in 2003, although this insertion is only one stage of the cycle. Defined its constitution rules, there is a dispute of the program within the government: past eight years, there was no effective intervention of the government to the point of consolidating the socio-economic practices - broadcast by solidarity economy - as a strategy for entering the real world work, or even create an institutional environment that encourages the formalization of associative economic groups. Despite its low budget allocation compared to other programs MTE, the PESD was not constituted as a referral program to a new development strategy, even if the SENAES has managed to coalesce around their important social and political forces for the defense of solidarity economy as a public policy. It shows and discusses the integration of policies and conduct of solidarity economy in the federal government, revealing that the issue did not rise to the macro-political, gravitating in a marginal field, outside the core, in search of space for your internal valuation. While it is regarded merely as a palliative alternative to the problem of unemployment, can hardly meet the antagonisms and conflicts of interest that prevent their development.
Solidarity economy; public policy; public budget; employment and income; associations
