As transformações da política de desenvolvimento dos territórios rurais no Brasil: análise da implementação no estado do Rio Grande do Norte (2003-2016)

Abstract

This Thesis aims to analyze the implementation of the rural territories development policy, considered for the purposes of this research as composed of the National Program for the Sustainable Development of Rural Territories (PRONAT) and the Territories of Citizenship Program (PTC). These programs were designed by the federal government, starting in 2003, and implemented in the state of Rio Grande do Norte (RN), with regular operation until 2016. We tried to understand how a national policy conceived in the perspective of promoting a paradigmatic change in the relationship between the State and civil society was implemented in the rural territories of Rio Grande do Norte (RN). More specifically, the Thesis sought to answer the following research questions: how was the Rural Territories Development Policy (PTR) implemented in the RN territories? Were there different configurations from one territory to another? Why? Which factors could explain these differences? To answer these questions, we chose to carry out the analysis through the theoretical perspective of the cognitive and normative approach to public policies. For that, we adopted one of the analysis frameworks associated with it, called forums and arenas or agonistic approach to public policies, which seeks to understand the dynamics of production and institutionalization of ideas and their influence on public policies. The theoretical-analytical framework was also composed by the notions of Referential (basis of the forums and arenas model) and instrumentation of public action. The empirical research comprised four rural territories (Açu-Mossoró, Sertão do Apodi, Mato Grande and Seridó), in which we undertook the analysis, by comparing them. In the comparative analysis, we take into account the historical context of each territory, as well as the interests, strategies and resources used by the actors to defend their ideas and influence the decisions made in the process of implementing and operationalizing the policy in these spaces. This qualitative research was guided by methodological procedures of bibliographic, documentary and field research, with direct observation and semi-structured interviews with the main actors who participated in the policy implementation process. In addition, we carry out the collection, systematization and analysis of secondary data based on descriptive statistics and the analysis groups indicated by the Iramuteq software. The results showed that the rural territorial policy was guided by a global benchmark that excelled in the participation and democratization of public policies, which ultimately aimed at establishing new practices of dialogue between the State and civil society, thus revealing that its greatest legacy was to have stimulated social participation in the territories. It was evident that the effects of the policy depended on the density of the pre-existing social capital, prior to the territorial action of the Ministry of Agrarian Development (MDA), including for shaping local arrangements more suited to the needs and specificities of family farming. The research also showed the existence of a virtuous combination between the instruments provided by the policy and the existing or acquired resources by the agents on the territorial scale. As a consequence, the actorsinterpreted and adapted to the context in which the instruments of public action brought by the policy were inserted, through commitments signed in the territorial arenas (territorial collegiate bodies), giving rise to other instruments or strategies, among which stood out the constitution of collective organizations (cooperatives) and the creation of spaces for the marketing of family farming products. The conflicts identified in the arenas were polarized by civil society actors and representatives of municipal governments and involved different interests related to the financing of actions in the territories. Finally, the rural territorial policy, supposedly intersectoral, remained under the sectoral logic, with little progress in integrating public policies within the scope of the federal government and between these and the other levels of government (state and municipal).