O papel do SEBRAE como mediador do estado na prática empreendedora: uma análise crítica

Abstract

The contradictions of the popularization of entrepreneurship, mainly after the productive restructuring of the 1970s, as well as the expansion of concepts that surround it, are also supported by the actions of the State, subsumed under capital and the emergence of institutions that act in maintaining a production model that is not responsible for the misery it creates. This research follows the tradition of studies based on historical materialism, which teaches us that as research evolves, the object can gain layers and dimensions that will only be grasped when pursuing its movement. Not surprisingly, the paths explored led to the relationship between the rising concept of the Entrepreneurial State, SEBRAE and entrepreneurial practice. As an entrepreneur, the State fundamentally invests in structure, technologies, resources and institutions that will serve as a basis for creating innovations whose fruits are protected by capital. SEBRAE is the result of investments by the Entrepreneurial State, from its conception to the present day it operates with public transfers, legally supported, and its operations do not serve purposes that were not aligned with capital. Its confirmed contribution to capital is on the one hand in the diffusion of entrepreneurship as a solution, for the working class, for men whose roots are in the capitalist mode of production, who find themselves in a reality of increasingly precarious work and without rights, or in other words, a precarious entrepreneurial practice. And, on the other hand, there is no direct incentive to create technologies that are also important privately. In view of the above, this work's main objective was to critically analyze the contradictions that involve SEBRAE's actions, as a promoter of entrepreneurial practice, in a scenario of legitimization of precarious work in the order of capital in Brazilian society. Specifically, we sought to delve deeper into the structuring of SEBRAE based on resources, main axes of action, objectives and active programs, as well as the concept of the Entrepreneurial State and how both institutions relate to entrepreneurial practice. Among the main results, we highlight that with regard to SEBRAE, the institution is both the result of the Entrepreneurial State, as well as serving as its arm in maintaining the capitalist mode of production to the extent that it served to support national capital, entrepreneurial ideology, masking the capital-labor relationship and confusing the class struggle. Finally, it appropriates public transfers for private purposes that do not contribute to improvements in the living conditions of the working class, since the so-called economic development on which the diffusion of entrepreneurship is based is not sustained when data such as employment, income and even the aspirations of the working class. Furthermore, the increasing insertion in the literature of the designation of Entrepreneurial State has gradually sought to expose that the State has been the main investor in innovations and not private capital, and to reformulate in a certain way the idea of minimum action. Not necessarily something new, but rather a different discourse in response mainly to the crisis of financial capital, demanding even more public resources to meet private interests.