Minha casa minha vida program, prioritization of well
being aspect and the agency aspect: expansion of capabilities via access
to adequate housing
by Oksandro OSDIVAL GONÇALVES, Postdoctorate,
Titular Professor at Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná, Brazil and
Luis Gustavo MUSSOLINI DESIDERIO, Master degree student in Economic and Socio-environmental
Law at Pontifícia Universidade
Católica do Paraná, Brazil.
Rleased in 2009[1],
Minha Casa Minha Vida
Program (PMCMV[2])
is today the main tool used by the government to establish public housing
policy[3].
It is also the program that reached the most expressive results about housing
unities production[4],
comparatively to the former programs used by Brazilian government[5].
Despite the numbers reached, the program is not free of criticism. Among
them, it is showed the economic orientation of the program – not the social
aspect – which the main product is represented by the delivery of housing
unities, to prioritize the interests of the real estate market instead of
centralizing its actions to the effective answers of the population with low
spending power, making their social insertion by the access to an adequate
housing, urbanized and integrated to the city[6].
The following of their goals, in the way of control of quantity results,
which are linked to the number of housing unities contracted and delivered is
equally criticized, because it is defended that this control should be made of
a qualitative analysis of the production and the population attended,
respecting the different regional, social and economic realities[7].
In addition to the remarks above, this article examines the priority
that is given by the program to the attending of well being
aspect of its beneficiaries – in the condition of giving them as final product
the access to a housing unity, letting this way, to promote the capabilities
and the agency aspect of the
population which product would be the immediate delivery of an adequate
housing, the main goal of the program – at least what should be.
The aspects analysed – well being aspect and
agency aspect – are taken from concepts developed by Amartya Sen[8],
with the intention of evaluating if the treatment given to the facing of
housing deficit by PMCMV must be corrected to promote the development of
capabilities of beneficiaries from this program, contributing this way to the
process of expansion of freedom to its public – understood as the means and the
end of de development process.
To achieve this objective, a brief exposition on the trajectory of
housing policies should be made till PMCMV, followed by the exposition of the
housing deficit and the differences between the right to property and the right
to adequate housing and the focus given by the PMCMV in production of housing
unities. In the final topic, the concepts of well being
aspect and agency aspect will be exposed and the interaction of the expansion
of the capabilities via access to adequate housing.
The method used at this article is the deductive. From the general
interpretation and systematic of the disposition of specific rules, going
through the analysis of the official data from the program available by the
Ministry of Cities besides the study of scientific works about the theme, to
show the finishing at the end of the work.
The history of housing policies in Brazil has its origins before the
recognition of right to adequate housing as participant in the constitutional
list of social fundamental rights, which happened at 2001, after more than one
decade of the promulgation of Federative Republic of Brazil Constitution.
Even before, for connecting in a right way with the basic needs to a
life with dignity – as expressed in Universal Declaration of Human Rights[9]
and in International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[10]
– the understanding is that the constitutional order already declared a
fundamental right to adequate housing[11].
In Brazil, the historical facts indicate that the problems related to
lack of houses had its start with the end of slavery – and the expelling of the
slaves from the fields – at the end of 19th century, which got worse
with the great flux of immigrants who arrived to work in the fields and
industry, causing a lack of houses to the recently arrived population in the
cities[12].
At that time, different positions were assumed by the government, since
credit to private companies in exchange of construction of houses, passing
through lands edification to high society and collective houses to poor
population – allowing them to live close to factories – without an existence of
a directed public policy to housing sector[13].
Only in the 30s a state concern was verified through Retirement
Institutes (IAPs), with restrict attending to their members and in 1946 the
first national housing policy took place with the creation of Popular Housing
Foundation[14].
However, the model was not effective, as it was restricted to some states of
the federation and had a low production of housing unities[15].
The posterior mark was the creation of the National Housing Bank (BNH[16]), which model
was characterized by the restructuration of different tools about intervention
of State in the housing sector[17].
Despite obtaining expressive results in that period, it did not show long term
sustainability, nor to face the demands of classes with low spending power that
ended up being excluded from housing policy and showing inequities and
worsening the concentration of income in the country[18].
With the extinction of BNH in 1986 it started a new phase, marked by
transferences of responsibility among organs created by the government. It was
a period not so effective to social housing sector, because programs and
actions in the area were linked to different ministries and administrative
structures of government[19]
and then not existing properly a policy that guided the actions of the organs.
In 1988, with the promulgation of Federative Republic of Brazil
Constitution (CRFB[20]),
the Union, States, Federal District and Municipalities assumed the competence
to promote the implementation of housing programs, the improvement of housing
conditions[21]
but not assuring the right to adequate housing to be included in the list of
fundamental rights even though other references to this right were impregnated
at CRFB[22].
Other sector marks and legislatives to the public housing policy were
checked after the promulgation of CRFB. Among them, there were the divulgation
of a new National Housing Policy (PNH, 1996), as well as the advent of
institution Laws of Real State Financial System[23],
of Residential Lease Program[24]
and the City Statute[25],
which did not show capability by themselves to face the problems in the sector[26].
In 2003 there was the creation of Ministry of Cities (MIC[27])
as the new mark of reference in the national policy of housing[28],
followed by the publication of the current Public Housing Policy (PNH[29])
and National Housing Plan (PlanHab[30]),
which are technical studies elaborated with the participation of some different
actors and sectors of society to face the problem. It also was promulgated a
set of laws and decrees that were put over the regimen of property affection of
state incorporation[31],
besides the creation in 2005 of the National System of Housing of Social Interest (SNHIS[32])
that represents the result of institutional design of a new housing policy[33].
In 2009 there was the launch of Minha Casa Minha Vida Program (PMCMV[34])
that since then is the main program of national housing in execution recognized
by MIC.[35]
In the origin PMCMV is an economic program result of conversation between
ministries of the Civil House and the Ministry of Finance with real estate and
construction sectors answering the crisis of subprime that had impacted the
world economy[36].
Right in the caput of its 1st article the institution law of
PMCMV establishes that its object is creating mechanisms to the production and
acquisition of new housing unities or requalification of urban estates or
redoing of rural housing. Since then what is common was a vocation turned to
encourage production and acquisition of new unities than the proper requalification
of rural or urban estates, leading to conclusion that it is a “policy turned
more to the attending of private market interest than social interest turned to
public policy”[37].
The model started with PMCMV is highly marked by fomentation, in a manner
that the intervention of the State occurs through the concession of subventions
to the beneficiaries of the program to purchase estates, besides the
availability of credit and resources connected to constructors willing to
execute housing enterprises that are adequate to all of the technical rules of
the program or even directing the way in which the execution of the program
will take place. Indeed, this last point is subject to harsh criticism[38].
The available data in Annual Evaluation Report of the Multi-Year Plan 2016-2019[39], produced by the Ministry of Planning, Development and Management, indicates that PMCMV will continue to be the main tool of policy of national housing, integrating 2049 Dignified Housing Program, which were predicted budget resources and extra resources of R$147 billion in 2016. The fact is that PMCMV today is a reality that produces effects in the economic and social dynamics of the country.
Thus, the historical trajectory of housing policies indicates advances
but challenges still resist since the deficit is still representative and
requires the efforts to face the problem. So, that is the time to evaluate
results and correct the direction to attend the noble aim established by
National Policy on Social Housing, which product should not be only the
denominated product: housing unity but an adequate housing that contributes to
the capabilities promotion of users of the program, and so helps with national
development, ending poverty, reducing social and regional inequity, attending
this way to the fundamental goals of the Federal Republic of Brazil.
Unlike the actual way of policy of public housing that has different
programs aiming supply the access to housing, the housing deficit is still
expressive[40]
– around 6, 2 million houses[41]
– and is still reaching harder the families with low resources[42],
so the improvement of mechanisms to face the problem is a constant challenge.
Recognizing the right to adequate housing in the constitutional list of
fundamental social rights (art. 6º, CRFB) the problem gets to constitutional
line and shows law pretension subjective to the owners besides working as
conduction line of public activity to the attending of law assets in the
constitution, assuming, in addition of the subjective view, an objective
dimension[43].
As a consequence, the right to housing is not only protected against
external invasions (negative right) but reclaims positive actions and services
by the State (positive right) directed to the implementation of that right,
rights to factual services, which are divided in rights to factual positive
actions and normative positive actions[44].
Effectively and in harmony with the Supreme Court decision[45],
governors may “not diverge from the constitutional order, being bound by the
law, which represents a limitation in political and administrative discretion”,
so the public policy turned to housing sector is treated – under rule criteria
– as a State policy and not only as government policy, which turned it stronger
than before[46].
Relevant to the theme is the difference that must be taken into account
between the right to adequate housing and the property right. It is not
difficult to see a real confusion of treatment, a correlation, seen as not
divisible between those rights, as to realize the right to adequate housing was
necessary making the property right, which is not confirmed.
Such a relational mistake is reflected not only on the population, but
also in the Public Power when formulating public policies of access to housing “use
to condition them about trying to change the population in owners”[47],
showing the inadequacy of the approach.
In fact, the right to adequate housing does not assure the property
right. Adequate housing may be supplied without the guarantee of property and
property may be had without the right to adequate housing. Adequate housing is
a wide concept that transcends its own idea of property or housing unity[48].
As established by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR), on General Comment nº 4:
The Right to Adequate Housing (Art. 11 (1) of the Covenant), implies: (i) legal security of tenure; (ii) availability of service,
materials, facilities and infrastructure; (iii) affordability; (iv)
habitability; (v) accessibility; (vi) location; and (vii) cultural adequacy[49].
Although property may serve as housing or housing may serve to the
acquisition of property, access to adequate housing is a fundamental right with
service of protection and a proper object, which is related to human dignity,
then the right to housing may not lack minimum quality parameters to implement
the protection to social, economic and cultural rights[50].
Despite the right to adequate housing being an autonomous right, the
priority treatment given by PMCMV is the production of housing unities in
series, as a commodity, and the biggest part is on the real estate market to
commerce, attending much more to a demand of economical access to real estate
(property right) than aligned to aspects of social inclusion, that turned to
the attending of fundamental right of adequate housing, that is: the mass
production overlaps with combating the housing deficit[51].
In this sense, an article published by the Institute of Applied Economic
Research showed that, as previously mentioned, the social perspective was not
the major goal of the program, instead, the economic view guided and justified
the use of PMCMV as a way to generate demands to constructors was the real
propeller spring that diverted the focus of the housing deficit:
Actually, PMCMV represented, politically: i)
the changing of priorities before established to housing policy by the Ministry
of Cities under supervision of Olivio Dutra and his
assessors involved with PlanHab; ii) and the
imposition of new priorities to the area, determined by necessity of an answer
to economic crisis and the main role assumed by the Civil House in the
supervision of government policies in the pressure of enterprises. Priorities are
now better contemplated with the change in the command of ministry. In other
words, PMCMV made the configuration of housing policy as an economic policy and
not as a social one, so that the necessity to activate the market is higher now
than the objective of reduction of housing deficit to workers with low income […][52].
Therefore, the goals published by the program have as main factor of
evaluation the production of housing unities (contract and delivery) and do not
take into consideration other tools of legitimate to adequate housing right,
not even the effective attending of acceptation wider in the social right that
seeks protection to attend the population of low income and make possible the
development of capacities of the attended public.
The focus that is given on the production of housing unities rather than
adequate housing ends up being justified by the economic orientation of the
program, which prioritizes a profit making by the actors involved in the
production of the unities (builders, banks), instead of focusing on the social
aspect of the population served. In this sense: “Residents of PMCMV housing
estates may even own a home, but do not hold the elements that make up the
right to adequate housing. This model was based on treating a social right in a
commodified way, as a product, subordinating it to the interests of agents of
the real estate market, which in a nutshell can be understood as profit. The
way in which the system was structured (according to the dictates of
capitalism) hinders the idealization and even the realization of a housing
policy aimed only at someone who is the subject of the right to the right to
housing, you have to carry a document of compulsory or real right that gives
you ‘that’”[53].
This pointing gets worse at the moment that it shows that line (quantity
production) brings up series of problems with the stopping of works, leaving or
even the delivery of isolated enterprises without access to basic
infrastructure, neither public services and economic utilities, besides the
lack of actions that supply the social control of the program[54].
Evaluating the success of a program that faces the deficit of housing
from quantity of produced housing unities is an incomplete and inadequate exam
turned exclusively to an analysis of well being aspect
understood as the opportunity of access to property right and not necessarily
to the right to adequate housing, which is not necessarily associated with it.
The importance of producing new housing unities is not denied, neither
are the processes verified in the last few years concerning public policies to
social housing. What is affirmed, on the other hand, is that the volume of
production of house unities cannot be the main criterion to the evaluation of
the success of PMCMV – beyond the importance of this aspect is the analysis of
attending of population in a social perspective, in a way that the capabilities
of their beneficiaries are expanded.
After exposing the structures cases of PMCMV, as well as the difference
between right to adequate housing and property right, now it is evaluated the well being aspect and the agency aspect, concepts which are here used as in the work
published by Amartya Sen, in which he explores a moral approach that sees
people and from these two different perspectives, each one with its own
relevance to the evaluation of state of things and actions[55].
Using the simplification of the concepts used by Sen – that risk was by
this one claimed, it is affirmed that well being aspect
is important to evaluate the advantage of a person as the agency aspect is important to evaluate what a person can achieve in
consonance with their conception of the good[56].
That does not mean that one aspect is totally independent from the other
as the author recognize: “To recognize the distinction between the agency
aspect and the well being aspect of a person does not
require us to take the view that person success as an agent must be
independent, or completely separable from, his success in terms of well being […]. There is really no sound basis for
demanding that the agency aspect and the well being
aspect of a person should be independent from each other, and it is, even
possible that every change in one will affect the other as well”[57].
From the concepts showed above there are the ideas of well being freedom and agency freedom. The first one is about the freedom of the agent to
reach a personal fulfilling as the second is wider and considers what a person
is free to do and reach on the search of any goal and value that he or she
considers important[58].
The ideas and concepts try to demonstrate that the group of well being freedom and agency freedom are and integrate
what the author calls capabilities. The expansion of the group of capabilities
of people will take the process of freedom development, that one seen in a
double perspective: as a tool and as a way to the process of development, and
as the end of the very process of development[59].
People’s capabilities may be expanded by public policies as well as by
the substantial and instrumental freedoms, distinct, but interrelated[60],
or, the expansion of capabilities will make it wider the access to generate
freedom (economical opportunity, political freedom,
social facility, transparency and protection) and so it will contribute to the
promotion of substantial freedom.
However, it happens that it is not always that human beings are
recognized as agents, beneficiaries of the development and progress, making
space to confusion of ends and means in the planning and elaboration of public
policies[61],
where there is critic that is turned to the conduction of PMCMV about
importance to the production and delivery of housing unities, which attending
is turned to well
being aspect of
beneficiaries in the sense of having access to the real estate, in some
circumstances with no condition of living, public services or minimum
infrastructure of sanitation.
The criticism is justified as PMCMV should equally focus on the
development of capabilities and the agency aspect to this public[62],
to promote them, from access to adequate housing, some autonomy and also
freedom of choice, values that aim to expand the freedoms of that population
and consequently the development of the nation[63].
It should be emphasized that the concept of development from the
capability approach highlights an important role that the government must play
for the benefits of its people by ensuring a set of conditions that they are able
to live a life that is truly worthwhile[64].
Therefore, besides assuring the constitutional elements of an adequate
housing, PMCMV must focus not on the satisfaction of desire, but on human
capabilities, on social attendance of the families attended by the program to
promote their development and social insertion and so create opportunities to
access economic facilities and public services, making them not only passive
agents of their lives but active agents of social transformation that is
searched with the implementation of a policy turned to the attending of less
favored people in the population, realizing the social opportunities to
development of individuals : “With adequate social opportunities, individuals
can effectively shape their own destiny and help each other. They need not be
seen primarily as passive recipients of the benefits of cunning development
programs”[65].
In the meantime, this is not the focus of PMCMV that does not observe
the need of articulation between different levels of government to the
attending of different realities, local and regional. Instead, the program
offers a product that is not adapted to special needs of the population; thus,
it does not bring up the proposition of effective promotion of capabilities of
its beneficiaries[66].
The distance of PMCMV of what is expected as an effective housing
policy, as projected by PlanHab, the prior document
to the very PMCMV and that should guide it, was claimed in a study of IPEA: “Taking
PlanHab as reference, it may be seen that MCMV is far
from what was the housing policy, the knowledge of different realities to face
better the housing deficit. In a country with continent size, with deep
regional differences, social, economic and a huge cultural diversity, MCMV is
expressed as a Fordist company in the mass production, which image is little
houses with no end. The only way of execution, product patronization, interests
and arrangement of companies thinking about the proposition of enterprises, not
considering the kinds of cities that would receive the investments and the most
intense housing needs […]”[67].
To remember that it is not denied the importance of well being aspect is to analysis, evaluation and to face the social inequity
process[68].
At the same time, the production of housing unities in this public policy must
be followed of instruments that supply access to adequate housing for its
beneficiaries, making it possible the development of capabilities of
population, making them not only beneficiaries of a public policy but agents of
their own transformation as Sen (2003) recognizes: “Capability reflects a
person’s freedom to choose between different ways of living. The underlying
motivation the focusing on freedom-is well captured by Marx’s claim that what
we need is “replacing the domination of circumstances and chance over
individuals by the domination of individuals over chance and circumstances”[69].
The cycle of public policies and consequently its programs brings a
phase of evaluation and monitoring that allows correcting its destinations.
Now, the challenge is the integration of PMCMV in a national policy of social
housing linked to an adequate project of funds ruling and supplying of adequate
housing, that is the product of conversation and articulation between different
facts that must interact to face the problem (Government, state, federal and
cities, associations and civil society entities, etc.).
The product of this arrangement must go further than just a housing
unity, supplying effectively adequate housing, with decent conditions of
housing, access to sanitation, transport and social inclusion that allows to
offer its beneficiaries social facilities and economical, like access to public
safety, education, health, sports, leisure and culture, integrating them and assuring
truly access to an adequate housing, which is urbanized and integrated to the
city.
The historical evolution of public policies of social housing in Brazil,
demonstrates that the last few years were marked by relevant progress, because
in this period some important laws were promulgated to the sector of social
housing, besides the creation of the Ministry of Cities and elaboration of a
new National Housing Policy as well as anew National Housing Plan.
Among all the recent programs launched by the government, PMCMV is the
one with the biggest impact for obtaining expressive numbers referring to the
production of housing unities, being this main criterion of evaluation used by
the government to claim and brag about the success in reaching and attending
the goals of the program.
However, the
instrument that should have been designed primarily to attack a social problem
ended up being transfigured to meet objectives of a real estate market whose
focus ends up being housing unities production and profit making. The social
aspect, although used as the driving force behind the program, is not really
its main focus, so there is no concern with the beneficiaries, but especially
with the profitability of the enterprises.
The
beneficiaries end up accessing the property of a housing unit, but do not have
effective access to an adequate housing, the main value that should guide the
actions taken by the PMCMV. The right to adequate housing that is not to be
confused with the right to property, claims the access to wider housing
conditions, not only the quality of estate but security in the possession of
land, access to infrastructure of sanitation, water, electricity, urban
equipment and public services that promote the capabilities of the population
integrating them to the city.
Therefore, besides of an evaluation focused on the quantity aspect of
the production reached by PMCMV, one must aggregate an evaluation from a
quality criterion of production and the attended population, in a social perspective.
Beyond the well
being aspect, which is
tried to be solved delivering the housing unity product, it must search the
improvement of the capabilities of the beneficiaries, aspect that will allow
them the development of their agency
aspect, and promote the social inclusion and access to public services and
economical facilities, collaborating, so, the process of development of
population and nation.
This way, the housing unities produced in PMCMV must be transformed into
adequate housing, having its own value but also an instrumental value. In other
words, its value lies on what it represents and supplies to the families: the
access to instrumental freedom and substantial freedom.
From that the facing of housing deficit is being completely attended,
with social inclusion and economical of low income
parts of population.
References
Alexy R., Teoria dos Direitos Fundamentais,
translated by Virgílio Afonso da Silva, 2nd edition, Malheiros
Editores, São Paulo, 2015, pp. 202-203 [portuguese].
Abreu (de) A. C., “Crise do capital e orçamento público da
habitação social no Brasil”, Revista de
Políticas Públicas, São Luís, vol. 20, nº 1, jan./jun.
2016, pp. 289-306 [portuguese].
Amore
C. S., L. Z. Shimbo, M. B. C. Rufino (org.), Minha casa... e a cidade? avaliação do programa minha casa minha vida
em seis estados brasileiros,.
1st ed., Letra Capital, Rio de Janeiro, 2015 [portuguese].
Azevedo (de) S., L. A. G. Andrade, Habitação e Poder: Da Fundação da Casa Popular ao Banco Nacional
Habitação, Zahar Editores, Rio de Janeiro, 1982 [portuguese].
Bonduki N., Origens da habitação social no Brasil: arquitetura moderna, lei do inquilinato e difusão da casa própria, 4. ed. Estação Liberdade, São Paulo, 2004 [portuguese].
Bonduki N., “Política habitacional e inclusão social no Brasil: revisão histórica e novas perspectivas no governo Lula”, Revista Eletrônica de Arquitetura e Urbanismo., no 1, São Paulo, 2008, pp. 70-104 [portuguese].
Brasil, Ministério das Cidades, Política Nacional de Habitação. Available at:
http://www.cidades.gov.br/images/stories/ArquivosSNH/ArquivosPDF/4PoliticaNacionalHabitacao.pdf. Accessed on October 14, 2017 [portuguese].
Brasil, Ministério das Cidades. Relatório de Gestão 2015. Report available at:
https://www.cidades.gov.br/images/stories/acessoainformacao/relatoriodegestao/2015/snh_2015.pdf. Accessed on October 11, 2017 [portuguese].
Brasil,
Ministério das Cidades. Relatório de
Gestão 2016-2019. Available at: http://www.cidades.gov.br/auditoria/211-lei-de-acesso-a-informacao/relatorio-de-gestao/3686-relatorio-
de of-ppa. Accessed on December 18, 2017 [portuguese].
Brasil, Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida. Available at:
http://www.minhacasaminhavida.gov.br/habitacao-cidades/programa-minha-casa-minha-vida-pmcmv.
Accessed on
October 14, 2017 [portuguese].
Bucci M. P. D.,
Políticas Públicas: reflexões sobre o
conceito jurídico. Editora Saraiva, 2006 [portuguese].
Carta
Capital, Minha Casa, Minha vida gera
exclusão diz arquiteto. Available at: https://www.cartacapital.com.br/sociedade/minha-casa-minha-vida-gera-exclusao-diz-arquiteto-7104.html.
Accessed on December 18, 2017 [portuguese].
D’amico
F., “O Programa Minha Casa, Minha Vida e a Caixa
Econômica Federal”, in J. C. Costa
[et al.], O desenvolvimento
econômico brasileiro e a Caixa: trabalhos premiados, Centro Internacional
Celso Furtado de Políticas para o Desenvolvimento, Caixa Econômica Federal, Rio
de Janeiro, 2011, pp. 33-54 [portuguese].
Estadão, General projects of my house without sewage
network. Available at: http: //economia.estadao.com.br/news/general,projects-of-my-house-without-sewage-network-,635989.
Accessed on December 18, 2017.
Fundação João Pinheiro, Centro de Estatística e Informações, Déficit habitacional no Brasil 2013-201, Belo
Horizonte, 2016, p. 82 [portuguese].
Fundação
João Pinheiro, Déficit habitacional no Brasil 2015:
resultados preliminares, Diretoria de Estatística e Informações, Belo
Horizonte, FJP, 2017. Available at:
http://www.fjp.mg.gov.br/index.php/docman/cei/723-estatisticas-informacoes-3-deficit-habitacional-16-08-2017versao-site/file.
Accessed on October 14, 2017 [portuguese].
Hachem D. W., “A dupla titularidade (individual e transindividual) dos
direitos fundamentais econômicos, sociais, culturais e ambientais”, Revista dos Direitos Fundamentais &
Democracia, vol. 14, nº 14.1,
Curitiba, ago./dez. 2013, pp. 618-688 [portuguese].
Krause C. [et
al.], Minha Casa Minha Vida, nosso
crescimento: onde fica a política habitacional?, Ipea, Rio de Janeiro, 2013 [portuguese].
Klintowitz
D., “Como as políticas
habitacionais se inserem nos contextos de reforma do Estado? A experiência
recente do Brasil”, Revista Pensamento
& Realidade, Ano XIV – vol. 26, nº 3, São Paulo, 2011 [portuguese].
Kozicki K., F. Bessa, T.
A. Moreira, G. G. Almeida (org.), Espaços e suas ocupações: debates sobre a moradia e a propriedade no
Brasil contemporâneo. 1st
edition, Campinas, Russel, 2010 [portuguese].
Loureiro M. R. [et al.], Democracia, Arenas Decisórias e Políticas
Públicas: o Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida, Ipea, Rio de Janeiro, 2013, p. 18 [portuguese].
Maricato E., W. Loconte (org.), Habitação
e Cidade, Atual, São Paulo, 1997, p. 17 [portuguese].
Mastrodi J., S. M. L.
S. Zaccara, “O que é o objeto
‘moradia’ do programa minha casa minha vida?”, Revista de Direito da cidade, vol. 8, nº 3, pp. 859-885 [portuguese].
Moreira V. de S. [et
al.], “Crise do capital e orçamento público da habitação social no Brasil” in Revista Políticas Públicas & Cidades, vol. 2, nº 1, pp. 67-90,
jan./abr. 2015 [portuguese].
Nussbaum M. C., Women and Human Development: the capabilities
approach, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2000.
Nussbaum M. C., “Constitutions and Capabilities: ‘Perception’ Against Lofty Formalism”, 121
Harvard Law Review 4, nov. 2007, pp. 4-97.
Ribeiro L. C. de Q., R. M. Pechman, O
que é questão da moradia, Editora Brasiliense, São Paulo, 1983, p. 45 [portuguese].
Sarlet I. W., A eficácia dos
direitos fundamentais: uma teoria geral dos direitos fundamentais na
perspectiva constitucional, 11. ed. rev. Atual, Livraria do Advogado
Editora, Porto Alegre, 2012, p. 289 [portuguese].
Sen A.,
“Development as capability expansion”, in
S. Fukuda-Parr. et al (eds.),
Readings in human development, Oxford
University Press, New York 2003.
UN
Committee
On Economic, Social And Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 4: The Right to Adequate Housing. Available
at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/47a7079a1.html. Acessed
on April 15, 2018.
United Nations, Universal Declaration Human Rights. Available at:
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. Accessed on October
12, 2017.
[1] The Minha Casa Minha Vida - PMCMV Program was launched with Provisional Measure no 459 of March 25, 2009, converted into Law no 11977 of July 7, 2009. (Brazil)
[2] Herein mentioned only by the acronym PMCMV.
[3] In this sense, the official website of the program emphasizes that the PMCMV is the largest initiative of access to home ownership created in Brazil, having different ways of attending to the families that need housing. Brasil, Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida. Available at:
http://www.minhacasaminhavida.gov.br/habitacao-cidades/programa-minha-casa-minha-vida-pmcmv. Accessed on October 14, 2017 [portuguese].
[4] Data provided by the Ministry of Cities report that the number of hiring corresponding to approximately 4.2 million housing unities, of which 2.5 million have already been delivered to the beneficiaries of the programs. Brasil, Ministério das Cidades. Relatório de Gestão 2015. Report available at:
https://www.cidades.gov.br/images/stories/acessoainformacao/relatoriodegestao/2015/snh_2015.pdf. Accessed on October 11, 2017 [portuguese].[5] Throughout the lifetime of the BNH (22 years), the number of housing unities financed by the BNH was approximately 4.3 million, which the PMCMV is close to achieving in 6 (six) years of program.
[6] The national housing policy, published in November 2004, indicates that its main goal is “to promote the conditions of access to decent housing, urbanized and integrated to the city, to all segments of the population, and especially to the population of low income”.
[7] C. Krause [et al.], Minha Casa Minha Vida, nosso crescimento: onde fica a política habitacional?, Rio de Janeiro, Ipea, 2013, p. 46 [portuguese].
[8] A. Sen, “Moral information in Well-being, agency and freedom: the
Dewey lectures”, 1984, The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 82, no
4, pp. 169-221, abr. 1985.
[9] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes in its Article XXV 1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. United Nations. Universal Declaration Human Rights. Available at:
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. Accessed on October 12, 2017.
[10] The
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is a
multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16
December 1966, and in force from 3 January 1976. The right to adequate
housing is mentioned on Art. 11.1.
[11] I. W. Sarlet, “A eficácia dos direitos
fundamentais: uma teoria geral dos direitos fundamentais na perspectiva
constitucional”, 11. ed. rev. atual,
Livraria do Advogado Editora, Porto Alegre, 2012, p. 289 [portuguese].
[12] E. Maricato, W. Loconte (org.), Habitação
e Cidade, Atual, São Paulo, 1997, p. 17 [portuguese].
[13] L. C. de
Q., Ribeiro, R. M. Pechman, O que é questão da moradia, Editora Brasiliense, São Paulo, 1983,
p. 45 [portuguese].
[14] Pursuant to Decree-Law nº 9777 of September 6, 1946. (Brazil)
[16] As provided by Law no 4380 of August 21, 1964 (Brazil).
[17] Among them being the creation of the Housing Finance System, under the terms of art. 8 of Law no 4380 of August 21, 1964.
[18] S. de Azevedo, L. A. G. Andrade, Habitação e Poder: Da Fundação da Casa Popular ao Banco Nacional
Habitação, Zahar Editores, Rio de Janeiro, 1982, p. 108 [portuguese].
[19] The trajectory is described in the brief report brought in the National Housing Policy. Brasil, Ministério das Cidades. Política Nacional de Habitação. Available at: http://www.cidades.gov.br/images/stories/ArquivosSNH/ArquivosPDF/4PoliticaNacionalHabitacao.pdf. Accessed on October 14, 2017 [portuguese].
[20] Herein mentioned only by the acronym CRFB. (Brazil).
[21] Art. 23,
IX, CRFB. (Brazil)
[22] Article 7, IV of the CRFB already dealt with the basic needs of housing when defining the right to the minimum wage (Brazil).
[23] Law no 9514 of November 20, 1997 (Brazil).
[24] Law no 10188, of February 12, 2001 (Brazil).
[25] Law no10257 of July 10, 2001. (Brazil)
[27] Herein treated only by the acronym MIC.
[28] The Ministry of Cities was created by means of Provisional Measure no 103 of January 1, 2003, later converted into Law no 10,683 of May 28, 2003, currently repealed by Provisional Measure no 782 of May 31, 2017. Among the issues and areas of competence of the MIC, the following stand out: urban development policy; housing sector policy; promotion and articulation of housing actions and programs; subsidy policy for popular housing; and planning, regulation, standardization and management of the application of resources in housing policies.
[29] Herein mentioned only by the acronym PNH.
[30] Herein treated only by the acronym PlanHab.
[31] Law no 10391 of August 2, 2004. (Brazil)
[32] Law no 11124, of June 16, 2005. (Brazil)
[33] C. Krause [et al.], Minha Casa Minha Vida, nosso crescimento:
onde fica a política habitacional?, Ipea, Rio de Janeiro, 2013, p. 6 [portuguese].
[34] Law no 11977, of July 7, 2009 (Brazil).
[35] Brasil, Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida. Available at:
http://www.minhacasaminhavida.gov.br/habitacao-cidades/programa-minha-casa-minha-vida-pmcmv. Accessed on October 14, 2017 [portuguese].
[36] C. S. Amore, L. Z. Shimbo, M. B. C. Rufino
(org.), Minha casa... e a cidade?
avaliação do programa minha casa minha vida em seis estados brasileiros,. 1. ed., Letra Capital, Rio de
Janeiro, 2015, p. 15 [portuguese].
[37] D. Klintowitz, “Como as
políticas habitacionais se inserem nos contextos de reforma do Estado? A
experiência recente do Brasil”, Revista
Pensamento & Realidade, Ano XIV – vol. 26, nº 3, São Paulo, 2011, pp.
113-114 [portuguese].
[38] A. C. de Abreu, “Crise do capital e orçamento
público da habitação social no Brasil”,
Revista de Políticas Públicas, São Luís, vol. 20, no 1,
jan./jun. 2016, p. 301 [portuguese].
[39] Annual Evaluation Report of the Multi-Year Plan 2016-2019. Brasil, Ministério das Cidades. Relatório de Gestão 2016-2019. Available at:
http://www.cidades.gov.br/auditoria/211-lei-de-acesso-a-informacao/relatorio-de-gestao/3686-relatorio- de of-ppa. Accessed on December 18, 2017 [portuguese].
[40] On page 237 of the Annual Report for the Evaluation of the 2016-2019 Pluri-annual Plan, one can verify the indication of an increase in the housing deficit and the need to produce new housing unities. Ibid.
[41] It is used as a basis for the indication of the number of households, the report Deficit Habitacional no Brasil 2015, preliminary results, made available by the João Pinheiro Foundation. Fundação João Pinheiro, Déficit habitacional no Brasil 2015: resultados preliminares, Diretoria de Estatística e Informações, Belo Horizonte, FJP, 2017.
Available at: http://www.fjp.mg.gov.br/index.php/docman/cei/723-estatisticas-informacoes-3-deficit-habitacional-16-08-2017versao-site/file. Accessed on October 14, 2017 [portuguese].
[42] Fundação João Pinheiro, Centro de Estatística e Informações, Déficit habitacional no Brasil 2013-201, Belo
Horizonte, 2016, p. 82 [portuguese].
[43] D. W. Hachem, “A dupla titularidade
(individual e transindividual) dos direitos fundamentais econômicos, sociais,
culturais e ambientais”, Revista dos
Direitos Fundamentais & Democracia, vol. 14, no 14.1,
Curitiba, ago./dez. 2013, p. 639 [portuguese].
[44] R. Alexy. Teoria dos Direitos Fundamentais, Tradução de Virgílio Afonso da
Silva, 2nd edition, Malheiros Editores, São Paulo, 2015, pp. 202-203
[portuguese].
[45] In this sense, we use an excerpt from the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court, in the opinion of Min. Celso de Mello, in judging ARE 639.337 AgR / SP, which dealt with the fundamental rights established by the Federal Constitution and public policies, in kindergarten and pre-schools.
[46] M. P. D. Bucci, Políticas Públicas: reflexões sobre o conceito jurídico. Editora
Saraiva, 2006, p. 11 [portuguese].
[47] K. Kozicki, F. Bessa, T. A. Moreira,
G. G. Almeida (org.), Espaços e suas ocupações: debates sobre a
moradia e a propriedade no Brasil contemporâneo. 1st edition,
Campinas, Russel, 2010, p. 40 [portuguese].
[48] In this
sense: “[…] right to housing consist in the wide access to rights about human
condition that cities in which they are inserted, which are: transportation,
leisure, education, culture, health, security, among others “. Ibidem, p. 42.
[49] UN Committee On Economic, Social And Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment no 4: The Right to Adequate Housing. Available
at:
http://www.refworld.org/docid/47a7079a1.html. Acessed on April 15, 2018.
[50] I. W. Sarlet, A eficácia dos direitos fundamentais: uma teoria geral dos direitos
fundamentais na perspectiva constitucional, 11. ed. rev. Atual, Livraria do
Advogado Editora, Porto Alegre, 2012, p. 289 [portuguese].
[51] V. de S. Moreira [et al.], “Crise do capital e
orçamento público da habitação social no Brasil” in Revista Políticas Públicas & Cidades, vol. 2, no 1,
jan./abr. 2015, p. 82 [portuguese].
[52] M. R. Loureiro [et al.], Democracia, Arenas Decisórias e Políticas Públicas: o Programa Minha
Casa Minha Vida, Ipea, Rio de Janeiro, 2013, p. 18 [portuguese].
[53] J. Mastrodi, S. M. L. S. Zaccara, “O que é o objeto ‘moradia’ do
programa minha casa minha vida?”, Revista
de Direito da cidade, vol.8, nº 03, p. 868 [portuguese].
[54] News recurrently advertised in newspapers and news sites account for unfinished works and projects executed without access to the sewage network, in addition to the very exclusion that is generated through the PMCMV when producing deposits of buildings that do not care about the promotion of citizenship. Estadão. General projects of my house without sewage network. Available at:
http://economia.estadao.com.br/news/general,projects-of-my-house-without-sewage-network-,635989. Accessed on December 18, 2017. Carta Capital, Minha Casa, Minha vida gera exclusão diz arquiteto. Available at:
https://www.cartacapital.com.br/sociedade/minha-casa-minha-vida-gera-exclusao-diz-arquiteto-7104.html. Accessed on December 18, 2017 [portuguese].
[55] A. Sen, “Well-being, agency and freedom:
the Dewey lectures, 1984. Moral information”, The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 82, no 4, 1985, p. 169.
[56] Ibidem, p. 206.
[58] A. Sen, “Well-being, agency
and freedom: the Dewey lectures, 1984. Moral information”, The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 82, no 4, 1985, p. 169.
[63] F. D’amico, “O Programa Minha Casa, Minha
Vida e a Caixa Econômica Federal”, in J. C. Costa
[et al.], O desenvolvimento
econômico brasileiro e a Caixa: trabalhos premiados, Centro Internacional
Celso Furtado de Políticas para o Desenvolvimento, Caixa Econômica Federal, Rio
de Janeiro, 2011, p. 37 [portuguese].
[64] M. C. Nussbaum, “Constitutions and
Capabilities: ‘Perception’ Against Lofty Formalism”, 121 Harvard Law Review 4, nov. 2007, p.
11.
[66] M. C. Nussbaum, Women and Human Development: the capabilities approach, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2000, pp. 70-86.
[67] C. Krause [et al.], Minha Casa Minha Vida, nosso crescimento:
onde fica a política habitacional?, Ipea, Rio de Janeiro, 2013, pp. 46-47 [portuguese].