Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Contradições em Processo: Um Estudo da Estrutura e Evolução do PRONAF de 2000 A 2010

Contents:

Author Info

  • Murilo José de Souza Pires
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Este trabalho tem por objetivo compreender que implicações o processo de modernização conservadora determinou na estrutura de oferta de crédito de custeio e investimento do Programa Nacional de Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar (PRONAF), para o período compreendido entre 2000-2010. Para tanto, foi adotado o método analítico- descritivo como instrumento para classificar e interpretar as informações contidas na base de dados, utilizadas na elaboração deste estudo. Grosso modo, observa-se que os agricultores familiares vis-à-vis o PRONAF B foram aqueles que mais receberam recursos na forma de crédito, seja de investimento, seja de custeio, no período 2000-2010, dos recursos provenientes do PRONAF. São agricultores que já mostram certa inserção nos mercados, como também apresentam um histórico na aquisição de pacotes tecnológicos. No caso do grupo do PRONAF B, que representa quase 56% dos estabelecimentos familiares brasileiros e concentra grande parte da pobreza rural, o acesso ao crédito de investimento e custeio oriundo do PRONAF foi mais restrito. No entanto, é importante ressaltar que os estados onde predominou o público do PRONAF B se concentram, em particular, no Nordeste brasileiro – Bahia, Ceará, Pernambuco, Piauí e Paraíba – e em Minas Gerais. Estas regiões centralizam 76% do número total dos contratos de beneficiados e 76% do valor total dos contratos de empréstimos da categoria PRONAF B; porém, aglutinam somente 20% do número total de contratos de beneficiados e 5% do valor total dos contratos de empréstimos. Já o PRONAF Agricultores Familiares se concentra, predominantemente, na região Sul – Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina e Paraná – e em Minas Gerais. Juntos, estes estados responderam por 65% do número total de contratos de beneficiados e 66% do valor total dos contratos de empréstimos da categoria PRONAF Agricultores Familiares. No universo nacional, estes valores corresponderam, respectivamente, a pouco mais de 44% e a quase 55%. Por fim, destaca-se que a política de concessão de crédito do PRONAF não é neutra em sua distribuição entre os seus beneficiados, pois se centraliza, sobremaneira, no grupo agricultores familiares vis-à-vis o PRONAF B, como também se concentra, em particular, naquelas regiões que já apresentam maior dinamismo econômico, como é o caso das regiões Sul e Sudeste. This work aims to understand what implications the process of conservative modernization determined the structure of supply of credit costs and investment of the National Program for Strengthening Family Agriculture (PRONAF) for the period 2000-2010. Therefore, we adopted the descriptive analytical method as a tool to classify and interpret the information contained in the database used in the preparation of the study. Roughly, it is observed that the farmers vis-à-vis the PRONAF B were those who received more resources in the form of credit, whether investment is costing the period 2000-2010, the proceeds from PRONAF. They are farmers who already have some integration to markets, but also have a history in acquiring technological packages. In the case of group PRONAF B, which represents almost 56 % of family farms in Brazil and focuses largely rural poverty, access to credit for investment and funding coming from the PRONAF was narrower. However, it is important that in the states where the predominant public PRONAF B focus, in particular, in the northeastern of Brazil (Bahia, Ceará, Pernambuco, Piauí and Paraíba) and Minas Gerais. These areas concentrate 76% of the total number of beneficiaries of contracts and 76 % of the total values of loans PRONAF category B, but coalesce only 20% of the total number of beneficiaries of contracts and 5 % of the total value of loans. The group PRONAF Family Farmers were found that focuses predominantly in the South (Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Paraná) and Minas Gerais. Together these states accounted for 65% of the total number of beneficiaries of contracts and 66 % of the total value of loans category PRONAF Family Farmers. At the national universe, these values were, respectively, just over 44% and almost 55%. Finally, it is emphasized that the policy of granting credit PRONAF is not neutral in its distribution among its beneficiaries, it focuses greatly in the Family Farmers Group vis-à-vis PRONAF B, as well as concentrates, in particular, those regions that already have greater economic dynamism as is the case in the South and Southeast regions

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/TDs/td_1914.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada - IPEA in its series Discussion Papers with number 1914.

    as in new window
    Length: 68 pages
    Date of creation: Dec 2013
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ipe:ipetds:1914

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: SBS - Quadra 01 - Bloco J - Ed. BNDES, Brasília, DF - 70076-90
    Phone: +55(061)315-5000
    Fax: +55(61)321-1597
    Email:
    Web page: http://www.ipea.gov.br
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ipe:ipetds:1914. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Fabio Schiavinatto).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.