This article provides a theoretical interpretation on the limits and potentials of the internationally highly acclaimed Brazilian urban reform as implemented since the 1990s. We argue that representations grounded in collaborative planning and neo-institutional property theory are of little help in providing insights to the somewhat disappointing progress of ‘really existing’ Brazilian urban reform. We provide a different theoretical framework based on adapted regulation theory and critical Brazilian urban scholarship. While it underlines that better plans, planning processes and redistributive land-market instruments frequently fail to produce better cities in light of a contradictory developmental state mode of production itself, it also recognizes potential progressive praxis of social movements and local governance.
AmoreCS (2013) Entre o nó e o fato consumado, o lugar dos pobres na cidade. Um Estudo sobre as ZEIS e os Impasses da reforma urbana na atualidade. São Paulo, Brazil: Universidade de São Paulo.
2.
AvritzerL (2002) Modelos de deliberação democrática: uma análise do orçamento particpativo no Brasil. In: SantosBS (ed.) Democratizar a Democracia: os caminhos da democracia participativa. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Civilização brasileira, pp. 561–597.
3.
BentesDGoisF (2004) Outorga Onerosa: análise a partir do Plano Diretor de Natal. In:Anais do III Congresso brasileiro de direito urbanístico, 4-6April, Recife, Brazil.
4.
BondukiN (1994) Origens da Habitação Social no Brasil. Análise Social127: 711–732.
5.
BrennerN (2009) Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in Western Europe, 1960–2000. In: AartsBLagendijkAVan WoutumH (eds) The Disoriented State: Shifts in Governmentality, Territoriality and Governance. Nijmegen: Springer.
6.
BrennerNTheodoreN (2002) Spaces of Neo-Liberalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
7.
BrownJCPurcellM (2005) There is nothing inherent about scale: Political ecology, the local trap and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum36: 607–624.
CoaseRH (1960) The problem of social cost. The Journal of Law and Economics3: 1–40.
10.
De OliveiraF (1972) A economia brasileira: crítica à razão dualista (Cadernos CEBRAP). São Paulo, Brazil: CEBRAP.
11.
De SouzaMB (2012) Espacializando o Desenvolvimentismo. Imaginário, Escalas e Regulação. R.B. Estudos Urbanos e Regionais14(2): 35–54.
12.
DenaldiR (1997) Viable self-management: The FUNACOM housing programme of the São Paulo Municipality. Habitat International21(3): 213–227.
13.
DenaldiR (2012) (ed.) O desafio de planejar a cidade. Política Habitacional e Urbana de Santo André (SP) (1997–2008). São Paulo, Brazil: Annablume.
14.
DenaldiRSouzaCVBrajatoD. (2015) Parcelamento, Edificação ou utilização compulsórios e IPTU progressivo no tempo: regulamentação e aplicação. Santo André, Brazil: Ministério da Justiça.
15.
Dos Santos JúniorOA (2008) Reforma Urbana: desafios para o planejamento como práxis transformadora. In: CostaGMDe MendonçaJG (eds) Planejamento urbano no Brasil: trajetória, avanços e perspectivas. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: C/Arte, 136–155.
16.
Dos Santos JúniorOAMontandonDT (2011) (eds) Os Planos Diretores Municipais Pós-Estatuto da Cidade: Balanço crítico perspectivas. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Letra Capital and Observatório das Cidades.
17.
FainsteinSS (2000) New directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review35(4): 451–478.
18.
FernandesE (2010) The city statute and the legal urban order. In: CarvalhoCSRossbachAC (eds) The City Statute of Brazil: A Commentary. São Paulo, Brazil: Ministry of Cities & Cities Alliance, 55–70.
19.
FernandezVRBrandãoC (2010) Escalas y políticas del desarrollo regional: desafios para América Latina. Buenos Aires, Argentina; Madrid: Miño y Dávila.
20.
FlyvbjergB (1998) Rationality and Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
GuilhenA (2014) A Parceria publico-privada como instrument urbanistico: o caso do município de São Paulo-SP. São Carlos, Brazil: UFSCAR.
22.
HarveyD (2013) Cidades Rebeldes. São Paulo, Brazil: Boitempo.
23.
HealeyP (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory2(2): 101–123.
24.
HoefleSW (2006) Eliminating scale and killing the goose that laid the golden egg?Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers31: 238–243.
25.
HolstonJ (2009) Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
HuchzermeyerM (2003) A legacy of control? The capital subsidy for housing, and informal settlement intervention in South Africa. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research27(3): 591–612.
27.
IorisAAR (2011) Applying the strategic relational approach to Urban Political Ecology: The Water Management Problems of the Baixada Fluminense, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Antipode44(1): 122–150.
28.
JägerJ (2003) Urban land rent theory: A regulationist perspective. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research27(2): 233–249.
29.
JessopB (2000) The crisis of the national spatio-temporal fix and the tendential ecological dominance of globalizing capitalism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research24(2): 323–360.
30.
KlinkJ (2013) Development regimes, scales and state spatial restructuring in Rio de Janeiro. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37(4): 1168–1187.
31.
KlinkJDenaldiR (2011) O plano diretor participativo e a produção social do espaço. O caso de Santo André (São Paulo). Scripta Nova. Available at: http://www.ub.es/geocrit/sn/sn-382.htm (accessed 8 April 2015)
32.
KlinkJDenaldiR (2014) On financialization and state spatial fixes in Brazil. A geographical and historical interpretation of the Housing Program My House My Life. Habitat International44: 220–226.
33.
LaiLWC (1997) Property rights justifications for planning and a theory of zoning. Progress in Planning48(3): 161–245.
34.
LaiLWC (2005) Neo-institutional economics and planning theory. Planning Theory4(1): 7–19.
35.
Law-YoneH (2007) Another Planning Theory? Rewriting the Meta-Narrative. Planning Theory6(3): 315–326.
36.
LefebvreH (2001) O Direito à cidade (tradução Eduardo FriasR.). São Paulo, Brazil: Centauro.
37.
LimonadECastroE (eds) (2014) Um Novo Planejamento para um Novo Brasil?Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Letra Capital.
38.
MalveseS (2014) Zonas especiais de interesse social, Zeis de vazios na Região do Grande ABC. Santo André, Brazil: Mestrado PGT. UFABC.
39.
MaricatoE (2011) Impasses da política urbana no Brasil. São Paulo, Brazil: Vozes.
40.
MarstonSAJonesJPIIIWoodwardK (2005) Human geography without scale. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers30: 416–432.
41.
MiraftabF (2009) Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the Global South. Planning Theory8(1): 32–50.
42.
MoulaertF (2005) Institutional economics and planning theory: A partnership between ostriches?Planning Theory4(1): 21–32.
43.
NegriA (2002) O poder constituinte: ensaio sobre as alternativas da modernidade (tradução PilattiA.). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: DPA.
44.
NegriACoccoG (2005) Glob(al): Biopoder e Luta em uma América Latina globalizada. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; São Paulo, Brazil: Editora Record.
45.
ParkB (2013) State rescaling in Non-Western contexts. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37(4): 1115–1122.
46.
ParnellSPieterseE (2010) The ‘Right to the City’: Institutional imperatives of a developmental state. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research34(1): 142–162.
47.
PieterseE (2008) City Futures. London; New York; Cape Town, South Africa: Zed Books and UCT Press.
48.
PigouAC (1932) The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan.
RandolphR (2007) Do planejamento colaborativo ao planejamento ‘subversivo’: reflexões sobre limitações e potencialidades de Planos Diretores no Brasil. Scripta Nova. Available at: http://www.ub.es/geocrit/sn/sn-24517.htm (accessed 8 April 2015).
51.
RolnikR (2011) Democracy on the edge: Limits and possibilities in the implementation of an Urban Reform Agenda in Brazil. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research35(2): 239–255.
52.
RolnikRKlinkJ (2011) Crescimento econômico e desenvolvimento urbano: Por que nossas cidades continuam tão precárias?Novos Estudos CEBRAP89: 89–110.
53.
RolnikRSantoroPF (2013) Zonas Especiais de Interesse Social (ZEIS) em Cidades brasileiras: Trajetória Recente de Implementação de um instrumento de Política Fundiária. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.
54.
RoyA (2009) Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization. Planning Theory8(1): 76–87.
55.
SwyngedouwE (1997) Neither global nor local: ‘glocalization’ and the politics of scale. In: CoxKR (ed.) Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local. New York; London: The Guilford Press.
56.
VainerC (2002) As escalas do poder e o poder das escalas: O que pode o poder local?Cadernos IPPUR/UFRJ15–16(1–2) 13–32.
57.
VillaçaF (1999) Uma contribuição para a história do planejamento urbano no Brasil. In: DeákCSchifferSR (eds) O processo de urbanização no Brasil. São Paulo, Brazil: EDUSP, 169–244.
58.
WatsonV (2009) ‘The planned city sweeps the poor away …’: Urban Planning and 21st century urbanization. Progress in Planning72: 151–193.
