Submitted by Jorge Silva (jorgelmsilva@ufrrj.br) on 2017-06-06T19:49:25Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2016 - Israel Gil da Silva Mendon?a.pdf: 2158927 bytes, checksum: d83367ab03ca7514cc2b9f6f79082e02 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-06T19:49:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2016 - Israel Gil da Silva Mendon?a.pdf: 2158927 bytes, checksum: d83367ab03ca7514cc2b9f6f79082e02 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-06-01 / The theme of this research is based on two intellectuals reasoning, Celso Furtado and Roberto Campos, who experienced the development policies in Brazil from 1950 to 1967. Their participation on government agencies, such as Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento, as well as the ministry of planning, the first in the period of Jo?o Goulart government and the second in the Castello Branco government, made their assume large relevance to development concepts for the economic policies instituted in the developmentalist and reformers governments, one to support them and other to disqualify them. Thus, this research has the following goals: 1) to establish the considered intellectuals history and attend the construction of their ideas since their careers and interpersonal relationships; 2) to establish the participation of both protagonists in the two intellectual poles formation, which disputed the hegemony of the Brazilian development model; 3) to promote intellectual history of their ideas, based on the analysis of their written and published works in the period; 4) to identify similarities and differences between both views on development, agriculture and agrarian reform; 5) to present how such ideas have acquired meaning to the executive branch, based on the analysis of economic plans and agrarian reform projects developed by these protagonistis when they were ministers; 6) to promote political history grounded on the analysis of intellectual ideas. As the main method, we used the historical comparison between the ideas of the two characters in their literary works, the promoted plans as ministers and agrarian reform projects which they participated, based on the formation of associations, identities and oppositions between common themes-words of the two reasonings. As results, we emphasize that: 1) the protagonistis? trajectories were instrumental in the creation of their models and views on development; 2) since the participation of two antagonistic intellectual groups, such agents were essencial to the work of two opponents blocks: the populist-reformist and the associated conservative-modernizing, as organic intellectuals; 3) both disered for national development, agriculture and the resolution of the agrarian question by different means; 4) such conceptions extrapolated the intelectual thought and settled in political society, as noted on the parliamentary discussions and plans and projects of analyzed agrarian reform. Under these circuntances, we conclude that the development models and agricultural development of both governments were based on intellectual concepts, that, different to the idea that promoted themselves for neutral technicians, they had large political function between the economic peak and economic and social crisis stage of Brazilian capitalism, fundamental to the military coup in 1964. / Este trabalho possui como tema o discurso de dois intelectuais, Celso Furtado e Roberto Campos, que vivenciaram as pol?ticas de desenvolvimento no Brasil entre os anos de 1950 e 1967. Suas participa??es em ?rg?os de administra??o, como o Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento, assim como do minist?rio do planejamento, o primeiro no governo de Jo?o Goulart e o segundo no governo de Castello Branco, fizeram com que suas concep??es de desenvolvimento assumissem grande relev?ncia para as pol?ticas econ?micas firmadas nos governos desenvolvimentistas e reformistas, tanto para afirm?-las quanto para confront?-las. Assim, o trabalho possui como objetivos: 1) estabelecer uma hist?ria dos intelectuais tratados, observando a constru??o de suas ideias a partir de suas trajet?rias e rela??es interpessoais; 2) estabelecer a participa??o desses dois atores na constitui??o de dois polos intelectuais, que passaram a disputar a hegemonia sobre o modelo de desenvolvimento brasileiro; 3) promover uma hist?ria intelectual de suas ideias, baseada na an?lise de suas obras escritas e divulgadas no per?odo tratado; 4) identificar similaridades e diferen?as entre as duas vis?es sobre desenvolvimento, agricultura e reforma agr?ria; 5) apresentar como tais ideias adquiriram sentido no poder Executivo, a partir da an?lise dos planos econ?micos e projetos de reforma agr?ria desenvolvidos por esses atores quando ministros; 6) promover uma hist?ria pol?tica a partir da an?lise das ideias intelectuais. Como m?todo principal, utilizamos da compara??o hist?rica entre as ideias dos dois personagens em suas obras, nos planos que promoveram como ministros e nos projetos de reforma agr?ria em que participaram, a partir da forma??o de associa??es, identidades e oposi??es entre palavras-temas comuns dos dois discursos. Como resultados, ressaltamos que: 1) as trajet?rias dos atores foram importantes para a constitui??o de seus modelos e vis?es sobre o desenvolvimento; 2) a partir da participa??o em dois grupos intelectuais antag?nicos, tais agentes foram fundamentais para a atua??o em dois blocos de poder advers?rios: o populista-reformista e o conservador-modernizante associado, como intelectuais org?nicos; 3) ambos almejavam o desenvolvimento nacional, agr?cola e a resolu??o da quest?o agr?ria por meios diferentes; 4) tais concep??es extrapolaram o meio intelectual e se estabeleceram na sociedade pol?tica, como observamos a partir das discuss?es parlamentares e dos planos e projetos de reforma agr?ria analisados. Dessa forma, conclu?mos que os modelos de desenvolvimento e desenvolvimento agr?cola dos dois governos, marcados por forte apelo social e pol?tico ? quest?o agr?ria, foram baseados em concep??es de intelectuais que, diferente da imagem que promoviam de si de t?cnicos neutros, tiveram grande papel pol?tico nas conjunturas de auge e de crise econ?mica e social do capitalismo brasileiro, fundamental para o golpe civil-militar de 1964.