Submitted by SBI Biblioteca Digital (sbi.bibliotecadigital@puc-campinas.edu.br) on 2017-03-24T17:26:42Z No. of bitstreams: 1 HENRIQUE REZENDE DE CASTRO.pdf: 3998674 bytes, checksum: 512f0552445e945597fd7f2a5cfde508 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-03-24T17:26:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 HENRIQUE REZENDE DE CASTRO.pdf: 3998674 bytes, checksum: 512f0552445e945597fd7f2a5cfde508 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-02-08 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / Metropolitan territories constitute, in the world urban system, fundamental support for the capitalist mode of production and accumulation. Metropolitan management, whose main agent is the State, appears as an important tool to exercise control over the land use planning of such territories, since the state political institutions - government and public administration - would operate under permanent pressure of the interests of capital. Based on this premise, it is assumed that a highly coercive management model would prevail in the sense of centralizing decision by the state apparatus and imposing an agenda of public policies that would favor the production and appropriation of the territory by economic agents. In order to make possible a classification of the existing types of metropolitan management, an analysis instrument was created based on a referential frame with the different types according to the characteristics of the political process of the management. Two case studies were then selected for application of the proposed methodology: the management of the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon, in Portugal, and the metropolitan regions of the state of S?o Paulo, both chosen for the particularities they present in different contexts and for the possibility of comparing the types found. Based on these cases, the aim was to demonstrate the tendency to prevail the coercive model in the contemporary metropolitan management, to the detriment of a territorial cohesion model, which would operate towards a more democratic management, with an agenda based on the reduction of socioeconomic inequalities, which are expressed more severely in the metropolitan territories. / Os territ?rios metropolitanos constituem, no sistema urbano mundial, suporte fundamental para o modo de produ??o e de acumula??o capitalista. A gest?o metropolitana, cujo principal agente ? o Estado, surge como importante ferramenta para exercer o controle sobre o ordenamento de tais territ?rios, uma vez que as institui??es pol?ticas estatais ? governo e administra??o p?blica ? operariam sob permanente press?o dos interesses do capital. Com base nessa premissa, sup?e-se que prevaleceria atualmente um modelo de gest?o marcadamente coercitivo, no sentido da centraliza??o decis?ria pelo aparelho estatal e na imposi??o de uma agenda de pol?ticas p?blicas que favoreceriam prioritariamente a produ??o e a apropria??o do territ?rio pelos agentes econ?micos. De modo a viabilizar uma classifica??o dos tipos existentes de gest?o metropolitana, criou-se um instrumento de an?lise baseado em um quadro referencial com os diferentes tipos segundo as caracter?sticas do processo pol?tico da gest?o. Foram ent?o selecionados dois estudos de caso para aplica??o da metodologia proposta: a gest?o da ?rea Metropolitana de Lisboa, em Portugal, e das regi?es metropolitanas do estado de S?o Paulo, ambos escolhidos pelas particularidades que apresentam em contextos diferentes e pela possibilidade de compara??o dos tipos de gest?o encontrados. Com base nesses casos, procurou-se ent?o demonstrar a tend?ncia de prevalecer o modelo coercitivo na gest?o metropolitana contempor?nea, em detrimento de um modelo de coes?o territorial, que operaria no sentido de uma gest?o mais democr?tica, com uma agenda pautada pela diminui??o das desigualdades socioecon?micas, que se expressam com maior gravidade nos territ?rios metropolitanos.