This paper tries to demonstrate that both the fall in homicides in Pernambuco (from 2007-2013) and the resurgence in them that followed (2014-2017) are fundamentally linked to two explanatory variables, which are in turn connected: the model of governance of public security produced in Pernambuco at the level of state government strategy and the capacity for deterrence produced in the framework of the Criminal Justice System (especially that of state police, who are under the responsibility and "control" of the executive power of the state). This article argues that the construction of this specific model of governance of Public Security and the definition, monitoring and realization of deterrence strategies within the police were crucial to the reduction of the number of homicides in the most violent areas of the state. On the other hand, the dissolution of the capacity for integrated governance of the police, with the consequent dismantling of the deterrence capacity aimed primarily at the reduction of homicides and crimes against life that had been successfully conceived and realized between 2007 and 2013, explains the increase in intentional violent crimes that has been observed since 2014.

No abstract

Este artigo procura discutir as possíveis conexões entre o funcionamento de diferentes mercados de drogas e a violência na cidade do Recife. Os autores propõem que mercados abertos e descobertos, como o do crack, são mais propícios à violência, ao contrário dos mercados fechados e cobertos (mercados de drogas das classes médias). Outros fatores contribuem para a presença de mais ou menos violência em cada mercado de drogas pesquisado: a existência ou não de crédito e consignação, o consumo mais ou menos problemático de cada droga e o tipo de atuação policial em cada mercado de drogas. A observação direta do funcionamento de alguns desses mercados, a pesquisa em jornais diários locais e entrevistas com usuários e vendedores de drogas, profissionais da área de saúde, assistentes sociais, psicólogos, juízes, promotores e policiais foram as estratégias metodológicas utilizadas.

No abstract

PurposeThe relationship between globalization – through trade liberalization – and inequality is unclear. The Stolper‐Samuelson theorem, which is a standard result in trade theory, does not offer compelling answers as globalized economies with an abundance of unskilled labour have seen inequality both worsen, as in China and much of Asia, and improve, as in Latin America. Kuznets' classic model also finds scant confirmation in increasingly open economies, with growth associated with declining inequality in poorer Latin America, and with rising inequality in richer OECD countries. The authors aim to suggest that the key to those anomalies lies in the relative weight of industrialization in a country's growth mix.Design/methodology/approachUsing census data (for 1991 and 2000) for more than 5,000 municipalities, the authors examine the relationship between income per capita and inequality in Brazil.FindingsThe authors uncover the existence of an “inverted‐U” relationship in 1991 that flipped into a “straight‐U” relationship in 2000, both of which are statistically significant. They argue that the flip results from the association of economic growth with de‐industrialization that is driven by globalization.Research limitations/implicationsIn terms of future work, there is a need to examine further the role of de‐industrialization, not only in the case of Brazil but also other emerging economies with different patterns of inequality than the ones currently observed in Latin America and Brazil in particular.Practical implicationsThe authors' result reinforces the growing skepticism towards the role of industrialization in economic development, as Brazil sees its most successful period of pro‐poor growth go hand in hand with its de‐industrialization.Social implicationsThe authors' result casts doubts about the role of social policy in the current evolution of inequality and poverty in Brazil. The famous Bolsa Familia program, in particular, may have been exaggerated by both the Brazilian government and social policy specialists, as much of the change could be traced to changes in the structure of the economy itself.Originality/valueThis paper contributes to the existing literature on globalization and inequality. It uses municipal level data and identifies a “flip” in the Kuznets relationship. This enables us to make sense of growing inequality in poorer but industrializing economies and in rich ones going through processes of de‐industrialization, and also of declining inequality in poorer de‐industrializing countries such as Brazil.