Do the non-poor outnumber the poor in SP?
Yes. But by how much is difficult to say. The poverty line in the city is one-half the monthly minimum wage, which is an extremely low figure. Let me illustrate: starting this month, ½ the minimum wage is R$232.50 or about $100 U.S. dollars. Considering that two bus rides per day, M-F, cost R$92 per month alone, this leaves only R$140.50 (U.S. $60) for food, rent, and all other expenses. Riding the bus to work consumes 40% of your income! Also, the city is moving to raise bus and metro fare, so this number could prove even higher in the future.
A better line for poverty in the city would be the full minimum monthly salary, at least. When you consider that a person can qualify for most housing support programs with a family income up to 3 or more minimum salaries, I think one minimum salary as the poverty cut-off is more than reasonable.
Using the low ½ minimum wage line in 2000 (when the last census was taken), 12% of the city’s population was poor, or 1.1 million people. This number reaches 20-38% of the population in the poorest peripheral areas. If you use the full minimum wage as your poverty line, entire sub-municipalities have an average wage that dips within one minimum salary of poverty level. This means that majorities in these electoral districts would live in or near poverty.
This is not to say that the majority of all Paulistanos live in poverty today, but it does mean that a lot more do than official numbers would suggest. For example, a 2003 IBGE study names poverty at 28% versus the 12% census number from 2000.
Remember too that the city also has the highest concentration of rich and super-rich in Brazil, as it is the industrial and financial capital of the country. This group is enormously important for both city and country GDP, and they are very influential.
Was that what gave Kassab the edge and allowed his party to grab five additional City Council seats? [In other words, what effect did income distribution have on municipal elections?]
Yes, this was probably a strong factor. Now there is never a single determining variable in any election, and to prove that income was THE THING or even a BIG THING scientifically would require regression analysis. But from my perspective as an enhanced laywoman, it’s no accident that the districts with money went for Kassab at high margins while Marta only carried the poorest districts. Looking closely reveals two even more interesting questions.
First I'll show the wealth-win correlations - this first graph is some older data (2000 is the most recent census) on income distribution in the city. Now compare this to the graph I posted earlier showing district wins for each candidate. The first is divided by sub-municipal district while the second is by electoral district, but the general correlation is strong and clear. Click on the images to view larger versions.
PER CAPITA INCOME BY SUB-MUNICIPALITY in 2000
source: Atlas de Trabalho e Desenvolvomento de São Paulo
Bounds:
Red = highest income, R$894.77 or more
Light Cream = lowest income, R$275.32 or less
[The upper and lower bounds on this graph hide the extremes of income difference. Monthly incomes in the highest earning districts are actually in the thousands, while the bottom 5th of residents of peripheral districts earn about R$50 per month.]RESULTS OF THE RUN-OFF
source: Folha de São Paulo
See how most of the red and orange areas in the first graph went for Kassab in the second, while the lighter areas went for Marta?
Not only did Kassab win the richer districts, but he did so at higher margins than Marta was able to carry the poorer ones. For example, Kassab took chic Jardim Paulista (84%), Pinheiros (80%), and Vila Mariana (82%). In all he carried 21 districts by at least 70%, while Marta only carried two. These - Parelheiros (77%) and Grajaú (75%) – are both in the extreme south. The next closest win she claimed was in the public-housing filled Cidade Tiradentes (69%).
Also, the PT lost districts they previously carried in 2004, many in the mid-zones between the poverty of the far periphery and the most concentrated wealth of the center and center-southwest. Examples of this are Capela do Socorro to the south, where Marta won 57%-42% in 2004 but lost 51%-48% in 2008, or Itaquera to the east, where she won won 52%-48% in '04 but lost 58%-42% in '08. Marta increased her support in the last 4 years in only 5 of 57 electoral districts, all of which lie in areas that absorb the city’s highest numbers of poor rural-urban migrants. Four are in the extreme south and one, Brasilândia, is an area to the north where I saw huge expansions of new slum settlement into formerly untouched countryside firsthand.
This begs the questions: why did the PT lose these mid-zones from 2004-2008, and why didn’t the poorer districts back Marta as strongly as the rich ones backed Kassab?
At first I wrote long speculative paragraphs about why this may be: rising incomes over the last 8 years and how these map onto the city today, the rising consumerism and de-politicization of the middle class, increasing concerns over crime, the “pasteurization and professionalization” of social movements, some weaknesses in Marta as a candidate, and the ability of the incumbent Kassab to use city resources to co-opt influential people in poor and transitioning neighborhoods. But reading over them, I don’t have the data to demonstrate national trends in the space of São Paulo, and new census data is still a year away.
Was there a green candidate who siphoned off votes?
Not in the second round, which was the decision-maker. Only Marta and Kassab were left standing for that one.
Posts
4 comments:
Regressions will only show correlations, but your analysis sounds fairly convincing. Do you think Kassab has any positives? You mention rising incomes and de-politicization as factors contributing to his support, but you didn't color these developments as being good in themselves. An omission? Do you think the poor of Sao Paolo aspire to anything different?
Re: Kassab - I am sure he has positives. I don't know them though, as I admit that I haven't looked at candidate platforms beyond housing issues.
Re: rising incomes, yes that's good. De-politicization that takes away grassroots involvement on the left is not. The inequality and social division remains enormous, and it is a shame when recent inductees to the middle class stop caring about anything else but their own security.
Re: Do I think the poor aspire to something different.... absolutely! I was actually puzzled by that question and the answer you expected me to have. People range in how defined their vision for something different is - from activists pushing for specific reforms to the poorest favelado who just wants "things to get better, God willing." Your question also made me think of this Hughes poem, that I hope anyone reading the comments section will meditate on:
A DREAM DEFERRED by LANGSTON HUGHES
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore--
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over--
like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?
Of course! I meant something different than what the middle class is achieving. I imagine political activism wanes as the poor improve their lot because they're getting what they wanted. Once they have something tangible to lose, their political calculus is going to change.
I agree, and many of the poor want a middle class lifestyle, so nothing different. Though often the most political will have more developed ideas about the life they want and what needs to change to get it. This group often wants something substantively different than what exists now rather than their piece of the existing pie, whether this has socialist or occasionally anarchist tones.
Post a Comment