Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros4The constitution of the Rio de Ja...

The constitution of the Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion in the context of contemporary regional urbanization

La constitution de la mégarégion Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo dans le cadre du processus d’urbanisation régionale
Regina Tunes

Résumés

Le concept de région, si largement discuté en géographie et dans les sciences sociales, puis longtemps ostracisé dans la science en général, est réapparu comme un élément fondamental dans les interprétations analytiques de l’urbain et dans la pratique de l’urbanisme et de l’aménagement du territoire depuis la fin du XXe siècle. Cela signifie que la réflexion sur le problème de l’urbain aujourd’hui exige une réflexion théorique et une observation attentive de la réalité, car la vie quotidienne ne se déroule et ne se reproduit plus seulement dans les villes, mais aussi dans des régions à forte cohésion interne, à circulation intense, de plus en plus grandes et pleines de différenciations socio-spatiales. Si le changement d’échelle géographique des processus sociaux fait partie intégrante de ce processus, il est également salvateur de comprendre que la nature des relations sociales a changé dans le cadre du processus d’urbanisation régionale. Dans ce contexte, l’objectif de cet article est d’analyser le processus de régionalisation métropolitaine au Brésil, en partant de l’hypothèse que la mégarégion Rio de Janeiro - São Paulo est la forme la plus complète d’urbanisation régionale et de concentration et de centralisation du capital.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1The regional urbanization process manifests as uneven, disordered patches transforming preexisting structures and engendering urban morphologies with specific characteristics. It consists of a multiform, contradictory phenomenon expressing a new urban cycle and a historical determination of the current days, while maintaining other manifestations of the urban phenomenon.

2These transformations are directly connected to transformations in the productive system, with the crisis in Fordism, which led to the demand for new urban configurations that enable its operation. Sprawling poly-nucleated regions are produced, each of which has internal cohesion that defines its limits. Thus, regions are constructed through the development of poly-nucleated regional urbanization. Such a region is not easily grasped, since one of its main characteristics is its scattered nature, although its limits can be perceived through the overall cohesion.

3Displacement of all orders, including the movement of commuters, is one of the most marked characteristics of such regions. An emerging characteristic specific to these regions is that in the poly-centrality the main center does not subordinate the productive or tertiary activities of the entire region. We are living a historic moment in which regional urbanization processes and financial accumulation are hegemonic in the increased reproduction of capital and space.

4Based on this context, the aim of this article is to analyze the metropolitan regionalization process in Brazil, through the hypothesis that the Rio de Janeiro – São Paulo megaregion is the most complete form of regional urbanization and the concentration and centralization of capital. Thus, this article intends to advance the debate in both the theoretical-methodological scope, in regard to updating of classical theories such as that of the megalopolis – which has already addressed the regional urbanization dynamic, currently configured in the reality of a megaregion in the Latin-American context – and in the domain of studies on the spatial processes that constitute this great metropolitan and regional integration, such as the financialization of real estate and innovation.

5The article is organized into two parts in addition to the introduction and the final considerations. Firstly, the current metropolitan phenomenon is discussed, this being molded by the regional urbanization process. This is important as it is necessary to distinguish the nature of the regional urbanization process, which is different to traditional Fordist urbanization typical of the 20th century. It is this difference that enables reflection on the constitution of the Brazilian megaregion in the second part of the article. Despite being of a new nature and on a much larger scale, the logic of spatial production is maintained and, at the same time, gives rise to socio-spatial differentiations.

The contemporary and the regional urbanization process

6Henri Lefebvre (2001) stated that the dual process, or a process with two inseparable and highly complex aspects, industrialization and urbanization, has, however, a conflicting unity. The author indicates that conflict occurs through the distinct natures of the processes given that “city and urban reality are related to use value. Exchange value and the generalization of commodities by industrialization tend to destroy it by subordinating the city and urban reality which are refuges of use value, the origins of a virtual predominance and revalorization of use” (Lefebvre, 2001, p. 14).

7Despite the differences between globalization and metropolization, they should also be understood as a single movement, albeit with two aspects that retain a contradiction between them. While the Lefebvrian contradiction can by summarized in the impossibility of the urban, that is, of how the overlapping of industrialization and urbanization destroyed the meaning of the latter, the relationship between globalization and metropolization also constitutes a contradiction, which is that of deepening uneven geographical development (Smith, 1988), impeding the realization, from the production of space point of view, of the homogenization implicit to the idea of globalization.

8It is not necessary for this article to temporally pinpoint the beginning of the globalization process or when it began overlapping with metropolization. However, it is important to clarify how we understand globalization, given that it is an essentially polysemic process with multiple repercussions, and, in which sense there is a relationship with metropolization.

9We consider that globalization is a process which, according to Asheim and Cooke (1998, p. 201), “involves the proposition of functional integration between geographically dispersed activities”, and is, therefore, more than just an internationalization and broadening of capitalism. In this sense, and in accordance with the authors, it is a new movement of development in the capitalist economy.

10This new movement can be demonstrated by the analysis of flows that circulate increasingly faster through the constant innovations in terms of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and transport networks. It can also be seen in the consideration that organizational proximity between capitals is often more important than geographical proximity in the capital accumulation process.

11Residing in both is the central idea that globalization consists of the functional integration of different capitals on a global scale. However, the most significant mark in terms of the logic of capital in the globalization movement is, without doubt, the process denominated by Marx (2011[1858]) as the autonomization of capital, or, simply, capitalization. The autonomization of capital means that capital has become autonomous of other conditions for its reproduction.

12If before, merchandise was the intermediary and industrialization was the guide in the process of capital valuation, now, both are fictitiously dispensable, given that capital is reproduced based on itself. It may appear contradictory to say that the autonomization process is new and characteristic of globalization when citing an author that described it almost 150 years ago. However, although the logic of fictitious capital reproduction is not new, having been described by Marx in Grundrisse and Das Capital, the degree of novelty is in the hegemonic form of capital reproduction and the various ways in which this relationship is presented today.

13The hegemony of fictitious capital, in the form of revenue or interest, is a widely discussed theme in social sciences in general. As a synthesis of the debate, and without intending to deepen the discussion here, we consider the observations of Chesnais (2005) as seminal for the understanding of the financialization of society in the new century. The author states that this fraction of capital is the center of economic relationships and that its growth in global terms is contemporary to the Fordism crisis and should therefore be understood as a way of maintaining accumulation growth rates in a scenario of capital crisis.

14While globalization is a constitutive essence of the current moment of capital reproduction, it promotes a genuine rupture in the process of social production of space giving rise to a new phase of global urbanization. In this new phase, denominated in this article as regional metropolization (Lencioni, 2020), although it could also be called metropolitan urbanization (Soja, 2013) or extensive urbanization (Brenner, 2018), urban society, indicated as virtual by Lefebvre (2001), is made manifest and gives rise to a true planetarization of the urban.

15Planetarization of the urban needs to be understood differently to more traditional analyses of the urbanization process. It is not only the conclusion that the urban population has surpassed the rural population, although this is true; it is also not only a new form of relationship between the urban and the rural, even if this is also included.

(...) planetary urbanization unevenly intensifies interdependence, differentiation and polarization across and among places, territories, and scales rather than generalizing “the” city as a universal spatial form or, for that matter, establishing the “borderless world” envisioned by an earlier generation of globalization boosterists (Brenner, 2018, pp. 240-241).

16Thus, metropolization of space retains a direct relationship with globalization and the hegemony of financial capital, just as the urbanization of last century was directly related to Fordist industrialization. The Figure below graphically synthesizes this relationship between metropolization and globalization. In the center of the figure is the comprehension of the urban problem that runs between the consideration of the consolidation of urban society and the comprehension of the production of contemporary space.

Figure 1. The dual movement of metropolization and globalization.

Figure 1. The dual movement of metropolization and globalization.

17The left-hand side of the image summarizes the main characteristics of the hegemonic urbanization process of the production of space in the 20th century. This process gave rise to urban forms such as the modern metropolis and metropolitan regions. In both, the logic of the production of space was based on industrial capital and the contradictory relationships between the city and the countryside. The conurbation, as evidence of metropolitan integration, the spatial concentration of the means of production in the great metropolises, and the consideration of the urban fabric divided between the center and the periphery were important elements in the analysis of the modern metropolis and the urbanization process.

18It is important to remember that none of these elements have disappeared. However, even though they haven’t stopped existing, they are no longer hegemonic, such that we can state that they have been surpassed both in relation to urban forms and in the logic of the social production of space.

19The surpassing of industrial logic and the formation of the modern metropolis culminated in the formation of the contemporary metropolis (Lencioni, 2017), in which there is integration in fragmentation. This is apparently contradictory, but only in a merely formal analysis. From the dialectical point of view, the integration in fragmentation is perfectly understood as a dispersion of the metropolis beyond the limits of the metropolitan regions, giving rise to poly-centric metropolises, which establish connections in a network and promote concentration.

20An interesting example for understanding this issue is that of Brenner (2013), who highlights that in the extensive urbanization process, operational landscapes emerge. These can be exemplified by infrastructures that provide support to the capital reproduction process and that are, in the current context, geographically dispersed (that is, far from the urban fabric) but completely integrated in the productive circuit of a determined fraction of the capital. They are far apart on a topographic scale, but side by side from a topological perspective. Therefore, there is integration in the midst of dispersion, which is characteristic of globalization.

21The contemporary metropolis has the region as presupposed, as previously stated, which means the dissolution of the city. As such, global city-regions (Scott et al., 2001), metapolises (Ascher, 2010), and megaregions (Florida, Gulden, Mellander, 2008; Harrison and Hoyler, 2015) emerge, to cite just some of the new denominations. The degree of novelty and the level of transformation of the urban is currently proportional to the quantity of new denominations that have appeared. According to Toro (2016), there is a conceptual profusion in which more than 50 different names have emerged for the designation of the contemporary urban form.

22The metropolization process of space, in the terms presented by Lencioni (2017), can be summarized in the following words:

We can synthetically say that, in general, the metropolization process imprints metropolitan characteristics on the space, transforming pre-existing structures regardless of these spaces being metropolises or not. This means that the metropolization process may or may not occur in metropolitan spaces. Furthermore, this process engenders urban morphologies with specific characteristics, constituting a multiform, contradictory phenomenon which, in the case of big cities, makes them bend to the phenomena of dilatation, enlargement, and diversification of mobility. Moreover, metropolization also conforms to a changing process related to the phenomena of reurbanization, redensification, and gentrification(...) and expresses, in addition, a new urban cycle characterized by the crisis marked by contradictions, conflicts, and violence. The metropolization process is an historical determination of the current days (p. 41)

23Within this historical determination and among many other new concepts that seek to synthesize this new moment, this article shall advance the debate on the megaregion based on the specific analysis of the formation of the Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion.

The Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion

24The production of large urban regions such as the Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion, is constituted in one of the significant manifestations of the recent transformations of the metropolization process of space, being, moreover, an extremely relevant territorial expression of the current moment of capitalist development, under the hegemony of financial capital. In particular, it reveals the integration of this region into the global dynamic of capital reproduction, as already stated.

25From a methodological point of view, for the definition of the Brazilian megaregion, we use 8 premises of the metropolization process from the proposition of Sandra Lencioni (2017) as a basis, as summarized below:

  1. It is not an urban-rural transition, the essence is urbanization.

  2. Extremely dynamic and diffuse frontiers.

  3. Territorial fragmentation and transparent social segregation.

  4. Redefinition of the hierarchies between the cities of the region and the network between them.

  5. A significant number of urban agglomerations with incredible poly-nucleation.

  6. A relative decrease in demographic growth of the center and of growth of other cities.

  7. Integration between the small cities of the region

  8. Intensity of commuter displacements that structure a regional network.

26Based on these 8 premises, we selected data from the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) (IBGE) from 2010 that could be used to analyze each of these criteria. There is no space here for details, but 34 populational data from IBGE were analyzed.

27This megaregion consists of an integrated macrostructure and its limits encompass municipalities of the states of São Paulo, Minas Gerais, and Rio de Janeiro, in the Southeast region of Brazil. Thus, adding together 174 municipalities in São Paulo, 21 municipalities in Minas Gerais, and 69 municipalities in Rio de Janeiro gives a sum total of 264 municipalities in the Rio de Janeiro–São Paulo megaregion. These are distributed across an area of more than 90 thousand km², with a population of almost 50 million inhabitants, concentrating almost 40% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country, according to IBGE data, as can be observed in Figure 2.

Figure 2. The Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion.

Figure 2. The Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion.

28It is a regionally integrated group, not only economically, with stand-out activities in industry and innovation, but also through the relationship between space, finances, and the significant activity of the real estate sector, in addition to the broad circulation that integrates the dispersed elements of the region. The central analysis of this article is on the innovation processes that expose the concentration of innovative processes in the megaregion and the establishment of networks, while also demonstrating the high technical density of the general production conditions that support this activity, reinforcing the differentiation of this region in relation to the rest of the national territory.

29This differentiation, whether economic, social, cultural, or related to other dimensions, is a significant mark of the Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion. Here, differentiation is referring to what Carlos (2007, p. 45) denominated socio-spatial differentiation, in which the essence and orientation for comprehension of the spatial process is within the social aspect. Figures 3, 4, and 5 demonstrate certain dimensions of the socio-spatial differentiation of the megaregion.

Figure 3. Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion: resident population by municipality – 2021.

Figure 3. Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion: resident population by municipality – 2021.

Source: Prepared by the author

30Figure 3 represents the resident population distribution in the megaregion by municipality based on the estimate published by the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) (IBGE) for 2021. Observation of the map enables us to clearly identify the differentiation in population distribution.

31Firstly, it is necessary to highlight that, according to the IBGE data, the megaregion concentrates 25 % of the Brazilian population. In other words, we are discussing the most populous region in the country, which has an extremely differentiated population distribution, with some areas with a striking population concentration and other areas with a much less dense population.

32From the map’s data, it can be perceived that there is a large population concentration in the metropolises of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. In addition, it is possible to observe certain municipalities in the interior of São Paulo, such as Campinas, Sorocaba, Santos, and São José dos Campos, and in the interior of Rio de Janeiro, such as Campos de Goytacazes, as municipalities that also have a regional relevance and constitute medium-sized cities of this macroregion.

33In relation to Figure 3, it is also important to point out that many municipalities have a population below 20 thousand inhabitants, which, in Brazil, constitutes a small municipality. This is highlighted to reinforce the aspect of socio-spatial differentiation in the region and demonstrate that, within the lexicon of the megaregion, this contradicts the perspective of space homogenization.

34Furthermore, this differentiation in populational terms in the megaregion proves what Lencioni (2015a) highlights in that the spatial process, that of metropolization of space, is not characteristic of only large cities, whether they are part of metropolitan regions or not. The spatial process of metropolization also occurs in rural spaces, small municipalities, and areas of environmental preservation, among other spaces that are not apparently identified as forms of the production of space related to metropolises.

35Figures 4 and 5 reinforce the argument for socio-spatial differentiation by presenting data that goes beyond the difference to also reveal regional inequality. Manuela Cunha and Jean Durand (2016), in addition to Maria Encarnação Beltrão Sposito (2011), make an important contribution on the terms difference and inequality in an attempt to dialectically capture what separates them and what makes them proximate at the same time.

36This article does not attempt to further the debate as it strays from the established objectives; however, it is important to highlight the recognition that difference and inequality are not synonymous. Crudely speaking, difference refers to a quality of this or that which is different, which is not necessarily negative and may originate in a natural characteristic. The example of Cunha and Durand (2016) is particularly expressive, being the differences between countries in languages spoken. It is something given, albeit with historical relationships, and as it is only a linguistic difference, it does not constitute an inequality.

37Languages, to maintain the example, may be based on the inequality between the countries of the world when they are associated with power, and, therefore, with the issue of the political use of the language. Here, the difference is demonstrated in social stratification and a hierarchy of power. Thus, what synthetically distinguishes what is different from what is unequal is that the latter is a historical construction that involves stratification and hierarchization.

38Figure 4 shows the average monthly salary of the population that resides in the municipalities of the Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion. It is a monthly salary difference that dialectically constitutes an assumption and the result of an inequality, the social division of work.

Figure 4. Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo Megaregion: average monthly salary by municipality – 2019.

Figure 4. Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo Megaregion: average monthly salary by municipality – 2019.

Source: Prepared by the author

39Figure 4 shows the average monthly salary of the municipalities that make up the megaregion in 5 categories that can be identified in the legend of the map and refer to 2019. The lightest shade of green is for municipalities with the lowest average monthly salary, while the darkest shade represents the municipalities with the highest average monthly salary. It is important to highlight that the national average monthly salary in 2019 was 2 minimum salaries. Firstly, it can be noted that the megaregion brings together municipalities that are below the national average and municipalities that are well above the national average.

40The differentiation is, therefore, evident on the map. Macaé, a municipality in the north of the state of Rio de Janeiro, has the highest monthly average, well above the national average, and borders Nova Friburgo, which is below the national average. It is important to highlight that Macaé is today one of the main cities that make up the productive circuit of petroleum and gas linked to exploration in ultra-deep lands, known in Brazil as pré-sal, or pre-salt. In addition to the stand-out that is Macaé, it is important to emphasize the two largest Brazilian metropolises, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.

  • 1 The minimum salary in Brazil in 2019 was R$998.00. Half a minimum salary means less than R$500.0 (...)

41Figure 5 shows the percentage of the resident population by municipality with nominal monthly income per capita of up to ½ a minimum salary1. In this case, the yellow identifies the municipalities in which less than 26 % of the population have monthly income per capita of up to ½ a minimum-salary, while the darkest shade of brown identifies the municipalities in which more than 40 % of the population live in this salary band. In other words, in yellow are the municipalities with a low percentage of the poorest population, which gradually increases until reaching the situation of the municipalities in brown with a vast majority of the population in a state of poverty.

Figure 5. Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo Megaregion: nominal monthly income per capita of up to ½ a minimum salary – 2019 (%).

Figure 5. Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo Megaregion: nominal monthly income per capita of up to ½ a minimum salary – 2019 (%).

Source: Prepared by the author

42It is noteworthy that few municipalities on the map have a small percentage of the population that is more impoverished, being that in which less than 26% of the population earn an income per capita of up to ½ a minimum salary. Most of the municipalities, which includes the two largest metropolises – São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro – are between 30% and 34% of the population with income per capita of up to ½ a minimum salary. More than 80% of the population with this level of income per capita is the exception but can be observed in small municipalities from the demographic perspective (Figure 3) and with monthly salary of up to 2 minimum salaries (Figure 4).

43The last two maps, Figures 4 and 5, demonstrate that a socio-spatial differentiation can consist of an inequality that stratifies and hierarchizes the space. In the case of the represented information, it is an income inequality that retains a relationship with the social and territorial division of work. The municipalities with the lowest average salaries and the highest percentages of the population with income of up to ½ a minimum salary, are the municipalities with little economic dynamism and that have a significant part of their economic activities related to traditional agriculture and livestock.

44These data are important to present a broader contextualization of the Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion as, despite megaregions constituting the real powers of the global economy, as stated by Florida et al. (2008), these regional spaces confirm the extent to which inequality in geographical development (Smith, 1988) is a strong component of regional cohesion and an inherent element to the production of space in contemporaneity.

Final considerations

45Globalization and metropolization, two aspects that are part of the contemporary process of capital reproduction, provide the central debate of this article. Based on a dialectic perspective, the aim was to demonstrate how the movement of capital under the hegemony of finance, but which is also reproduced from other fractions, in association or not with financial capital, is related to the social process of the production of space.

46For this debate, the focus of the discussion was the current constitution of the Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion, a region of Brazil that concentrates the most modern economic activities, such as innovation, presented in greater detail in the text. The constitution of the innovation networks, an important general production condition for innovating capital, integrates that which is dispersed and, in some cases, topographically distant, enabling the development of a series of innovation processes which, even if they do not constitute radical innovations, are essential for the development of science, technology, and innovation in Brazil.

47We also demonstrate through data the relevance of thinking about the formation of the megaregion based on this fraction of capital, which is not hegemonic, but which densifies and typifies the megaregion. It also connects it into a network with the main cities of the world, many of which are home to large global companies with innovative productive units in Brazil.

48Furthermore, it was inferred how the megaregion, in addition to concentrating the most modern in terms of productive development, also contradictorily maintains significant levels of poverty. These levels of poverty demonstrate how socio-spatial differentiation, inequalities, and uneven geographic development are constituent elements of the metropolization process of space and need to be demonstrated in research that aims to comprehend the overlap with the globalization process.

49It is important to point out that these territorial differences, both in the concentration of the country’s most modern economic activities and in poverty, which highlight the contradictions inherent in the production of space from the perspective of capital relations under a neoliberal prism, also highlight the need to think about other scales of regional governance that can have a more direct impact with public policies suited to the scale of regional phenomena. In Brazil, political debate on urban-regional governance, whether in the country’s numerous metropolitan regions or now with the evidence of the formation of a mega-regional space, remains a distant future for political-administrative spheres and a challenge for the management of this territory.

50Reflecting on the constitutive essence of the urban phenomenon, that is, the processes from which space is continually reproduced, reveals that the heterogeneous landscapes of capitalism, in which socio-spatial differentiation, inequalities, and uneven geographic development overlap and persist as essential elements in the analysis of the social production of space in contemporaneity.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

ASCHER F. (2010), Novos princípios do Urbanismo, Ed. Romano Guerra.

ASHEIM B. & COOKE P. (1998), “Localized Innovation Networks in a Global Economy: a comparative analysis of endogenous and exogenous regional development approaches”, Comparative Social Rechearch, 17, pp. 199-240, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013

BARTHOLOMEU M.C. (2019), “As delimitações da unidade regional entre Rio de Janeiro (RJ) e São Paulo (SP): da megalópole à megarregião”, Anais do Congresso Observatório das Metrópoles 20 anos, pp. 1049-1065, http://congressovinteanos.obser-vatoriodasmetropoles.net.br/wp-content/uplo-ads/2

BRENNER N. (2013), “Reestruturação, reescalonamento e a questão urbana”, GEOUSP Espaço e Tempo, 17, 1, pp. 198-220, DOI: https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2179-0892.geousp.2013.74311

BRENNER N. (2018), Revolução Urbana? Espaços da Urbanização. O urbano a partir da teoria crítica, Rio de Janeiro, Observatório das Metrópoles/Letra Capital.

CARLOS A.F. (2007), “Diferenciação socioespacial”, Cidades, 4, 6, pp. 45-60, DOI: https://doi.org/10.36661/2448-1092.2007v4n6.12794

CHESNAIS F. (2005), Finança mundializada, São Paulo, Boitempo.

CUNHA M. & DURAND J. (2016), “Vocabulário elementar da diferença e desigualdade. Conceitos e problemas nas ciências sociais”, in Jeronimo P., Temas de Investigação em Direitos Humanos para o século XXI, pp. 179-195.

FLORIDA R., GULDEN T. & MELLANDER C. (2008), “The rise of the mega-region”, Cambridge journal of regions, economy and society, 1, 3, pp. 459-476, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsn018

HARRISON J. & HOYLER M. (2015), Megaregions: globalization’s new urban form?, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA IBGE (2019), Estimativa da População Brasileira, https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/populacao/9103-estimativas-de-populacao.html

LEFEBVRE H. (2001), Espaço e Política, Belo Horizonte, Editora da UFMG.

LENCIONI S. (2015a), “Urbanização difusa e a constituição de megarregiões: O caso de São Paulo-Rio de Janeiro”, E-metropolis, 6, 22, pp. 6-15, http://emetropolis.net/artigo/167?name=urbanizacao-difusa-e-a-constituicao-de-megarregioes-o-caso-de-sao-paulo-rio-de-janeiro

LENCIONI S. (2015b), “Metrópole e sua lógica capitalista atual face ao regime de acumulação patrimonial”, Fortaleza, Mercator, 14, pp. 149-158, http://www.mercator.ufc.br/mercator/article/view/1778

LENCIONI S. (2017), Metrópole, metropolização e regionalização, Rio de Janeiro, Consequência.

LENCIONI S. (2020), “Concepções da metamorfose metropolitana”, in Bógus L., Pasternak S. & Magalhães L. (eds.), Metropolização, governança e direito à cidade: dinâmicas, escalas e estratégias, São Paulo, EDUC/PIPEq.

MARX K. ([1858] 2011), O capital, São Paulo, Boitempo.

SMITH N. (1988), Desenvolvimento Desigual, Rio de Janeiro, Bertrand.

SPOSITO M.E.B. (2011), “A produção do espaço urbano: escalas, diferenças e desigualdades socioespaciais”, in CARLOS A.F., SOUZA M.L. & SPOSITO M.E.B., A produção do espaço urbano: agentes e processos, escalas e desafios, São Paulo, Contexto.

SCOTT A.J., AGNEW J., SOJA E.W. & STORPER M. (2001), “Cidades-regiões globais”, Espaço & Debates, 17, 41, pp. 11-25.

SOJA E.W. (2013), “Para além de postmetropolis”, Revista da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 20, 1, pp. 136-167.

TORO P.M. (2016), “La metropolización afectada por la globalización: reflexión epistemológica sobre la nueva revolución urbana”, Cuadernos de Geografía: Revista Colombiana de Geografía, 25, 2, pp. 77-105, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15446/rcdg.v25n2.56907

Haut de page

Notes

1 The minimum salary in Brazil in 2019 was R$998.00. Half a minimum salary means less than R$500.00 per month, that is, less than 3 Euros per day.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. The dual movement of metropolization and globalization.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/belgeo/docannexe/image/73581/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 87k
Titre Figure 2. The Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/belgeo/docannexe/image/73581/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 386k
Titre Figure 3. Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion: resident population by municipality – 2021.
Crédits Source: Prepared by the author
URL http://journals.openedition.org/belgeo/docannexe/image/73581/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 391k
Titre Figure 4. Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo Megaregion: average monthly salary by municipality – 2019.
Crédits Source: Prepared by the author
URL http://journals.openedition.org/belgeo/docannexe/image/73581/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 390k
Titre Figure 5. Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo Megaregion: nominal monthly income per capita of up to ½ a minimum salary – 2019 (%).
Crédits Source: Prepared by the author
URL http://journals.openedition.org/belgeo/docannexe/image/73581/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 397k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Regina Tunes, « The constitution of the Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo megaregion in the context of contemporary regional urbanization »Belgeo [En ligne], 4 | 2024, mis en ligne le 04 décembre 2024, consulté le 18 juin 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/belgeo/73581 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/12tqs

Haut de page

Auteur

Regina Tunes

Institute of Geography of the State University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
ORCID 0000-0002-0268-6988
tunesregina@gmail.com

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search