Análise do impacto da mineração no desenvolvimento dos municípios mineiros e paraenses entre 2000 e 2010

Abstract

The Brazilian mining sector has a prominent role in exports, construction, chemical and food industries. Between 2014 and 2016, the country faced severe water shortage and experienced the worst environmental tragedy in Brazilian history, in the municipality of Mariana, Minas Gerais. These facts brought to debate the socio-economical cost-benefit of mining activity due to its ambiguity: the activity has high added value, generates income and positive externalities, while it is inherently complex, risky and causative of negative externalities. This study analyses focused in Minas Gerais and Pará, main mining states, and compared the years of 2000 and 2010. Development was captured by MHDI, its sub-indices and the inequality ratio of the richest 10% of the municipal population's divided by the poorest 40%. Spatial Econometrics is implemented to control effects related to mining locational rigidness. Regressions of mining in development use the created Spatial Propensity Score as weight. Brazilian input-output matrix and Hirschman Rasmussen Index concerning the mining sector denotes little power to drag other sectors and few productive linkages. The collected data shows evidences that the sector is heterogeneous in terms of value and labor-intensity: metallic minerals outstand in value, while is capital-intensive. Non-metallic minerals are less capital intense (energetic minerals are not considered). The results show positive mean effects in MHDI in both states, restricted to the municipalities that host the activity. The neighborhood effect is null, which is considered undesirable in terms of social development, once that natural resources are scarce and finite. Royalties (CFEM) should allocate resources to overcompensate negative externalities by promoting education, health and local activity in order to push their economy. Furthermore, evidence shows that the impact was greater in Minas Gerais in 2000 rather than in 2010, while in Pará the opposite happened. No significant effect on inequality measured by the ratio 10% richest - 40% poorest was found.