Estrutura produtiva e o (sub)desenvolvimento das microrregiões paranaenses

Abstract

The objective of this study was to analyze the relationship between the type of production structure and the development process of the state's micro, looking to see whether in fact the most diversified production structure necessarily lead to better development indices, as presupposes the theory discussed. Therefore, this research was based on conceptions of growth, development and underdevelopment based on various authors, from Smith to some contemporaries, and some approaches that establish the relationship between productive structure and development, also worked for Smith, North and Paiva. In the methodological procedures, we worked with secondary statistical data for the identification and analysis of the productive structure of the micro as well as the calculation and interpretation of its contents development or underdevelopment. To identify the productive structure of the microregions used the regional analysis method - Location Quotient, and to analyze the development of microregions was based on the methodology of Martins and Candido (2008). The results showed that some economic subsectors are located in a dispersed manner in the State of Paraná, with the majority of the micro has expertise in these subsectors, which indicates a dependency in terms of manpower these subsectors, they are: Agriculture, Trade and Traditional industries . While other subsectors are located in concentrated form, ie, is characteristic of only a few micro be specialized in these subsectors, such as: Dynamic Industries, Transport and Communication and Services. It was also found that some micro-regions are more diversified than others, such as the micro-regions of Curitiba, Ponta Grossa, Londrina, Maringa and Foz do Iguaçu, while others are characterized as monoespecializadas, such as Apucarana and Cianorte. However, it was not possible to establish a pattern between the type of production structure and regional development, since some diverse micro showed low development indices and some specialized micro showed indexes compatible with the diverse micro who stood among the most developed. Moreover, the worst growth rates were micro structure on a specialized production. Therefore, it can be said that the diversified production structure is important but not sufficient condition for regional development. Finally, based on the results, it was verified that there are differences and regional disparities in the territory of the state's microregions, in which it becomes necessary a more intense action of the State towards the least favored microregions.