Em tempos difíceis: avançando educação e saúde a despeito de uma economia local desfavorável

Karruz, Ana Paula

doi:10.1590/1678987318266801

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista de Sociologia e Política

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Artigo • Rev. Sociol. Polit. 26 (68) • Dec 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678987318266801 copiar

Em tempos difíceis: avançando educação e saúde a despeito de uma economia local desfavorável

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Resumo

Introdução:

Embora os padrões de vida tenham melhorado substancialmente no Brasil, os últimos anos testemunharam uma economia com crescimento lento, levantando preocupações sobre se as melhorias em educação e saúde pública se consolidariam. São colocadas questões sobre como os governos de todo o país podem se proteger contra a turbulência econômica e continuar melhorando as condições sociais mesmo em períodos críticos. Especificamente, quais políticas públicas podem sustentar ou mesmo aumentar o desenvolvimento humano (DH) na ausência de crescimento econômico (CE)?

Materiais e Métodos:

Este estudo explora as características sociodemográficas e orçamentárias dos municípios brasileiros que apresentaram crescimento menor do que o esperado na dimensão renda do Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano Municipal (IDH), mas avançaram mais que o esperado na escolaridade e expectativa de vida. Municípios cuja renda per capita média avançou menos do que o previsto foram agrupados de acordo com o crescimento das dimensões sociais do IDHM. As chances de cair em um determinado grupo foram estimadas através de um modelo logit multinomial.

Resultados:

A análise sugere que, em uma economia paralisada ou lenta, a probabilidade de melhoria social é sensível ao nível de renda das famílias, alcance educacional em famílias com crianças, composição e alocação do orçamento local, idade e tamanho da população e níveis de DH já existentes.

Discussão:

O artigo argumenta que influências não relacionadas à renda - ou seja, políticas públicas de governos centrais e locais - podem ter efeitos substanciais sobre o DH, contendo perdas ou mesmo promovendo avanços do DH em meio a uma economia desfavorável. Tal afirmação se baseia em trabalhos de estudos de desenvolvimento, adaptando-os da perspectiva comparativa entre países para o nível entre municípios. Além disso, pesquisas sobre descentralização e federalismo fiscal fornecem fundamentos para ajustar o modelo teórico. Uma distribuição nacional mais equilibrada de recursos familiares e governamentais antecipa menor vulnerabilidade em tempos críticos.

Palavras-chave:
desenvolvimento humano; crescimento econômico; gasto social; município; Brasil

Source	Influence over HD	References
Families	Resource availability
	Income level	*Baldacci et al.* (2008)Baldacci, E.; Clements, B.; Gupta, S. & Cui, Q., 2008. Social Spending, Human Capital, and Growth in Developing Countries. World Development, 36(8), pp.1317-1341. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.... ; Ranis & Stewart (2001)Ranis, G. & Stewart, F., 2001. Growth and Human Development: Comparative Latin American Experience. The Developing Economies, 39(4), pp.333–365. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001.tb00902.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001... ; Ranis, Stewart & Ramirez (2000)Ranis, G.; Stewart, F. & Ramirez, A., 2000. Economic Growth and Human Development. World Development, 28(2), pp.197-219. DOI: 10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00131-x https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00... ; Suri et al. (2011)**Suri, T.; Boozer, M.A.; Ranis, G. & Stewart, F., 2011. Paths To Success: The Relationship between Human Development and Economic Growth. World Development, 39(4), pp.506–522. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.08.020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010....
	Income inequality	Kenny (2005)Kenny, C., 2005. Why Are We Worried about Income? Nearly Everything that Matters is Converging. World Development, 33(1), pp.1-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.06.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.... ; *Suri et al.* (2011)**Suri, T.; Boozer, M.A.; Ranis, G. & Stewart, F., 2011. Paths To Success: The Relationship between Human Development and Economic Growth. World Development, 39(4), pp.506–522. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.08.020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010....
	Resource application
	Gender of household head	Ranis & Steward (2001)Ranis, G. & Stewart, F., 2001. Growth and Human Development: Comparative Latin American Experience. The Developing Economies, 39(4), pp.333–365. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001.tb00902.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001... ; Ranis, Stewart & Ramirez (2000)Ranis, G.; Stewart, F. & Ramirez, A., 2000. Economic Growth and Human Development. World Development, 28(2), pp.197-219. DOI: 10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00131-x https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00...
	Schooling of household head	Kenny (2005Kenny, C., 2005. Why Are We Worried about Income? Nearly Everything that Matters is Converging. World Development, 33(1), pp.1-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.06.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.... , 2009Kenny, C., 2009. There’s More to Life than Money: Exploring the Levels/Growth Paradox in Income and Health. Journal of International Development, 21(1), pp.24-41. DOI: 10.1002/jid.1499 https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1499... )
	Women’s schooling	Ranis & Stewart (2001)Ranis, G. & Stewart, F., 2001. Growth and Human Development: Comparative Latin American Experience. The Developing Economies, 39(4), pp.333–365. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001.tb00902.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001... ; Schultz (2002)Schultz, T. P., 2002. Why Governments Should Invest More to Educate Girls. World Development, 30(2), pp.207-225. DOI: 10.1016/s0305-750x(01)00107-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(01)00...
Governments	Resource availability
	Own collection	Soares & Melo (2016)Soares, M.M. & Melo, B.G., 2016. Condicionantes políticos e técnicos das transferências voluntárias da União aos municípios brasileiros. Revista de Administração Pública, 50(4), pp.539-561. DOI: 10.1590/0034-7612138727 https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612138727... ; *Veloso et al.* (2011)**Veloso, J.F.A.; Monasterio, L.M.; Vieira, R.S. & Miranda, R.B., 2011. Uma visão inicial dos subsistemas da gestão pública municipal. In Veloso, J.F.A.; Monasterio, L.M.; Vieira, R.S. & Miranda, R.B., eds. Gestão municipal no Brasil: um retrato das prefeituras. Brasília: IPEA. Available in http://ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10200. Accessed Jan. 9, 2018. http://ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?opti...
	Intergovernmental transfers	Bertholini, Pereira & Rennó (2018); Brollo & Nannicini (2012); Bueno (2017)Bueno, N.S., 2017. Bypassing the Enemy: Distributive Politics, Credit Claiming, and Nonstate Organizations in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 51(3), pp.304-340. DOI: 10.1177/0010414017710255 https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017710255... ; Nunes (2015)Nunes, F., 2015. Presidentialism, Decentralization, and Distributive Politics in Latin America. Tese de Doutorado. Los Angeles: University of California.; Soares & Melo (2016)Soares, M.M. & Melo, B.G., 2016. Condicionantes políticos e técnicos das transferências voluntárias da União aos municípios brasileiros. Revista de Administração Pública, 50(4), pp.539-561. DOI: 10.1590/0034-7612138727 https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612138727...
	State capacity (e.g., to collect taxes, apply for grants)	Ingraham (2007)Ingraham, P.W., 2007. Studying State and Local Management Systems: Why We Need to Do It. In Ingraham, P.W., ed. In Pursuit of Performance: Management Systems in State and Local Government. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.; Ingraham, Joyce & Donahue (2003)Ingraham, P.W.; Joyce, P.G. & Donahue, A.K., 2003. Government Performance: Why Management Matters. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.; Marenco, Strohschoen & Joner (2017)Marenco, A.; Strohschoen, M.T.B.; Joner, W., 2017. Capacidade estatal, burocracia e tributação nos municípios brasileiros. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 25(64), pp.3-21. DOI: 10.1590/1678-987317256401 https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-98731725640... ; Soares & Melo (2016)Soares, M.M. & Melo, B.G., 2016. Condicionantes políticos e técnicos das transferências voluntárias da União aos municípios brasileiros. Revista de Administração Pública, 50(4), pp.539-561. DOI: 10.1590/0034-7612138727 https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612138727... ; *Veloso et al.* (2011)**Veloso, J.F.A.; Monasterio, L.M.; Vieira, R.S. & Miranda, R.B., 2011. Uma visão inicial dos subsistemas da gestão pública municipal. In Veloso, J.F.A.; Monasterio, L.M.; Vieira, R.S. & Miranda, R.B., eds. Gestão municipal no Brasil: um retrato das prefeituras. Brasília: IPEA. Available in http://ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10200. Accessed Jan. 9, 2018. http://ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?opti...
	Resource application
	Distribution of efforts across programs (those HD-focused or otherwise)	*Baldacci et al.* (2008)Baldacci, E.; Clements, B.; Gupta, S. & Cui, Q., 2008. Social Spending, Human Capital, and Growth in Developing Countries. World Development, 36(8), pp.1317-1341. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.... ; Jannuzzi & Pinto (2013)Jannuzzi, P.M. & Pinto, A.R., 2013. Bolsa Família e seus impactos nas condições de vida da população brasileira: uma síntese dos principais achados da Pesquisa de Avaliação de Impacto do Bolsa Família II. In T. Campello & M.C. Neri, eds. Programa Bolsa Família: uma década de inclusão e cidadania. Brasília: Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA).; Ranis & Stewart (2001)Ranis, G. & Stewart, F., 2001. Growth and Human Development: Comparative Latin American Experience. The Developing Economies, 39(4), pp.333–365. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001.tb00902.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001... ; Silveira Neto (2010)Silveira Neto, R.M., 2010. Redução recente da desigualdade regional de renda no Brasil: desconcentração industrial ou políticas sociais? In XXXVIII Encontro Nacional de Economia (Anpec). Salvador.; Suri et al. (2011)**Suri, T.; Boozer, M.A.; Ranis, G. & Stewart, F., 2011. Paths To Success: The Relationship between Human Development and Economic Growth. World Development, 39(4), pp.506–522. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.08.020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010....
	State capacity (to formulate and implement well adjusted, efficient policies)	Amaral & Menezes-Filho (2008)Amaral, L.F.L.E. & Menezes-Filho, N.A., 2008. A relação entre gastos educacionais e desempenho escolar. In XXXVI Encontro Nacional de Economia (Anpec). Salvador.; *Baldacci et al.* (2008)Baldacci, E.; Clements, B.; Gupta, S. & Cui, Q., 2008. Social Spending, Human Capital, and Growth in Developing Countries. World Development, 36(8), pp.1317-1341. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.... ; Costa & Castelar (2015)Costa, R.F.R. & Castelar, L.I.M., 2015. O impacto das transferências constitucionais sobre os gastos dos municípios brasileiros. Análise Econômica, 33(64), pp.171-189. DOI: 10.22456/2176-5456.51004 https://doi.org/10.22456/2176-5456.51004... ; Ingraham (2007)Ingraham, P.W., 2007. Studying State and Local Management Systems: Why We Need to Do It. In Ingraham, P.W., ed. In Pursuit of Performance: Management Systems in State and Local Government. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.; Ingraham, Joyce & Donahue (2003)Ingraham, P.W.; Joyce, P.G. & Donahue, A.K., 2003. Government Performance: Why Management Matters. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.; Soares & Alves (2013); Veloso et al. (2011)**Veloso, J.F.A.; Monasterio, L.M.; Vieira, R.S. & Miranda, R.B., 2011. Uma visão inicial dos subsistemas da gestão pública municipal. In Veloso, J.F.A.; Monasterio, L.M.; Vieira, R.S. & Miranda, R.B., eds. Gestão municipal no Brasil: um retrato das prefeituras. Brasília: IPEA. Available in http://ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10200. Accessed Jan. 9, 2018. http://ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?opti...
Civil society	Resource availability	Bueno (2017)Bueno, N.S., 2017. Bypassing the Enemy: Distributive Politics, Credit Claiming, and Nonstate Organizations in Brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 51(3), pp.304-340. DOI: 10.1177/0010414017710255 https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017710255... ; Ranis & Steward (2001)Ranis, G. & Stewart, F., 2001. Growth and Human Development: Comparative Latin American Experience. The Developing Economies, 39(4), pp.333–365. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001.tb00902.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001... ; Ranis, Stewart & Ramirez (2000)Ranis, G.; Stewart, F. & Ramirez, A., 2000. Economic Growth and Human Development. World Development, 28(2), pp.197-219. DOI: 10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00131-x https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00...
	Resource application
Initial context	Vigor of local and national economies	Ranis & Steward (2001)Ranis, G. & Stewart, F., 2001. Growth and Human Development: Comparative Latin American Experience. The Developing Economies, 39(4), pp.333–365. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001.tb00902.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001... ; Ranis, Stewart & Ramirez (2000)Ranis, G.; Stewart, F. & Ramirez, A., 2000. Economic Growth and Human Development. World Development, 28(2), pp.197-219. DOI: 10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00131-x https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00...
	Social capital	Ranis & Stewart (2001)Ranis, G. & Stewart, F., 2001. Growth and Human Development: Comparative Latin American Experience. The Developing Economies, 39(4), pp.333–365. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001.tb00902.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001...
	Available technologies	Cutler, Deaton & Lleras-Muney (2006)Cutler, D.M.; Deaton, A. & Lleras-Muney, A., 2006. The Determinants of Mortality. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(3), pp.97-120. DOI: 10.1257/jep.20.3.97 https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.20.3.97...
	Strength of associations between HD inputs	*Baldacci et al.* (2008)Baldacci, E.; Clements, B.; Gupta, S. & Cui, Q., 2008. Social Spending, Human Capital, and Growth in Developing Countries. World Development, 36(8), pp.1317-1341. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.... ; Kenny (2005Kenny, C., 2005. Why Are We Worried about Income? Nearly Everything that Matters is Converging. World Development, 33(1), pp.1-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.06.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.... , 2009Kenny, C., 2009. There’s More to Life than Money: Exploring the Levels/Growth Paradox in Income and Health. Journal of International Development, 21(1), pp.24-41. DOI: 10.1002/jid.1499 https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1499... ); Ranis & Steward (2001)**Ranis, G. & Stewart, F., 2001. Growth and Human Development: Comparative Latin American Experience. The Developing Economies, 39(4), pp.333–365. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001.tb00902.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1049.2001...
	Demand for HD (age profile, level of urbanization, population size etc.)	Gupta, Verhoeven & Tingson (2002)Gupta, S.; Verhoeven, M. & Tiongson, E.R., 2002. The Effectiveness of Government Spending on Education and Health Care in Developing and Transition Economies. European Journal of Political Economy, 18(4), pp.717-737. DOI: 10.1016/S0176-2680(02)00116-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-2680(02)00... ; Kenny (2005)Kenny, C., 2005. Why Are We Worried about Income? Nearly Everything that Matters is Converging. World Development, 33(1), pp.1-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.06.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.... ; Mayer-Foulkes (2010)Mayer-Foulkes, D., 2010. Divergences and Convergences in Human Development. UNDP Research Paper, 2010-20. Available in http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdrp_2010_20.pdf. Accessed Dec. 14, 2014. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/... ; *Veloso et al.* (2011)**Veloso, J.F.A.; Monasterio, L.M.; Vieira, R.S. & Miranda, R.B., 2011. Uma visão inicial dos subsistemas da gestão pública municipal. In Veloso, J.F.A.; Monasterio, L.M.; Vieira, R.S. & Miranda, R.B., eds. Gestão municipal no Brasil: um retrato das prefeituras. Brasília: IPEA. Available in http://ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10200. Accessed Jan. 9, 2018. http://ipea.gov.br/portal/index.php?opti...
	HD levels	Jordá & Sarabia (2015aJordá, V. & Sarabia, J.M., 2015a. International Convergence in Well-Being Indicators. Social Indicators Research, 120(1), pp.1-27. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-014-0588-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0588-... , 2015bJordá, V. & Sarabia, J.M, 2015b. Well-Being Distribution in the Globalization Era: 30 Years of Convergence. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 10(1), pp.123-140. DOI: 10.1007/s11482-014-9304-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-014-9304-... ); Karruz & Vale (2015)Karruz, A.P. & Vale, M.L.F.R., 2015. How Has Brazilian Municipalities’ Human Development Index Been Raised? A growth decomposition and local expenditures analysis. In Midwest Political Science Association Annual 73rd Conference. Chicago.; Kenny (2005)Kenny, C., 2005. Why Are We Worried about Income? Nearly Everything that Matters is Converging. World Development, 33(1), pp.1-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.06.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.... ; Kónya (2011)Kónya, L., 2011. New Panel Data Evidence of Human Development Convergence from 1975 to 2005. Global Business and Economics Review, 13(1), pp.57-70. DOI: 10.1504/GBER.2011.039190 https://doi.org/10.1504/GBER.2011.039190... ; Kónya & Guisan (2008)Kónya, L. & Guisan, M.C., 2008. What Does the Human Development Index Tell us about Convergence? Applied Econometrics and International Development, 8(1), pp.19-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08171.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012... ; Mayer-Foulkes (2010)Mayer-Foulkes, D., 2010. Divergences and Convergences in Human Development. UNDP Research Paper, 2010-20. Available in http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdrp_2010_20.pdf. Accessed Dec. 14, 2014. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/... ; Newmayer (2003); Noorbakhsh (2006)Noorbakhsh, F., 2006. International Convergence or Higher Inequality of Human Development? Evidence for 1975 to 2002. ONU-WIDER Working Paper 2016-15. Available in https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/international-convergence-or-higher-inequality-human-development. Accessed Jan. 1, 2017. https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/in...

Variable	MHDI	Income MHDI	Longevity MHDI	Schooling MHDI
Log 2000 MHDI	-0.049^* p < 0.01.
	(0.000)
Log 2000 Income MHDI		-0.029^* p < 0.01.
		(0.000)
Log 2000 Longevity MHDI			-0.046^* p < 0.01.
			(0.000)
Log 2000 Schooling MHDI				-0.061^* p < 0.01.
				(0.000)
Constant	-0.008^* p < 0.01.	-0.005^* p < 0.01.	-0.005^* p < 0.01.	-0.016^* p < 0.01.
	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)
Observations	5,565	5,565	5,565	5,565
R²	0.907	0.539	0.734	0.914

Group	Observed 2010 MHDI dimension^* * In relation to the bounds of the respective dimension’s confidence interval, calculated through the convergence analysis.			Sample size
Group	Income	Longevity	Schooling	Initial n (%)	Working n (%)^ With complete budgetary data (see subsection IV.6 for details).
1 – Double social loss	Below lower	Below lower	Below lower	667 (27)	622 (27)
2 – Longevity gain, schooling loss		Above upper		676 (27)	642 (27)
3 – Longevity loss, schooling gain		Below lower	Above upper	566 (23)	539 (23)
4 – Double social gain		Above upper		573 (23)	542 (23)
All four groups		As detailed above		2,482 (100)	2,345 (100)

Source	Influence over HD	Variable (level)	Variable (as change)	Raw data
Families	Income level	+ 2000 Average per capita income	2000-2010% change	Atlas do Desenvol-vimento Humano no Brasil
	Income inequality	- 2000 Gini (0-100)	2000-2010 change
	Schooling of household head	- 2000% of children in households with no middle school graduates	2000-2010 change
Govs.	Resource availability	+ 2000 per capita total revenue	2000-2010 average y-to-y % change	Finbra – Finanças do Brasil
	Own collection	+ Average 2000-2010% of municipality own revenue collection	2000-2010 average y-to-y change
	Intergov. transfers	+ Average 2002-2010% of federal , state discretionary transfers^* * Due to differences in the Finbra accounting scheme over the years, no comparable values are available for 2000 and 2001.	2002-2010 average y-to-y change^* * Due to differences in the Finbra accounting scheme over the years, no comparable values are available for 2000 and 2001.
	State capacity (e.g., to collect taxes, apply for grants)	+ Average 2006-2010 IFGF (0-100)^ 2006 is the earliest year for which IFGF is available.	2006-2010 average y-to-y change	Sistema Firjan
	Distribution of efforts across programs (those HD-focused or otherwise)	+ Average 2000-2010% of total expenditures spent in education and culture	2000-2010 average y-to-y change	Finbra – Finanças do Brasil
		+ Average 2000-2010% of total expenditures spent in health and sanitation	2000-2010 average y-to-y change
		+ Average 2004-2010% of PBF coverage	2004-2010 average y-to-y change	Matriz de Informação Social
	State capacity (to formulate and implement well-adjusted, efficient policies)	+ Average 2007-2010 IGD^* ***** 2007 is the earliest year for which IGD is available. - Negative hypothesized influence over HD; + Positive hypothesized influence over HD; for change variables, hypotheses are the same as those for the respective level.	2007-2010 average y-to-y change	Matriz de Informação Social
		+ Average 2006-2010 IFGF (0-100)^ 2006 is the earliest year for which IFGF is available.	2006-2010 average y-to-y change	Sistema Firjan
Initial context	Demand for HD (age profile, level of urbanization, population size etc.)	2000% of 6-17 year-old population	2000-2010 change	Atlas do Desenvolvimento Humano no Brasil
		+ 2000% of population living in urban areas	2000-2010 change	Atlas do Desenvolvimento Humano no Brasil
		2000 Population: From 20,001 to 50,000	2000-2010% change in total population
		2000 Population: From 50,001 to 100,000	2000-2010% change in total population
		2000 Population: Above 100,000	2000-2010% change in total population
	HD levels	+ 2000 Longevity quartile: Lowest
		+ 2000 Schooling quartile: Lowest

Variable	All four groups	Group 1		Group 2		Group 3		Group 4
Influence on HD: Families
2000 Per capita income (in BRL 10s)	33,27	29,45	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	32,32		34,48		37,56	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
2000-2010 % change in per capita income	34,18	36,20	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	33,63		34,23		32,45	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
2000 Gini (0 - 100)	56,48	56,25		56,74		56,23		56,68
2000-2010 change in Gini (0 - 100)	-7,10	-6,31	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	-7,31		-7,33		-7,53
2000 % of children in households with no middle school graduates	64,67	67,08	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	65,04		64,39		61,74	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
2000-2010 change in % of children in households with no middle school graduates	-23,18	-19,98	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	-20,32	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	-27,24	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	-26,20	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Influence on HD: Governments
2000 per capita total revenues (in BRL 10s)	106,89	96,56		91,53	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	137,74		106,25
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y % change in per capita total revenues	7,24	6,79		6,95		6,94		8,41
Average 2000-2010 % of municipality own collection revenues	10,60	8,85	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	10,11		11,33	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	12,48	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of municipality own collection revenues	0,26	0,24		0,27		0,29		0,27
Average 2002-2010 % of federal + state discretionary transfers^ Considering the whole set of municipalities for which information is available (n = 5,563), average 2002-2010 per cent federal and state discretionary transfers are 2.70 and 1.84, respectively.	4,80	4,54	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	4,96		5,04		4,65
Average 2002-2010 y-to-y change in % of federal + state discretionary transfers	-0,21	-0,28		-0,29		-0,13		-0,12	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Average 2000-2010 % of total expenditures spent in education and culture	32,21	32,71	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	31,49	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	32,97	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	31,73
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of total expenditures spent in education and culture	-0,24	-0,25		-0,31	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	-0,19		-0,21
Average 2000-2010 % of total expenditures spent in health and sanitation	22,11	21,74	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	22,13		22,13		22,48	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of total expenditures spent in health and sanitation	0,59	0,58		0,69	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,50	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,57
Average 2004-2010 % of Programa Bolsa Familia coverage	87,78	88,24		89,27	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	86,59	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	86,67
Average 2004-2010 y-to-y change in % of Programa Bolsa Familia	5,93	6,04		5,61	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	6,19		5,95
Average 2007-2010 IGD (0 - 100)	76,36	77,05	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	76,14		76,65		75,56	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Average 2007-2010 y-to-y change in IGD (0 - 100)	3,29	3,63	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	3,52		2,99		2,92	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Average 2006-2010 IFGF (0 - 100)	48,24	45,27	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	47,25	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	50,06	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	51,00	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Average 2006-2010 y-to-y change in IFGF (0 - 100)	0,17	0,04		0,39		0,15		0,10
Average 2006-2010 IFGF own revenues indicator (0 - 100)	20,93	17,15	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	19,98		22,56	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	24,77	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Average 2006-2010 y-to-y change in IFGF own revenues indicator (0 - 100)	0,23	0,35		0,08		0,27		0,23
Average 2006-2010 IFGF personnel expenditures indicator (0 - 100)	61,95	59,73	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	59,88	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	63,96	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	64,95	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Average 2006-2010 y-to-y change in IFGF personnel expenditures indicator (0 - 100)	-2,53	-2,86		-2,22		-2,45		-2,60
Average 2006-2010 IFGF investments indicator (0 - 100)	53,18	50,69	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	51,65	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	56,39	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	54,64	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Average 2006-2010 y-to-y change in IFGF investments indicator (0 - 100)	0,81	1,16		0,91		0,50		0,60
Average 2006-2010 IFGF liquidity indicator (0 - 100)	42,91	38,62	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	43,76		43,80		45,94	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Average 2006-2010 y-to-y change in IFGF liquidity indicator (0 - 100)	2,19	1,49	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	2,60		2,48		2,23
Average 2006-2010 IFGF cost of debt indicator (0 - 100)	79,71	78,80		78,14	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	80,52		81,80	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Average 2006-2010 y-to-y change in IFGF cost of debt indicator (0 - 100)	0,15	0,07		0,79	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	-0,31	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	-0,07
Influence on HD: Demand for HD
2000 % of 6-17 year-old population	26,53	26,80	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	26,29	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	26,68		26,37
2000-2010 change in % of 6-17 year-old population	-5,65	-5,57		-5,59		-5,73		-5,73
2000 % of population living in urban areas	58,27	54,66	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	57,90		59,90		61,21	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
2000-2010 change in % of population living in urban areas	4,82	5,14		4,56		5,01		4,57
2000 Population: From 20,001 to 50,000	0,19	0,19		0,21		0,19		0,17
2000 Population: From 50,001 to 100,000	0,05	0,04	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,04	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,07	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,07
2000 Population: 100,001+	0,03	0,00	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,01	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,04		0,08	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
2000-2010 % change in total population	10,19	9,30		8,30	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	12,00	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	11,66	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Influence on HD: Initial HD level
2000 Income MHDI quartile: Lowest	0,24	0,27	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,19	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,27		0,23
2000 Income MHDI	0,57	0,56	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,58		0,58		0,59	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
2000 Longevity MHDI quartile: Lowest	0,28	0,27		0,33	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,21	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,31
2000 Longevity MHDI	0,71	0,71		0,71	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,72	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,71
2000 Schooling MHDI quartile: Lowest	0,29	0,33	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,25	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,32		0,27
2000 Schooling MHDI	0,33	0,31	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.	0,33		0,33		0,35	^* * Statistically different from the remainder of the working sample’s mean at α = 0.05, according to the unequal variance t test of means.
Observations	2.345	622		642		539		542

	(1a)	(2a)	(3a)	Wald test at α = 0.05 Rejects Ho: All βs = 0?
	Longevity gain, schooling loss	Longevity loss, schooling gain	Double social gain
Variable	(group 2)	(group 3)	(group 4)
Influence on HD: Families
2000 Per capita income (in BRL 10s)	0.999	1.040^* ***** p < 0.01	1.031^ p < 0.05	Yes
	(0.012)	(0.014)	(0.013)
2000-2010% change in per capita income	0.993	1.005	1.007
	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.006)
2000 Gini (0 - 100)	1.017	0.968^* * p < 0.10.	1.020	Yes
	(0.017)	(0.019)	(0.020)
2000-2010 change in Gini (0 - 100)	1.013	0.978	1.016
	(0.017)	(0.020)	(0.021)
2000% of children in households with no middle school graduates	0.983	0.905^* ***** p < 0.01	0.872^* ***** p < 0.01	Yes
	(0.011)	(0.013)	(0.012)
2000-2010 change in % of children in households with no middle school graduates	0.974^ p < 0.05	0.792^* ***** p < 0.01	0.773^* ***** p < 0.01	Yes
	(0.011)	(0.013)	(0.012)
Influence on HD: Governments
2000 per capital total revenues (in BRL 10s)	0.997^ p < 0.05	1.000	1.000	Yes
	(0.001)	(0.000)	(0.000)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y % change in per capita total revenues	1.003	1.007	1.011
	(0.018)	(0.018)	(0.018)
Average 2000-2010% of municipality own collection revenues	1.005	0.987	0.978
	(0.014)	(0.016)	(0.016)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of municipality own collection revenues	1.027	1.033	1.011
	(0.082)	(0.093)	(0.090)
Average 2002-2010% of federal + state discretionary transfers	1.063^ p < 0.05	1.014	1.006
	(0.026)	(0.028)	(0.028)
Average 2002-2010 y-to-y change in % of federal + state discretionary transfers	1.033	1.021	1.064
	(0.056)	(0.066)	(0.067)
Average 2000-2010% of total expenditures spent in education and culture	0.990	1.005	1.010
	(0.015)	(0.019)	(0.019)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of total expenditures spent in education and culture	1.129^* * p < 0.10.	1.090	1.248^ p < 0.05
	(0.081)	(0.092)	(0.112)
Average 2000-2010% of total expenditures spent in health and sanitation	0.999	0.990	1.000
	(0.017)	(0.020)	(0.020)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of total expenditures spent in health and sanitation	1.091	1.086	1.122
	(0.086)	(0.102)	(0.107)
Average 2004-2010% Programa Bolsa Familia coverage	1.005	0.992	0.996
	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.006)
Average 2004-2010 y-to-y change in % Programa Bolsa Familia coverage	0.986	0.970^* * p < 0.10.	0.965^ p < 0.05
	(0.014)	(0.017)	(0.017)
Average 2007-2010 Programa Bolsa Familia IGD (0 - 100)	0.991	1.015	1.007
	(0.010)	(0.013)	(0.012)
Average 2007-2010 y-to-y change in Programa Bolsa Familia IGD (0 - 100)	0.999	0.987	0.998
	(0.016)	(0.019)	(0.020)
Average 2006-2010 IFGF (0 - 100)	1.008	1.020^ p < 0.05	1.017^* * p < 0.10.
	(0.007)	(0.009)	(0.009)
Average 2006-2010 y-to-y change in IFGF (0 - 100)	1.012	0.994	0.986
	(0.016)	(0.018)	(0.020)
Influence on HD: Demand for HD
2000% of 6-17 y-o population	1.007	1.132^ p < 0.05	1.086
	(0.045)	(0.062)	(0.058)
2000-2010 change in % of 6-17 y-o population	1.002	1.116^* * p < 0.10.	1.064
	(0.054)	(0.065)	(0.063)
2000% of population living in urban areas	0.999	0.994	0.989^ p < 0.05
	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.005)
2000-2010 change in % of population living in urban areas	0.993	0.992	0.995
	(0.011)	(0.012)	(0.012)
2000 Population: From 20,001 to 50,000	1.433^* * p < 0.10.	1.012	1.378
	(0.268)	(0.213)	(0.298)
2000 Population: From 50,001 to 100,000	1.404	1.779	2.518^ p < 0.05
	(0.516)	(0.634)	(0.911)
2000 Population: 100,001+	2.267	6.258^ p < 0.05	15.545^* ***** p < 0.01	Yes
	(1.806)	(4.562)	(11.115)
2000-2010% change in total population	1.004	0.989^ p < 0.05	0.996	Yes
	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.005)
Influence on HD: Initial HD level
2000 Longevity MHDI quartile: Lowest	4.628^* ***** p < 0.01	0.979	4.016^* ***** p < 0.01	Yes
	(1.058)	(0.241)	(1.056)
2000 Schooling MHDI quartile: Lowest	0.785	3.387^* ***** p < 0.01	2.877^* ***** p < 0.01	Yes
	(0.168)	(0.876)	(0.751)
Constant	0.229	0.088	0.022	N.a.
	(0.476)	(0.208)	(0.054)
Observations	2,345	2,345	2,345	N.a.

Variable	(1b)	(2b)	(3b)
	Longevity gain, schooling loss	Longevity loss, schooling gain	Double social gain
	(group 2)	(group 3)	(group 4)
Influence on HD: Families
2000 Per capita income (in BRL 10s)	1.003	1.031^ p < 0.05	1.043^* ***** p < 0.01
	(0.010)	(0.015)	(0.014)
2000-2010% change in per capita income	0.994	1.006	1.007
	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.006)
2000 Gini (0 - 100)	1.005	0.987	1.013
	(0.023)	(0.022)	(0.032)
2000-2010 change in Gini (0 - 100)	1.000	0.994	1.013
	(0.017)	(0.024)	(0.031)
2000% of children in households with no middle school graduates	0.991	0.894^* ***** p < 0.01	0.876^* ***** p < 0.01
	(0.011)	(0.017)	(0.015)
2000-2010 change in % of children in households with no middle school graduates	0.981	0.776^* ***** p < 0.01	0.770^* ***** p < 0.01
	(0.012)	(0.016)	(0.009)
Influence on HD: Governments
2000 per capital total revenues (in BRL 10s)	0.996^* ***** p < 0.01	1.000	1.000
	(0.001)	(0.000)	(0.000)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y % change in per capita total revenues	0.995	1.007	1.011
	(0.008)	(0.015)	(0.016)
Average 2000-2010% of municipality own collection revenues	1.013	0.982	0.973
	(0.018)	(0.015)	(0.017)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of municipality own collection revenues	1.026	1.057	1.049
	(0.061)	(0.058)	(0.063)
Average 2002-2010% of federal + state discretionary transfers	1.044^ p < 0.05	1.034	1.009
	(0.018)	(0.033)	(0.032)
Average 2002-2010 y-to-y change in % of federal + state discretionary transfers	1.024	1.061	1.069
	(0.057)	(0.070)	(0.070)
Average 2000-2010% of total expenditures spent in education and culture	0.972	1.038	1.004
	(0.017)	(0.024)	(0.022)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of total expenditures spent in education and culture	1.043	1.168^* * p < 0.10.	1.186^* * p < 0.10.
	(0.059)	(0.109)	(0.117)
Average 2000-2010% of total expenditures spent in health and sanitation	0.987	1.012	1.014
	(0.019)	(0.020)	(0.023)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of total expenditures spent in health and sanitation	1.145^* * p < 0.10.	0.975	1.075
	(0.087)	(0.118)	(0.091)
Average 2004-2010% Programa Bolsa Familia coverage	1.004	0.996	0.999
	(0.006)	(0.008)	(0.008)
Average 2004-2010 y-to-y change in % Programa Bolsa Familia coverage	0.974^ p < 0.05	0.986	0.970^ p < 0.05
	(0.011)	(0.010)	(0.015)
Average 2007-2010 Programa Bolsa Familia IGD (0 - 100)	0.989	1.017	0.998
	(0.009)	(0.018)	(0.016)
Average 2007-2010 y-to-y change in Programa Bolsa Familia IGD (0 - 100)	0.993	0.997	0.993
	(0.017)	(0.029)	(0.024)
Average 2006-2010 IFGF (0 - 100)	1.008	1.020^ p < 0.05	1.024^* ***** p < 0.01
	(0.006)	(0.009)	(0.008)
Average 2006-2010 y-to-y change in IFGF (0 - 100)	1.017	0.987	0.987
	(0.014)	(0.017)	(0.016)
Influence on HD: Demand for HD
2000% of 6-17 y-o population	0.986	1.105	1.108
	(0.050)	(0.079)	(0.093)
2000-2010 change in % of 6-17 y-o population	1.005	1.070	1.068
	(0.051)	(0.074)	(0.093)
2000% of population living in urban areas	0.998	0.998	0.990
	(0.006)	(0.006)	(0.007)
2000-2010 change in % of population living in urban areas	0.989	0.999	0.990
	(0.011)	(0.009)	(0.010)
2000 Population: From 20 001 to 50 000	1.272	1.214	1.161
	(0.241)	(0.214)	(0.252)
2000 Population: From 50 001 to 100 000	1.118	2.136^* ***** p < 0.01	1.961
	(0.650)	(0.597)	(0.898)
2000 Population: 100 001+	1.372	7.667^* ***** p < 0.01	10.739^* ***** p < 0.01
	(1.480)	(4.250)	(6.757)
2000-2010% change in total population	0.999	0.994	0.994
	(0.003)	(0.004)	(0.004)
Influence on HD: Initial HD level
2000 Longevity MHDI quartile: Lowest	3.297^* ***** p < 0.01	1.110	4.614^* ***** p < 0.01
	(1.217)	(0.303)	(1.165)
2000 Schooling MHDI quartile: Lowest	0.725^ p < 0.05	4.383^* ***** p < 0.01	3.050^* ***** p < 0.01
	(0.107)	(1.430)	(0.749)
Constant	6.596	0.005	0.031
	(8.681)	(0.016)	(0.093)
Observations	2 345	2 345	2 345

Variable	(4a)	(4b)	(5a)	(5b)
	Double social gain (vs. double social loss)	Double social gain (vs. double social loss)	Double social gain (vs. all other groups)	Double social gain (vs. all other groups)
Influence on HD: Families
2000 Per capita income (in BRL 10s)	1.020	1.029	1.011	1.017^ p < 0.05
	(0.015)	(0.018)	(0.009)	(0.008)
2000-2010% change in per capita income	0.998	1.001	1.006	1.007^ p < 0.05
	(0.007)	(0.008)	(0.005)	(0.003)
2000 Gini (0 - 100)	1.025	1.019	1.029^* * p < 0.10.	1.024
	(0.026)	(0.042)	(0.017)	(0.021)
2000-2010 change in Gini (0 - 100)	1.037	1.026	1.021	1.016
	(0.028)	(0.044)	(0.017)	(0.021)
2000% of children in households with no middle school graduates	0.849^* ***** p < 0.01	0.854^* ***** p < 0.01	0.914^* ***** p < 0.01	0.917^* ***** p < 0.01
	(0.016)	(0.016)	(0.010)	(0.016)
2000-2010 change in % of children in households with no middle school graduates	0.745^* ***** p < 0.01	0.745^* ***** p < 0.01	0.865^* ***** p < 0.01	0.865^* ***** p < 0.01
	(0.018)	(0.013)	(0.010)	(0.017)
Influence on HD: Governments
2000 per capital total revenues (in BRL 10s)	0.998	0.999	1.000^* ***** p < 0.01	1.000^* ***** p < 0.01
	(0.002)	(0.003)	(0.000)	(0.000)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y % change in per capita total revenues	1.001	1.001	1.005	1.005
	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.005)	(0.007)
Average 2000-2010% of municipality own collection revenues	0.963^ p < 0.05	0.967^* * p < 0.10.	0.987	0.986
	(0.016)	(0.020)	(0.011)	(0.010)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of municipality own collection revenues	1.233^* * p < 0.10.	1.232^ p < 0.05	0.992	0.996
	(0.149)	(0.126)	(0.068)	(0.068)
Average 2002-2010% of federal + state discretionary transfers	0.992	0.992	0.985	0.984
	(0.033)	(0.036)	(0.021)	(0.022)
Average 2002-2010 y-to-y change in % of federal + state discretionary transfers	1.088	1.088	1.046	1.044
	(0.097)	(0.074)	(0.050)	(0.047)
Average 2000-2010% of total expenditures spent in education and culture	1.015	1.009	1.010	1.005
	(0.022)	(0.029)	(0.015)	(0.016)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of total expenditures spent in education and culture	1.178	1.148^* * p < 0.10.	1.163^ p < 0.05	1.136^ p < 0.05
	(0.117)	(0.094)	(0.087)	(0.071)
Average 2000-2010% of total expenditures spent in health and sanitation	1.007	1.011	1.006	1.006
	(0.024)	(0.022)	(0.015)	(0.016)
Average 2000-2010 y-to-y change in % of total expenditures spent in health and sanitation	1.074	1.068	1.040	1.040
	(0.114)	(0.102)	(0.078)	(0.060)
Average 2004-2010% Programa Bolsa Familia coverage	0.998	0.999	0.999	0.999
	(0.007)	(0.010)	(0.005)	(0.004)
Average 2004-2010 y-to-y change in % Programa Bolsa Familia coverage	0.954^ p < 0.05	0.958^ p < 0.05	0.981	0.980
	(0.021)	(0.021)	(0.013)	(0.013)
Average 2007-2010 Programa Bolsa Familia IGD (0 - 100)	0.999	0.996	1.002	0.999
	(0.014)	(0.014)	(0.010)	(0.011)
Average 2007-2010 y-to-y change in Programa Bolsa Familia IGD (0 - 100)	0.990	0.990	1.006	1.003
	(0.025)	(0.025)	(0.016)	(0.012)
Average 2006-2010 IFGF (0 - 100)	1.021^ p < 0.05	1.024^* ***** p < 0.01	1.003	1.006
	(0.011)	(0.009)	(0.007)	(0.006)
Average 2006-2010 y-to-y change in IFGF (0 - 100)	0.987	0.991	0.985	0.987
	(0.024)	(0.020)	(0.016)	(0.017)
Influence on HD: Demand for HD
2000% of 6-17 y-o population	1.042	1.043	1.013	1.015
	(0.068)	(0.095)	(0.042)	(0.055)
2000-2010 change in % of 6-17 y-o population	1.045	1.060	0.999	1.002
	(0.078)	(0.121)	(0.045)	(0.057)
2000% of population living in urban areas	0.985^ p < 0.05	0.985^* * p < 0.10.	0.991^ p < 0.05	0.991^* * p < 0.10.
	(0.006)	(0.009)	(0.004)	(0.005)
2000-2010 change in % of population living in urban areas	1.004	0.998	1.001	0.999
	(0.016)	(0.012)	(0.010)	(0.007)
2000 Population: From 20,001 to 50,000	1.432	1.282	1.216	1.151
	(0.375)	(0.271)	(0.203)	(0.175)
2000 Population: From 50,001 to 100,000	3.631^* ***** p < 0.01	2.828^ p < 0.05	1.669^* * p < 0.10.	1.556^* * p < 0.10.
	(1.612)	(1.474)	(0.451)	(0.389)
2000 Population: 100,001+	17.052^* ***** p < 0.01	12.809^* ***** p < 0.01	3.864^* ***** p < 0.01	3.470^* ***** p < 0.01
	(12.644)	(9.543)	(1.393)	(0.911)
2000-2010% change in total population	0.998	0.995	1.001	0.999
	(0.007)	(0.005)	(0.004)	(0.004)
Influence on HD: Initial HD level
2000 Longevity MHDI quartile: Lowest	5.208^* ***** p < 0.01	5.088^* ***** p < 0.01	2.608^* ***** p < 0.01	2.566^* ***** p < 0.01
	(1.636)	(1.638)	(0.559)	(0.710)
2000 Schooling MHDI quartile: Lowest	4.233^* ***** p < 0.01	3.847^* ***** p < 0.01	1.772^* ***** p < 0.01	1.732^* ***** p < 0.01
	(1.359)	(1.098)	(0.359)	(0.367)
Constant	0.243	0.899	0.059	0.178
	(0.713)	(2.480)	(0.119)	(0.389)
Observations	1,163	1,164	2,345	2,345
Dummies for states	Yes	Yes
Random intercepts for states		Yes		Yes

Universidade Federal do Paraná Rua General Carneiro, 460 - sala 904, 80060-150 Curitiba PR - Brasil, Tel./Fax: (55 41) 3360-5320 - Curitiba - PR - Brazil
E-mail: editoriarsp@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS