Young People and Brazil’s Statute on the Right-to-the-City

  • Adriana T. CordeiroEmail author
  • Stuart C. Aitken
  • Sergio C. Benicio de Mello
Part of the Palgrave Studies on Children and Development book series (PSCD)


Brazil’s City Statute (2001) reinforces a national constitutional order regarding urban development. It closely follows proclamations for a Right-to-the-City inspired by Henri Lefebvre’s work, as an exemplar from the Global North that has yet to be implemented there but took off as an idea in Brazil. While raising examples of Brazilian children’s experiences, we engage broader debates about young people’s rights. What kind of “right” is the right-to-the-city for young people? Besides being differently deployed across urban contexts, it addresses multiple childhoods and relations, which expose global processes that affect children’s daily lives. We note that affective and reciprocal relations are required in any discussion about materializing the concept of a right-to-the-city, and we note how the Brazilian example can contribute to rethinking the relation between children and adults when addressing policymaking and urban living globally in ways worth noting by the Global North.



We wish to thank San Diego State University June Burnett Endowment for support of part of this project. We also thank Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) in Brazil for a student grant and Fundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia de Pernambuco (FACEPE) for a grant to support academic cooperation efforts between universities in the United States and Brazil.


  1. Aitken, S. C. (2014). The Ethnopoetics of Space and Transformation: Young People’s Engagement, Activism and Aesthetics. Aldershot: Ashgate Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aitken, S. C. (2018). Young People, Rights and Place: Erasure, Neoliberal Politics and Postchild Ethics. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attoh, K. A. (2001). What Kind of Right Is the Right to the City? Progress in Human Geography, 35(5), 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braidotti, R. (2013). The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brasil. (2001). Estatuto da Cidade: Lei 10.257/2001 que estabelece diretrizes gerais da política urbana. Brasília, Câmara dos Deputados. English version of City Statute available at: Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
  6. Burman, E. (1996). Local, Global or Globalized? Child Development and International Child Rights Legislation. Childhood, 3(1), 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldeira, T., & Holston, J. (2015). Participatory Urban Planning in Brazil. Urban Studies, 52(11), 2001–2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dikeç, M. (2001). Justice and the Spatial Imagination. Environment and Planning, 33, 1785–1805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. England, K. (2010). Home, Work and the Shifting Geographies of Care. Ethics, Place & Environment, 13(2), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernandes, E. (2007). Constructing the ‘Right to the City’ in Brazil. Social & Legal Studies, 16(2), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernando, J. (2001). Children’s Rights: Beyond the Impasse. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 575(1), 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gagen, E. (2008). Reflections of Primitivism: Development, Progress and Civilization in Imperial America, 1898–1914. In S. C. Aitken, L. Ragnhild, & A. T. Kjørholt (Eds.), Global Childhoods: Globalization, Development and Young People (pp. 16–28). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Ganuza, E., & Baiocchi, G. (2012). The Power of Ambiguity: How Participatory Budgeting Travels the Globe. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(2). Art. 8.Google Scholar
  14. Gleeson, B., & Sipe, N. (2006). Reinstating Kids in the City. In B. Gleeson & N. Sipe (Eds.), Creating Child Friendly Cities: Reinstating Kids in the City (pp. 1–10). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomes, E. M. (2014). Democracia e planejamento urbano na revisão do Plano Diretor de Fortaleza (2002–2008). Reflexión Política, 16(31), 64–78.Google Scholar
  16. Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of Hope. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Harvey, D. (2008). The Right to the City. New Left Review, 53, 23–40.Google Scholar
  18. IBGE—Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (2010). Censo Demográfico – 2010. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.Google Scholar
  19. IPEA – Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada. (2016). O Estatuto da Cidade e a Habitat III: um balanço de quinze anos da política urbana no Brasil e a nova agenda urbana. COSTA, M. A. (org.) Brasília: Ipea.Google Scholar
  20. Lefebvre, H. (1996) [1968]. The Right to the City. In Writings on Cities (Trans. and Ed. E. Kofman & E. Lebas, pp. 147–159). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Lopes, R. (2016). Alunos participam da revisão de Plano Diretor. O Imparcial. 15/05/2016. Available at:,8482. Accessed 20 Sept 2017.
  22. Mackenzie, S. (1989). Restructuring the Relations of Work and Life: Women as Environmental Actors, Feminism as Geographic Analysis. In A. Kobayashi & S. Mackenzie (Eds.), Remaking Human Geography (pp. 40–61). Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  23. Marcuse, P. (2012). Whose Right(s) to What City? In N. Brenner, P. Marcuse, & M. Mayer (Eds.), Cities for People, Not for Profits: Critical Urban Theory and the Right to the City (pp. 23–47). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Maricato, E. (2010). O Estatuto da cidade periférica. In C. S. Carvalho & A. Rossbach (Eds.), O Estatuto da Cidade Comentado (pp. 5–22). São Paulo: Ministério das Cidades/Aliança das Cidades.Google Scholar
  25. Mitchell, D., & Heynen, N. (2009). The Geography of Survival and the Right to the City: Speculations on Surveillance, Legal Innovation, and the Criminalization of Intervention. Urban Geography, 30, 611–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mobiliza Curitiba. (2015). Prefeitura de Curitiba | Prefeito sanciona lei do Plano Diretor na presença de estudantes que ajudaram a construir a proposta. Available at: Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
  27. Oswell, D. (2013). The Agency of Children: From Family to Global Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Perdigão, L. (2009). Relatório sobre o Processo de Participação Social na elaboração do Plano Diretor Participativo de Fortaleza. Available at: Accessed 20 Sept 2017.
  29. Plano Diretor de Curitiba Revisão. (2014). Projeto de Lei do Plano Diretor de Curitiba com as emendas aprovadas na Plenária Expandida do CONCITIBA. Available at: Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
  30. Prefeitura de Curitiba. (2015a). Acompanhado de urbanistas mirins, prefeito entrega à Câmara projeto do Plano Diretor. 11/03/2015. Available at: Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
  31. Prefeitura de Curitiba. (2015b). Programa Urbanistas Mirins envolveu 3,3mil estudantes de 39 escolas. 11/03/2015. Available at Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
  32. Purcell, M. (2002). Excavating Lefebvre: The Right to the City and Its Urban Politics of the Inhabitant. GeoJournal, 58, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Purcell, M. (2003). Citizenship and the Right to the Global City: Reimagining the Capitalist World Order. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(3), 564–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramalho, J. (2016). Plano Diretor é ‘desenhado’ por alunos de PP. O Imparcial. 15/05/2016. Available at,8796. Accessed 20 Sept 2017.
  35. Rolnik, R. (2013). Ten years of the City Statute in Brazil: From the Struggle for Urban Reform to the World Cup Cities. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 5(1), 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rolnik, R. (2014). Place, Inhabitance and Citizenship: The Right to Housing and the Right to the City in the Contemporary Urban World. International Journal of Housing Policy, 14(3), 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. de Souza, M. L. (2001). The Brazilian Way of Conquering the ‘Right to the City’: Successes and Obstacles in the Long Stride Towards an ‘Urban Reform’. DISP, 147, 25–31.Google Scholar
  38. de Souza, M. L. (2006). Together with the State, Despite the State, Against the State: Social Movements as ‘Critical Urban Planning’ Agents. City, 10(3), 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. de Souza, M. L. (2010). Which Right to Which City? In Defence of Political-Strategic Clarity. Interface, 2(1), 315–333.Google Scholar
  40. Soja, E. (2009). The City and Spatial Justice [« La ville et la justice spatiale », traduction: Sophie Didier, Frédéric Dufaux]. University of California, Los Angeles, Spatial Justice, n 01 Sept.Google Scholar
  41. Tisdall, E. K. M. (2011). Is the Honeymoon Over? Children and Young People’s Participation in Public Decision-Making. In M. Freeman (Ed.), Children’s Rights: Progress and Perspectives – Essays from the International Journal of Children’s Rights (pp. 72–84). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tisdall, E. K. M. (2015). Children’s Rights and Children’s Wellbeing: Equivalent Policy Concepts? Journal of Social Policy, 44(4), 807–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. TV Conecta BH. (2014). OP para crianças e adolescentes na cidade. Available at Accessed 12 Jan 2017.
  44. Urbanista Mirim. (2015). Projeto Piloto Urbanista Mirim – Tabulação dos Dados. Prefeitura Municipal de Curitiba e IPPUC, p. 33. Available at Accessed 18 Sept 2017.
  45. Urbanista Mirim CEI do Expedicionário. (2015). Available in Portuguese at: Accessed 30 Jan 2018.
  46. Wells, K. (2015). Childhood in a Global Perspective (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adriana T. Cordeiro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stuart C. Aitken
    • 2
  • Sergio C. Benicio de Mello
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of AdministrationUniversity of PernambucoCaruaruBrazil
  2. 2.Department of GeographySan Diego State UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  3. 3.Department of AdministrationFederal University of PernambucoRecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations