Resumo: O debate sobre a propriedade privada é um tema recorrente que ainda mobiliza a atenção de muitos estudiosos. No Brasil, dado o passivo histórico de despossuídos, a tardia abolição da escravidão (1888) e a grande extensão geográfica do país, é fato conhecido que a casa própria sempre foi um sonho de milhões de famílias. Até hoje, milhões de moradias precárias marcam a fisionomia urbana das cidades brasileiras. Contudo, os últimos dados censitários permitem concluir que tem havido mudanças nesse quadro. No Brasil urbano, o ritmo de crescimento dos domicílios “próprios” e “não próprios” foi superior ao crescimento demográfico, sobretudo nas regiões Norte, Centro Oeste e Nordeste. Os dados indicam que a propriedade privada no Brasil se expandiu significativamente no começo do século XXI. Houve uma redução relativa dos imóveis residenciais de apenas um cômodo nas áreas urbanas, assim como aumentou a oferta de imóveis “não próprios” para serem alugados em todos os estados. De um modo geral, os domicílios “próprios” e “não próprios” tornaram-se mais “adequados”, principalmente no Sudeste, embora cerca de 22% dos domicílios estivessem alugados a preços excessivos em 2010.
Abstract: The issue of private property and its correlation with the expansion of modernity, with the affirmation of industrial capitalism, and with the consecration of laws and fundamental clauses is age-old and permeates the philosophical approaches from Plato and Aristotle to Morus, Hobbes, and Locke, reaching even authors from the Age of Enlightenment such as Rousseau and Voltaire, among others. The debate over private property is, therefore, a recurring subject that still captures the attention of many research scholars. In Brazil, given the historical record of the dispossessed, the late abolition of slavery (1888), and the sheer size of the country, it is a given fact that owning a household has always been the dream of millions of families. Even today, millions of precarious households shape the physiognomy of Brazilian cities. Nevertheless, recent census data have lead to the conclusion that changes in this scenario have occurred. In urban Brazil, the growth rate of “owned” and “unowned” households has been greater than demographic growth, especially in the North, Midwest, and Northeast regions of the country. The “unowned” / “owned” proportion has risen in all Sates of the Federal Union, and in many cases, this increase has been remarkable, in excess of 40%. The three regions where the growth rate of “owned” households proved to be higher (North, Northeast, and Midwest) also stand out among those that show the most noticeable increase in the ratio between “owned” and “unowned” households. The results also indicate a strong expansion of “unowned” and rented households in the country. The annual growth reached 3.79% from 2000 to 2010, significantly higher than the growth of the resident population in Brazil, and all states showed positive growth rates. The proportion of “owned” households by city, as compared to the average of “owned” households in Brazil, clearly shows that, in the vast majority of Brazilian cities, the percentage of “owned” households was high in both 2000 and 2010. As regards “unowned” households, it is important to highlight the amount of households managed as real estate for rent. The expansion of this type of real estate may well relativize the supposed advantages of the expansion of household real estate. What should also be noted is the increase in the proportion of rented urban households over this period in all States of the Federal Union. The most significant increases occurred in the North (8.2%), Northeast (6.2%), and Midwest (6.0%) regions of the country. To note, all the states in the North, Midwest, and Northeast regions (except for Ceará), and the states of Espírito Santo and Santa Catarina, are above the mean national growth rate (4.7%). Thus, it can be inferred that where there is an accelerated expansion of “owned” real estate, there is also a simultaneous acceleration of the supply of real estate for rent. A decline in households deemed inappropriate is also evident. There are data indicating that until 2000, at least 80.7% of one-bedroom households were located in urban areas. In 2010, a sharp decline of 10 per cent points (67.2%) could be observed in this proportion, demonstrating that precarious housing still remains and is high in rural areas: 169,450 one-bedroom households in 2000 and 183,881 in 2010. In relative terms, these figures account for 32.6% of the total number of rural households in 2000 and 43.8% in 2010. Also important is that in urban Brazil, approximately 22% of households rented in 2010 were in fact occupied; this is due primarily to excessive rental prices, i.e. households in which low-income families spend more than 30% of their income. Even more relevant is that in the five major regions, this proportion is approximately 20%. The southeast, where the number of activities that produce jobs is much greater and the presence of “owned” and “unowned” households is larger, is also the area where excessive rents are more significant, directly influencing the Brazilian average: many families with an income of up to three minimum wages pay excessive rents (23.7%). The data available indicate that private property in Brazil expanded markedly in the early twenty-first century. One-bedroom residential real estate experienced a sharp decline in urban areas, while the supply of “unowned” real estate for rent rose in all states. In general, “owned” and “unowned” households have become more “appropriate”, especially in the southeast, although nearly 22% of households were rented at excessively high prices in 2010.
