Discursos parlamentares sobre a Amazônia: sobre o que falam os deputados brasileiros

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics & Society Pub Date : 2021-01-29 DOI:10.5007/2175-7984.2020.E66962

Antonio Teixeira de Barros

引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article analyzes parliamentary discourses on the Brazilian Amazon (2000-2017). The purpose is to examine how the topic was dealt with in the legislative arena, under which perspectives and what arguments are put forward by the deputies. The corpus comprises 2,778 statements,which were categorized into 25 themes, with the aid of NVivo software. The main conclusions show that the value of land as an input for agricultural and livestock production is the predominant argument in the debates, disregarding the international discourse on forestry. The debate isdriven by the agenda of the Executive Branch, especially on the following issues: deforestation, climate, land regularization, preservation areas and indigenous lands. The dominant parliamentary discourse reinforces the anti-ecology thesis of the National Congress, with a clear alignment with the liberal environmental perspective focused on the defense of agribusiness.

查看原文本刊更多论文

亚马逊上的议会演讲：巴西议员谈论的内容

本文分析了巴西亚马逊(2000-2017)的议会话语。其目的是审查立法领域如何处理这一议题，代表们根据哪些观点提出了哪些论点。在NVivo软件的帮助下，语料库包括2,778个语句，分为25个主题。主要结论表明，土地作为农业和畜牧业生产投入的价值是辩论中的主要论点，而忽视了关于林业的国际讨论。辩论是由行政部门的议程推动的，特别是在以下问题上:森林砍伐、气候、土地正规化、保护区和土著土地。占主导地位的议会话语强化了国民大会的反生态论点，与专注于保护农业综合企业的自由主义环境观点明确结盟。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.