Created with the new concession under Suplicy to finance the system, it was extinct by Serra. Since then, no mayor was capable of even bringing this subject up to discussion, although several Brazilian capitals have waste collection fares.
Covas started, but in a disarticulated way. It became real in situ slum upgrading with Erundina and worked that way under Suplicy, Kassab and at the end of Haddad Maluf and Pitta developed a diminished and downgraded version of it.
Suplicy started the 10% rule and Haddad increased it to 25%. Maluf and Pitta built projects in IO but they are included under construction of new housing
The first peripheral line (line 3) was built in the 1970s, before our period. In our period, just Line 5 ‐ Lilac. First phase in 1998 (Covas) and second in 2009 (Serra)
Started in 1975 for students (50% discount). Then for elderly in 1985 (Montoro, but later became a constitutional right in 1988), then in 1990 for unemployed (Quercia), in 1992 for handicapped (Fleury) and in 2015 for low‐income students (Alckmin). Sometimes before buses, but also after them.
Chapter 6; 1998 Federal Constitution; Municipal Laws (10.854/90; 11250/92) e decrees (28.813/90; 29709/91), State laws (5869/87; 32.144/90; 666/91)
Governance and Political Actors Governing São Paulo
These changes characterize the trajectory of incremental progressivism in São Paulo over the last 30 years. This trajectory was produced by the actions, strategies, and interactions of political actors and institutions already studied by both political science and urban studies. In this section, we return to these elements and discuss how they participate in the aforementioned political competition and policy production mechanisms, organizing the analytical framework used throughout the book's chapters. As already mentioned, this framework is of potential use to studies of other contexts, since these actors and institutions are present in many policy sectors and cities, albeit with diverse characteristics and in distinct configurations.
Given precisely this variability, a useful analytical point of departure is the idea of governance patterns (Pierre 2011). As is widely known, the concept of governance is highly polysemic (Stoker 1998; Rhodes 2007), but if well defined, it can help us frame the different configurations of State and non‐State actors connected by diverse types of ties (formal and informal, legal and illegal) and surrounded by institutions
