The effect of position in the field in the development of public policies: bourdieusian analysis of the Municipal Tourism Council of Juiz de Fora (2011-2020)

Abstract

This work makes efforts for a theoretical-empirical analysis of public policies of tourism from the sociological theory of the social fields of Pierre Bourdieu. We start from the assumption that agents with a greater volume of capital would be able to interfere, more incisively, in the tourist field, particularly in their public policies, influencing more forcefully what can/should be and ends up being done, in a given context. Empirically, we took as study object the Municipal Council of Tourism of Juiz de Fora (COMTUR), heuristically as an approximation of the tourist field in general, and specifically the process of elaboration of public policies derived from it, in particular in terms of its results (decisions, actions and projects carried out), as a reasonably objective indicator of the operation of this field. A multi-methods approach was used, using different procedures (a) systematic and unsystematic observation of meetings, (b) description and recording of data in a diary note, (c) semi-structured interviews with key actors, (d) analysis of secondary data (minutes of COMTUR meetings from 2011 to 2020, as well as other data and historical records). The study is based on the composition of a cumulative database of observations, which has been constituted over the last decade, being specifically composed in the most part, regarding the study of COMTUR, by two studies, one conducted between 2015 and 2016, which recovered data from 2011 to 2015, and the other, conducted between 2019 and 2020, that compiled data from 2016 to 2020. We seek to identify the relationships between the different agents in the interactive dynamics of this social space, in terms of ideas, discourses and actions, as well as the positions of the agents, particularly the dominant ones, which stand out in relation to the others. We particularly highlight the relationships between proposed-proposals, approved-executed proposals, as well as between both and the volume of capital of the agents, especially the dominant ones, and finally the specific circumstances of each action (proposed and approved). The evidence points towards a direct relationship between the said volume of capital, the degree of participation in the meetings and the tendency to approve and eventual implementation of the proposals made by the agents with the highest volume of capital, who were at the center of the debate. It is concluded that the supposed democratic and "universal" openness in terms of the possibility of action is part of an ilusio of the field, which does not translate necessary, neither directly, in the real manifestation and participation in the field (COMTUR). It is said that the agents with the highest volume of capital tend to be those who, in a way, participate more in the actions and achievements of this sphere and, in this sense, are more likely to guide the local tourist context, as opposed to the actions of other agents in the field, who act as adjuvants. Therefore, any significant change in the field needs to include, in whole, or in part, those dominant agents.