I have just learned that the formula is right, but the definition of $c_n^{(r)}$ was wrong. The correct problem is: Prove $$c_{n+1}^{(r)} = \sum_{k=n-r+1}^n n^{\underline{n-k}} c_k^{(r)}$$ where $c_n^{(r)} = |\left\{\sigma \in S_n:\ \text{the length of each cycle of $\sigma$ is at most $r$} \right\}|.$
I will try to prove this with the same approach: classifying by the length of the cycle containing $n+1$.
[edit] I've just tried this and one details still puzzles me: I assume the cycle that containing $n+1$ to have length $n+1-k$ which leaves $k$ elements for the other cycles. There are $c_k^{(r)}$ ways to make them admissible and I want to accumulate all the cases for $n+1-k$ from 1 to $n$, thus $k$ from $n+1-r$ to $n$. So far, so good. Now we need to consider all possible permutations of the cycle containing $n+1$. But here's my problem: Those should be $(n+1)^{\underline{(n+1)-k}}$ because I have different possibilities for the position of $n+1$ itself. But the formula doesn't seem to account for that.
I have thought about this for quite some time now, but I'm still confused. Can anyone help me answering this?
I also considered $n^{\underline{n-k}}=(n-k)! \binom{n}{n-k}$ which basically gives the same meaning: We choose $n-k$ elements for the cycle containing $n+1$ and consider all possible permutations for them. Clearly, I don't have to choose $n+1$ in the first place, but why is $n+1$ not included in those permutations?
[Old question before correction:]
I want to prove this formula: $$c_{n+1}^{(r)} = \sum_{k=n-r+1}^n n^{\underline{n-k}} c_k^{(r)}$$ where $c_n^{(r)} = |\left\{\sigma \in S_n:\ \sigma^r = id \right\}|$ and I will write $C_n^{(r)} = \left\{\sigma \in S_n:\ \sigma^r = id \right\}$ for the respective set. $n^{\underline{n-k}} = n(n-1)...(n-k+1)$ are the falling factorials and $[n]=\left\{1,...n\right\}.$
I tried simple non-trivial examples and looked at the cycle representation. For $\sigma \in C_n^{(r)}$ the length of every cycle of $\sigma$ has to divide $r$ (of course that condition is not sufficient). But I don't see how that helps so far.
Right now, I'm trying to give some meaning to the right hand side of the recurrence formula and so far I came up with this: Consider the cycle representation of $\sigma \in C_{n+1}^{(r)}$. I can designate the cycle that contains $n+1$. It's length is between $1$ and $r$. Since we have $c_k^{(r)}$ on the right hand side, I want to be left with $k$ elements of $[n+1]$ for the remaining cycles, so the length of the cycle that contains $n+1$ should be $n+1-k$. This also makes sense because it means $1 \leq n+1-k \leq r$ and hence $n+1-r \leq k \leq n$. That's why the indices go from $n+1-r$ to $n$. Now, for $k=n+1-r,...,n$, $c_k^{(r)}$ should be the number of ways to arrange the remaining $k$ elements of $[n+1]$ (those that don't belong to the cycle with $n+1$) into cycles such that $\sigma^r=id$ is possible (necessary condition).
However, at this point I'm stuck because I don't see how the falling factorials fit in, and I don't see how it gives a sufficient condition for $\sigma^r=id$.