Acknowledgements
In the completion of this Master’s thesis project, I am forever grateful to many people:
I owe many thanks to my thesis committee, comprised of Dr. Laura Murphy, Dr.
Jimmy Huck, and Dr. David Ortiz for their support throughout this process. Their guidance helped shape my academic interests and abilities while at Tulane and pushed me to be a better scholar.
Many thanks to the Roger Thayer Stone Center for Latin American Studies and my graduate advisor, Dr. Jimmy Huck, for believing that I was the right one for the job and supporting me through the end of my graduate school career.
I owe a debt of gratitude to my peers in the Master’s program who helped me along the way. This project would be nothing without their support, comments, and many edits.
Finally, I owe a very special thanks to my partner, Sarah. She supported me through every step of not just this process but my graduate studies as well. I could not have done it without her and I can only imagine she is just as happy as I am to have completed this project.
ii
Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... II LIST OF FIGURES ...... IV MAP OF ECUADOR WITH YASUNÍ NATIONAL PARK HIGHLIGHTED ...... V CHAPTER 1 - PROLOGUE ...... 1 METHODOLOGY ...... 3 SOCIAL MOVEMENT AND POST-DEVELOPMENT THEORETICAL LENSES ...... 4 BUEN VIVIR AS A REGIONAL CONCEPT ...... 5 ECUADOR’S INDIGENOUS MOVEMENT ...... 7 CHAPTER 2: EXTENSIONS AND TRANSFORMATION: INCORPORATING THE INDIGENOUS MOVEMENT IN ECUADOR’S NEW, PLURINATIONAL FRAME...... 9 SOCIAL MOVEMENT FRAMING ...... 11 Frame Extension ...... 12 Frame Transformation ...... 13 METHODOLOGY ...... 14 Data ...... 14 Methods ...... 15 Variables ...... 16 ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION ...... 18 Frame Extension ...... 18 Frame Transformation ...... 22 CONCLUSION ...... 26 CHAPTER 3: BUEN VIVIR AS DEVELOPMENT ...... 29 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS ...... 30 Post-development ...... 30 Buen Vivir as an Alternative to Development ...... 33 BUEN VIVIR IN APPLICATION ...... 36 2008 Constitution ...... 36 A Plurinational State ...... 38 Rights of Nature ...... 41 The Regimen of Development ...... 43 CONCLUSION ...... 46 CHAPTER 4: ECUADORIAN VOICES ...... 48 INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS ...... 49 Process ...... 50 Limitations ...... 51 Study Informants ...... 52 Overview of Findings ...... 55 OF INDIGENOUS ORIGINS AND SIGNIFICANCE ...... 55 PACHAMAMA AND RIGHTS OF NATURE ...... 57 CORREA AND THE INDIGENOUS MOVEMENT ON THE OUTS ...... 60 YASUNÍ-ITT INITIATIVE ...... 61 TIPPING POINT ...... 64
iii
FUTURE PROSPECTS ...... 67 CONCLUSION ...... 69 CHAPTER 5 – EPILOGUE ...... 71 DEVELOPMENT AND BUEN VIVIR ...... 72 CONCLUDING REMARKS ...... 74 APPENDIX ...... 78 INTERVIEW GUIDE – ENGLISH VERSION ...... 78 GUÍA DE ENTREVISTA – VERSIÓN ESPAÑOL ...... 79 REFERENCES ...... 80 BIOGRAPHY ...... 85
List of Figures
Figure 1: Buen Vivir Category…………………………………………………18 Frequency of Category Variables in Indigenous and National Documents
Figure 2: El Medio Ambiente Category………………………………………..20 Frequency of Category Variables in Indigenous and National Documents
Figure 3:Política/Economía Category………………………………………….21 Frequency of Category Variables in Indigenous and National Documents
Figure 4: Constitutional Comparisons Across Categories……………………23 Variable Occurrences Within Respective Categories in Constitutions
Figure 5: Frequencies Across Categories……………………………………...24 Frequency of Categories Between Constitutions
Figure 6: Buen Vivir Category…………………………………………………25 Frequency of Buen Vivir Category Variables Within Constitutions
iv
Map of Ecuador with Yasuní National Park Highlighted
Map: http://newint.org/features/2008/07/01/413-06-yasuni-map-big.jpg
v 1
Chapter 1 - Prologue
…Yo creo que es demonstrar con hecho de que estamos mencionando y no hacia lo contrario. Si estamos hablando de algo que queremos lograr o que estamos en camino de hacer y por el otro lado hacemos lo contrario, va a ser muy difícil llegar a los objectivos [de Buen Vivir].
…I believe to show with action what we are talking about and not the opposite. If we are talking about something that we want to achieve or that we are in the process of doing but we turn around and do the opposite, it is going to be very difficult to reach the objectives of Buen Vivir.
-Nathalia, Personal Interview 2014
Since its creation in the 1980’s, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of
Ecuador (CONAIE) has been the face of Ecuador’s Indigenous movement, mobilizing for social justice and protesting the neoliberal policies of Ecuador’s national government
(Becker 2011a). The movement has spent years fighting for Indigenous rights, environmental rights, and the principles of sumak kawsay in Kichwa, which is known as buen vivir (living well) in Spanish. In an article on the prospects of Buen Vivir as a development tool, Quito based scholar Catherine Walsh offers a glimpse into the concept:
“Equity, democracy, participation, protection of bio-diversity and natural resources, and respect for ethnic-cultural diversity serve as key elements of the framework” (2010:16).
In 2008, with Ecuador’s newly elected government sympathetic to the indigenous
2 movement, the constitution was rewritten with special attention denoted to the idea of
“living well”, which became formally known as Buen Vivir, and far more inclusive of indigenous and environmental rights than ever before (Gudynas 2011:442). However, as the Ecuadorian government made international news for its constitutional efforts to create an alternative approach to development, it did not come without intense dialogue on how issues should be framed from CONAIE and other indigenous movement groups.
Since Buen Vivir first appeared in Ecuador’s political documents, additional indigenous groups, politicians, and scholars alike have become involved in the debate on the significance of alternative approaches to development and these alternatives’ roles in defining the future. What remains to be seen is whether or not Buen Vivir will be a lasting reality. In an effort to understand and appreciate this unique situation in Ecuador,
I pose the following research question: How are Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution and Buen
Vivir development plan influenced by the country’s Indigenous social movement, and what, if any, are the implications for its ability to influence a post-development shift for the region? By analyzing multiple primary texts and personal interviews and employing social movement framing processes and post-development theories, I argue that while offering significant contributions to the larger, theoretical development debate, Ecuador’s
Buen Vivir model does not represent a lasting development paradigm shift. Buen Vivir’s ideological makeup and push for an increased cultural and environmental consciousness enhance the ongoing construction of the post-development discussion. However, current political paradoxes in Ecuador, namely the recent, controversial Yasuní-ITT Initiative, hinder its ability to shift the development scene.
3
To support my claim, I explore the following sub-questions throughout this project: What social movement frame transformations and expansions occurred as
Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution and development policy incorporated the central tenets of
Ecuador’s indigenous movement? How can Buen Vivir be viewed through an
“alternative to development”, post-development lens? What is the public sentiment and significance of Buen Vivir to ordinary Ecuadorians? What political paradoxes exist with the current implementation of Buen Vivir as a policy and how do they affect its future? In addressing these questions, I look at three main components. In Chapter 2, I examine the role of Ecuador’s Indigenous movement in shaping the 2008 Constitution and national development policy. In Chapter 3, I analyze Buen Vivir and its guiding principles in terms of post-developmental thought. Finally in Chapter 4, I explore current Ecuadorian public sentiment and the political paradoxes surrounding Ecuador’s Buen Vivir model within the framework of personal interviews.
Methodology In this project I employ multiple research methodologies. First, I use quantitative content analysis to examine various primary source texts. This is done in an effort to understand the incorporation of Buen Vivir’s frame and principles from Ecuador’s
Indigenous movement to its current iteration with the national government. With this analysis I am in position to show the various frame expansions and transformation that occurred as Buen Vivir became a central tenet of Ecuador’s constitution and development policy. The second methodology I employ is a blend of qualitative content analysis, discourse analysis, and textual analysis. Supplementing the previous quantitative analysis,
I interrogate and unpack the language of Buen Vivir and how it is used to distance
Ecuador from its recent neoliberal past and toward a more post-development future.
4
Exploring current public sentiment of Ecuador’s Buen Vivir model is the final methodology of this research project. I accomplish this through analysis of personal interviews I conducted with Ecuadorian citizens during the course of this research project.
Personal interviews offer a unique and intimate understanding of the significance of Buen
Vivir, its principles, and concerns from individuals for whom the model is prepared.
Social Movement and Post-Development Theoretical Lenses The social movement field’s framing processes theory and its nuanced characteristics is the first theoretical lens of this project. In their introduction, renowned social movement scholars Hank Johnston and John Noakes note that central to the mobilization of any movement is its “subjective component” or rather, the group’s
“element of perception or consciousness” (2005: 2). Adding to this overview of social movement structure is the work of prominent social movement scholars Robert Benford and David Snow. They examine how a social movement (such as Ecuador’s Indigenous movement) undergoes various strategic processes in an effort to spread a message and expand mobilization efforts (Benford and Snow 2000: 624). David Snow et al. elaborate on the strategic processes a movement experiences in a more intricate fashion: frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension, and frame transformation (Snow et al.
1986: 467-476). An examination of these strategic processes, specifically frame extension and frame transformation and employed to include the portions of the Indigenous movement’s frame in the 2008 constitution, guides this research project.
Post-development theory is the second theoretical lens tested in this project. This theory aids in the analysis and understanding of the larger concepts of Buen Vivir and their representations in the documents under review. I explore the literature of post- development theory and the development shift the language of Buen Vivir seeks. From
5 their comprehensive work on the topic of development theories, Peete and Hartwick offer a definition of postdevelopmentalism, positing, “In general, postdevelopmentalism rejects the way of thinking and the mode of living produced by modern development in favor of revitalized versions of nonmodern, usually non-Western, philosophies and cultures”
(2009:230). Colombian post-development scholar, Arturo Escobar, expands on the theory’s framework with a critique of the discourse of development and promotes the possibility of “alternatives to development” (Escobar 1992). Moreover, Escobar establishes a critical link between post-development thought and social movement endeavors:
To think about ‘alternatives to development’ thus requires a theoretico-practical transformation of the notions of development, modernity, and notions of the economy. This transformation can be best achieved by building upon the practices of social movements, especially those in the Third World that have emerged in response to post-World War II hegemonic social orders. These movements are essential for the creation of alternative visions of democracy, economy, and society” (22).
Buen Vivir exists at this unique intersection. Analysis of it under the microscope of these theoretical lenses offers a unique opportunity to understand its progression as a social movement and as a representation of post-development characteristics.
Buen Vivir as a Regional Concept Before I move further, a conceptual note on Buen Vivir and its core principles provides a base of understanding. Translated loosely as “the good life” or “living well”, Buen Vivir is an Indigenous comprehension of human existence, based on community engagement and living in harmony with nature (Gudynas 2011; Walsh 2010). Buen Vivir has many faces and forms. Its ideals are present in the cosmologies of various Indigenous populations in the Andean and Amazonian regions of South America. Buen Vivir
6 functions as an umbrella interpretation for the many Indigenous versions, all sharing similar beliefs and worldviews. Canadian scholar Bob Thomson explains this well:
“Within the Latin American living well ‘discourse,’ one needs to look at the pluralinational ideas of ‘buen vivir’ in Spanish, ‘sumak kawsay in Quechua, ‘suma kamaña’ in Aymará, ‘ñande reko’ in Guarani, ‘shiir waras’ in Ashuar, ‘küme mongen’ in
Mapuche, among others. They are not synonymous, despite some shared roots and concepts” (449). Thomson’s point is important; living the good life is culturally relative.
For example, Ecuador’s Buen Vivir model is an adaptation of the Kichwa word, ‘sumak kawsay’, while Bolivia has applied the Aymará term, ‘suma kamaña’ to their constitutional efforts and understanding of development. Both translate loosely to ‘buen vivir’ in Spanish and refer to “the good life” but are culturally specific in their application1.
In describing its makeup, Buen Vivir scholar Eduardo Gudynas offers insight into its generally accepted core concepts. He explains of its representation as “a platform where critical views of development are shared,” and is based on notions of decolonization, of interculturality, of nature, of a non-linear progression of existence, and finally, of a multi-dimensional approach that includes “feelings and affections” as well the material world (Gudynas 2011: 445-446). In Ecuador and Bolivia, representations of
Buen Vivir play a significant role as new guiding principles of each, recently re-written constitution. Of these political implications, Gudynas notes, “Buen Vivir expresses a process, that is now underway which offers new answers to post-development questions, while reinforcing cultural identity and promoting alternatives to Western Modernity”
1 See Thomas Fatheuer’s article (2011), for a comprehensive overview of the similarities and differences of Buen Vivir’s application in Ecuador and Bolivia.
7
(444). In this project, I focus solely on the case of Ecuador, its framework of Buen Vivir, and its potential for monumental political and development change in Ecuador and the surrounding region.
Ecuador’s Indigenous Movement Placing Buen Vivir in context, I offer a concise description of the movement from which it originates. Influences of Ecuador’s Indigenous movement, as Latin
American History academic Marc Becker notes, date back to the collective efforts of
Indigenous activists and rural agricultural groups of the 1920’s and 30’s (Becker 2008a).
Although unofficial in their organizing, they united on the “ethnic and structural issues” of the Ecuadorian state at the time. As their concerns grew over the years, it was not until
1960’s that the first “authentic” organization (the Shuar Federation in 1964) of the
Indigenous movement was formed (10-11). Over the next 20 years, disparate, unconnected, and at times competing organizations, representing the various Indigenous peoples of Ecuador, populated the scene. However, in 1986, the CONAIE formed in an effort to combine the regionally separated Indigenous organizations behind one representative force. Since its formation, it has become the de facto head of Ecuador’s
Indigenous movement advocating for Indigenous rights and social, political, and environmental reforms (Becker 2011b; Dangl 2010a). Some smaller organizations constitute the Indigenous movement, however, the CONAIE is “the largest and best- known Indigenous organization” (Becker 2012: 116). Noting this and for reasons of clarity in this project, I interchangeably use the terms “CONAIE” and “Indigenous movement” as one.
At the heart of the Indigenous movement’s grievances has been the Ecuadorian national government’s neo-liberal agenda; especially the environmental costs associated
8 with the mining and natural resource extraction policies. Commenting on these environmental threats and the Indigenous movement’s position, Journalist and Professor of Latin American History, Benjamin Dangl bluntly explains:
Such autonomy, organization, and vision have been at odds with the capitalist- driven oil industry and pro-industrial vision of twentieth century Ecuadorian governments. The indigenous communities of Ecuador have organized the fiercest resistance against the environmental destruction wrought by the neoliberal extractive industries of oil and mining. Instead of protecting indigenous territories and rights, the state has continually used strategies of cooptation and repression of indigenous peoples to aid mining and oil companies…In spite of the overwhelming odds, many indigenous movements have risen up against this threat to the survival of their culture and way of life (Dangl 2010a: 43).
Reactions to these grievances mark transformative moments in the movement’s history.
Street blockades, protests, marches, and violent clashes all represent the movement’s repertoire of contentious tactics (Jameson 2011). A consistent demand for plurinational recognition has been one of the central requests during the movement’s uprisings (and as we will see, in their legislative proposals). As scholar Kenneth Jameson describes, “The constant over this period [CONAIE as an organization] has been the demand that a plurinational state be established that recognizes indigenous nationalities and their concomitant rights and areas of control” (71). Plurinationality comprises part of the larger idea of Buen Vivir and what the Indigenous movement demands for cultural recognition.
As I hope to convey in this project, Ecuador’s Indigenous movement’s insistence for constitutional reform underlines not only the immediate concerns of political recognition but also a re-thinking of the way development is understood and conducted.
As Ecuador is the case under review, this project also represents a larger reflection of on- going conversations and changes in the development field to a more socially and ecologically inclusive nature.
9
Chapter 2: Extensions and Transformation: Incorporating the Indigenous Movement in Ecuador’s New, Plurinational Frame.
In the 2006 presidential elections, economist and former finance minister, Rafael
Correa, bested his second round, run-off opponent, Álvaro Noboa, running on a campaign of leftist populism rhetoric and strong support from Ecuador’s social movements.
“Indigenous leaders,” Becker explains, “embraced Correa’s triumph as a blow against neoliberalism and hoped that the presidency would open up possibilities for more participatory democracy” (Becker 2011b: 112). In his analysis of Kintto Lucas’s description of Correa’s inaugural address, Becker summarizes the new president’s strong anti-neoliberal sentiment and plans for Ecuador’s future. Correa’s five “key axes” included the “calling of a constitutional assembly [constituent assembly], fighting against corruption, opposing neoliberal economic policy, increasing funding for health and education, and promoting regional integration” (Becker 2011b: 112). In 2008, the constituent assembly, one of Correa’s top priorities, was voted into action and Ecuador began the process of re-writing its constitution for the twentieth time in the Republic’s history. Of the Indigenous support for the assembly, Becker notes “[t]he 2008 constituent assembly provided a critical juncture for indigenous movements by opening up a historic opportunity to decolonize the country’s political structures” (2011a: 48) and push for the inclusion of Indigenous demands. Ratified later that same year, the new constitution distanced itself from all previous versions with overtly Indigenous guiding
10 principles and a post-development direction for the future. In this chapter, I focus on the advancement of the ideas of the Indigenous proposals during the constituent assembly and their ability to alter Ecuador’s understanding of development. Accordingly, I ask the question: How did the frame of Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution and subsequent policy on
Buen Vivir, transform as it incorporated the central tenets of Ecuador’s Indigenous movement?
To answer this question, I utilize a quantitative content analysis research methodology and am guided by aspects of social movement framing processes theory.
Specifically, Snow’s work on frame alignment processes (Snow et al. 1986) is brought under review. Their processes theorize a framework in which social movements grow beyond their current make-up and attract new participants from the margins of the movement’s frame. By analyzing and coding multiple primary texts involved in the constitutional rewriting process in question in Ecuador, this project objectively traces the use of certain language and words as they traveled from indigenous proposal to the production of national documents. Analysis of the data suggests multiple frame extensions at play, leading to an overall significant frame transformation of Ecuador’s
2008 Constitution. Extensions of certain words central to the Indigenous proposals such as “plurinacional” and “buen vivir,” among others, had enormous impact on the frame and message of national documents. The significance of these variables to the Indigenous agenda and their weighted use in the production of the national documents suggests a notable frame transformation.
Finally, in addition to this chapter’s support of social movement theory, the research directs attention to the role of social movements in shaping policy at the national
11 level and as will be discussed at length in the next chapter, in supporting a post- development agenda.
Social Movement Framing In recent years, much attention and research has been dedicated to the understanding of not only a social movement’s collective action frame but also its construction and development over time. According to Benford and Snow, “collective action frames are constructed in part as movement adherents negotiate a shared understanding of some problematic condition or situation they define as in need of change…”(2000: 615). Ecuador’s Indigenous movement’s collective action frame is centered on a shared injustice over the lack of Indigenous representation and acknowledgement of environmental and social injustices by the Ecuadorian government.
In addition to analyzing a movement’s grievances as part of its construction, Snow and
Benford also address the continued development and growth of frame processes in collective action by examining how a frame expands its borders to new participants
(Benford and Snow 2000; Snow and Benford 1988). Specifically, they look at a movement’s intentional, strategic processes used to attract new people to its cause. Here they explain, “we refer to framing processes that are deliberative, utilitarian, and goal directed: Frames are developed and deployed to achieve a specific purpose – to recruit new members, to mobilize adherents, to acquire resources, and so forth” (Benford and
Snow 2000: 624). For example, the Indigenous movement’s delivery of proposals to the constituent assembly is an explicit act to expand their frame to a larger, national audience.
The authors dive deeper into the theorized understanding of a movement’s frame by breaking down the frame in terms of “resonance” (Snow and Benford 199), or its participant mobilizing tendencies. As mentioned before, four important alignment
12 strategies explain this process of development over time: frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension, and frame transformation (Snow et al. 1986). Snow and his colleagues justify the inner-workings of the foundational support these processes provide to a movement’s frame: “the underlying premise is that frame alignment, of one variety or another, is a necessary condition for movement participation, whatever its nature or intensity, and that it is typically an interactional accomplishment” (467). Snow and his team diligently tease out the nuanced differences between the four processes.
Specifically, the latter two alignment processes, frame extension and frame transformation, anchor heavily the theoretical bearing for this chapter and illustrate the processes at work during the constituent assembly.
Frame Extension As opposed to frame bridging and frame amplification, where clarification of several, internal frame components is more the objective, frame extensions serve to extend the actual borders of the frame beyond its current demarcations (Snow et al.
1986:472). The goal in doing so is to attract and secure more participants and sympathizers to the movement. As explained further, “In effect, the movement is attempting to enlarge its adherent pool by portraying its objectives or activities as attending to or being congruent with the values or interests of potential adherents” (472).
Frame extension seeks an additional component of resonance to attract new adherents and supporters. As is the case during the constituent assembly, the ideas and principles contained within Indigenous movement’s proposals act as extensions of the movement’s frame.
13
Frame Transformation In some instances, frame extensions might not be sufficient to secure new adherents. A movement’s resonance might sometimes ebb and flow and actions are taken to incorporate new values and meanings (473). Frame transformation seeks to explain the establishment of a new belief system for the movement, or as Benford and Snow put it,
“changing old understandings and meanings and/or generating new ones (2000: 625).
Snow et al. identify two sub-types of frame transformation: domain-specific and global interpretive frames (474). Both explain how transformations affect the trajectory of a movement. Domain-specific transformations refer to the reframing of problems and injustices that at one point may not have seemed as such (474). They “frequently appear to be a necessary condition for participation in the movements that seek dramatic changes in the status, treatment, or activity of a category of people” (474). With a more all- encompassing nature, Snow and his colleagues explain that global-interpretive transformations take on the most drastic changes during the alignment process. They note,
“the scope of change is broadened considerably as a new primary framework gains ascendance over others and comes to function as a kind of master frame that interprets events and experiences in a new key” (475). In an area of social movement research already marked for its slim case study offerings as evidence, the frame transformation subdivisions offer a unique, seldom used microscope within which to view the intricacies of frame transformations.
I put to test frame extensions and frame transformations in this research by analyzing the Ecuadorian national government’s interaction with the country’s
Indigenous movement during the constituent assembly. Bearing in mind the theoretical discussions that have come before, the research I present in this chapter seeks to test
14 characteristics of certain frame alignment processes and shed light on a social movement’s ability to affect national policy. Despite the established theoretical framework of the frame alignment processes, a dearth of empirical evidence exists to support the understandings of frame transformations (Noakes and Johnston 2005:12;
Benford and Snow 2000:625). This is especially evident in regards to the unique situation of the adoption and extension of certain frames from one movement that results in the frame transformation of another movement, as is the experience with the case study at present. This chapter attempts to bridge the lack of academic research on this particular aspect of social movement theory by establishing more evidence and continuing the conversation. With is in mind, I hypothesize that significant frame extensions occurred and resulted in an overall frame transformation as Ecuador’s 2008
Constitution incorporated core indigenous beliefs and philosophies as presented by
Ecuador’s Indigenous movement.
Methodology
Data The data I collected and analyzed in this chapter are primary texts, written in
Spanish, and all come from Ecuadorian publishers. They include: “Propuesta de la
CONAIE frente a la Asamblea Constituyente” (CONAIE 2007), “Los Kichwas somos hijos de la Rebeldía” (Ecuarunari and CONAIE 2007), the 2008 Ecuador Constitution
(PDA 2011b), and the Plan Nacional Para El Buen Vivir 2009-2013 (SENPLADES
2009). The former two texts are proposals from Indigenous groups, the CONAIE and
Ecuarunari (a smaller, sub-section of the Indigenous movement) respectively, produced specifically for the constituent assembly. They represent the frame and agenda of the
Indigenous movement as they sought fit for inclusion in the constitutional rewriting
15 process. The latter two texts represent Ecuador’s current constitution and national development plan, both produced by the government. I also bring in the 1998 Ecuador constitution (PDA 2009) as an additional data set to further test the notion of frame transformation. I chose these documents as data for this study because of their representative nature for both the Indigenous movement and the country of Ecuador.
Additionally, they were chosen because of their accessibility. In addition to acquiring the
Plan Nacional Para El Buen Vivir 2009-2013 in hard copy, all sources were also readily available online.
Methods As mentioned earlier, quantitative content analysis guides this portion of the research because of the textual nature of the data (Berger 2000). The analysis process first called for a general reading of all documents to establish a level of comfort and familiarity with the particular language used and issues addressed by each author. During a second read-through, I noted major themes that became the larger categories, and selected key words that became the eventual variables, or codes, for this analysis. The unit of analysis for this particular study is the word and analyzed at the level of each document in its entirety. For this chapter, I analyze manifest codes as opposed to latent codes, counting the literal appearance of a word instead of interpreting its underlying meaning and significance. A further look at the qualitative nature of these manifest codes follows in Chapter 3.
Using Microsoft Office’s Excel program, I coded for and documented in multiple tables the total number of times each variable appeared in each of the four documents.
Variable totals were added across each category, as well as each document. I then separated the variables into Indigenous document totals and national document totals,
16 respectively. Frequencies were calculated for variables across categories for each grouping (Indigenous and national) by dividing variable totals by category totals.
Frequency calculations allowed for comparisons of variables despite variation in the size of the texts (for example: the collective Indigenous document word count is 16,354 words, whereas the collective national documents’ total is 112,870 words). Through this laborious and tedious methodology, I approached the research question and made my generalizations.
Variables Variables used for the analysis component were chosen both inductively and deductively (Berger 246). During read-throughs of the texts, it was apparent that certain words were significant and held more importance than other words in articulating the documents’ messages. However, previous research on the topic provided me with some direction in the identification of variables (Becker 2011: 53-57) that were of high demand from the Indigenous proposals during the Constituent Assembly. The following is a list of the variables used in this study (Spanish terms are represented in bold – English interpretations are italicized), found within their respective categories (underlined terms):
Buen Vivir El Medio Ambiente Políticas/Economía The good life The Environment Politics/Economy
Plurinacional Pachamama Democracia Plurinational Mother Earth Democracy Diversidad Recursos Naturales Mujer(es) Diversity Natural Resources Woman(en) Intercultural(idad) Biodiversidad Derechos Colectivos Intercultural(ity) Biodiversity Collective Rights Idioma/lengua Naturaleza Participativa Language Nature Participation Buen Vivir Neoliberal(ismo) The good life Neoliberl(ism)
17
Sumak kawsay Colonial(ismo) The good life Colonial(ism) Indígena Revolución Indigenous Revolution Comunidades Communities Cosmovisón Cosmovision
The categories represent larger themes resounding in the texts. Crucial to the creation of these categories and the subsequent placement of variables is the necessity for each category to remain exhaustive and mutually exclusive (Bernard 2011:447). Although difficult at times to execute, strict adherence to exhaustive and exclusive categories ensures correct representation of data and legitimate results once tested. The coded variables are placed in their respective categories during the course of reading the texts.
The variables within the first category, ‘Buen Vivir,’ represent words and ideas associated specifically with the Indigenous notion of Buen Vivir. These variables focus on the Indigenous views of increased cultural representation and acceptance. ‘Sumak kawsay’ is the Kichwa word for Buen Vivir as explained earlier and is included because it is often seen in tandem with Buen Vivir. Although the variable ‘plurinacional’ incorporates some connotations of political representation, the variable is placed in the
‘Buen Vivir’ category because it is seen as having a much deeper, multi-layered definition that incorporates Indigenous culture and spirituality. The variables in the second category, ‘El Medio Ambiente,’ pertain to the environment and the Indigenous heightened respect for biodiversity, a major component of the Indigenous agenda.
‘Pachamama’ is the Kichwa word for Mother Earth, an Indigenous movement focal point for the environment. The variables in the final category all profess a shared relation to political and economic views. The Indigenous proposals pushed for increased rights of
18 women and greater democratic participation and representation within Ecuador.
‘Neoliberalismo’ and ‘colonialismo’ were chosen based on previous research and an understanding of Ecuador’s recent history and one of the factors leading to the creation of the constituent assembly (Becker 2008b).
Analysis & Discussion The Analysis & Discussion section explores and discusses the results of content analysis in terms of frame extension and how they support the theoretical stances offered earlier in the chapter. The analysis builds upon these noted frame extensions to support the case of an overall frame transformation for the 2008 Constitution. However, in analyzing the data, it was evident that certain variables are more relevant than others.
These relevant variables are essential in recognizing frame extension and frame transformation in these documents.
Frame Extension Figure 1: Buen Vivir Category
50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0%
Frequency 10.0% 0.0% Indigenous National
Variables
Figure 1 displays a frequency comparison of the variables found in the ‘Buen
Vivir’ category. Analysis of these comparison results proves more important than other
19 categories by illustrating multiple frame extension components as national documents incorporated Indigenous documents’ ideals. The category’s most relevant variables are
‘buen vivir’, ‘sumak kawsay’, ‘comunidad(es)’, ‘diversidad’ as their frequencies all increased as the national documents worked to include and expand on these Indigenous ideas. The other variables proved to not be of relevant value as evidence of frame extension. The obvious frame extension standout in this category is ‘buen vivir’. It’s frequency increased from 1.7% in the Indigenous documents to 33.2% in the National documents. In the CONAIE’s proposal, the variable ‘buen vivir’ (usually placed in conjunction with ‘sumak kawsay’) is never defined, however, its use always implies an overarching ancestral, “guiding” characteristic of the various aspects of Indigenous life
(CONAIE 2007:1). It is evident the authors of the National documents took ‘buen vivir’ and extended it throughout their texts. The constitution defines the term early and sets the variable as a guiding framework for the future of Ecuador, “Decidimos construir
(u)na nueva forma de convivencia ciudadana, en diversidad y armonía con la naturaleza, para alcanzar el buen vivir, el sumak kawsay…(PDA 2011b: Preámbulo)/ We decide to construct a new form of public coexistence, in diversity and harmony with nature, to achieve the good life, el sumak kawsay” (PDA 2011a: Preamble). Evidence of the extension continues as the constitution defines rights for ‘buen vivir’ and establishes it as the national development plan. Furthermore, El Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir extends the frame with more nuanced characteristics of the variable and clearly defined strategies
(SENPLADES 2009:59-72) and objectives (73-87) for reaching Buen Vivir.
A final significant frame extension pertains to the variable, ‘plurinacional’.
Despite the frequency levels declining between documents as noted in Figure 1, the mere
20 inclusion of the term ‘plurinacional’ is noteworthy as a frame extension. The incorporation and recognition of a plurinational existence within Ecuador’s constitution was one of the Indigenous movement’s primary demands (Becker 2011: 53). Following the constituent assembly, the first sentence of Article I in the constitution now reads, “El
Ecuador es un Estado constitutional de derechos y justicia, social, democrático, soberano, independiente, unitario, intercultural, plurinacional y laico (PDA 2011b: Art. 1) /
Ecuador is a constitutional state of rights and justice, social, democratic, sovereign, independent, unitary, intercultural, multinational, and secular” (PDA 2011a: Art. I).
Despite a debate over the actual location of ‘plurinacional’ within the sentence structure,
Becker comments on the achievement after a longtime battle to see the words inclusion,
“Indigenous movements had finally realized their goal” (54).
Figure 2: El Medio Ambeiente Category
60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% Frequency 0.0% Indigenous National
Variables
In Figure 2, evidence of frame extension continues. The variables in the category for “El Medio Ambiente” pertain to the high regard the Indigenous have for their surrounding environment. The graph portrays the variables ‘recursos naturales’ and
‘biodiversidad’ as not particularly relevant, with no increase in frequency occurring
21 between Indigenous and national documents. ‘Naturaleza’ stands out as its frequency jumps up 15% with its inclusion in the national documents. An extension of ‘naturaleza’ here, coupled with the other terms in this category, illustrates the increased emphasis on the environment that the national documents adopted from the Indigenous texts.
‘Pachamama’, just like ‘plurinacional’ from Figure 1, is another example of a relevant variable and frame extension that is not necessarily portrayed in the figure. The sole incorporation of this Kichwa term for Mother Earth is evidence enough of an extension of the Indigenous value and belief system. It had never surfaced before in the national documents and now can be found in the Constitution’s Preamble, along with Buen Vivir,
“Celebrando a la naturaleza, la Pacha Mama, de la que somos parte y que es vital para nuestra existencia…(Preámbulo)/ Celebrating nature, the Pachamama, of which we are part and that is vital to our existence.” (Preamble).
Figure 3: Política/Economía Category
50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% Frequency 0.0% Indigenous National
Variables
The third category ‘Política/Economía’, displayed in Figure 3, signals more evidence of frame extension, although not as extreme as the prior categories. The variables here pertain to ideals of political and economic representations for Ecuador. Of high concern in the Indigenous proposals is a more participative and representative
22 democracy. The Ecuarunari proposal bluntly describes what it sees as an historical lack of democratic measures in Ecuador and the unfortunate results:
“La falsa democracia que hasta ahora hemos vivido sólo ha permitido que unos pocos se enriquezcan y la gran mayoría del pueblo vive pobre, producto del desempleo, migración, falta de acceso a los bienes y servicios; todo ello amparado y legalizado por las 19 Constituciones elaborados en 177 años de historia republicana” (Ecuarunari and CONAIE 2007:3).
The false democracy that we have lived with up until now has only allowed that a few get richer and the rest of the people live poor, as a result of unemployment, migration, lack of access to goods and services; all of this supported and legalized by the 19 constitutions within the 177 years of the republic’s history.
As mentioned earlier with the variable ‘plurinacional’, for years the Indigenous have fought for complete acceptance of all nationalities and cultures within Ecuador. Increases in the frequencies of ‘democracia/democratica’ and ‘participativa’ are examples of these demands being heard and extensions of the Indigenous frame occurring.
‘Neoliberal(ismo)’ is another variable that sees an increase in frequency with the national documents. Language in both groupings of documents pays close attention to an anti- neoliberal stance. Extension of this is evident by the national document authors. The
Indigenous documents maintain more of a connection between ‘neoliberal(ismo)’ and
‘colonial(ismo)’, mentioning both with the same frequency while to the national documents, this variable is far less relevant. ‘Mujer(es)’ and ‘derechos colectivos’ are two more variables that are far less relevant to frame extension in this category. Women’s rights and collective rights form integral components of the Indigenous agenda but drop in frequency of around 10% each with the national documents.
Frame Transformation As the above analysis and figures denote, the national documents utilized significant frame extensions of the Indigenous movement’s proposals. These extensions
23 broadened the national documents’ frame to an overall frame transformation. The use of frame extensions, such as the ones shown above, can be viewed as steps on the frame alignment processes continuum to frame transformation (Snow et al. 1986:473). The unprecedented nature of the language and content pertaining to Buen Vivir and the other significant extension variables in the 2008 constitution and Plan Nacional Para El Buen
Vivir 2009-2013 is evidence of a frame transformation.
Figure 4 offers a snapshot of the drastic differences portrayed between the current
2008 constitution and the previous constitution from 1998, the last time Ecuador rewrote the document. As opposed to frequency calculations, Figure 4 compares total occurrence rates of the variables for each of the categories in the two constitutions. This figure is useful in understanding the overall emphasis the 2008 authors and their constitution placed on the variables used in this study. The occurrence rates more than tripled in the
‘Buen Vivir’ and ‘El Medio Ambiente’ categories and more than doubled in the
‘Política/Economía’ category. Extensions from the Indigenous documents clearly played a role in the construction and frame transformation of the 2008 constitution.
24
Figure 5 on the other hand, compares frequencies across categories for the two constitutions. This figure further supports how, in the 10 years separating the two constitutions, the emphasis clearly shifted in the 2008 version to language more sympathetic to the Indigenous population, their way of life, and the environment.
For purposes of this study, a detailed look at the ‘Buen Vivir’ category in Figure
6 is particularly revealing of a transformation. Even though the 1998 constitution’s
‘diversidad’, ‘idioma/lengua’, ‘indígena’, and ‘comunidad(es)’ variables score higher frequencies, the 2008 constitution exhibits a more overall Indigenous frame.
25
Figure 6: Buen Vivir Category
30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
Frequency 5.0% 0.0% 1998 Constitution 2008 Constitution
Variables
This should be no surprise, considering the previous discussion of frame extensions and ‘Buen Vivir’ category. The 2008 constitution divides its frame among
‘plurinacional’, ‘buen vivir’, and ‘sumak kawsay’ as well, variables nonexistent in the
1998 version. The importance of their inclusion in the 2008 constitution must not be overlooked. The agenda of the Indigenous proposals contained more than just political representation; it was a call for a new frame of mind for Ecuador. This new frame incorporates an Indigenous ancestral belief system and vision of existence, living in harmony with others and the environment (Gudynas 2011). Acceptance and extensions of the Indigenous frame meant a drastic change and redefinition of Ecuador, as Snow et al. defines it, a “frame transformation of global interpretive frames” (1986: 475). The data are supportive of Snow’s claims of frame extension and frame transformation. The transformation provides greater acceptance and respect to the Indigenous movement, its members, and positions Ecuador to move forward with new support under a new frame.
The authors of the national document seized an opportunity to not only rewrite the
26 constitution and draft a Buen Vivir policy, but also reconstruct the foundation upon which Ecuador as a nation rests.
Conclusion For the CONAIE and other Indigenous groups in Ecuador fighting for Indigenous and environmental rights, and an overall plurinational existence, the battle has been long and hard. For years, Ecuador’s Indigenous movement took to the streets to voice their demands. Protests, street blockades, and at times more violent acts, were the contentious tactics of choice. Despite this repertoire, Indigenous participation and influence within the political realm has at times had its success as well. The delivery and acceptance of
Indigenous proposals during the constituent assembly is one such example. The assembly was a rare occasion to push the Indigenous agenda via political means and influence the drafting of a new constitution for Ecuador. The result is now well known. Adopted in
2008, Ecuador’s new constitution and subsequent development plan outlines a new framework for the country, based on the Indigenous philosophy and belief system of
Buen Vivir. More than ever before, Ecuador’s constitution is sympathetic to the
Indigenous movement (Becker 2011a; Becker 2011b; Gudynas 2011).
Through the theoretical lens of Snow’s social movement frame extensions and frame transformations, this study shows the process by which the Indigenous proposals played a role in the production of the 2008 constitution and development policy. With a strict and thorough employment of quantitative content analysis, this study analyzes the frequency of certain language in multiple primary texts pertinent to the constitutional rewriting process. Certain words, or variables, central to the Indigenous movement had enormous impact in the production of the national documents. In particular, the variable
‘buen vivir’ was adopted and expanded upon greatly by the authors of the national
27 documents. The overall results of the data support the occurrence of multiple frame extensions leading to an eventual frame transformation as the national documents sought to incorporate the Indigenous proposals.
However, limitations encountered during this research should be dutifully noted.
The data analysis only brings under review five primary texts, four directly related to the assembly process and one, the 1998 constitution, for comparison sake. Although these are meaningful texts, they only represent a small portion of the total documents influential to this process that undoubtedly exist. Another limitation is the small window of time this study reflects. Analysis of more documents from other timeframes from both parties, the
Indigenous movement and the Ecuadorian politicians, would greatly enhance the research.
Further research opportunities encompass a deeper, more nuanced qualitative analysis of the variables chosen for the content analysis. Analysis of the context of each variable, how it was used, and the circumstance of its use would enrich the overall findings. This project also lends itself to further research in regards to the other frame alignment processes offered by Snow et al. Occurrences of frame bridging and especially frame amplification of certain items from the Indigenous proposals offer even more opportunities to further this research.
As discussed earlier, empirical evidence and case studies testing frame alignment processes is slim. In an attempt to address this gap, this study offers its findings to the literature base as evidence of frame extension and frame transformation. It upholds the theoretical understanding of the existence of each. Finally, this study sheds light on not only the application of continuously developing social movement theory but also the role
28
(and potential future roles) that social movements can play in defining national policy and affecting human development.
Looking forward to chapter 3, I move to a qualitative, discourse analysis of the terms and texts explored in this chapter, guided by a post-development theoretical stance.
A deeper, more nuanced evaluation enriches the overall analysis and understanding of
Buen Vivir in this project as an alternative to development model.
29
Chapter 3: Buen Vivir as Development
As articulated in Chapter 2, the extension of various components of the
Indigenous social movement’s frame propelled an alternative model to development on to the Ecuadorian national scene. Anchoring the constitution and the national development plan, these variables promote a frame transformation at the highest level and seek to redefine Ecuador’s boundaries to a more culturally and environmentally inclusive representation. Under this premise the following section departs from a social movement analysis and enters the post-development theoretical fray. Since the 1980’s, prominent post-development scholars such as Arturo Escobar, Wolfgang Sachs, James Ferguson,
Gustavo Esteva, and Majid Rahnema have called into question the entire “development” apparatus, professing alternatives to an otherwise broken system on the grounds of failure of theory, poor implementation, high environmental costs, marginalization of the poor, and so on (Escobar 1995; Sachs 1992; Rahnema 1997; Ferguson 1990). To Ferguson, the apparatus in question encompasses the discourse of “development” and its institutionalized formations of international aid in maintaining systems of power to fulfill
“development’s” continued role (1990). Some of these and more engaging thoughts set the theoretical tone in the following discussion. Next, as a qualitative, and at times discourse analysis, complement to the previous chapter, this chapter unpacks the meanings of some of the highlighted terms from Chapter 2, traces their relationships to
30 development theories and debates, and suggests possible, subsequent ramifications for the larger development discussion. Specifically, the “triangular relationship” (Walsh 2010:
18) of Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay, the Rights of Nature, and the “Regimen of
Development” are explored in the context of Ecuador’s constitution. Finally, the chapter concludes by outlining the national development plan and the objectives to which pursuing the good life entails.
Theoretical Underpinnings
Post-development The inclusion of Buen Vivir as Ecuador’s new constitutional backbone and rethinking of the development paradigm has garnered much attention from leading development scholars in South America. Their thoughts and academic debates focus on the characteristics of the post-development field and the possibility of real examples such as the case of Ecuador. As a note of clarification, the development paradigm, referred to in this chapter as “classical” or “traditional” (and of which post- adjoins) is defined by the years following World War II, roughly 1945-55, and continuing to more contemporary times (Escobar 1997: 89; Matthews 2004).
Taking shape in the final decades of the 20th century, the post-development school of thought began as critical theorists looked to apply post-colonial and post-structural thought to the development field (Ferguson 1990; Escobar 1995; Sachs 1992; Rahnema and Bawtree 1997; Crush 1995). Still under construction today, post-development scholars profess the current status of the development paradigm as broken, understanding the problem as systemic. Main critiques of the dominating development apparatus, in effect since the end of World War II, lie in the paradigm’s stress of Western values, push for modernization, and over emphasis of the market and capital accumulation (Peet and
31
Harwick 2009). To this end, “development” is believed to be an extensive, hegemonic tool used to maintain the Western power structure of knowledge and economic domination (223). This sentiment has led to the widespread post-development belief that
“development,” as we have grown accustom to, is dead. Post-development scholar
Wolfgang Sachs poignantly declares this demise in one of the field’s more widely accepted compilations, The Development Dictionary. Sachs declares:
“The idea of development stands like a ruin in the intellectual landscape. Delusion and disappointment, failures and crimes, have been the steady companions of development and they tell a common story: it did not work. Moreover, the historical conditions which catapulted the idea into prominence have vanished: development has become outdated. But, above all, the hopes and desires which made the idea fly are now exhausted: development has grown obsolete” (Sachs 1992: 1).
The declaration of “development’s” death is not to say that working to improve human existence and fighting for greater human rights and representation for future generations is no longer important. Post-developmentalists see the current development paradigm as the problem and pronouncing its death signals a shift away from the conventional development system of the second half of the 20th century. “In a phrase, development is precisely the problem rather than the solution (Peet and Harwick, 2009:
230). The post- merely imagines a world where economic gain is not the main emphasis any longer and other aspects signaling increased quality of life are explored (Escobar
2010). Of the new post-development era, Majid Rahnema, editor and contributor to The
Post-Development Reader, heeds the call to leave the negative characteristics behind and search for new possibilities. He states, “The end of development should not be seen as an end to the search for new possibilities of change…It should only mean that the binary, the mechanistic, the reductionist, the inhumane and the ultimately self-destructive approach
32 to change is over” (Rahnema 1997: 391). The only way we are to move forward and affect positive change, as Rahnema puts it, is “by an entirely new rationale and set of assumptions” (391).
In addition to post-development’s negative stance against what has come before, the field also defines itself according to the positions it imbues for a better world. As a principle contributor to the field’s formation in the 1990’s, Arturo Escobar explains some of these characteristics in his pioneering work on the matter, Encountering Development:
The Making and Unmaking of the Third World (Escobar 1995). In his book, Escobar scrutinizes the discourse of development as a tool used in the making and continued suppression of the third world through knowledge and power structures. Despite
“development’s” entrenched position as a Western instrument of control, he argues for the existence of alternatives and possibilities beyond these confines. According to
Escobar, post-development is a platform for “an interest in local culture and knowledge; a critical stance with respect to established scientific discourses; and the defense and promotion of localized, pluralistic grassroots movements” (1995: 215). These components play an important role in seeking alternative proposals and creating a post- development era. As an additional hallmark of its underpinnings, the field further redefines development theory with a subscription and promotion of ‘alternatives to development’ (Escobar 1992: 22). As opposed to “better” or “another” form of development (which still operate within the same defunct development paradigm), alternatives to development push for a new paradigm altogether (22). The nuanced significance of “to” is the pivotal component in the terminology. It provides for separation and delineates between alternatives operating still within the paradigm in
33 question and those alternatives offering something new, outside the paradigm. Looking to Buen Vivir, we observe how this new framework, in its rejection of linear, economy based development discourses offers an alternative to traditional development paradigms in the framework of this new post-development school of thought.
Buen Vivir as an Alternative to Development Buen Vivir’s transformation, from Indigenous movement to leading constitutional reform efforts, has increased its visibility and attracted a growing amount of attention from pockets of post-development scholars, although significantly less than compared to more mainstream development studies2. Despite some interest in Europe, the majority of those writing on the subject are from (or based) on the South American continent. As to its research “popularity,” a quick Google search for Buen Vivir yields dozens of entries from online newspapers and magazines and some reputable scholarly journals such as
Development and Third World Quarterly. Announcements for academic conferences pertaining to the issues of Buen Vivir, plurinationality, and the Rights of Nature can be found as well after a little digging, yet nowhere near the number of opportunities for more mainstream development studies. In an effort to address this small following of scholarly work on Buen Vivir, careful analysis and exhaustive examination of Buen Vivir and its current representations in the Ecuadorian constitution places it within a post- development discourse and contributes to the discussion.
Leading Buen Vivir scholars, Uruguayan social ecologist and senior researcher at the Latin American Center for Social Ecology (CLAES), Eduardo Gudynas, and
2 For example, a head researcher on the Latin American region at the Institute of Development Studies (a leading development think-tank) in the United Kingdom explained to me via e-mail that Buen Vivir was not on his, nor anyone else’s, radar at the moment. What is not being said is significant too.
34
Ecuadorian economist and former leader of the constituent assembly, Alberto Acosta, champion the model’s post-development makeup and alternative construction. Both offer extensive analysis on the subject matter and explain the dual nature of Buen Vivir. From one side, it is a reaction to the negative consequences of traditional development policies while from the other, Buen Vivir is a look toward an alternative future (Gudynas and
Acosta 2011a). In a separate analysis, the two state, “One key point with this whole experience is that Buen Vivir represents an alternative to development and therefore offers a possible post-development response3” (Gudynas and Acosta 2011b: 78), and furthermore, “Buen Vivir is not an ‘alternative development [model]’, but rather an exploration of alternatives to development, its management and policies, as an institution, and its legitimizing discourses”(79). Here, an obvious nod to Escobar’s description of post-development’s support of alternative solutions to the current development paradigm is evident.
Acosta, who played a significant role in the architecture of Buen Vivir during the constituent assembly process, strongly supports the alternative direction of Buen Vivir’s frame (Acosta 2008). He underlines the model and its importance as an effort under construction to distance Ecuador from the Western concept of development (38). To
Acosta, “Buen Vivir, more than just a constitutional declaration, is presented as an opportunity to collectively construct a new regimen of development…[It is] a different vision, rich in content, and certainly more complex”(38). Of this complexity, Acosta adds, Buen Vivir is a search to recuperate societal elements lost in the neoliberal process:
3All translations are by the author, unless otherwise noted.
35
“the public, the universal, the free, and diversity, all in an effort to secure liberty, equality, and equity”(42).
Adding further to the conversation of development as Buen Vivir are suggestive influences from other theoretical development configurations. To begin, evidence from within Ecuador’s political documents support inspirations from Amartya Sen’s
Capabilities Approach (Walsh 2010; Radcliffe 2012). Developed in the 1980’s as a part of welfare economics, the Capabilities Approach is a theoretical pathway to human development (Sen 1999). Sen explains, “Development has to be more concerned with enhancing the lives we lead and the freedoms we enjoy,” and defines the Approach as,
“[e]xpanding the freedoms that we have reason to value…”(1999: 14-15). Development is seen through increased capabilities, functions, and agencies in one’s life. Expanding on Sen’s work, scholar Martha Nussbaum argued for the addition of a list marking the most pertinent human capabilities: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses imagination and thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one’s environment (Nussbaum 2003). Ecuador’s Buen Vivir, although adopting a more cultural and environmental focus, hinges upon the guarantee of rights to individuals, providing for full potentiality in development (Walsh 2010). Transitioning to other influences, the guarantee of rights to achieving Buen Vivir (or Sumak Kawsay) shares a strong correlation with the Rights Based Approach (RBA) to development. RBA is grounded in international laws guaranteeing human rights and understands the path to development through two main stakeholders: rights-holders claiming their rights and duty-bearers meeting providing them (Rand and Watson 2007). However, Buen Vivir expands the boundaries of this association of development with the provision and
36 protection of human rights by including rights of community as well (Radcliffe 2012:
242). How these rights provide the basis for Buen Vivir and their post-development tendencies are presented and later in this discussion.
Finally, the inclusion of the Rights of Nature as a cornerstone of the Buen Vivir model support further a definitive break from previous versions of development by envisioning an alternative view of human interaction with nature. Establishing the Rights of Nature (explored at length later in this chapter) takes steps to recognize the environment4 on equal ground with humans, not under the latter’s control or manipulation (Acosta 2008: 36). Examples of the various manifestations of Buen Vivir as an alternative to development are next brought under review as they appear in the
Ecuadorian constitution.
Buen Vivir in Application
2008 Constitution The re-writing of Ecuador’s constitution creates an immense obligation not only to establish the above-mentioned alternative vision for the country but also to guarantee the natural, economic, social, and cultural rights to achieving Buen Vivir (Wray 2009).
The constitution marks a significant “wake-up call” and rupture with the country’s history of “dependence, discrimination, instability, corruption, and degradation” at the hands of the enveloping neoliberal development paradigm (Quirola Suárez 2009: 103-
109). To Rafael Quintero, the importance of the Buen Vivir framework to the constitution could not be overstated, “The new Constitution contains innovative principles, concepts, categories and paradigms that create part of a historic alternative
4 The Spanish terms used in reference to the environment in these Articles include: “La naturaleza, o Pacha Mama, donde se reproduce la vida”; “todos los elementos que forman una ecosistema”; “los recursos naturales” (PDA 2011b: Art 71-74).
37 development model” (2009: 80). The innovation Quintero hints at is Buen Vivir’s structural base of a series of rights guaranteed to the citizens of Ecuador seeking to improve their quality of life. These rights of Buen Vivir include such guarantees in the areas of water, food, the environment, cultural representation, education, health, and labor (PDA 2011: Articles 12-34). Qualitative, textual reading, and interpretation analysis of these formal rights and characteristics reveals the substantive rethinking of development by Ecuador’s political leaders who rewrote the constitution. As a representation of the principles of the state and the properties that define a nation, the creation of a constitution (or in this case, the re-creation) demands significant attention.
At the onset of the constitution, in the Preamble, the document strikes a new cord for the country’s direction forward:
We women and men, the sovereign people of Ecuador RECOGNIZING our age-old roots, wrought by women and men from various peoples, CELEBRATING nature, the Pacha Mama (Mother Earth), of which we are a part and which is vital to our existence, INVOKING the name of God and recognizing our diverse forms of religion and spirituality, AS HEIRS to social liberation struggles against all forms of domination and colonialism AND with a profound commitment to the present and to the future,
Hereby decide to build A new form of public coexistence, in diversity and in harmony with nature, to achieve the good way of living, the sumak kawsay; A society that respects, in all its dimensions, the dignity of individuals and community groups…(PDA 2011a: Preamble)
The Preamble’s recognition of Ecuador’s identity sets the tone and establishes the cultural and environmental inclusivity of the political document. The necessity to create distance from a troubled past of “domination and “colonialism” is apparent from the
38 beginning. Additionally, as noted in the previous chapter’s analysis, the heavily charged term “Pachamama” is a recognition of Ecuador’s rich biodiversity and the deep, cultural connection the people have with their land. Its intentional employment in the constitution is a monumental acknowledgement of Indigenous cosmology of nature and difference in treatment compared to Western treatment of the environment (Acosta 2009:37) Finally,
“a new form of public coexistence” for the many peoples of Ecuador and harmony with the natural world underlines the alternative approach to development, supporting the post-developmental theoretical position. The declaration to create a new existence for the people of Ecuador is a deliberate break from what has come before and in the direction of something innovative. In this sentiment and with the objective of achieving “sumak kawsay”, the authors of the 2008 constitution separate themselves from any previous political document in Ecuador.
A Plurinational State Art. 1: Ecuador is a constitutional State of rights and justice, a social, democratic, sovereign, independent, unitary, intercultural, [plurinational]5 and secular State (PDA 2011a).
Art. 1: El Ecuador es un Estado constitucional de derechos y justicia, social, democrático, soberano, independiente, unitario, intercultural, plurinacional y laico (PDA 2011b).
Crucial to Ecuador’s alternative vision and efforts to re-found itself is its incorporation and recognition of powerful Indigenous ideas of existence. The analysis looks next at the text of the first article of the constitution as an example of these efforts put forth by the authors. In a constitution, as is the case here with Ecuador, the opening
5 The term used in this particular English translation source of the constitution is “multinational” instead of “plurinational.” However, I interpret the terms as interchangeable. For continuity’s sake with the argument presented in this project, I will continue to use “plurinational.”
39 line sets the tone for the document and provides an image the country wishes to portray.
However, since the Indigenous movement’s formal organization in the 1980’s, the content and even structure of this first sentence has been the subject of lively, and often heated, debates. These debates centered on the inclusion of the Indigenous nations of
Ecuador as part of a plurinational state (Jameson 2011). Despite continued Indigenous efforts, this has never been articulated in the constitution before. The previous constitution (1998), made room for a “pluri-cultural” recognition in regard to the multiple cultures of Ecuador, yet still falling short of the Indigenous demands for full recognition of separate nationalities as is their case with “plurinacional”. However, after decades of marches and protests, their goal was finally met and an unprecedented course was set for
Ecuador (Becker 2011).
The term provides the platform for the Indigenous and symbolizes a larger representation of their collective demands as a social movement against the Ecuadorian government (Jameson 2011). Evolving in meaning over the years, to the Indigenous a plurinational existence embodies ownership of land, autonomy, and rights to decision- making processes, among other things to the many peoples of Ecuador (Jameson 2011;
Chuji 2008). It’s inclusion in the constitution signifies, for the first time ever, a conscious effort to move away from a “Eurocentric monoculture” and re-establish the country with a definitive acknowledgement of the many Indigenous peoples and nations that constitute Ecuador (Acosta 2008: 43). Redefining Ecuador from a Nation-State to a
Plurinational-State is a monumental step forward, in an alternative direction from its past.
To that end, the Indigenous fight for the creation (and constitutional inclusion) of a
Plurinational-State does not envision an Ecuador dissolved into nothing or fragmented to
40 various autonomous areas. A Plurinational-State speaks to the respect and recognition of existence of all nationalities and peoples that make up Ecuador today; not for a divided country but one “unified in its diversity” (Chuji 2008: 55). According to politician and
Indigenous activist, Mónica Chuji, “only within the [Indigenous] cosmovision of a
Plurinational State, can you imagine in a single dynamic, development as ‘buen vivir’, nature as a fundamental part of the social contract, and respect of the coexistence of equal and different [people]” (51) and that ultimately “envisions life and nature in a distinct manner” (55). Worth noting as well in the first sentence of Article 1 is the meaningful inclusion of the term “intercultural.” As with plurinational, defining Ecuador as an intercultural, as opposed to multi-cultural, State supports a real respect and integration for the people of Ecuador, especially the Indigenous. To Walter Mignolo, “intercultural” is the conscious effort to “[put] into collaborative conversation two different logics for the good of all,” in reference to Western and Indigenous cosmologies (Mignolo 2005: 118).
Multi-culturalism, he adds, feigns this provision but really allows cultural “freedoms” only under the “hegemonic principles of power” (118). The deliberate effort to redefine
Ecuador as an Intercultural and Plurinational-State sets the stage for an alternative to development model that incorporates further the post-development characteristics of
Buen Vivir. Continuing the discussion, next I examine and unpack the representation of the Rights of Nature in the constitution. This further supports of a break from previous development discourses and heads in the direction of an alternative to development course.
41
Rights of Nature
Art. 71: Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes… (PDA 2011a).
Art. 71: La naturaleza o Pacha Mama, donde se reproduce y realiza la vida, tiene derecho a que se respete integralmente su existencia y el mantenimiento y regeneración de sus ciclos vitales, estructura, funciones y procesos evolutivos...(PDA 2011b).
The constitutional articles defining Ecuador’s Rights of Nature (Articles 71-74) recognize for the first time ever a definitive legal standing for the environment broadly.
This new understanding is representative of a significant rupture with previous development paradigms and their position of power over environment seen narrowly as natural resources (Gudynas 2010). Historically, traditional development policies in
Ecuador (and all previous constitutions) defined nature in the context of its service to the human population; limited to its economic value and utility to the human population (48-
49). The traditional framework purports an idea of nature as an object for human use and domination. However, the Ecuadorian constitution makes the distinction with the Rights of Nature that the environment possesses inherent values outside of human existence.
Here Gudynas says of this alternative view of the environment in relation to earlier beliefs, “The intrinsic values and rights of Nature represent a radical critique of economic growth and productive expansion that is only possible when the environment is thought of as a basket of resources” (66).
This alternative comprehension of the environment and the role it serves in development is based on a bio-centric shift in thinking. In contrast to an anthropocentric
42 understanding of environment as part of a more traditional development paradigm, a bio- centric view establishes the intrinsic value existent in nature outside of human utility or valorization. Of the bio-centric viewpoint emphasized by the Rights of Nature in the constitution, Gudynas explains:
“The idea of intrinsic value means that attributes exist that are independent of human beings and remain despite the absence of [humans]. In a world without people, plants and animals will continue their evolutionary march within their ecological context, and that manifestation of life is a value in and of itself. This is the dominant bio-centric view, with attention paid to all forms of life, as much to humans as to non-humans”(50).
Important in the Article is the obvious disconnection between Nature and its value associated with the human population. Instead the focus is placed on the evolutionary and regenerative processes of the environment as its own entity, existing outside the human realm. This distinction is drastically different from the environmental legal measures put in place by traditional development policies, envisioning its protection only in terms of continued human interests (Gudynas 2010: 48).
Looking at another important aspect of Article 71, the interchangeable use of the term Pacha Mama (Mother Earth) in reference to Nature is noteworthy. As pointed out previously, the employment of the Kichwa word lends to the cultural importance of the environment to the Indigenous populations of Ecuador. Acknowledging the environment as part of a separate Indigenous cosmovision and existence, especially outside the boundaries defined by more traditional development paradigms, further promotes the
‘alternative to development’ formation of Buen Vivir (Gudynas 2009: 37).
Furthering the unprecedented scope of the Rights of Nature, the next article speaks to another innovative and alternative inclusion never seen before in constitutional understandings of the environment. Article 72 defines the legal scope of the restoration
43 of the environment in the event of damage. The concept of restoration to the environment is typically common; however setting its constitutional parameters is new.
Article 72: Nature has the right to be restored. This restoration shall be apart from the obligation of the State and natural persons or legal entities to compensate individuals and communities that depend on affected natural systems (PDA 2011a).
Art. 72: La naturaleza tiene derecho a la restauración. Esta restauración será independiente de la obligación que tienen el Estado y las personas naturales o jurídicas de Indemnizar a los individuos y colectivos que dependan de los sistemas naturales afectados (PDA 2011b).
This inclusion further strengthens the rights afforded to nature and in a bio-centric sense, the alternative level to which the authors of the constitution wish to conceptualize the environment against previous development models (Gudynas 2009: 39). Moving from the Rights of Nature, the “Regimen of Development” is next brought under review as additional evidence of post-developmental thought playing a substantial role in the makeup of the constitution.
The Regimen of Development
Article 275: The development structure is the organized, sustainable and dynamic group of economic, political, socio-cultural and environmental systems which underpin the achievement of [Buen Vivir]6 (sumak kawsay) … [Buen Vivir] shall require persons, communities, peoples and nationalities to effectively exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities within the framework of interculturalism, respect for their diversity, and harmonious coexistence with nature. (PDA 2011a).
Art. 275: El régimen de desarrollo es el conjunto organizado, sostenible y dinámico de los sistemas económicos, políticos, socio-culturales y ambientales, que garantizan la realización del buen vivir, del sumak kawsay…El buen vivir requerirá que las personas, comunidades, pueblos y nacionalidades gocen efectivamente de sus derechos, y ejerzan responsabilidades en el marco de la interculturalidad, del respeto a sus diversidades, y de la convivencia armónica con la naturaleza (PDA 2011b).
6 Exact translation here is “the good way of living.”
44
The “Regimen of Development” (also referred to as the Regimen of Buen Vivir) establishes the principles and structural confines of guaranteeing the rights associated with Buen Vivir in the constitution. The regimen of Buen Vivir breaks from previous development processes by requiring all aspects of the Ecuadorian (economic, political, social, cultural, and ecological) in line with achieving Buen Vivir (Gudynas 2011: 443).
To reach this goal, the constitution communicates the necessary objectives for Ecuador: improve quality of life; build a fair economic system; foster participation; restore and conserve nature; guarantee national sovereignty; promote equitable land use; and finally, promote and protect cultural diversity (PDA 2011: Article 276). The message displayed in the regimen, as Walsh describes, is “towards a new social, political, economic, and nature-based mode of development that takes distance from capitalism and requires a major re-orienting from within” (2010: 19). As integral aspects of the larger alternative to development initiative, the regimen, or structure, of Buen Vivir is important to articulating the building blocks of a model that breaks from previous development discourse.
As part of Buen Vivir’s structural orientation and delivery to the people of
Ecuador, the design and implementation of a National Plan for Good Living (Buen Vivir) is included in the ‘Regimen’ as well (as overseen by the National Development Council).
As a document, the Plan (SENPLADES 2009) is accessible for review as either a 120 page manual filled with data and detailed explanations of its provisions or as an interactive website (http://plan.senplades.gob.ec/). The four-year version used in this analysis (2009-2013) is the second plan since 2007 (and first to focus on Buen Vivir) and at the time of writing, the government published the latest, third, version for the years
45
2013-2017. It is responsible for the day-to-day execution of Buen Vivir and an exploration of the provisions it provides underscores the building of a “Plurinational and
Intercultural State,” in support of a post-development shift in Ecuador.
In presentation of the Plan, its role is justified in continuity with post- development’s dual-natured theoretical threads: in opposition of the neoliberal development paradigm that leads to the necessity of a drastic change and in support of an alternative to development approach to improving quality of life (6). The Plan offers a
“critical diagnosis” of Ecuador’s experience with the neoliberal model over the previous three decades (26), pointing to years of emphasized economic growth at the expense of the environment and pushing those already living on the margins out further (26-53).
This negative experience with “development”, as the authors see it, warrants a complete and total shift in the paradigm: “from development to Buen Vivir (17).” The construction and implementation of Buen Vivir is the result of these frustrations and to create a break with the past and move forward, only a re-imagination of paradigms suffices.
The Plan represents Buen Vivir to the people, outlining various strategies (59-72) and objectives (73-88) for successful implementation of the alternative model. The
“probability of [Buen Vivir’s] success…as an endogenous strategy to satisfy basic needs”
(59) depends on the adherence to these components of the plan. As such, Buen Vivir’s objectives are outlined below as indicators for what the path to the good life entails:
Objective 1: To Foster Social and Territorial Equality, Cohesion, and Integrity with Diversity. Objective 2: To improve the Citizens’ Capabilities and Potentialities. Objective 3: To improve the Quality of Life of the Population. Objective 4: To Guarantee the Rights of Nature and Promote and Promote a Healthy and Sustainable Environment. Objective 5:To Guarantee Sovereignty and Peace; to Promote Ecuador’s Strategic Insertion in the World, and Latin American Region.
46
Objective 6: To Guarantee Stable, Fair and Dignified Work in its Diverse Forms. Objective 7: To Build and Strengthen Public and Intercultural Spaces for Social Interactions. Objective 8: To Affirm and Strengthen National Identity, Diverse Identities, Plurinationalism and Interculturalism. Objective 9: To Guarantee Rights and Justice Objective 10: To Guarantee Access to Public and Political Participation Objective 11: To Establish a Sustainable Socio-economic System based on Solidarity. Objective 12: To Build a Democratic State for Good Living [Buen Vivir]. (SENPLADES 2009)
These actionable items underline Buen Vivir’s markers for improved quality of life and speak to guidelines, principles and strategies for the development of Ecuador.
They show an obvious emphasis to structuring an alternative path forward for Ecuador and play the necessary task of bridging Buen Vivir’s philosophy found in the constitution and its consumption by the people. Special attention is placed yet again on the re- construction of a nation, defined not as just one but united behind the acknowledgement of many nations and people. Objective 4 reaffirms the commitment of legislative protection for the environment and its unique treatment under a set of constitutional rights. Attention is also directed to the recognition of individual’s capacities and abilities to pursue the life he or she imagines. This point showing the level to which Sen’s
Capabilities Approach (as discussed earlier) plays an influential role in the policy design of Buen Vivir. The Plan offers an interesting and unique measurement of Buen Vivir by outlining Ecuador’s post-development vision for the future.
Conclusion
This chapter digs into the documents and discourses underlying Buen Vivir to offer a deeper understanding of Ecuador’s Buen Vivir model and prospects. I anchor it theoretically, in the post-development field, and gain an appreciation of Buen Vivir as an
47
“alternative to” classical paradigms of development. As evidence of a post-development shift, the constitution and national policy on Buen Vivir act as political testimonials to what Buen Vivir proponents have set out to accomplish. Principle post-development examples include many Indigenous influences such as the notion of a plurinational state, understandings of Buen Vivir as a guiding principle, and unprecedented respect for the environment as a set of legally bound rights. The Rights of Nature establish a bio-centric turn away from more conventional understandings of the human-natural resource relationship. However, as innovative and original the ideology of Buen Vivir sounds and is represented in Ecuador’s defining political documents, it begs the question of its efficacy as an alternative to development model in practice. What are the challenges that
Ecuador’s Buen Vivir faces as it transforms from Indigenous cosmovision to national policy? What do these challenges mean for its ability to shift the development paradigm?
Can the deeper ecosystem approach to the environment be integrated into plans and policies? And what have been the responses from the Ecuadorian people surrounding
Buen Vivir?
The next chapter attempts to answer these questions. My analysis turns to the political paradoxes and understandings of Buen Vivir and the effect they have on its ability to secure lasting change in Ecuador and the region. I share findings, interpretations, and insights from interviews with citizens on the significance of Buen
Vivir in their lives.
48
Chapter 4: Ecuadorian Voices
Previous chapters have communicated an in-depth analysis of Buen Vivir, its leading characteristics, and post-development positioning for Ecuador’s future. With its careful construction for a national audience now set in place, I turn next to an examination of Buen Vivir as it moves from political documents to practice. Personal, individual interviews establish the framework for this chapter as the discussion looks beyond the theoretical study and engages with voices of the people. To begin, analysis of these valuable interview responses underlines Buen Vivir’s reception by the people as an
Indigenous understanding of life, sympathetic to cultural acceptance (intercultural and plurinational), the natural environment, and the rights of nature. The interviews also highlight prominent controversies and tensions ensnarling Buen Vivir, raising questions of the model’s political cooptation as a development tool (Walsh 2010).
The chapter unpacks these main political paradoxes present with Buen Vivir, specifically President Correa’s conflicted relationship with the Indigenous movement as a result of his controversial natural resource extraction policies in recent years. This focus centers on Correa’s abandonment of the Yasuní-ITT Initiative in August of 2013, opening portions of the bio-diverse national park to oil exploration. Stirring passionate emotions from within Ecuador and abroad, these events represent major blows to Buen
Vivir’s main environmental and social provisions in the constitution and seriously call
49 into question its ability to represent a post-development shift in the region. Finally, in an effort to revisit the initial, overarching research question of this project, this section ends with a discussion of the ramifications and larger theoretical tensions these political paradoxes and personal interviews expose. These interviews have not just provided examples to illustrate my prior arguments, but helped me to re-formulate the larger arguments of my thesis argument.
Here I strive to share their words and my interpretations to enrich the discussion and reach a deeper understanding of Buen Vivir as a political document and set of aspirations, reflecting the perspective of the citizens for whom it was designed and intended.
Interview Participants This section describes my recruitment and interview process, and characterizes my informants.
I recruited and interviewed a few, select individuals to explore their basic knowledge, deeper thoughts and reactions to events that will be valuable to understanding the perception of Buen Vivir through the eyes of Ecuadorian citizens. Personal and individual insights of ordinary citizens offer a distinct perspective on Buen Vivir as a force for change, reflecting voices outside the political rhetoric of official documents, statements, news, and scholarly journals. This perspective will aid our understanding of the reality and potential future of the Buen Vivir package – as a model and as practiced - in this post-developmental era.
The interviews were semi-formal, using semi-structured guidelines to orient the interaction, but also allowing for the conversation to flow. Formal criteria were that my informant be “an adult > 18” as the only strict limiting factor for participation in the
50 process, to meet IRB (Institutional Review Board) standards. In this case, I sought out
“Ecuadorian citizens.” Beyond that I sought out individuals to reflect/represent a range of education, social awareness, Indigenous identity, and ecological awareness for strategic insights. I did not aim for a large sample of public opinions but a deeper set of insights that could come from specific individuals, in specific, distinct positions in
Ecuadorian society.
I sought out others, non-citizens, and key informants from various universities, development institutes, and scholars with expertise in the development field and experience with Buen Vivir, but time did not allow me to reach them.
These interviews were undertaken in the spirit of exploratory research, as my first structured interactions with human subjects to gain knowledge about the subject from citizens and other informants, rather than documents. I sought thus a small judgment sample of in-depth qualitative interviews.
I recruited the individuals through a network of university colleagues. One individual I knew personally, the other two participants I met for the first time during the interview sessions. Participants were contacted initially via e-mail where I explained who I was, what I was doing, and the nature of the interviews and if he/she would be willing to participate. After agreeing to participate, we established a time to meet (either in-person or Skype video) to conduct the interview. No incentive was provided for participating in my study, nor did I provide any additional information to the participant on the subject of Buen Vivir before or during the interview.
Process Each interview consisted of between 7-11 questions pertaining to Buen Vivir and its significance to each participant’s life (See appendix). Questions followed a semi-
51 structured guideline and ranged from basic awareness of Buen Vivir, to knowledge of its
Indigenous, political, and philosophical origins, to connections with critical events such as the Yasuní-ITT Initiative and the future of Buen Vivir as an alternative to development model. All interviews were in Spanish, or English, as preferred by the informant. One was conducted in person (in New Orleans) and two via Skype video (with individuals in
Ecuador). An audio recording device captured each interview to assist my memory at later points of analysis and to ensure accurate transcription. All interviews were one-time interviews, lasting under an hour. Each took place during a three-week period of January and February 2014, during which time no other major events related to Buen Vivir were reported. For purposes of anonymity and to avoid exposure of an individual’s identity, I have replaced participant names with pseudonyms. Finally, all translations are by the author and in most cases, I present only the English translation here for convenience and brevity.
Limitations A three-person interview participant pool allows for exploring themes, but does not provide the in-depth interaction and temporal context I would prefer. The lack of greater breadth (of interview subjects) is one limit, and of greater depth of interaction
(time to explore the issue further) are two shortcomings of my interview component.
With more time, I would have preferred to interview another three to four adult informants from different regions within Ecuador, spanning urban/rural, and socio- economic differentials. While still maintaining a small sample size and the qualitative, in-depth structure, additional interviews from a few more perspectives representing possible political affiliations or interest groups could also be beneficial. The interview lengths were optimal from the informant’s perspective as they were not drawn out nor did
52 they occupy much of the participant’s time. With more time I would, however, like to follow up with each interviewee. Since the transcription and analysis of the interviews, I have formulated new, more specific questions for each participant. Finally, Skype proved to be an extremely useful tool, enabling interviews to occur despite the inability to sit in front of one another, let alone in different countries. I was able to notice body language.
Nonetheless, in-person interviews would be preferred during any extension of this research.
Study Informants The first interview participant, Nathalia, is a U.S.-based graduate student in her mid 20’s. Born and raised in Quito, from a fairly comfortable socio-economic status, she has been living in the United States for several years, first as a schoolteacher in a public primary school, then as a graduate student. She is fluent in English. She regularly returns to Ecuador’s capital, Quito, to visit with immediate family and friends, staying in touch with current events. She is mestizo, urban-based, politically progressive, and speaks Spanish and English fluently. Nathalia is representative of a ‘progressive, socially-aware middle class’ perspective for this analysis. Nathalia was the only participant that I had known previously. I met her during a graduate course and we spent a weekend working together during an academic workshop. When I told her of my research topic, she was thrilled that I was interested in her country, even offering assistance to any “Ecuador-related” questions.
The second interview participant is Carlos, an agro-forestry technician in his early
40’s. He lives in a small highland town a few hours north of Quito. He was recently elected president of the Indigenous organization representing his town and forty-two surrounding communities. He is of Indigenous descent, well-traveled throughout
53
Ecuador, and speaks Spanish. I presume he speaks Kichwa as well due to his explanation of Kichwa terms to me during the interview session. Carlos represents an ‘Indigenous’ perspective in this Chapter. A graduate school colleague introduced Carlos to me. My colleague had met Carlos the previous year while working in Ecuador. Before I met him,
Carlos was described to me as a wonderful person, very easy-to-talk-to and would be more than willing to sit down and chat. During the interview process, I sensed his easygoing nature and immediately felt at ease as we shared nervous laughs over the idea that a mutual friend had connected us.
The final participant is Gloria, a biologist in her mid 40’s from Quito. She works for weeks at a time with a community located in a large national ecological reserve hours from her primary home. She is of mestizo origin and speaks Spanish. For this analysis,
Gloria represents an ‘ecological’ perspective. An acquaintance of both of ours made the introduction between Gloria and myself over e-mail. She quickly agreed to participate in the interview process, however, her busy travel schedule and lack of Internet access while away from Quito kept us from completing the interview right away. During the interview,
Gloria’s warm smile immediately cleared up any concerns I had of my Spanish skills. I also sensed a more serious side to her, as she would lean in to her computer’s video camera to explain her answers to my questions.
The intent was to interview individuals from a spectrum of socio-economic classes, cultural/ethnic diversity, geographic ranges, and political affiliations within
Ecuador. It was also to interview individuals who can speak to different key aspects of
Buen Vivir: Indigenous, social, and environmental dimensions. My aim of the interviews was to explore diversity in each distinct response. My three interviews represent an
54 urban progressive, highland Indigenous, and ecologically aware perspectives. I envision further research to include more perspectives, such as rural-poor and Amazonian
Indigenous. Ideally, my interviews would reflect the comprehensive spectrum of
Ecuador’s population as a whole, and the great diversity and sub-groups, however, the interviews are extremely important nonetheless. They provide a venue for open and honest remarks that shed light on the significance and importance of the Buen Vivir model as it is intended to be, interacting with the people of Ecuador.
The participants, all familiar with Ecuador’s Buen Vivir to varying degrees, were willing and eager to participate in the interview process and share their thoughts. I was initially surprised at the ease with which the individuals agreed to participate. After introducing myself to Carlos for the first time and thanking him for taking the time to meet, obvious enthusiasm crept through his deep voice, “Ahhhhh bueno, no hay problema. Siempre estamos para los amigos, siempre estamos dispuestos apoyar en algo que podemos. Ahhhhh ok, no problem. We (meaning him) are always here for friends. We are always available to help with whatever we can (2014). His immediate use of the collective “we” in reference to himself put a smile on my face, reminding me of my days living in Latin America. I was as equally surprised at the open and honest nature of their responses to my questions. There was an obvious lack of hesitation. Participants dove into tangents of information and personal anecdotes without prodding, follow-up questions from me. In fact, each one told me at the end of the sessions that I could call if
I had any further questions. I have yet to take them up on their offers, however, I will certainly do so if time and further research for my project permits.
55
Overview of Findings All three admitted to a general knowledge and awareness of Buen Vivir, and how the constitutional rewriting process incorporated Buen Vivir. They were aware that it sought a new direction for Ecuador. Of the innovative environmental and cultural characteristics, the interviewees reiterated Buen Vivir’s Indigenous origins and understandings of human existence, confirming the important discussions of Chapters 2 and 3, above. Additionally, the participants all spoke at length about the Yasuní-ITT
Initiative as being a source of contention or disagreement, of which will be explored at length later. In the interviews’ closings, the participants offered sincere concerns as to the future of Buen Vivir.
Of Indigenous Origins and Significance During the Skype interview with Carlos (January 2014), he spoke proudly of the
Indigenous population’s connection with Buen Vivir. Here he explains the situation of
Buen Vivir and its importance to the Indigenous community:
The translation of Buen Vivir in Kichwa is Sumak Kawsay. But we, the Indigenous, are still saying that we aren’t at Sumak Kawsay just yet. We are beginning with the Ally Kawsay. The Ally Kawsay means that we are beginning [the process of] Sumak Kawsay…because the Sumak Kawsay would be the maximum of where we [as humans] could be, with all the services, all the things. We would be living in paradise. So for that reason we have said that we aren’t there yet. We are fighting to reach Sumak Kawsay but we haven’t gotten there yet… [Buen Vivir] has always been the proposal of the Indigenous organizations. The government has accepted our proposal and it is now part of the Buen Vivir plan…We [the Indigenous population] have fought for the term Buen Vivir so that all of us can live well, with dignity, and with identity. Buen Vivir signifies to me the cultural identity that we can make (author’s translation).
Here, Carlos acknowledges the “government has accepted our proposal” to include
Sumak Kawsay principles in the form of Buen Vivir in national plans. This reinforces
56 my argument about Indigenous influences in Chapter 2. Interestingly, he admits that “we haven’t gotten there yet…” He perceives a continuum of achieving Buen Vivir.
When I questioned Nathalia about Buen Vivir’s indigenous influence, she echoed
Carlos. She discussed this relationship as such:
Im not sure. If I were to have to make an educated guess, I would assume it comes from Correa’s involvement with the CONAIE. They have always (CONAIE) pushed for a greater development of the Indigenous people and the recognition of their contribution to our country. They have very much been a group that has pushed for honoring Kichwa culture and Kichwa language. I would guess that it comes from that association between Correa and the CONAIE. Correa actually depended heavily on rural populations voting for him for the election. Less so the second election because he managed to really upset some people with the decisions he made. But yeah, the first round, he had a lot of popular support. So I would imagine that it came from that relationship.
Nathalia points, albeit a little unsure, to CONAIE’s involvement, promoting Buen Vivir into the political realm. Important is the reference she makes of Buen Vivir as “greater development of the Indigenous people and the recognition of their contribution to our country.” This illustrates the significance of Buen Vivir to the Indigenous, as perceived by others in Ecuador.
Gloria touched on the significance of Buen Vivir and the possibilities it could afford the people of Ecuador:
What I think of when I think of Buen Vivir is basically improving quality of life. When I say, ‘improve quality of life’, I mean improve the economic situation, the intellectual situation, the security of the people, and the resources of the people. [It] means to respect the rights of nature and to respect the interculturality of our country (author’s translation).
Later I asked her to expand on a comment she made about “plurinational.” She elaborated:
[Plurinationality] is the respect of the different nationalities that we have in our country…Indigenous, Afro-Ecuadorian…the respect and the recognition of these
57
nationalities is important because the majority of us [Ecuadorians] are mestizos. This is obviously [represented in the constitution] to include them in all the options of the government (author’s translation).
The significance of plurinationality hits home with Gloria as an intentional effort by the government to grant greater rights and respect to the many nationalities of Ecuador.
PachaMama and Rights of Nature Nathalia paused for a second after I asked her of Buen Vivir’s significance to her. I could tell she was thinking. She collected her thoughts and in a very clear voice, spoke to me
(in English) about Buen Vivir’s deep environmental ties:
For me Buen Vivir is more a finding of harmony between human life and the environment that surrounds us. In Kichwa culture you talk about Pachamama, the Mother Earth, and Buen Vivir is having a relationship with Mother Earth where you benefit and you are happy, you are healthy, but at the same time you are nourishing and nurturing your Mother. Buen Vivir, for me, is incredibly and inextricably linked to that. It goes beyond ‘oh I’m going to be healthy and drink more water.’ It’s definitely more around a relationship with your surrounding environment. It is not just your built environment, it is natural environment things… respecting Mother Earth.
The connection for Nathalia between Buen Vivir and the Indigenous understanding of
Mother Earth is unmistakable. She explained to me that she applauds the constitution’s authors’ efforts to capture this strong environmental sentiment and create the articles of the Rights of Nature. Of this she said, “I think it is significant to have this concept to give nature rights, formally, in a constitution. If you have a country that respects its constitution it becomes a much more solid point of departure.” She cautioned me strongly, however, that the reality of these environmental provisions is a different story.
According to Nathalia, the Rights of Nature have led to a great source of tension/extreme contradiction between what is written on paper and what the Correa administration has done since the writing of the new constitution:
58
I think on paper it allows for a very environmentally friendly rhetoric and I think on paper, years ago, it gave a lot of people hope. I think it gave Correa a very politically advantageous position that he knew how to use well. He definitely got exactly what he wanted in every realm of his government. A lot of his decisions have not been consistent with what our constitution says under this idea of Buen Vivir.
Now this idea of Buen Vivir is actually more a source of tension. Because Correa just allowed mining to start… and we already know that open mining is terrible for the environment and we don’t even have to look that far… you look at Chile, you look at Argentina, countries that we are very familiar with, countries that we always hear about in the news. I think people are really upset about that.
The other thing was the whole Yasuní7, allowing for new drilling in the Yasuni [National Park] when we already have so many lawsuits against big oil companies that have not been found guilty or have been in trial for years and years and years and we don’t see anything.
When I asked Gloria specifically about her thoughts on the Rights of Nature, she smirked sideways, took a deep breath then spilled her thoughts:
…Personally, this government has given me great sadness because despite the damage we have seen with mining, especially for petroleum, unfortunately, like you know, in August [2013], despite all the propaganda by the government to respect our natural resources… well, we know what happened and what is going to happen. Personally, I do not agree with this [opening of the Yasuní] and other issues that the government is doing and we all know it’s not real what he [President Correa] says. Like the issue with the Rights of Nature because the government has mentioned that they are not only going to extract petroleum, they are ready to extract whatever mineral there is. Obviously he [President Correa] says they are going to have lots of control but he contradicts himself…
I find Gloria’s quick association of the Rights of Nature to “sadness” particularly troubling for Buen Vivir. I assumed that, as a trained biologist, she would comment more about the unique nature of this constitutional provision. I thought she might personally endorse the rights, encouraging this to be the new way of approaching legal
7 Yasuní-ITT Initiative
59 representation of nature. However, she only made reference to the government’s betrayal of them instead.
Contrary to Nathalia and Gloria, Carlos did not speak much about the Rights of
Nature or Pacha Mama. This surprised me, as I thought he would. The other two offered up their feelings on the matter almost willingly. To them, Buen Vivir had strong connections with the environment. On the other hand, when I asked Carlos of the associations of Buen Vivir, he was quick to move to his new role as the head of an
Indigenous organization and deliver a rambling, almost political campaign speech. He only spoke to me about food security, agricultural seeds, and issues of sovereignty:
As Indigenous organizations, what we are pushing is the subject of food security for everyone. What we are saying is sovereignty and food security. I believe that sovereignty, what we are saying, is that we produce and keep our own seeds. We don’t import other seeds and so, we don’t change [our] seed…I believe it is also within the Buen Vivir Plan that we have put it. But we need to keep pushing [this idea] from the local governments, provincial governments, so that we can work together. I believe the Indigenous and peasant organizations are proposing sovereignty and food security [with Buen Vivir].
I wondered if all of the sudden he remembered his “presidential” role and felt it necessary to include the organization’s perspective into the conversation. His response was interesting and thought provoking nonetheless but I find his lack of mentioning the
Rights of Nature and Pacha Mama significant. Where the others made immediate associations, he did not. This is something that I would definitely like to follow up with
Carlos during future research.
Moving forward, Nathalia’s and Gloria’s comments to me on Correa’s controversial environmental decisions begs further attention and leads to the next sections
60 on Correa’s fragmented relationship with Indigenous movement and the Yasuní-ITT controversy.
Correa and the Indigenous Movement On the Outs Correa’s resource extraction policies and tenuous relationship with the Indigenous movement, the basis for Buen Vivir’s inclusion in the constitution in the first place, have been the source of much discussion and debate. These factors, I argue, prove to be Buen
Vivir’s greatest challenge to radically shifting the development paradigm in Ecuador and the Andean region. Here I describe the relationship and divert from relating interview findings to offer background information. This will help set the stage for the next section of interview responses.
Since riding initial waves of Indigenous support to the office of the presidency,
President Correa’s relationship with Ecuador’s Indigenous movement has witnessed a stark rupture in the subsequent years (Dangl 2010b; Moore 2009). Despite the careful considerations of the constitutional rewriting process, the Indigenous movement complains of glaringly obvious contradictions by Correa and his administration in the face of Buen Vivir. The gap between the two embodies what the Indigenous see as political rhetoric and the actions of the government that express the true neo-liberal nature of Correa’s government. Pro-resource extraction policies and a lack of commitment and respect of the (almost always Indigenous) communities involved are chief among the tensions between the two (Becker 2012). The impasse reached a head when in May of 2008 the CONAIE announced an official break from President Correa and the Ecuadorian government citing frustrations with its inability to follow the constitution (Dangl 2010b). Speaking of the loose extraction policies, CONAIE’s leader mentioned: ‘because they go against nature and Indigenous peoples, they violate the
61 constitution, and they threaten the governance of the sumak kawsay” (quoted in Becker
2012: 127). Most notable of these problematic extraction policies by the government, driving the wedge even deeper between the Indigenous movement and President Correa and posing a real threat to the legitimacy of Buen Vivir, is the recent Yasuní-ITT
Initiative.
Yasuní-ITT Initiative In September of 2007, President Correa stood before the United Nations General
Assembly during a gathering on climate change and announced the Yasuní-ITT Initiative to the international community:
For the first time, an oil producer country, Ecuador, where a third of the resources of the State depends on the exploitation of the above-mentioned resources, resigns this income for the well-being of the whole humanity and invites the world to the join efforts through a fair compensation, in order that we lay the foundations of a more human and fair civilization (emphasis from original, translated by source Correa 2007).
The region encompasses the Ishpingo, Tambococha, and Tiputini oil fields, located within the boundaries of the Yasuní National Park in eastern, Amazonian
Ecuador, at the border with Peru. An area of ‘pristine’ tropical ecosystem, it has been protected since 1979 with national park status. Its extreme remoteness and difficult geography isolates the area from much outside intervention. The Park boasts some 173 species of mammals, over 40% of Ecuador’s bird population (Arsel 2012), and is home to remote Indigenous tribes. According to Dutch Scholar on environment and population studies, Murat Arsel, “the park is also home to the Huoarani tribe as well as two related groups of ‘uncontacted peoples,’ the Tagaeri and Taromenane. An ‘intangible zone’ that covers part of the Yasuní was created in 1999 to protect these groups who are thought to be in voluntary isolation” (2012: 157). Under the threat of oil exploration and drilling,
62 environmental destruction and compromised cultural isolation of some of Ecuador’s
Indigenous tribes are unquestionably at stake.
The Initiative sought to protect portions of the Park’s bio-diverse and culturally sensitive areas. As Larrea and Warnars (2009) describe, the innovative, unprecedented proposal was three-pronged: (1) fight global warming by reducing the amount of usable fossil fuels, (2) support the protection of Ecuador’s high levels of biodiversity and isolation of Indigenous peoples of the Park, and (3) promote a new form of development and conservation (221).
The offer sought to curb global carbon emissions in an unprecedented manner by placing a moratorium on oil extraction and operations. In exchange for refraining from
20% of their total national petroleum reserves, Ecuador’s president sought donations from “the international community” to replace the projected profits of the estimated 846 million barrels of oil from the international community that would “normally” be sold on the global market, some $USD 3.6 billion (Espinosa 2013: 27). Leaving the oil in the ground would contribute to the fight against climate change and intended to preserve one of the most culturally and species-rich swaths of rainforest in the world (Rival 2010).
Ecuador established the Yasuní-ITT Fund (in collaboration with the UNDP -
United Nations Development Programme) after a series of preliminary monetary pledges from the international community signaled backing for the project. However, despite initial interest from countries such as Germany, the initiative began to lose momentum and donations came to a halt. Once strong supporters began to reconsider (Espinosa
2013: 33). In the summer of 2013, Correa called a special commission to examine the
Yasuní-ITT Initiative. By August 15th, placing blame on the lack of economic support
63 from the rest of the world, he made international headlines by opening the Park to oil drilling operations (Valencia 2013). As news hit the stands, protests, marches, and emotions erupted in Ecuador by those in support of the project and protecting the
Amazon. In a report for the activist group Upsidedownworld.org, Marc Becker cites
Correa’s main critics on the controversial cancellation of the plan as a blatant violation of the 2008 constitution (Becker 2013). Opening the Yasuní Park to oil drilling is an encroachment of the Rights of Nature of Buen Vivir, while the President’s move also defies the established social and cultural provisions.
We see this in black and white in the constitution. Specific to the Indigenous populations of Ecuador, Article 57 states:
The territories of the peoples living in voluntary isolation are an irreducible and intangible ancestral possession and all forms of extractive activities shall be forbidden there. The State shall adopt measures to guarantee their lives, enforce respect for self-determination and the will to remain in isolation and to ensure observance of their rights. The violation of these rights shall constitute a crime of ethnocide, which shall be classified as such by law (emphasis added by author PDA 2011a).
Indigenous organizations rallied to communicate their anger in the President’s decision to begin exploration in the Yasuní, this protected area of immense national, regional, and global significance. The CONFENIAE (Confederation of Indigenous
Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon) released a poignant statement on the matter, condemning Correa’s actions as “neoliberal, imperialist, and submissive” and in violation of their fundamental rights. The statement lashed out at the government’s contradictory actions while professing an “advanced constitution that recognizes the collectives rights of Indigenous communities, their free, prior, and informed consent, the rights of nature,
64 the sumak kawsay [buen vivir], and so on8” (Viteri Gualinga 2013). As articulated by
Indigenous organizations such as the CONFENIAE and as we will see in the personal interviews, Correa’s dismissal of the broadly supported Yasuní-ITT Initiative is evidence to many observers of his total disregard for the guiding articles of the constitution and
Buen Vivir.
Tipping Point [Yasuní] was definitely a tipping point in Correa’s career in terms of his relationship with the Indigenous groups, the CONAIE. It was so blatant (Nathalia 2014).
Not surprisingly, this topic came up often in my interviews. I had originally spelled out questions specific to the Yasuní-ITT Initiative, and the issue also came up in other sections of the interview, spontaneously and unprompted. Interviewees showed unanimous opposition to the opening of the Yasuní National Park for oil exploration, drilling and extraction. They thought it was evidence of Correa’s actions as being
“business as usual.” When asked directly about the Yasuní and Correa’s decision to disband the project, Nathalia candidly commented on its effect on Buen Vivir as a policy in Ecuador:
Buen Vivir took a giant slap in the face by the Yasuni-ITT Initiative. It goes in direct opposition with what was spoken about 4 or 5 years ago. It goes against everything Correa promised to the people that elected him. It goes against everything that was discussed to get Buen Vivir in the Constitution. It’s really sad. It’s a very obvious sign that Correa does not want real change… what he wanted was power. I think (the Yasuni) was definitely a tipping point in Correa’s career in terms of his relationship with the Indigenous groups, the CONAIE. It was so blatant.... The message he is sending is that there is Buen Vivir only when it is convenient because we are not strong enough to honor Buen Vivir when it is hard (Nathalia 2014).
8 Author’s translation
65
Apparent in Nathalia’s comment is the contradictory notion of Correa and everything that he and his administration had promised during the writing of the new constitution in 2008.
She makes reference to his promotion and use of Buen Vivir as a tool for political gain and power. She suggests that Correa’s Buen Vivir efforts were never serious in the first place.
Nathalia’s comment on the Yasuní as a “tipping point” for Correa suggests that this event could be the deadly blow for Buen Vivir. It suggests that his actions would result in lasting, irreparable damages to his career and Buen Vivir policies. It also implies that these controversial and contradictory actions create even further distance between Correa and the Indigenous movement. This complicates the future of Buen Vivir policies, as the document and key proponent (and person) are no longer viewed as a credible, politically charged, force of change by its initial proponents.
In 2009, Gloria worked as a biologist with a UNESCO team in the Yasuní
National Park. She became acquainted with the unique and rich environmental and cultural characteristics of the area. As our conversation progressed, I sensed the Park’s looming oil drilling and extraction was a very personal matter for her. In reference to a question about what impact Correa’s decision on the Yasuní has on Buen Vivir she offered a powerful response:
One of the objectives of Buen Vivir is the Rights of Nature. Another objective of Buen Vivir is the respect of [Indigenous] nationalities. Another objective is peace and security. I think the extraction [of resources] doesn’t respect the objectives of the plan of Buen Vivir…This paradigm is reflected solely in the extraction [of resources] (emphasis added by author 2014).
Gloria’s final thought caught me off guard. I revisited it often it in my mind as we continued our conversation. The idea that the grand vision of Buen Vivir is reduced to
66
“the extraction of resources” warrants a deeper analysis of which I will revisit in the discussion section of the next Chapter.
When I asked Carlos about his familiarity with the Yasuní-ITT Initiative, he once again oscillated between himself and the Indigenous organization he was now representing. For Carlos, the issue was complex. He took a few seconds to think. He started to respond, and then stopped. He started again, and then stopped again. I could tell he was thinking of the best way to answer the question:
Well... We are…. We have campaigned a lot to keep the oil underground, which is the subject of Yasuní. In reality, the big countries have not had a great response in helping us; in supporting us keep the oil underground. And now the government is using Plan B (Plan B being the option of opening the Yasuní up for exploration and drilling operations in the event that the first plan failed). They (the government) are saying that we (Indigenous communities) will not be affected… we will be affected. The Yasuní is very complicated for Ecuadorians. It’s for the rest of the countries because in reality, like they say, it is the lungs of the countries and that affects us too with the carbon and all. The carbon we can’t return (to the ground). I think the big polluting countries should help us keep [the oil] underground.
Carlos took a long pause. I could tell he was still thinking about how to phrase his thoughts. He took in a deep breath and continued:
One of the President’s proposals said, ‘if we don’t take the oil, how are we going to reach Buen Vivir?’ But we (the Indigenous) have said, ‘well, in reality, not only will the oil let us reach Buen Vivir. Alternatives exist.’ For that reason, in the communities we have started community-based tourism, with some help from NGO’s. That we can do. But also, like [the government] says, the Indigenous populations have so many thousands of acres of land but there aren’t many [Indigenous people]. [The government] says they are going to give, for example, a thousands acres [to live on] and extract oil from the rest. But we have said that in reality, this will affect the population more than just giving out the land. That isn’t going to be possible to take out the oil and sell it without contamination. Right now we are also in the courts, the State vs. the Oil Companies, but in reality, even with more courts, with more remediation, you can never remediate nature to how it used to be. For that reason, [the Yasuní] will affect us. We do not agree with the President. No.
67
Albeit indirect at times, Carlos touched on a few powerful points. First, is his obvious support of the government’s Initiative to keep the oil in the ground. He understands the other countries’ involvement as an obligation to Ecuador and the rest of the world.
However, he also made several allusions to the Indigenous movement’s tense relationship with the government. He says, “They are saying that we will not be affected… we will be affected.” For Carlos, the decision to cancel the Initiative and go forward with Plan B marks a problematic time. He notes this important break with references to “us” and
“them” in his comment. This highlights a tense relationship and further builds upon
Nathalia’s notion of the Yasuní representing a “tipping point” for Correa and his government.
Future Prospects The Yasuní debacle has large ramifications. It represents a major obstacle to
Buen Vivir and its legitimacy as a development model. What will this mean for the future of Buen Vivir? As the interviews came to a close, the conversations turned to its prospects. The participants shared a similar sentiment to its future in Ecuador. Carlos showed a sense of hope. For this first time, he didn’t take a few seconds to think. He answered immediately:
Well, I think in the future if we adapt and fight for [Buen Vivir], I think we can keep it. But if we can’t adjust ourselves, I dont think anyone can. Nobody will say, ‘ok, I fight for Buen Vivir.’ So, from the Indigenous organizations is where we need to be clear and adaptable, [for us] to be able to sustain and keep what we know as Buen Vivir.
He makes a point that Buen Vivir’s future is up to the people of Ecuador. It depends on
Ecuadorians’ ability to adjust and adapt. Carlos established once again the Indigenous
68 foundation of Buen Vivir. He mentions that ultimately, its fate lies in the ability of the
Indigneous to stay strong and continue fighting for Buen Vivir.
My question to Gloria on Buen Vivir’s future immediately followed her comments on the Yasuní. She looked at me as if maybe I didn’t understand the weight of the story she had just told me about working in the National Park. I resigned to the fact that she might not answer, but then she calmly and methodically explained to me:
The first challenge that [Buen Vivir] has is to be recognized because not everyone knows what it is. [For example] a propaganda that people will know that this is what we aspire to… because really that’s how the whole world would like to live.
She stopped for a second, as if to get her next thought straight:
I think another challenge is to demonstrate with actions what the path [of Buen Vivir] looks like, and not do the opposite. If we are talking about something that we want to achieve, or that we are trying to do, and then on the other hand we do the opposite… it’s going to be very hard to achieve the objectives [of Buen Vivir].
Our ancestors knew how to live well; they already knew and put laws in the forests. They already had that wisdom. I think it’s a great idea that [the government] is doing in some case but not the majority of the cases.
To Gloria, the future comes down to the government’s current divide between “talking” and “doing.” The only way “to achieve the objectives” is to close the gap between the rhetoric and action of Buen Vivir.
The question made Nathalia think for nearly a minute. As I waited for her to respond, I sensed she wanted to offer a more positive ending to our conversation. She thoughtfully concluded:
I honestly have no idea. I would love to say that I can see it remaining an active and important part of the constitution. I think it will very much depend on who is in power next. I hate to say it but I don’t see it being an important part of Ecuador policy making unless somebody with a very strong personality came to power that felt very strongly about the environment. Unfortunately, with our history of
69
corrupt politicians it’s unlikely. But I don’t think it’s an issue that is very present in people’s minds…in their day to day.
Unfortunately, Buen Vivir is not going to make a great impact in Ecuador unless there is also a deep shift in how we perceive politics and who we elect in office. For now, it seems to me, that most of the hard work is going to have to come from the bottom up.
For Nathalia, the prospects of Buen Vivir’s longevity as a development model are ephemeral. She is not hopeful. She ties its future to a “deep shift” in how politics in
Ecuador are handled. Unless this shift in politics happens, she can’t imagine a shift in development happening.
Conclusion As the personal interviews provided the framework for this chapter, their remarks on the significance and challenges of Buen Vivir opened the door for this chapter to conclusively answer and support the project’s initial claim. Their evidently sincere statements underscore the strong, Indigenous characteristics of Buen Vivir as a post- development model. This led to a discussion of its greatest controversy and possible tipping point, the turn-around on the Yasuní-ITT Initiative. As a contradiction to the
Rights of Nature and the cultural provisions of the constitution, the Yasuní debacle proved to be a reflection of the larger problem at hand: a division between “discourse and policy implementation” (Villalba 2013: 1429) which ultimately might shape the fate of
Buen Vivir.
Looking forward, the next chapter addresses Buen Vivir as a national constitution and set of national policy guidelines, and what it offers the larger global development debates. It might not in fact represent the lasting paradigm shift in Ecuador that was
70 hoped for by many, for various reasons suggested here; but it might result in greater support for ecological and cultural rights on a global stage.
71
Chapter 5 – Epilogue
To begin this final Chapter, I would like to revisit Gloria’s poignant comment about the impact the Yasuní controversy had on Buen Vivir for her. She patiently told me:
I think the extraction [of resources] doesn’t respect the objectives of the plan of Buen Vivir…This paradigm is reflected solely in the extraction [of resources].
For Gloria to connect the ideological and philosophical vision of Buen Vivir with natural resource extraction policies suggest the Buen Vivir paradigm cannot stand
(especially after understanding the strong push Buen Vivir policies and language makes as a proponent of the environment). The association made by Gloria (and the other informants) is a reflection of a much larger issue for Buen Vivir. As ideologically progressive and representative as it is of a post-development force within the political documents of Ecuador, its cooptation by the political elite confines its ability to shift the development conversation further. Buen Vivir is debased beyond recognition. This association of Buen Vivir with crass extraction, rather than “the good life” is representative of the world within which Buen Vivir is working in the Ecuadorian setting, and a global system.
72
Development and Buen Vivir This leads us to a final question: How do we make sense of all this? How should we understand these clashing Indigenous and modern worldviews, especially the polemic bio-centric and anthropocentric divide? Deciphering these macro-environmental tensions is difficult. However, Geographer and Andes-region scholar, Anthony Bebbington can help us navigate these waters. Bebbington notes an “increased visibility of socio- environmental issues” in Latin America and that the root of these issues is based on a difference in one’s theoretical understanding and stance on resource extraction policies
(2009). He divides the stances between 5 succinct camps: conservationist environmentalism; deep ecology, with ties to the rights of nature; environmental justice; environmentalism of the poor, where environments are sustained to provide for livelihoods; and finally, resource-nationalist environmentalism, that understands extraction efforts for the betterment of the nation (19). In the case of Ecuador,
Bebbington explains how the occupation of separate “currents” of understanding by social movements, especially the Indigenous, and the reigning political administration is part of the basis for the serious tensions described above (19-20). The principles of Buen
Vivir, as articulated in the Indigenous proposals to the constituent assembly and in the framing of the constitution, are unquestionably more in line with the first three of
Bebbington’s camps. However, Ecuador’s administration has made clear its position in
Bebbington’s “resource-nationalist environmentalism” camp despite the clear demarcations of the constitutional provisions for the environment and cultural acceptance.
Comprehending this situation through Bebbington’s framework exposes the rhetorical bearing of Buen Vivir.
73
Building off these theoretical resource-extraction disparities, the Spanish scholar
Unai Villalba argues that the division between political leaders and the Indigenous movement is much deeper; and the challenge facing Buen Vivir as a real shift in the development paradigm much greater (2013). The cause for slippage between an
Indigenous (Kichwa), post-development model, and Buen Vivir-in-practice-in-modern- times is due to the “ontological differences between the two systems” with the result being a separation of discourse and policy implementation (1428-1429). The Indigenous ideas of Buen Vivir, including community and nature, among others, run the risk of co- optation, at the political and theoretical levels, as they mix with pressures from Western models of development (1433). Western ideas of economic growth, consumption, and resource-extraction all play out in Ecuador as the Indigenous understandings of – and belief systems embodied in - Buen Vivir struggle to avoid “hybridization” in a global commodity era (1435) and establish a meaningful, not just performative foothold during policy implementation.
Building on this, US academician Catherine Walsh also calls attention to the pressure of overlap of the two theoretical positions, especially with the interchangeability of the terms “Buen Vivir” and “development” during policy implementation as she evidences with the Plan Nacional Para el Buen Vivir (2010). To represent a true post- development shift, all conceptions of Western development, including the very term
“development” must be separated. For Walsh, “in the adaptation and hybridization of the concept and term, the conceptual rupture and intercultural potential appears to lose at least some of its radical force (20).
74
A revisit to post-development scholar, Arturo Escobar, helps us conclude this final discussion and understand Ecuador’s unique position (2010). Despite what Escobar sees as great potential for a shift in Latin America’s Andean region (Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador) he urges caution be exercised to thinking paradigms have already shifted.
Of the countries he reviews, he says, “they are seen as fragile and full of tensions and contradictions”(2). Escobar argues that Ecuador exists somewhere on the development continuum “between neo-developmentalism and post-development.” The difference between the two, he explains, is stark. The former still holds on to the vestiges of five decades of traditional development while the latter, is “the opening of a social space where these premises can be challenged, as some social movements are doing” (20).
However, for Escobar, the problem for Ecuador in realizing this post-developmental shift is the same rhetoric/implementation divide as discussed in this project. He offers a concise summary, “[It] seems clear that many of the policies implemented by the progressive governments are at odds with the principles of Buen Vivir” (original emphasis 21).
Concluding Remarks My intent with this research project was to examine the Indigenous origins, post- development characteristics, current public understandings, and future potential of
Ecuador’s Buen Vivir model. Through the employment of social movement and post- development theoretical lenses and multiple methodologies, I have shown that despite the significant contributions that Buen Vivir’s cultural and environmental principles add to the development conversation, the current model does not signify a definitive post- development paradigm shift. However, I do believe that what is happening in Ecuador, as discussed in this study, is representative of a shifting development landscape. The
75 progressive and unprecedented nature of Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution is a prime example of the beginnings of a post-development era taking shape. Only with more time will we be able to see the full outcome.
In summary, Chapter 2 showed us the role the Indigenous movement played in successfully driving the ideals and components of Buen Vivir into Ecuador’s official, political documents. Detailed use of quantitative content analysis of primary texts integral to the constitutional rewriting process exposed clear evidence of David Snow’s theory on frame extensions and frame transformation at play. With transformation from
Indigenous background to national policy established, Chapter 3 pressed the conversation further. I interrogated Buen Vivir and its appearances in the constitution qualitatively with a discourse and textual analysis by bringing its core tenets under a post-development review. I showed that Buen Vivir’s exemplary characteristics - the Rights of Nature and plurinationality – embody a break from Ecuador’s history of classical development and toward a post-development future…at least on paper. Finally, in Chapter 4, I brought in important perspectives about the significance of Buen Vivir and its greatest challenges through interviews from ordinary Ecuadorian citizens. Analysis of these in-depth, qualitative interviews reiterated my arguments from Chapters 2 and 3 and illuminated the
Correa administration’s Yasuní-ITT Initiative as Buen Vivir’s major setback. Ultimately, as my informants explained to me, Ecuador’s implementation of Buen Vivir has been disappointingly contradictory to its constitutional proclamations. Based on these analyses, as presented within these chapters, I support my initial hypothesis.
However, this research does not come without its limitations. For the most part I have described each set of shortcomings within respective chapters but some reiteration is
76 aptly due. As cautious as I was to be as exhaustive as possible in the content analysis process of Chapter 2, undoubtedly more variables, from more texts, from more time periods exist and could significantly enhance this analysis. A deeper analysis could have also been read of more Articles pertaining to Buen Vivir in the constitution. The Rights of Nature and plurinationality were highlighted but if time permitted, certainly a closer reading of other examples would benefit this project. In reference to the interview component, I have already discussed in detail that time and informant access were large constraints. Follow-up sessions with the participants of this study as well as more individuals representing other distinct perspectives within Ecuador would undoubtedly enrich the analysis even more. This summary is certainly not exhaustive, however I wish to highlight the more prominent limitations.
In mentioning the limitations, it should be noted that immense opportunities exist for further research as well. First, the analysis I presented here touches upon a small portion of potential research on the subject of post-development thought, especially at the nexus of social movements and alternative to development agendas. As a continent,
South America is a hotbed for “leftist” politics with more and more countries adopting a populist discourse and agenda. Social movements are playing ever increasing roles as they engage in the political realm. Ecuador’s Buen Vivir is but one example. Bolivia’s
Indigenous movement achieved similar constitutional revisions by working political channels to promote a “Vivir Bien” post-development era. To that end, further exploration of “the good life” in its many forms around the Andean Region, not just confined to political borderlines, is filled with prospect as well.
77
Second, this project employs multiple methodologies as different angles to approaching the research question. As varied and comprehensive as they are, opportunities exist away from the heavy textual analysis I present here. A scientific, ground level understanding of the possible environmental implications of oil industry operations in the Amazon could benefit this project greatly. Scientific research and the collection of hard data would offer an even fuller methodological picture.
Finally, future research opportunities also exist in understanding the power of constitutional reform. Not just in Latin America, but also around the world, constitutional reforms are changing the way we talk and understand human development.
The ultimate question is not whether the political documents have the ability to claim change, but rather, implement it as well.
In conclusion, this project contributes to the constantly evolving academic literature on social movement and post-development theories by testing Ecuador’s Buen
Vivir model. This research sheds light not only on a social movement’s ability to affect change but also the extent by which political documents and constitutional reform incite possible shifts in the development paradigm.
78
Appendix
Interview Guide – English version
Name: Age: Occupation: Education Level: Birthplace: Currently Resides:
Ecuador’s Buen Vivir: A Lasting Development Paradigm Shift? Interview Guide
1. Are you familiar with Ecuador’s Buen Vivir?
2. In what capacity are you familiar with the term?
3. To your knowledge, what are the origins of the Buen Vivir movement?
4. What comes to mind when you hear the term Buen Vivir?
5. What does the term Buen Vivir mean to you?
6. How does Buen Vivir affect/influence you?
7. How does Buen Vivir affect/influence your family?
8. How does Buen Vivir affect/influence your country?
9. Do you think Buen Vivir is significant internationally?
10. Are you familiar with the recent Yasuní-ITT Initiative in Ecuador? If so, how is Buen Vivir affected by the Initiative?
11. How do you see the future of Buen Vivir?
79
Guía de Entrevista – Versión Español
Nombre: Edad: Profesión: Nivel de Educación: Lugar de nacimiento: Residencia actual:
Ecuador’s Buen Vivir: A Lasting Development Paradigm Shift? Guía de Entrevista
1. ¿Usted está familiarizado con el Buen Vivir de Ecuador?
2. ¿En que capacidad está familiarizado con el término?
3. Según su conocimiento, ¿cuáles son los orígenes del movimiento Buen Vivir?
4. ¿En que piensa Usted cuando escucha el término Buen Vivir?
5. ¿Qué significa el término Buen Vivir para usted?
6. ¿A Usted, como le afecta el Buen Vivir?
7. ¿A su familia, como le afecta el Buen Vivir?
8. ¿A su pais, como le afecta el Buen Vivir?
9. ¿Usted cree que el Buen Vivir tiene significancia al nivel internacional?
10. ¿Usted está familiarizado con la reciente Iniciativa Yasuní-ITT de Ecuador? Si es así, ¿cómo está afectada el Buen Vivir de la Iniciativa?
11. ¿Cómo usted ve el futuro de Buen Vivir?
80
References Acosta, Alberto. 2008. “El Buen Vivir, una oportunidad por construir.” Revista Ecuador Debate, 75: 33-48.
Arsel, Murat. 2012. “Between ‘Marx and Markets’? The State, the ‘Left Turn’ and Nature in Ecuador.” Journal of Economic & Social Geography. 2: 150-163.
Bebbington, Anthony. 2009. “The New Extraction: Rewriting the Political Ecology of the Andes?” NACLA Report on the Americas. September/October:12-40.
Becker, Marc. 2013. “Ecuador: The Rights of Nature Threatened in Yasuní National Park.” Upsidedownworld.org. 5 September 2013. Web. 10 March 2014. http://upsidedownworld.org/main/ecuador-archives-49/4442-ecuador-the-rights- of-nature-threatened-in-yasuni-national-park.
Becker, Marc. 2012. “Social Movements and the Government of Rafael Correa: Confrontation or Cooptation?” Pp. 116-137 in Social Movements and Leftist Governments in Latin America: Confrontation or Co-optation? edited by G. Prevost, C. Oliva Campos, and H.E. Vanden. London: Zed Books.
Becker, Marc. 2011a. “Correa, Indigenous Movements, and the Writing of a New Constitution in Ecuador.” Latin American Perspectives 38: 47-62.
Becker, Marc. 2011b. ¡PACHAKUTIK! Indigenous Movements and Electoral Politics in Ecuador. Plymouth: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Becker, Marc. 2008a. Indians and Leftists in the Making of Ecuador’s Modern Indigenous Movements. Durham: Duke University Press.
Becker, Marc. 2008b. “Pachakutik and Indigenous Political Party Politics in Ecuador.” Pp. 165-180 in Latin American Social Movements in the Twenty-First Century: Resistance, Power, and Democracy, edited by R. Stahler-Sholk, H.E. Vanden, and G.D. Kuecker. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Benford, Robert and David Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611-639.
Berg, Bruce L. 2000. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bernard, H. Russell. 2011. “Univariate Analysis” in Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 5th Ed. Plymouth: Altamira Press.
81
Carlos. 2014. Interview by author, January 30.
CONAIE (Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas del Ecuador). 2007. “Propuesta de la CONAIE Frente a la Asamblea Constituyente: Principios y lineamientos para la Nueva Constitución del Ecuador, Por Un Estado Plurinacional, Unitario, Soberano, Incluyente, Equitarivo, Laico.” Quito, Ecuador: CONAIE.
Correa, Rafael. 2007. "Speech of the President of the Republic of Ecuador: Excellency Rafael Correa." High Level Dialogue on Climate Change of the 62 Period of Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations. Minsterio de Relaciones Exteriores Comercio e Integración. United Nations, New York. 24 Sept. 2007.
Chuji, Mónica. 2008. “Políticas Ambientales: Los Límites del Desarrollismo y La Plurinacionalidad.” La Tendencia: Rivista de Análisis Político, Marzo/Abril, pp. 49-55.
Crush, Jonathan. 1995. The Power of Development. London:Routledge.
Dangl, Benjamin. 2010a. Dancing With Dynamite: Social Movements and States in Latin America. Oakland: AK Press.
Dangl, Benjamin. 2010b. “Ecuador’s Challenge: Rafael Correa and the Indigenous Movement.” Toward Freedom. 21 October. Web. Retrieved February 2014. http://www.towardfreedom.com/31-archives/americas/2084-a-revolutions- challenge-rafael-correa-and-indigenous-movements-in-ecuador
Ecuarunari and CONAIE. 2007. “Los Kichwas somos hijos de la Rebeldía: Propuesta para la Asamblea Constituyente.” Quito, Ecuador: CONAIE.
Escobar, Arturo. 1992. “Imagining a Post-Development Era? Critical Thought, Development and Social Movements.” Social Text. 31:20-56.
Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Escobar, Arturo. 2010. “Latin America at a Crossroads.” Cultural Studies 24 (1): 1-65.
Espinosa, Cristina. 2013. “The riddle of leaving the oil in the soil – Ecuador’s Yasuní- ITT project from a discourse perpective.” Forest Policy and Economics. 36: 27- 36.
Fatheuer, Thomas. 2011. Buen Vivir: A Brief Introduction to Latin America’s New Concepts for the Good Life and the Rights of Nature. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Stiftung.
82
Ferguson, James. 1990. The Anti-Politics Machine: “Development,” Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gloria. 2014. Interview by author, February 4.
Gudynas, Eduardo. 2009. “La ecología politica del giro biocéntrico en la nueva Constitución de Ecuador.” Revista de Estudios Sociales. 32: 34-47.
Gudynas, Eduardo. 2010. “La Senda Biocéntrica: Valores Intrínsecos, Derechos de la Naturaleza, y Justicia Ecológica.” Tabula Rasa, Julio/Diciembre, 13: 45-71.
Gudynas, Eduardo. 2011. “Buen Vivir: Today’s tomorrow.” Development. 54: 441- 447.
Gudynas, Eduardo and Alberto Acosta. 2011a. “El buen vivir mas allá del desarrollo.” QUEHACER. 181: 70-81.
Gudynas, Eduardo and Alberto Acosta. 2011b. “La renovación de la crítica al desarrollo y el buen vivir como alternative.” Revista Internacional de Filosofía Iberoamericana y Teoría Social. Abril-Junio, 53: 71-83.
Jameson, Kenneth P. 2011. “The Indigenous Movement in Ecuador: The Struggle for a Plurinational State.” Latin American Perspectives 38: 63-73.
Larrea, Carlos and Lavinia Warnars. 2009. “Ecuador’s Yasuní-ITT Initiative: Avoiding emissions by keeping petroleum underground.” Energy for Sustainable Development. 13: 219-223.
Matthews, Sally. 2004. “Post-development theory and the question of alternatives: a view from Africa.” Third World Quarterly 25 (2): 373-384.
Mignolo, Walter D. 2005. The Idea of Latin America. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Moore, Jennifer. 2009. “Swinging From the Right: Correa and Social Movements in Ecuador.” Upside Down World. 12 May. Web. Retrieved 9 March 2014. http://upsidedownworld.org/main/ecuador-archives-49/1856-swinging-from-the- right-correa-and-social-movements-in-ecuador-.
Nathalia. 2014. Interview by author, January 13.
Noakes, John A. and Hank Johnston. 2005. “Frames of Protest: A Road Map to a Prospective.” Pp. 1-29 in Frames of Protest: Social Movements and the Framing Perspective, edited by Hank Johnston and John A. Noakes. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
83
Nussbaum, Martha. 2003. "Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice." Feminist Economics 9:2-3, 33-59.
PDA (Political Database of the Americas). 2011a. “República de Ecuador: Constitución de 2008.” Washington, DC: Georgetown University Political Database of the Americas, Retrieved September 24, 2013. (http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html)
PDA (Political Database of the Americas). 2011b. “República de Ecuador: Constitución de 2008.” Washington, DC: Georgetown University Political Database of the Americas, Retrieved September 24, 2013. (http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/ecuador08.html)
PDA (Political Database of the Americas). 2009. “República de Ecuador: Constitución de 1998.” Washington D.C.:Georgetown University Political Database of the Americas, Retrieved November 18, 3013 (http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/ecuador98.html)
Peet, Richard, and Elaine Hartwick. Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives. 2nd ed. New York: The Guilford Press.
Radcliffe, Sarah A. 2012. “Development for a postneoliberal era? Sumak Kawsay, living well and the limits of decolonisation in Ecuador.” Geoforum 43: 240-249.
Rahnema, Majid and Victoria Bawtree. 1997. The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books.
Rival, Laura. 2010. “Ecaudor’s Yasuní-ITT Initiative: The old and new values of petroleum.” Ecological Economics. 70: 358-365.
Sachs, Wolfgang. 1992. The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Books.
Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.
SENPLADES (Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo). 2009. Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir 2009-2013: construyendo un estado plurinacional y intercultural. Quito, Ecuador: SENPLADES.
Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 51: 464-481.
84
Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1988. “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” Pp. 197-217 in International Social Movement Research, vol. 1, edited by B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, and S. Tarrow. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Thomson, Bob. (2011). Pachakuti: Indigenous perspectives, buen vivir, sumaq kawsay and degrowth. Development. 54:
Valencia, Alexandra. 2013. "Ecuador to Open Amazon's Yasuní Basin to Oil Drilling." Reuters. 16 August 2013. Web. 10 Mar. 2014. http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/08/16/us-ecuador-oil-idINBRE97E15220130816.
Villalba, Unai. 2013. “Buen Vivir vs Development: a Paradigm Shift in the Andes?” Third World Quarterly. 34:8, 1427-1442.
Viteri Gualinga, Franco. 2013. “La CONFENIAE Ante El Anuncio de Explotación del Yasuní ITT.” 20 August 2013. Web. 10 March 2014. http://www.conaie.org/component/content/article/3-notis3/532-la-confeniae-ante- el-anuncio-de-explotacion-del-yasuni-itt.
Walsh, Catherine. 2010. “Development as Buen Vivir: Institutional arrangements and (de)colonial entanglements.” Development. 53: 15-21.
85
Biography
Elliott Powell is originally from Fort Wayne, Indiana. After graduating from Indiana University with a Bachelors of Science degree in Public Affairs – Environmental Management, he quickly fled the Midwest. He accepted a position as an Environmental Educator with Peace Corps – Nicaragua and spent the next two and a half years roaming Nicaragua’s central mountains and working with students on vegetable garden projects. Upon moving back to the States, he settled in Denver, Colorado to start a position with an international development organization focusing on water and sanitation issues. Elliott moved to New Orleans in 2012 to begin his graduate studies at Tulane University where his interests focus on alternative (to) development models in Latin America. Upon completion of this degree, Elliott is going to marry his lovely lady, Sarah…and then relax.