Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay and Their Implementations in the Ecuadorian Context

University of Amsterdam

Department of Human Geography, Planning and International Development Graduate School of Social Sciences

Master in International Development Studies

Looking for alternatives to development: Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay and their implementations in the Ecuadorian context

María Fernanda Viteri Vela 10967702 [email protected]

Thesis supervisor: Courtney Vegelin Second reader: Enrique Gomez-Llata

November 21, 2015 Acknowledgements ...... ii

Acronyms ...... iii

Abstract ...... iv

1. Introduction ...... 1

2. Theoretical framework ...... 7 Post-development: a search for alternatives to mainstream development ...... 7 Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir: origins and theoretical stances ...... 13

3. Methodology and research methods ...... 23 Research questions ...... 23 Ontology and Epistemology ...... 24 Methodology ...... 26 Methods ...... 26

4. Empirical context ...... 30

5. Data analysis and findings ...... 35 Buen Vivir as an axis of public policy in Ecuador ...... 35 Sumak Kawsay: a call for a change in civilization ...... 46 Contributions of Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir to the development debate ...... 52

6. Conclusion and recommendations ...... 58 Challenges and limitations ...... 58 Recommendations ...... 58 Closing remarks ...... 61

List of references ...... 64

Acknowledgements

To my family, for always being my rock and my support and for always inspiring me to be better.

To the people interviewed during research, thank you for sharing your knowledge with me.

To the indigenous peoples of Ecuador, for inspiring me to dream of a better world, one we all hope to live in one day.

Acronyms

CODENPE Council for the Development of Nationalities and Peoples of Ecuador CONAIE Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador ECUARUNARI Confederation of Peoples of Kichwa Nationality in Ecuador PNBV National Plan for Buen Vivir SENPLADES Secretariat for Planning and Development SBV Secretariat for the Construction of the Society of Buen Vivir

iii

Abstract

Ecuador makes use of the concepts of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay as alternatives to development. Regardless of their similarities, the concepts represent diverging approaches in Ecuador – Buen Vivir through policy and planning strategies by the national government, and Sumak Kawsay by the indigenous nationalities based on their traditional values and principles. However, each concept encounters challenges in its implementation, be it through a change in their meaning as is the case of Buen Vivir, or with regard to the recognition of diverse knowledges in Ecuador for Sumak Kawsay. Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay have become popular concepts since their inclusion in the Ecuadorian Constitution, meaning that literature addresses them from 2009 onwards. Yet, the majority of the existing literature found is in Spanish, limiting the promotion of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay in English-speaking academic debates regarding Southern alternatives to development. This research examines how Buen Vivir is being implemented in comparison of Sumak Kawsay in the Ecuadorian context as alternatives to mainstream development. This document studies the origin and evolution of both concepts, analyzing how they can be incorporated within post-development theory. Additionally, it assesses the civilizational change promoted by both concepts, which seeks a harmonious lifestyle with nature and with society. Information was gathered through in-depth interviews with actors with different worldviews, from indigenous people to government officials and scholars that have studied these concepts, enriching the debate around them. Moreover, an analysis of secondary sources was made, including policy documents and existing academic literature. By being critical of mainstream development and of economic growth based on wealth accumulation, Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are inscribed in the post-development paradigm, challenging notions of neoliberal and capitalist development. Thus, Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay contribute to an epistemic rupture of how we understand progress by promoting a civilizational change based on a harmonious relationship with nature, where the role of community and cultural identities are valued and where diverse knowledges are recognized. This thesis brings some insight into the debate between Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay as innovative political and academic proposals from the Global South. This paper contributes to future analyses of new alternatives to the development problem by evaluating both concepts’ viability.

Key words: Buen Vivir, Sumak Kawsay, indigenous knowledge, post-development alternatives

1. Introduction

In the last decades, it has become evident that there is a need for a new paradigm of development that focuses on more than economic growth. Indeed, new alternatives have been proposed to the mainstream understanding of development which privileges economic growth, such as the de-growth movement, human development or even sustainable development. This has also allowed that alternatives from the Global South be taken into consideration. Such is the case of Buen Vivir in Ecuador, which, according to the preamble of the 2008 National Constitution, is a harmonious way of living between society and nature. This paradigm is based on the worldviews of the different indigenous peoples of the Andes, what is called Sumak Kawsay in the case of Ecuador. Indeed, it has been used as a synonym for Buen Vivir throughout the Ecuadorian Constitution as well as other official documents from the national government. As explained by Gudynas, the concept of Buen Vivir has received “widespread attention, and in a short period of time received broad social, cultural and political support” (2011: 442). Hence, this thesis will focus on the Ecuadorian concepts of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay as possible alternatives to mainstream development.

The inclusion of the concept of Buen Vivir in the national charter of 2008 for the first time was groundbreaking since it promotes several rights of Buen Vivir – among these, a chapter on the Rights of Nature – and also a Regime of Buen Vivir, with elements such as inclusion and equality, health, biodiversity, among others, which is closely linked to a chapter in the Constitution that calls for a new development regime that seeks to establish planning strategies that contribute to attaining Buen Vivir for all citizens. As such, it is possible to state that the charter introduces Buen Vivir not only as a goal to be achieved in the sake of all Ecuadorians, but also as a policy framework where the development regime takes place. Furthermore, the goal of Buen Vivir as living harmoniously with society and with the environment can be visualized through the indigenous understanding of Sumak Kawsay, which calls for a communal-based way of living and sustainable use of the land. As such, we may say that Buen Vivir can be considered as a concept drawn from the indigenous perspective of Sumak Kawsay, as a policy framework under which the development strategies are drafted, and as the 1

central objective set by the government to be attained through the enforcement of public policy; all these points will be explained later on in this thesis.

Additionally, Buen Vivir is sometimes considered as a socialist ideology, “as Buen Vivir moves in a post-capitalist direction, it is common for many people to assume that it is a new type of socialism or that there is a socialist trend towards Buen Vivir” (Gudynas, 2011: 446). Indeed, Álvarez González considers that, “Sumak Kawsay is anticapitalist because its epistemic structure does not objectify nature, it is communitarian and its rise is possible due to the rupture of the scientific knowledge exclusive to Modernity” (2013: 116-7); then, Buen Vivir also questions capitalism since it is inspired by Sumak Kawsay. However, Gudynas also considers that Buen Vivir or Sumak Kawsay go beyond socialism as well as beyond capitalism; since both “explore and build alternatives beyond European modernity, [thus] moving away from Eurocentric political thought” (2011: 446). Further evidence from this research also shows that Buen Vivir draws from feminism as well as ecology (León, nd).

I believe it is necessary to turn to alternative proposals for development because mainstream development practices, such as the ones enforced in Latin America through the Washington Consensus, “have caused problems for the general wellbeing of the population, for example by provoking illnesses associated to pollution and pathologies derived from the lifestyles maintained in large cities, putting in danger the survival of mankind” (Unceta, 2014: 53)1. This can happen by firstly understanding the local context of “development” and “underdevelopment”. Buen Vivir may be considered as an alternative, vis-à-vis classic forms of economic development, not only because it comes from a non-Western perspective, but also since it includes nature and culture as part of the discussion. Moreover, the government of Ecuador has recently started to promote Buen Vivir internationally as an alternative lifestyle to ‘savage capitalism’ that, they argue, is only focused in unstoppable economic growth.

1 Citations in other language than English have been translated by the author of this thesis 2

Buen Vivir has become a representation of an alternative way of development; however, it is important to understand that in fact, Buen Vivir is a rough translation of the indigenous concept of Sumak Kawsay. The novelty regarding Buen Vivir is that it was included in the new Constitution as a harmonious way of living with the social and natural environment (Asamblea Constituyente, 2008); in the Charter, Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are used interchangeably as synonyms. However, scholars and indigenous people consider that both terms are significantly different. As such, throughout this thesis, I will try to position both discourses of Buen Vivir and the of Sumak Kawsay into the development debate in order to contribute to fill in the knowledge gap about alternatives to development, particularly the ones coming from the Global South. With this theoretical contribution to the development debate, I expect that Buen Vivir is not only left as mere discourse being applied into policy, but also as a viable and sustainable alternative of development.

For the purpose of this thesis, I will use the term “Buen Vivir” when describing the views from the national government as opposed to “Sumak Kawsay” for the indigenous perspective2. Additionally, although Sumak Kawsay may not be the proper translation for this Andean worldview and way of life, I will employ this Kichwa term to encompass the different indigenous visions under a single umbrella term without disregarding the different conceptions from the several Ecuadorian indigenous nationalities; for instance, some communities employ the terms Alli Kawsay or Shiir Waras, but they all are complementary and unique to their context. Hence, Sumak Kawsay will be used not to homogenize the different perspectives but to help the reader understand the difference between the indigenous conceptions from the government’s understanding of Buen Vivir. According to Simbaña, the distinct indigenous voices are different; however, there is a similar sense in which these proposals “denote a life ideal

2 Altmann warns that “this pretended indigenous concept does not come directly from the indigenous movement and its long tradition of criticizing the occidental idea of development to claim the protection of nature”, yet its first written account comes from an indigenous community from the Ecuadorian Amazon which “systematizes Sumak Kawsay in the context of its struggle against oil exploitation in their territory” (2013: 284) 3

that does not cleave man and nature on the one hand, and, on the other, that within the reproduction and production of material life, and social and spiritual life [in which] man/woman and nature are part of Mother Earth” (2012: 228).

On a similar note regarding this thesis, using Buen Vivir, “implies a reconstruction from the indigenous perspective without this approximation becoming excluding and conforming to dogmatic visions; as such, this debate needs to be complemented and amplified by incorporating other discourses and other proposals from other parts of the planet, which also seek a transformation in society and which is based in community life and harmonious relationships with nature”, such as ubuntu, svadeshi, swaraj, suma qamaña, and other similar concepts (Acosta 2014: 21-22). As such, in spite of regrouping the worldviews of Ecuadorian indigenous communities under the concept of Sumak Kawsay in this thesis, the author recognizes their diversity and their rich contributions to the different understandings of lifestyles.

Moreover, recognizing the abstract nature of Buen Vivir and the way it is promoted and implemented by the Ecuadorian government, the research carried out also aimed to make visible the perspective of indigenous peoples regarding the Andean concept of Sumak Kawsay, which is commonly mistaken as the same as Buen Vivir. This further contributes to the discussion on alternative ways of understanding development in the current global setting. Yet, “Buen Vivir should not be conceived as a position limited to non-Western knowledge, but as a useful concept that can support and enhance critical traditions looking for alternatives to development. The critical approaches to development can complement the indigenous traditions and vice versa. […] Buen Vivir can be considered as a platform where critical views of development are shared” (Gudynas, 2011: 445).

Additionally, I am taking a critical perspective on the government of Ecuador in order to analyze Buen Vivir and the success of its implementation in the country. As such, although there is a bias against the government’s actions in some cases, I expect the data to speak for itself by allowing the reader to understand how the concept has parted away from Sumak Kawsay, illustrating the changes in the concept of Buen Vivir since its inclusion in the Constitution. Moreover, it is important to let the reader know

that the analysis presented throughout this thesis is also biased in a sense that it is based on a Western perspective, using tools that perhaps are inexistent in the indigenous worldviews I seek to explain.

The relevance of this topic is well embedded in the criticism of classic development being fixated only on economic growth and the accumulation of wealth (add sources here). As such, it brings a refreshing understanding of how development can obtain a new focus. Moreover, since much of the literature on the topics of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are written in Spanish, this thesis presents an opportunity for English-speakers to become acquainted with these proposed alternatives; for this purpose, the author has translated most of the Spanish texts used in this thesis as references. Additionally, it allows the recognition of indigenous knowledge that has been, in many cases, neglected due to the colonial stances of mainstream development. Indeed, bearing in mind that Ecuador is a multiethnic, plurinational and intercultural state, this thesis aims to make the indigenous voices of Sumak Kawsay heard, by analyzing both discourses and their implementations by the government and the indigenous actors.

This thesis is based on a theoretical and an analytical approach to the concepts of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay in Ecuador, as well as the processes of their evolution. As such, the following chapters will begin with a theoretical framework situating the research in the academic debates of development, particularly focused on a post-development approach. This chapter will further include a section that identifies the origins of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay and their incorporation in the larger development debate. The following chapter on methodology and research methods employed will explain how the data was gathered.

Then, a chapter presenting the empirical context where the context of Ecuador is explained in order to a better understanding of the reasons why Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay rose to prominence. The next chapter will be based on the data analysis and findings gathered throughout research. A section on the analysis of how both perspectives are being implemented in Ecuador through planning strategies by the national government and through traditional practices of indigenous communities is also

included. The final chapter will include the conclusions and recommendations, which will contribute to the consideration of how both Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay may be considered as alternatives to classical economic development by looking upon at their implementations and by reflecting upon the findings of this thesis.

2. Theoretical framework

This chapter will begin by situating the topic of this thesis into the academic development debate, particularly by the use of post-development theory. The section following the theoretical departure point of post-development, will address the origins of the concepts of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay and how they are introduced in the development debate by analyzing the way in which they have been addressed through other theories inscribed under the development paradigm.

Post-development: a search for alternatives to mainstream development

On 20 January 1949, when President Harry Truman took office and gave his inaugural speech, “a new era was opened for the world – the era of development” (Esteva, 1992: 1). Since then, economic growth and wealth accumulation achieved by nations have become symbols of progress that differentiate the “developed” and “underdeveloped” nations, promoting the importance of becoming developed in order to step in the era of modernity3. This further means that all of those who did not accomplish these goals of progress were seen as backward, as is the case of indigenous peoples who have been stranded in poverty and underdevelopment. Indeed, Esteva further argues that “[development] implies a favourable change, a step from the simple to the complex, from the inferior to the superior, from worse to better […] that one is doing well because one is advancing in the sense of a necessary, ineluctable, universal law and towards a desirable goal” (1992: 6). Development has further been linked to a promise of wellbeing, happiness and quality of life; however, “the members of [the Permanent Working Group on Alternatives to Development] believe that development inevitably ties us to a certain way of thinking – one that is

3 For the purpose of this thesis, “modernity” can be viewed under Giddens (1990) definition, understood as the “lifestyle or social organization that rose in Europe since the XVII century forwards, and which influence later on have turned them into more or less global” (cited in Unceta, 2014: 36). Additionally, according to Gudynas, “modernity is a particular ontology that in the last centuries determined the division between nature and society, a colonial distinction between modern and non-modern indigenous peoples, the myth of progress as a unidirectional linear path, and a strong confidence on Cartesian science” (2011: 447). 7

western, capitalist and colonial. This is because it seeks to get the excluded to follow a path marked out in advance by the global North, in order to achieve their inclusion in the hegemonic way of life.” (Lang, 2013: 9).

It is important to note that the rise of the mainstream understanding of development is linked with capitalism and neoliberalism, particularly since it has promoted the need for underdeveloped countries to follow the economic practices of developed countries in order to leave poverty behind. Yet, neoliberalism has also proven to be ineffective by enhancing the inequalities between the rich and poor. Additionally, as put by Sachs, “the development discourse is an outcome of the post-war era of fossil-fuel-based triumphalism, undergirded by colonial perceptions and the legacy of Western rationalism” (2009: xii), meaning that the search for new alternatives of development needs to address these issues to move past the mainstream understanding of development. As such, some of the new alternatives to development that come from the post-development debate emphasize the need to move away not only from the classic understanding of development but also from neoliberal practices based in capitalism that in the end contributed to the increase of poverty and inequality in certain regions, as is the case of Latin America.

This is why the main critics to this Westernized understanding of development, argue that this discourse of progress was maintained on the basis of economic growth as a characteristic of developed countries while all the others (particularly the “Third World” or “Global South”) were suffering from poverty and inequality; for example, Escobar further argues about the deployment of the discourse through practices by saying that, “[development] discourse results in the concrete practices of thinking and acting through which the Third World is produced” (1995: 11). Indeed, Sachs argues that “post-development initiatives attempt to push back the predominance of the economic world-view” (2009: xiii), further contributing to the belief that there is more to the development discussion than simply economic growth and wealth accumulation. Additionally, “to attack ‘development’ also means questioning the raison d’être of economic growth, the ‘natural’ (or primordial) state of scarcity, the evidence of unlimited human needs, the virtue of competition, the invisible hand of the market, the assumption that more is always better” (Rist, 2006: 16). Other post-development 8

thinkers have also introduced the importance of other perspectives into a post- development discussion by arguing the need for including other aspects into the picture, such as nature or culture; such is the case of Rodolfo Stavenhagen, the former Special Rapporteur of the United Nations regarding fundamental rights and liberties of indigenous peoples, who “proposes today ethno-development or development with self-confidence, conscious that we need to ‘look within’ and ‘search for one’s own culture’ instead of using borrowed and foreign views” (Esteva, 1992: 2).

Additionally, Escobar argues that, “the analysis in terms of hybrid cultures leads to a reconceptualization of a number of established views. Rather than being eliminated by development, many ‘traditional cultures’ survive through their transformative engagement with modernity” (1995: 219); yet, many societies, among them the indigenous populations, have lost their traditions in the hope of becoming modern and developed. Nonetheless, there are others that, instead of supporting this notion of development and modernity as the primordial goal of humanity, have contributed to a certain hybridization of paradigms, changing the notions of how development and modernity should be understood; for example, Amartya Sen argues that “an income- centered view is in serious need of supplementation, in order to have a fuller understanding of the process of development” (2000: 47), resulting in the human development paradigm, where there is a recognition that economic growth is desirable but the ultimate goal of development should be focused on the advancing of opportunities and capabilities of people. Furthermore, Unceta argues that perspectives such as human development and sustainability – also related to the critique towards the mainstream development debate – present a “conceptual rupture with the conventional way of understanding development, by vindicating the need of a new examination of the means and ends, the invalidity of the indicators employed, the analysis in terms of processes and not only results, and the consideration of different spatial areas at the time of studying the distinct aspects that contribute to human wellbeing” (2014: 73).

Post-development could be seen as a rupture of the development discourse given that it incorporates traditionally marginalized voices into the debate and decision- making processes that seek to go beyond classic forms of development. Then, the Foucauldian notions regarding the relationship between discourse and power are the 9

epistemological departure point of post-development theory. In the context of post- development research, Foucault argues that, “discourse analysis creates the possibility of ‘standing detached from the development discourse, bracketing its familiarity, in order to analyze the theoretical and practical context with which it has been associated’” (cited by Escobar, 1995: 6). Following this statement, then it is possible to argue that, by analyzing the context in which the development discourse has been associated and put into practice, then we may come up with different solutions that break free from the Westernized perspective on what development should imply for certain populations or regions; thus, the recognition of the different contexts will contribute to establishing new alternatives that address the needs of a certain population.

Post-development is also influenced by a strong criticism towards colonial discourse, which is defined by Bhabha as “an apparatus that turns on the recognition and disavowal of racial/cultural/historical differences” (cited by Escobar, 1995: 9); as such, Escobar further argues that based on the geopolitical background of colonial discourse, post-development could be considered as a response to the geopolitical imaginary shaped by classical discourse on development (1995: 9). A parallel can be drawn regarding “Latin American dependency theorists and other leftists intellectuals dedicated to criticizing all and every one of the development strategies that the North Americans successively put into fashion. […] According to them, the ‘backward’ or ‘poor’ countries were in that condition due to past lootings in the process of colonization and the continued raping by capitalist exploitation at the national and international level” (Esteva, 1992: 7). Thus, it is important to note that post-development and post-colonial discourses could be considered as similar critiques to traditional streams of thought by arguing in favor of those discourses that come from the Global South that contest capitalism and development, many of which have traditionally been excluded in academic literature coming from the West.

Furthermore, according to Carpio Benalcázar, post-development thinking breaks the universalizing design of development that ignores all cultural, economic or historical backgrounds (2009: 116). As such, it is possible to say that post-development presents an opportunity to access knowledge from these ignored backgrounds in current 10

academic debates, particularly given that mainstream development was based on a Westernized and colonial understanding of the States and their economies as the units of measurement. Moreover, through the recognition that mainstream development is no longer a valid and applicable experience, “the increasing understanding (and feeling) in South America is that the modernity project is exhausted, and this is an opportunity to make visible, understand and promote alternative worldviews to move away from what we yesterday called development” (Gudynas, 2011: 447).

This theoretical background is already applied into the rise of new alternatives linked to post-development, for example, the degrowth 4 movement, which is a “downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the planet” (Research & Degrowth, nd); yet, even this movement does not come from the Global South, it promotes a new alternative to mainstream economic development. As stated by Rist, “global (or general) growth is beside the point - the question is not whether there should be economic growth or not, but how a more decent life can be attained given natural constraints (the finite quantity of non-renewable resources) without depending on huge techno- structures (producing energy, food, transportation, etc.), and by restoring former social relations that have been destroyed by ‘development’” (2006: 86-87). As it can be seen, degrowth is based on the premise that some elements of the post-development critique could be included in policy-making strategies to promote better lifestyles.

For the purposes of this thesis, I consider that it is important to bear in mind the Foucauldian perspective of how the development discourse was based on the power relationships imposed from a Western point of view; yet, this also allows the researcher

4 Sustainable degrowth further “calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means, with open, localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. […] Degrowth does not only challenge the centrality of GDP as an overarching policy objective but proposes a framework for transformation to a lower and sustainable level of production and consumption, a shrinking of the economic system to leave more space for human cooperation and ecosystems” (Research & Degrowth, nd). As such, degrowth contrasts mainstream development by focusing in human wellbeing and the importance of sustainability while contesting economic growth as the most important aspect of development. 11

and the reader to understand that the Southern perspectives that will be studied in this thesis, such as Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay, present an epistemological rupture of this Western-based framework by challenging the notions that were defended by mainstream development. Additionally, in the post-development framework, the power structures between North and South become irrelevant by including different perspectives coming from the entire planet that seek human wellbeing as a common goal. However, Sachs (2009: xiii) presents a dichotomy on how post-development discourse has evolved in the North and in the South:

[In the global South] initiatives emphasize community rights to natural resources, self-governance and indigenous ways of knowing and acting [,] in the global North, post-development action instead centres on eco-fair businesses in manufacture, trade and banking, the rediscovery of the commons in nature and society, open-source collaboration, self-sufficiency in consumption and profit- making, and renewed attention to non-material values. […] The common denominator of those initiatives is the search for less material notions of prosperity, [since] human-wellbeing has many sources beyond money; drawing on them not only provides a base for different styles of prosperity, but makes people and communities more resilient against resource crises and economic shock. Additionally, one of the contributions of post-development thinking is that it exalts the heterogeneity of the “Third World” thinking by framing it as an alternative to the Western dominance, particularly in the political, economic and cultural dimensions of research (Escobar, 1995: 99). Such is the case of Buen Vivir, which has become not only a theoretical contribution to post-development but also a political element that contests the Western-dominating paradigms. It is also important to notice that, while including some viewpoints regarding post-development in this framework, the post- development approach has been deeply criticized for only countering development on a theoretical basis instead of proposing and implementing practical solutions. This is why I have decided to analyze the practical contribution of alternatives such as Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay in the contestation of mainstream development.

As such, by incorporating Southern perspectives into post-development that have traditionally been ignored by the modern and colonial-based development debate, it also means that new alternatives can be promoted as frameworks that understand more than economic growth by establishing a more comprehensive scope in sake of human – and general – wellbeing for the global population. Such is the case with 12

Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir, which promotes a plentiful living by implementing a harmonious lifestyle with society as well as with nature by recognizing the importance of all actors as parts of a whole. Indeed, “Buen Vivir offers a common ground where critical perspectives on development, originated from different ontologies, meet and interact, is a new space for dealing with other alternate ontologies” (Gudynas, 2011: 447).

Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir: origins and theoretical stances

To understand where Buen Vivir comes from, firstly we need to make clear the origins of Sumak Kawsay. Buen Vivir consists of the political appropriation of Sumak Kawsay by the government of Ecuador, under President Correa, as a lifestyle based upon the harmonious living between human beings and nature based on the political proposal of CONAIE for the Constitutional Assembly (CONAIE, 2007: 1). Moreover, it is important to understand that both Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay carry their own ontologies and epistemologies, obtained from different paradigms. For instance, authors like León argue that Buen Vivir draws from the feminist and ecologist paradigms, for example through their shared criticism towards traditional capitalism and the classical and neoclassical economy and its predominant ways of wealth accumulation (nd: 36). As put by Calisto Friant and Langmore “Buen vivir is an inherently pluralistic concept. While its roots emanate from Andean cosmovision, it has evolved beyond native cosmology by incorporating alternative ideologies from the western world” (2015: 64).

Furthermore, as put by Radcliffe, it is crucial that for the understanding of both concepts we acknowledge that “Sumak Kawsay has a complex genealogy that draws from politico-intellectual reflections on developments by marginalized indigenous subjects, combined in selective ways with a state-based leftist program for greater equality” (2012: 241). As such, in this section I will firstly address the origins of Sumak Kawsay as conceived by the Andean indigenous groups in order to explain the origins of Buen Vivir through their different backgrounds and their relations to other theories of the development debate in order to have a better understanding of their purpose in the

Ecuadorian context as alternatives to development, which will be explained in another chapter.

Regarding the origins of Sumak Kawsay, we must first understand that it is “a historically constructed concept by the indigenous peoples of the Andean region of South America and which refers to a plentiful life, but for this to be possible, the relationship between nature and society must be based on the principles of harmony and equilibrium” (Simbaña 2012: 222). However, other authors argue that Sumak Kawsay “is a relatively new concept although it presents connective points to the indigenous movement discourse, particularly CONAIE, its greater organization” (Altmann, 2013: 295). Yet, it is precisely the incorporation of Sumak Kawsay into the political discourse of the indigenous movement that allowed the concept to be known outside of the indigenous communities at a national level, and later internationally through the use of Buen Vivir.

Here I must explain that Buen Vivir is a literal translation of Sumak Kawsay, which, according to Macas, in Kichwa means a “full life [;] life in material and spiritual excellence” (2010: 14); Gudynas supports this claim by arguing that it also means a “fullness of life in a community, together with other persons and Nature” (2011: 442). Nonetheless, as explained in the introduction to this thesis, Sumak Kawsay merely corresponds to the perspective of the Kichwa people of Ecuador and, for the purpose of this thesis, is being used as an umbrella term for other indigenous perspectives from Ecuador that promote similar ideals for life; on one hand, these different perspectives do not differentiate between men and nature. On the other hand, the similarities also arise between the material, social and spiritual aspects of life, including production and reproduction, since there is an inseparable interconnection between every being: men, women and nature, are part of Pachamama or Mother Earth, and between them, there

is a communion and dialogue based on a common rituality that claims nature as a sacred being (Prada Alcoreza5, 2012: 228).

Most of the existing literature about Sumak Kawsay (in the traditional sense and not used as a synonym of Buen Vivir) comes from an indigenous background, either being written by indigenous scholars and authors or by addressing it by linking it to the indigenous movement; however, these written accounts that include the Sumak Kawsay term can be found only after the year 2000. Altmann argues that “the first publication regarding the Ecuadorian indigenous movement about this concept comes from a local organization of the Amazon that in 2003 systematizes Sumak Kawsay in the context of their struggle against oil exploitation in their territory” (2013: 84); indeed, he refers to the Sarayaku community whose written proposal addresses an idea of setting an economic and political structure that allows the harmony between individuals, society and nature by incorporating the indigenous worldviews (Sarayaku, 2003). Another written account on Buen Vivir (Viteri Gualinga, 2003) already interprets it as a viable alternative to development. Hence, one of the most important aspects regarding Sumak Kawsay is the recognition of its indigenous roots as being the main contribution promoted by the indigenous movement for the creation of a new set of values that call for a change in civilization.

Moreover, “Sumak Kawsay, as practiced by indigenous communities, is sustained through a life style in which people, being part of nature, live under millenary and fundamental principles that determine that ‘we take what is needed from nature’” (Quirola Suárez, 2009: 105). This is further exemplified in the text of Sarayaku, which defines Sumak Kawsay based on the subjective traditions and beliefs of this community transmitted through elders and women, by not taking more than necessary from the jungle and by promoting a harmonious way of living with oneself, the community and

5 Prada Alcoreza talks about similar accounts in the Andean region by including Suma Qamaña from the Aymara or Ñandereco from the Guaraní peoples. However, in spite of being located in different countries, these discourses, along with Sumak Kawsay and other discourses from other indigenous nationalities of Ecuador, still seek a plentiful way of life by managing a harmonious interrelationship with nature and society. 15

nature, “permitting ourselves and other forms of life to continue with their cycle” (2003: 3-4). In a way, it is possible to say that this parallels other debates of post-development, such as the sustainable development paradigm, which seeks to use only what is necessary to allow the conservation for future generations; however, Sumak Kawsay is much more profound in a sense that it takes into account also a subjective dimension regarding the spirituality of these communities as one of its pillars. As Guadinango mentions, the indigenous populations of the Kichwa nationality manage this concept to express their expectations of life, framed and interrelated to:

[Ethics], production, consumption, familiar and communitarian interrelationships, spirituality, the transmission of knowledge(s), the practice of familiar, religious and communitarian festivities, the participation in internal and external decision-making processes, among others. [Sumak Kawsay] integrates the local and ancestral knowledge, the cultural diversity, and the different ways of understanding life in the ayllus and the allpamama, relationally and complementarily (2014: 213) 6. As such, it is possible to say that Sumak Kawsay is an applied philosophy that comes from the indigenous communities and their values, which seek to establish an interrelationship with nature and society at all levels by recognizing that we are part of a whole.

Yet, even if the literature about Sumak Kawsay begins to appear in the beginning of the XXI century, scholars such as Oviedo argue that Sumak Kawsay exists in a consuetudinary way due to the traditional practices that have been getting lost since the colonial era (2014: 142). Guadinango supports that this concept “reflects the cultural and historical inheritance of the indigenous communities, transmitted orally through myths, advices and costumes practiced nowadays, which may vary according to each community, epoch, circumstances and generations” (2014: 213-4). Nonetheless, there are, for example, policy documents from the indigenous movement such as the 1994

6 According to Guadinango (2014: 214-5), Ayllu refers to the “historical unit of related family by consanguinity, relationship or affinity where there are norms of reciprocity, solidarity and cooperation in actions, beliefs and knowledge”. Allpamama refers to Mother Earth or Pachamama in the discourse of Sumak Kawsay. Additionally, although she refers to Alli Kawsay instead of Sumak Kawsay, it has been integrated under this concept as was explained in the introduction of this thesis. This is possible since she considers both concepts are complementary by Sumak Kawsay belonging to the state level and Alli Kawsay to the community level (227-8). 16

political proposal of CONAIE, we find the same values promoted by Sumak Kawsay, such as “an integral humanism where men and nature are in a tight and harmonic interrelationship that guarantees life” (1994: 11) without mentioning the term explicitly.

Since these notions of having a harmonic relationship between nature and society do not mention Sumak Kawsay before the year 2000, there has been some reluctance to accept it as a traditional valid concept; indeed, not all scholars have accepted the inclusion of Sumak Kawsay in the academic and political debate in Ecuador. For instance, Viola Recasens argues that “the formula of Sumak Kawsay has no precedents in the Andean tradition and, as such, it is impossible to know its uses in the past” (cited in Sánchez-Parga, 2014: 100), further calling it an “invented tradition”. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that Sumak Kawsay is only taken into account after the political participation of indigenous groups in Ecuador; for instance, “[its] rise to prominence as the new development paradigm is due to the meanings it acquired through political action, constitutional reform, and the search for new forms of social economy. While [its] origin lies in the political-cultural concerns of Ecuador’s indigenous movements, as a development model it reflects the outcomes for grassroots ‘insurgent’ alternatives in the political and economic realities of postneoliberal governmentality” (Radcliffe 2012: 240-1).

The concept of Buen Vivir on the other hand was first introduced in 2003 in development policies managed in the CODENPE’s strategic plan, but in this context, Buen Vivir was one of the goals to be achieved through development and was not an alternative to it (Altmann, 2007: 292). “In its most general sense, Buen Vivir denotes, organizes, and constructs a system of knowledge and living based on the communion of humans and nature and on the spatial-temporal-harmonious totality of existence” (Walsh, 2010: 18), which could be seen as a proposal for the change of civilization. Furthermore, Altmann also argues that it is only from the government of Rafael Correa that Buen Vivir is reintroduced as a political concept (2007: 293), in which it was incorporated in the National Constitution of 2008 after the political proposal of the indigenous movements that it was an innovative proposal of becoming an alternative to development; through its proposal, the indigenous movement sought “the construction of a post-capitalist and post-colonial society, a society that promotes the ‘Buen Vivir’ 17

transmitted from generation to generation by our elders, a society that recovers the teachings of the ancestral peoples and that can live in harmony with our [Pachamama]” (CONAIE, 2007: 1).

Additionally, this proposal also includes a call for using the economy not for profit, but rather to achieve human wellbeing for a better living; “the economy should be based on ancestral principles such ‘Sumak Kawsay’ which proposes the good living, in the principle of reciprocity employed by the communities in practices such as the minga, the randy randy7 […] principles that radically question wealth accumulation as the goal of the economy” (2007: 21). As it may be seen, the values of Sumak Kawsay were impregnated in this proposal, which was adopted and included in the Constitution by translating it Buen Vivir as putting it in the national charter as one of its central elements.

Besides being included in the Charter, Buen Vivir has taken a central position for the government of Ecuador and its ruling party, Alianza País by the inclusion of this concept in the political plan of the party as well as in public policies directed to the planning strategies for development, such as the national plans for development (PNBV). Indeed, “according to Ecuadorian policymakers, reorienting development around the concept of [Buen Vivir] 8 represents a radical ‘new paradigm’ of development that initiates a series of socioeconomic transformations including postneoliberalism, popular capitalism and, eventually, ‘socialism of Sumak Kawsay’. […] Whereas [Buen Vivir] is formulated in discursive opposition to ‘western’ and ‘global neoliberal’ development, its engagement with indigenous claims entails a long-term, contested and

7 According to Guadinango, minka or minga refers to a “collective participation mechanism for achieving the common objectives of the ayllu or llakta, the space where daily coexistence takes place”. Ranti ranti or randy randy refers to “an experiential principle from the ayllu and the llakta that sets the behavior between the people that live in the communes, the members of each family and general members of the ayllu and the llakta; this norms allows the reproduction of activities from the past, present and future, embedded in a framework of solidarity, cooperation and mutual work” (2014: 215). 8 I have replaced Sumak Kawsay in the original quote for Buen Vivir in order to clarify that Buen Vivir is the actual terminology employed by the government. Additionally, this further exemplifies how there has been an official appropriation for the term by the government while changing the traditional meaning of Sumak Kawsay. 18

highly politicized process of conceptualizing, defining, and implementing development and its subjects” (Radcliffe, 2012: 241).

However, Mella argues that “Buen Vivir has become a political discourse from the State that, paradoxically, and it does not acknowledge or recognize the cultural transformation and the political achievements of the indigenous peoples in the last years, achievements that are precisely the result of the struggles of these peoples against the State’s development plans, especially during the last neoliberal phase” (2015: 162). Wray, a former congressman of the Constitutional Assembly adds that, “Buen Vivir as a development objective draws in part from the indigenous worldview, but in the constitutional text does not only includes this vision but integrates it with the need to fully enable the economic, social and cultural rights to enforce the capabilities and opportunities” (2009: 56), demonstrating that Buen Vivir has slowly drifted from the original meaning of Sumak Kawsay by incorporating it in other frameworks of development.

In spite of the growing differences between meaning and purpose of each concept, both Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir can be easily related to other theories of development that criticize the Western-based understanding of economic growth and wealth accumulations as the parameters of progress and modernity. For instance, both can be considered as “transition discourses” since these “take as their point of departure the notion that the contemporary ecological and social crises are inseparable from the model of social life that has become dominant over the past few centuries” (Escobar, 2015: 452). Indeed, Sumak Kawsay rose to prominence as a critique from the indigenous movement to the capitalist and neoliberal practices that took place in Ecuador in the past 40 years, and Buen Vivir seeks to promote a civilizational change that enhances a harmonious relationship with nature and society.

Additionally, Buen Vivir is also related to newer alternatives from post- development, such as degrowth, since both may be considered as transition discourses, which I explained above. While degrowth comes from the North and Buen Vivir from the Global South, both “posit a radical cultural and institutional transformation” (Escobar 2015: 453). Likewise, both proposals seek a civilizational

change in which economy plays a secondary role while the human being becomes the axis of policies. Nonetheless, it is also important to note that Buen Vivir may have a more biocentric approach to this proposal given its origin in the indigenous values of seeing nature as a central element of their worldviews.

Moreover, a clear link with Sen’s human development approach can be made since one of the goals for Buen Vivir is precisely to enhance the capabilities and opportunities for Ecuadorian citizens through the planning strategies for development. “Buen Vivir presupposes that exercising the rights, liberties, capacities, potentialities and real opportunities of the individuals and communities be expanded in order to achieve simultaneously that which society, territories, the diverse collective identities and each one – seen as a universal and particular human being at the same time – values as an objective of a desirable life” (Wray, 2009: 55). Moreover, the PNBV 2013- 2017 has as a central objective to “strengthen the capabilities and potentialities of the citizens. […] All efforts must be centered to guarantee the rights to education for everyone with the conditions of quality and equity, having in the center the human being and the territory” (SENPLADES 2013: 59). Larrea also argues that “[Buen Vivir] implies improving the quality of life of the population, enhancing the capabilities and potentialities; counting with an economic system that promotes equality through the social and territorial redistribution of the benefits obtained from development” (cited by Simbaña 2012: 223).

What is more, as put by Radcliffe, “[Buen Vivir] is hence understood as a form of alterity [sic] to mainstream development, a paradigm unique to and appropriate for Ecuador in its search for alternatives to historic mal-development” (2012: 241). It is possible to argue then that Buen Vivir can be inscribed into the post-development paradigm precisely due to its critique towards the classic understanding of development; indeed, Gudynas considers that “although most of the early formulations of Buen Vivir were produced independently of those post-development questions, there are strong similarities, because they represent a radical deconstruction of the cultural base of development, its legitimating discourses, its applications and institutional frameworks” (2011: 442). For instance, Schavelzon exalts the similarities to post- development by stating that, “as an alternative to development, the concept of [Buen 20

Vivir] has also a sense of critique and opposition to extractivism, to a model of unmeasured growth, and to the idea of development as a non-neutral concept that is rather part of a state ‘discourse’ used for the subordination of ‘underdeveloped’ countries” (2015: 189).

Sachs argues that there is a need to “transition from economies based on fossil- fuel resources to economies based on biodiversity” (2009: xiii), which is consistent with Buen Vivir. For instance, Ramírez Gallegos9’s view on how Buen Vivir presents a shift towards a biocentric understanding of development, one which is constructed from the reinterpretation of the relationship between human beings and nature, moving from anthropocentrism to biopluralism (2009: 10); by “building on the country’s high level of biodiversity and cultural diversity, the current long-term goal is to create a ‘biopolis’ economy, generating wealth through biodiversity applications, bio- and nano- technology, and a vibrant ecological and communitarian tourism sector” (Radcliffe 2012: 241).

Moreover, Mella argues that there is an evident change from the first PNBV (2009-2013) to the second one (2013-2017) drafted by the government. While the former sets the importance of a “biocentric” perspective which made much more reference to the indigenous concept, the latter “displaces strategic discourse that change radically the practical objectives as the ethical valorizations and the appropriate means of public policies in Ecuador” by shifting towards a “socialism of Buen Vivir” (2015: 186). This further contributes to the critique towards the government that Buen Vivir has been appropriated in the discourse of the government and that “Buen Vivir is becoming another discursive tool and co-opted term, functional to the State and its structures with little significance for real intercultural, interepistemic, and plurinational transformation” (Walsh 2010: 20).

Buen Vivir can be further associated with feminist perspectives since it echoes the proposals of feminist economy, “questioning the notions of economy and wealth in

9 Scholar and former Secretary of Planning and Development at SENPLADES. Currently he is the Secretary of Education, Science and Technology. 21

their classic and neoclassic understanding, by promoting environmental and human sustainability as central and necessary elements” (Cortez 2012: 17). For instance, according to León, feminism proposes a “care-based economy”10 that challenges the economic principle of wealth accumulation. (nd: 37). By countering wealth accumulation and the traditional notions of economic growth, feminism is related to Buen Vivir by promoting a more inclusive understanding of the economy that addresses the human needs. Moreover, León also argues that Buen Vivir tries to set a new system where society, culture and nature are interrelated in order to take care of life (nd: 39), which is supported by the biocentric view presented above.

The framework presented in this chapter helps us understand the theoretical departure point of this thesis. Firstly, by situating the importance of seeking for new alternatives for development, Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay become inscribed in the post-development debate. Yet, while Sumak Kawsay corresponds to an applied philosophy from the indigenous peoples of Ecuador, Buen Vivir refers to the goal of the government to be achieved through public policies enforced by planning strategies. There is an inexorable conflict between these respective goals and approaches. The following chapters will deal with the methodology employed during research, as well as discussing the data analysis and findings in order to explain how these concepts are being applied in the context of Ecuador and how they contribute to the development debate by proposing a civilizational change that counters the classical understandings of development and progress.

10 León proposes an “inclusive economic system based on equal production and reproduction relations under the principles of sovereignty, solidarity, equality, redistribution, and social, economic and environmental justice in order to address the human needs and collective wellbeing by supporting the different economic initiatives” (nd: 38). 22

3. Methodology and research methods

This chapter will address the methodology and methods employed during research of the topic of this thesis. Firstly, there will be a section for the research questions on the topic, by taking the theoretical framework explained in the previous chapter as the departure point. Then, there will be a section on the ontology and epistemology of the research, which contributes to explaining the philosophical assumptions portrayed in the research design. Then, a third section on the chosen methodology employed during research, followed by a final section explaining the research methods employed and the way these contribute to the data collection process of this thesis.

Research questions

By having understood the theoretical framework under which this thesis is situated, I will now introduce the research questions posed during the investigation of this topic. This further contributes to addressing the data gathered during research in order to answer the questions posed, which will be done in the following chapters. These questions were posed during the design of the research, so the appropriate methodology and methods that best address them will be explained in the following sections.

As such, the main research question that this thesis aims to answer is: how is the concept of Buen Vivir being put into practice in Ecuador in comparison to Sumak Kawsay as alternatives to mainstream development? This will be answered by firstly understanding that, as critiques to classic development, both concepts are already inscribed into what we may understand as the broad post-development debate. However, I explore if these are viable alternatives that challenge classic economic development by looking at their implementation in the context of Ecuador as well as their relation and the evolution of both concepts.

For this purpose, I expect to address the issue of how Buen Vivir has evolved in the past nine years of President Correa’s government. This will also contribute to seeing whether Sumak Kawsay is being incorporated in the policies of the government or 23

whether it can be (re)incorporated in the national discussion on Buen Vivir. Consequently, this will lead to the analysis of how each of these concepts differ from the other, particularly through analyzing how the construction of the national planning strategies for development contributed to the distinction of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay. For instance, while Sumak Kawsay can be considered an applied philosophy from the indigenous peoples of Ecuador, Buen Vivir carries a more abstract role by being not only the ultimate goal for the national government, but also the framework under which public policies are constructed to achieve this goal; moreover, the constant evolution of the concept of Buen Vivir in the government’s discourse is consistent to their view that it is “a notion under permanent construction” (SENPLADES, 2013: 19). Finally, by exploring these questions, I will be able to determine how Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay contribute to expanding the post-development debate as alternatives to mainstream development.

Ontology and Epistemology

Having understood the theoretical stances of this thesis, I would like to address the ontology and epistemology that have been considered for this particular research. As explained in the introduction, the tools used throughout this thesis are based from a Western perspective, trying to grasp the knowledge derived from the indigenous traditions of the Andes. As such, we should be aware of how Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay stand against the West given their diverse ontologies and epistemologies. According to Cresswell and Plano Clark, the philosophical assumptions of a research, notably the epistemology behind a study, “inform the use of a theoretical ‘stance’ that the researcher might use” (2011: 38). For the purpose of this thesis, which seeks to explain how Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are conceived and applied in Ecuador as alternatives to mainstream development, then we must acknowledge the fact that there is a clash between these competing concepts under the realm of social sciences. Furthermore, since different perspectives are being taken into account – for instance, the government’s understanding of Buen Vivir versus the indigenous understanding of Sumak Kawsay – then the ontological and epistemological departure points must be set in a combination of paradigms that allows the exploration of both perspectives and that fits best for the purpose of this research. 24

Moreover, as stated in the introduction, I have chosen to address the topic of Sumak Kawsay, in a way, to bring justice to the perceptions of the indigenous nationalities of Ecuador that have previously been neglected in academia or politics. Yet, the explanation of Sumak Kawsay presented throughout this thesis is based on a Westernized perspective in spite of this concept being very critical of many of the Western/modern traditions. Regarding Buen Vivir on the other hand, the PNBV 2009- 2013 recognizes that the goal of the government is to construct a new “society of Buen Vivir”, that is derived from diverse epistemologies; thus, “we are no longer speaking about economic growth nor GDP; we are talking about relationships between human beings, nature, communitarian life, ancestors, the past and the future” (SENPLADES 2009: 32-3), instead of being directed by development’s one-sided perspective of history. Additionally, “Buen vivir is built on a rich diversity of ontologies and teleologies united in the creation of an alternative to hegemonic visions of development” (Calisto Friant and Langmore 2015: 64).

Hence, given the theoretical departing point of this thesis, I consider that it is important to make use of the ontologies and epistemologies derived from the West regarding post-development, post-colonialism and post-modernity, since all three represent the Western perspectives that inspire the origin of Buen Vivir as a political concept that would be adopted by the government as its reason for being. Nevertheless, we must also look at the Southern epistemologies and ontologies for this thesis, drawn from the “indigenous knowledge” that contrasts the “scientific knowledge” from the West, notably represented in Sumak Kawsay. Indeed, the use of “indigenous knowledge” for this thesis is relevant, since it “has permitted its holders to exist in ‘harmony’ with nature, using it sustainably” (Agrawal 1994: 1), denoting the principles promoted by Sumak Kawsay.

For the purpose of studying Sumak Kawsay, I have chosen to take an indigenous perspective; however, I am not able to research from an indigenous paradigm since my own background is distant to the knowledge transmitted in indigenous communities. Yet, throughout this thesis, I do my best to employ an

indigenous paradigm of research, even if the dominant research paradigms are from a Eurocentric perspective. As such, through the use of an indigenous paradigm, I was able to better comprehend the systems of knowledge of indigenous peoples, which are constructed in a relational understanding of knowledge, meaning that these “are built on the relationships [they] have, not just with people or objects, but relationships that we have with […] everything around us” (Wilson 2001: 176).

I consider that the appropriation of indigenous concepts in the case of Ecuador – notably of Sumak Kawsay and translating it into Buen Vivir – also led me to base this research on an indigenous paradigm, since, as a researcher, I wish to reduce in academia. This is why I believe that by using such a paradigm, I will be able to translate the indigenous knowledge transmitted in the communities of Ecuador while also recognizing its importance and validity. Thus, the choice of such a paradigm confirms the use of qualitative methods during research, as explained in the following section.

Methodology

A transformative research design was employed through the use of diverse qualitative methods in order to “help address injustices or bring about change for an underrepresented or marginalized group” (Cresswell and Plano Clark, 2011: 194), in this case the indigenous populations of Ecuador whose concept of Sumak Kawsay differs from the government’s term of Buen Vivir. I used a combination of purposive and convenient sampling to obtain interviews from scholars, government officials and indigenous people that are experts on the topic. As such, data was collected both concurrently as well as sequentially. The chosen methodology benefits the analysis of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay by regarding the participants of these paradigms such as government officials and indigenous people, without disregarding the academics that have contributed to the debate on these issues; indeed, regarding sampling selection, Cresswell and Plano Clark confirm that “[these] sampling strategies that improve the inclusiveness of the sample to increase the probability that traditionally marginalized groups are adequately and accurately represented” (2011: 195).

Methods

For this research, I used a mixed method approach consisting of in-depth interviews and policy analysis as well as an extensive literature review of secondary sources, ranging from academic articles to opinion columns in blogs and newspapers. The purpose of employing these methods was to analyze the discourse of Buen Vivir managed by the government and the discourse of Sumak Kawsay used by the indigenous populations. Eleven in-depth interviews were made with scholars, government officials and indigenous leaders in order to contrast their views of what Buen Vivir is, how it differs from Sumak Kawsay, and how both are being implemented on a day-to-day basis.

Although there are several policies inscribed in the Buen Vivir framework, I focused on the planning strategies that the government has in order to enforce Buen Vivir as a national development policy. For the purpose of this research, the National Plan of Development 2007-2010 and the National Plan of Buen Vivir 2009-2013 and 2013-2017 were analyzed in order to see the evolution of Buen Vivir throughout the eight years of President Correa’s government. Additionally, the ruling political party, Alianza País’s government plans of 2006-2011 and 2013-2017 were also taken into consideration in order to comprehend the evolution of the government’s discourse on Buen Vivir.

The use of these methods contributes to filling in the knowledge gap that exists in development literature on this particular topic. Indeed, the interviews with indigenous people and the revision of literature by indigenous scholars contribute to bringing to the table their own understanding of Sumak Kawsay in order to contrast it to the more recognized concept of Buen Vivir. Yet, although there are only two interviews with government officials, the analysis of policy documents contribute to the triangulation of their perspectives on Buen Vivir.

After the data was collected through the methods mentioned above, it was analyzed through thematic coding given its qualitative nature. Based on the spiral of analysis proposed by Boeije (2010: 90), the data was analyzed through open, axial and selective coding. For instance, the interviews were studied firstly through open coding by segmenting the data and coming up with a list of codes. Then, the axial coding

allowed for describing the categories under which the codes emerged. Finally, the selective coding process allowed reassembling the codes into a conceptual scheme for obtaining the results. The process was based on a step-by-step approach in order to ensure the data obtained in the interviews did not get lost in the analysis; this further contributed to ensure the quality of the findings for the research by maintaining the information from respondents without becoming tangled with my own interpretations of the findings.

The data obtained from the interviews was analyzed through coding processes that helped obtain the findings presented in this chapter. Additionally, policy analysis was carried out to study how the PNBV strategies have contributed to the evolution and implementation of Buen Vivir in the country by the national government. As such, the chapter on data analysis will explain the findings obtained through the employed methods during research. Moreover, to ensure the quality of the findings gathered in the upcoming chapter, the information will be supported with existing literature on Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay. Additionally, as an ethical consideration, I will not make use of the name of the people I interviewed, but I will rather reference them by their initials and the date of the interview – i.e. interview AO, 14-July-2015.

Given that this was a qualitative research, I have tried to implement the criteria established by Bryman (2012: 149-153) by making sure that the research is reliable and valid. In the end, the parameters established contribute to ensuring the reliability of study by making it replicable, and to guaranteeing the diverse perspectives of the respondents that were interviewed throughout the research. Regardless, I would argue that the findings of this thesis could not necessarily be generalized in other contexts since the case of Ecuador is particular due to its multiethnic, plurinational and intercultural background. Moreover, the views portrayed through Sumak Kawsay only respond to the peoples from the Kichwa nationality but may differ from the perspectives from other ethnic groups in Ecuador or other countries with native populations, such as Bolivia.

Moreover, during research I encountered some limitations, notably reaching out to respondents that were available. Indeed, although I only obtained eleven interviews, I

consider that these were enough to represent the diverse perspectives around the debate of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay at the national level. Additionally, I believe it is possible to say that there was a saturation of information received from the respondents after a certain point, since respondents were saying things similar to what had previously come up in other interviews; yet, given the different backgrounds of the interviewees, they still contributed with valuable information from their own points of view. Regardless, in order to validate the information gathered, I employed other methods, such as policy analysis and secondary sources in order to triangulate the findings from the interviews, ensuring the quality and consistency of the information.

I further believe that one of the limitations during research was not having a local supervisor that could help as a gatekeeper, be it to reach out to government officials or leaders of indigenous communities. What is more, although I was able to talk to indigenous leaders in Spanish, I consider that maybe there are rich concepts in Kichwa – or other indigenous languages – that may not necessarily be translated into Spanish and English. Thus, I regard the inability to properly translate some of these values and principles as one of the limitations in bringing these knowledges into an academic debate that is based on Western thinking.

Having explained the methodology followed during research, the following chapters will address the context of the country and the findings gathered during the data analysis. Hence, this will ensure a better understanding of the context under which Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay rose to importance in the country; then, the reader will be prepared to understand the data obtained through the analysis processes, data that will help answer the main questions of this research.

4. Empirical context

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the Ecuadorian context that led to the rise of the concepts of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay in order to situate both concepts into their practical applications. By making clear the historical, social, and economic context of the country, it will be easy to understand the rise of both concepts not only in theory but also in a practical manner.

Two hundred years after the independence from Spain, the Ecuadorian society still maintains certain colonial elements; for instance, the majority of the population is Catholic, the official language is Spanish and there are still remainders of racism towards the indigenous populations. Indeed, it was not until 1990 that the indigenous communities of Ecuador were taken into account into the public affairs following a massive uprising that helped the indigenous communities become visible. This was thanks to a political proposal that was based on the concepts of nationality, autonomy and the call for a new, plurinational state. According to Luis Macas, one of the leaders of this movement, this uprising took place against injustice, promoting a plentiful life and the self-determination of ten indigenous nationalities fighting for their historical rights (1991: 17). Moreover, the emergence of the indigenous movement parallels the timeline regarding the 169th Convention of the International Labour Organization concerning the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, adopted in 1989 and put into practice in 1991 (ILO 1989).

One of the consequences of this uprising was the creation of several indigenous associations, the most prominent being the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), particularly as a political actor to guarantee the rights of Ecuador’s indigenous populations (Macas, 1991: 24). Additionally, this also marked the beginning of the political participation of indigenous communities through the Pachakutik political party. The success of this uprising also led to the recognition of Ecuador as multidiverse in the National Constitution of 1998, as well as the inclusion, for the first time, of the notions of pluriculturality and multiethnicity (Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, 1998).

After a period of political instability in the country, Rafael Correa was elected as president of Ecuador in 2006; Correa’s political party, Movimiento Alianza País had a refreshing proposal was based on deep criticism towards neoliberal policies that have driven the country to an economic crisis in 1999. Diverse political groups supported him during the election process and the beginning of his rule as president, among them CONAIE, although only after the second round (Schavelzon 2015: 45). Correa later pushed for a reform of the 1998 Constitution, and through the establishment of a constitutional assembly, the new Constitution was finally adopted in 2008. The majority of lawmakers of the constitutional assembly belonged to the president’s political party, and nowadays they still hold the majority of seats in the National Assembly.

The new Constitution for the country was very innovative in two main ways. The first one corresponds to inclusion of the concept of Buen Vivir as a central element of the national framework based on the indigenous movements’ political proposal. In fact, the preamble of the 2008 Constitution states that the sovereign people of Ecuador decide to construct a new way of coexistence, in diversity and harmony with nature in order to achieve Buen Vivir, Sumak Kawsay (Asamblea Nacional, 2008). Both terms are used interchangeably throughout the entire charter and are mentioned over twenty times, acknowledging the importance of a shift towards a new understanding of coexistence among society and their natural environment; however, as stated in the introduction of this thesis, both concepts do not mean the same, and this will be further explained in the following sections. Regardless, after the Constitution was adopted in 2008, “CONAIE and other indigenous confederation left President Correa’s coalition government, pointing to the government’s retreat from key plurinational and intercultural measures in political discourse and practice” (Radcliffe 2012: 246).

The second great innovative aspect of the national constitution is the inclusion of the Rights of Nature, calling for respect of the environment as well as a sustainable management of the natural resources of the country. Indeed, according to the Constitution, “Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and realized has the right to full respect for its existence and maintenance and the regeneration of its natural cycles, structure, function, and evolutionary processes” (Article 171, translated by Radcliffe 2012: 244). The inclusion of these aspects into the constitution is also deeply 31

interrelated to food and energy sovereignty, as well as interculturality and plurinationality, which serve as important elements to recognize the diversity in the Ecuadorian society; in fact, the approaches for an intercultural and plurinational state are also drawn from CONAIE’s proposal of 2007 and are central to the discourse managed by the indigenous movement. Nonetheless, after withdrawing its support for the president, the indigenous movements “[blamed] the government with selective and limited interpretations of key concepts of plurinationalism, interculturalism and indeed Sumak Kawsay” in the Constitution (Radcliffe 2012: 246). Regardless, the president of the constitutional assembly and former member of Alianza País, Alberto Acosta, argues that this Constitution is not an end, but a starting point in order to construct a sustainable country in all aspects (Acosta, 2009: 19). As it can be seen, “the new Constitution has innovative principles, concepts, categories and paradigms that shape an alternative model of historical development” (Quintero, 2009: 80).

One of the trademarks of the 2007 proposal by President Correa was the promotion of the Yasuní-ITT initiative. The Yasuní National Park is considered one of the most biodiverse locations of the planet; as such, this initiative consisted of maintaining the national park free from petroleum extractive activities by establishing a trust fund to avoid oil exploration, particularly in the Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini (ITT) blocs (Amazon Watch, nd). Nationally, this was followed by the support from various environmental activists. Internationally, this initiative drew much interest, particularly from industrialized countries such as Germany. Nonetheless, in August 2013, President Correa announced the decision to extract oil from the reserve. This has also contributed to the clashes between indigenous movements given that there are two indigenous groups in voluntary isolation in the Yasuní territory, the Taromenane and Tagaeri, which would become the most affected groups due to extractive activities in the region.

The presidential decision to extract oil from the ITT blocs was later reinforced by the National Assembly. Some environmental activists argue that this represents a clear contradiction with the Rights of Nature stipulated in the Constitution, leading these people to become critics of the government under the opposition, alongside with the indigenous movement (Becker, 2013). Additionally, Schavelzon argues that this decision made clear, from then onwards, the “ambiguity and double discourse regarding 32

development as well as the rights of indigenous groups and the rights of nature” (2015: 65).

President Correa’s popularity has allowed him to be reelected twice after the amendment of the Constitution, meaning that he will stay in power until 2017. This has permitted a period of political stability in the country that is very well regarded by many Ecuadorians. Yet, he has also been criticized by the citizens of Ecuador, among them the indigenous confederations that had initially supported him, due to the ways he manages the country, notably because of “jailing or initiating judicial persecutions of indigenous people, accused of terrorism and sabotage after protests that sought to protect their territories from opencast mining projects” (Schavelzon 2015: 46). The Ecuadorian state has also created several new institutions based on their proposal to restructure the state (Alianza País, 2007: 21), among these is the National Secretariat for Planning and Development (SENPLADES due to its name in Spanish), which under the constitutional mandate of the regime of development is in charge of the creation of planning strategies for the achievement of Buen Vivir for all the citizens. For instance, Walsh mentions that, “in the 2008 Constitution of Ecuador, this new regimen is defined as the organized, sustainable, and dynamic ensemble of economic, political, socio- cultural, ad environmental systems that guarantee the realization of Buen Vivir” (2010: 15). As such, SENPLADES is in charge of drafting the national development strategies named the National Plan of Buen Vivir; these four-year-plans have had two editions, 2009-2013 and 2013-2017. These plans not only analyze the foundations of Buen Vivir, but they also set a series of objectives and strategies to achieve Buen Vivir as the ultimate goal from the government (Aylwin 2013: 180).

The Ecuadorian economy has always depended on the exports of natural resources. Since the 1970s, the main product of exportation is crude oil, but also products such as bananas, cacao and shrimp. By understanding that Ecuador’s economy has been based on the exploitation and exportation of natural resources, then we can understand how Buen Vivir contests the economic activities of the country by promoting another type of economy. In fact, the PNBV 2013-2017 stipulates that one of the main objectives for the development of the country is to transform the productive workforce. Yet, one of the major challenges of the country is replacing the mining and 33

petroleum industries under which the state has become economically dependent given the large utilities received from selling these products. Moreover, the petroleum and mining industries of Ecuador are incompatible with Sumak Kawsay since these economic activities call for the destruction of nature for the sake of economic profit.

Additionally, given that Buen Vivir is a central element of the public policies created and enforced by the government of President Correa, in June 2013 he created a Secretariat for the Construction of the Society of Buen Vivir (SBV), which is supposed to promote public policies that allow the government and the citizens of Ecuador to work together in order to achieve a society of Buen Vivir based on happiness, conscious living, and in general, for Ecuadorians to carry a plentiful life through the promotion of public policies aimed at the practice of Buen Vivir in a national and international level (SBV, nd). One of the latest activities of SBV is the creation of indicators to measure Buen Vivir along the National Institute of Statistics (INEC, 2015).

It is well known that President Correa manages a discourse against the failures of savage capitalism and neoliberal practices; as such, the government aims to end poverty and reduce inequalities caused by the mismanagement of the economic and political spheres of the country in past regimes. Throughout this strategy, the government has taken advantage of the significance of Buen Vivir since the government apparatus is able to manage a biased vision of what Buen Vivir is and how it should be enforced. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that there are several indigenous communities that put in practice Sumak Kawsay differently and whose perspectives are not always taken into account in the broader national picture.

Having understood the Ecuadorian context will now allow the reader to better understand how the notions of Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir rose to prominence in the political and social arenas of Ecuador. As such, the next chapter will address the evolution of both concepts and the way these are being implemented by different actors – notably the indigenous movement and the national government – on a day-today basis in Ecuador.

5. Data analysis and findings

This chapter analyzes the data encountered during the research process. Hence, the first two sections here present the findings that help identify how Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are being implemented on a day-to-day basis by the government and the indigenous communities of Ecuador; in the case of Buen Vivir through an evaluation of the planning strategies of the national government; and for Sumak Kawsay, through its implementation through the traditional practices of indigenous communities. Furthermore, the final section deals with the contributions of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay to the debate of development, as well as their challenges as some of the new alternatives that are rising from the South.

Buen Vivir as an axis of public policy in Ecuador

Buen Vivir is planned, it is not improvised. Buen Vivir is the way of life that allows happiness and permanence of cultural and environmental diversity; it is harmony, equality, equity and solidarity. It does not seek opulence nor infinite economic growth (SENPLADES 2013: 12) In this section, I will firstly address the evolution of Buen Vivir as understood by the government by presenting the analysis of the two editions of PNBV as well as presenting how the concept has evolved according to the government plans of the ruling party, Alianza País. However, it is important to note that although the political proposals of the party are not actual policies, these guidelines shape the actions followed by the government. Then, I will include the findings obtained through the analysis of the interviews made in order to see how the concept has changed and how it has been implemented in practice regardless of the development plans. The analysis of Buen Vivir will also be linked with some of the revised literature to support the quality of the findings presented below.

The first policy approximation to Buen Vivir comes from the proposal from the Alianza País political party for 2007-2010. Yet, even if Buen Vivir is never explicitly mentioned as the axis of policies to be framed under the government, they already see it as a goal to be attained through action lines that would later inspire other policies such as the National Development Plan 2007-2010. The political proposal already demonstrates a close link to human development approaches, by seeking “to apply 35

public policies to build an equal society in diversity, in order to enhance human capabilities and development opportunities for all citizens” (Alianza País 2007: 11). This proposal further seeks to implement a harmonious living with nature to guarantee a good life for everyone, as well as promoting practices such as the minga11; as such, we may say that even if Buen Vivir is mostly absent of this proposal, the values drawn from indigenous perspectives, as well as alternatives of development, are already present and inspire, in a way, the lines to be taken by the government ever since.

The National Development Plan 2007-2010 is based on the proposal of Alianza País, promoting several changes based on the goals of the Citizens Revolution of President Correa. Indeed, this plan takes this plan as the framework that “proposes an alternative and democratic agenda for the sustainable and equal development of Ecuador” (SENPLADES 2007: 5). As with the previous document, Buen Vivir is not the central axis of this policy since it was not yet included in the Constitution as the main element of public policy and planning strategies. However, the Plan already challenges classic development by proposing Buen Vivir as a goal, “to be attained with the extension of liberties, opportunities and potentialities of human beings and the recognition of each other for a shared future” (SENPLADES 2007: 6).

Additionally, the National Development Plan 2007-2010 already tries to break the classic understanding of development, becoming “an instrument to redirect towards a new development strategy that is efficiently inclusive and empowering, allowing the country to imagine a future as a just, democratic, and sovereign nation” (SENPLADES 2007: 41). This Plan already embodies one of the proposals of the official Buen Vivir that was to be included in the Constitution by 2008, by seeking to reconceptualize development and to break the neoliberal cycle that Ecuador had been following in the previous decades through the promotion of a harmonious lifestyle between people and nature. Moreover, according to Rowlands, the Constitution has tried to “integrate the indigenous peoples’ worldviews, which is a representation of interculturality […]

11 Please refer to footnote number seven 36

However, this has been contradicted by the conflicts present in the indigenous territories, challenging the real impact of this declarations” (2013: 83-4), leading to a contradiction between the discourse promoted by the government and the practical applications of such statements.

According to SENPLADES, “[the] Ecuadorian Constitution exceeds the reductionist vision of development as economic growth and establishes a new vision in which the center of development is the human being and the ultimate objective is to achieve Sumak Kawsay or Buen Vivir” (2009: 43). As explained previously, although the Charter uses both concepts of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay as synonyms, they carry different meanings when applied; nonetheless, Buen Vivir is included in the Constitution as the axis through which all the rights and State’s duties are established, among these the right of nature, the collective rights of the indigenous communities, and the planning strategies regime to achieve development in the name of Buen Vivir. Moreover, Ramírez Gallegos defines that as the axis of the Constitution, Buen Vivir is not only based in possessions, “but also in ‘being’, ‘doing’, and ‘feeling’, living in fullness”, demonstrating that Buen Vivir is based on a holistic paradigm of action (2010: 61).

After the Constitution was established, the National Plan of Development was renamed as the National Plan of Buen Vivir (PNBV) 2009-2013. This four-year plan was the first public policy directed towards development that had included Buen Vivir as its main goal. This plan is created by following the proposal of Alianza País as the previous development plan did. In the end, this plan’s significance is that it presents a “conceptual rupture promoted by the Washington Consensus and the orthodox approximations to the concept of development” (SENPLADES 2009: 10); then, this strategy includes certain ethical considerations in order to promote social and economic justice, democratic and participative justice, intergenerational and interpersonal justice, transnational justice and impartiality justice (SENPLADES 2009: 10). Additionally, there is a call for recognizing, understanding and valuing each other’s differences as equals, “to promote the possibility of reciprocity and mutual recognition and allowing the self- realization of everyone for the construction of a social and shared future” (SENPLADES 2009: 10).

Even though the Plan calls for a “conceptual rupture” of mainstream development, the government seeks to achieve Buen Vivir “through the reaping the benefits from development” (SENPLADES 2009: 43), which can be regarded as the benefits of the economic system that is implemented in the country. Nonetheless, PNBV 2009-2013 also recognizes that elements from the human and sustainable development approaches are means to achieve Buen Vivir, for example, the importance of capabilities. Moreover, out of the twelve objectives proposed, most of them were related to classic development or development alternatives, such as the second objective, which seeks to improve the capabilities and potentialities of the citizens, or the third objective, which seeks to improve citizens’ quality of life. Nevertheless, there is also an objective that calls for strengthening national identity and the diverse identities, plurinationality and interculturality. Finally, although the PNBV 2009-2013 mentions the need to move towards a post-extractivist economy, it still seeks new ways of wealth accumulation for its (re)distribution, calling for a reconfiguration of the economy of the country, which has not taken place. According to AA, this version of the Plan still contains certain elements of Buen Vivir similar to its original meaning based on Sumak Kawsay since it calls for a strengthening of the diverse identities in the country and for a change in the economy to leave extractivism behind; however, the following – and current – version, PNBV 2013-2017, has lost track of the meaning and use of Buen Vivir (interview, 18-June-2015).

In 2013 Rafael Correa was elected for a third presidential term. In that year, his political party drafted a new proposal “for the socialism of Buen Vivir” (Alianza País, 2013). In this document, we notice the first rupture with the concept of Buen Vivir that was being used by the government up to that point, noting that, “the Citizens Revolution builds a radical process of change in order to create the socialism of Buen Vivir or Sumak Kawsay, an inclusive, solidary and fair society [;] promoting freedom based on justice, democracy, peace, and equal relationships towards the common good” (2013: 13). We notice then how the shift has gone from promoting a harmonious

lifestyle with society and nature towards a societal change based on the political ideology of the government – in this case, Socialism of XXI century12. This notion of Socialism of Buen Vivir was already present in Ramírez Gallegos’ work, which defines it as a republican biosocialism (2010: 61), based on a biocentric ethic.

According to this political proposal, the socialism of Buen Vivir is identified with the achievement of common good and happiness for every citizen, “which is not attained through the accumulation of wealth nor with excessive consumption of goods, but through the maximum use of personal and collective capabilities existing within a democratic State and an active citizenship” (Alianza País 2013: 36). Thus, the party conceives Buen Vivir as an objective based on life in common “to achieve dignity and happiness that everyone in this planet deserves” (ibid). Here, we already notice the absence of the relationship with nature, which was a pivotal element in the Constitution. Regardless, the influence of human development theory is still present through the search of increasing and improving citizens’ capabilities.

The current PNBV 2013-2017 also includes some of the principles from this political proposal, notably the concept of socialism of Buen Vivir. Yet, the Plan does not promote Buen Vivir as an alternative to classic Western development since it argues that it is framed in a wider understanding of what progress means; “it is not a new development paradigm, but rather a social alternative that promotes other priorities for social organization beyond economic growth implicit in the development paradigm” (SENPLADES 2013: 14). Indeed, here we are able to see how Buen Vivir is translated as a civilizational change beyond development, proposing social alternatives based on the government’s view of the society of Buen Vivir.

12 Socialism of XXI century or Socialismo del siglo XXI in Spanish refers to the political ideology followed by the leftist governments of Latin America, among them Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. It is based on the struggles of the Latin-American peoples against neoliberalism, seeking the construction of a freer society, beyond economic formulas (Borón 2010: 111). Borón adds that this new socialism is based on the collective property of production means, along with a democratization of all the spheres of social life (2010: 112) 39

Additionally, among PNBV 2013-2017 objectives we find the respect for nature’s rights, promoting territorial and global sustainability. Regardless, the government has made concessions with mining and oil companies, which put in danger not only the environment and biodiversity, but also the rights of indigenous peoples. According to MS, through the extractive industry, there is a rupture of the concept of Buen Vivir, since extractivist practices go against life in all its forms; “this industry calls for the destruction of the natural environment, [of the destruction] of the jungles and forests destroying the great reserves of biodiversity, which ultimately violate the collective rights of the indigenous peoples that live in the affected regions” (interview, 18-August-2015).

Finally, through the establishment of SBV as the governmental institution in charge of promoting the concept and of defining public policies directed to it, Buen Vivir has become a synonym of happiness and wellbeing. Indeed, FE describes that Buen Vivir can also be understood as happiness (interview, 22-July-2015), which is also a recurrent element in PNBV 2013-201713. According to Calisto Friant and Langmore, “Buen Vivir is conceptualized under a vision of happiness that reaches beyond the material accumulation and individualism typically endorsed by capitalism” (2015: 65). Indeed, RM argues that Buen Vivir breaks a cultural barrier set by capitalism, by challenging the consumerism model in which we believe that we are happy as far as we possess things (interview, 22-July-2015). However, the understanding of “happiness” already embodies a dialogue with modern and Western theories, for example wellbeing theories, which addresses the subjective aspects that SBV is trying to promote through practices of mindfulness (FE interview, 22-July-2015), which has become a popular practice in the past years in the West. Although the creation of this entity seeks to promote the concept and to create public policies to construct a society of Buen Vivir, up to now there have been no concrete results.

13 “[Buen Vivir] strengthens social cohesion, communitarian values and the active participations of individuals and collectivities in the relevant decisions regarding the construction of their own fate and happiness” (SENPLADES 2013: 19). 40

According to AA, Buen Vivir has been reinterpreted by the government through a neo-developmentalist14 logic in the PNBV 2013-2017 and manipulated it through the construction of SBV (interview, 18-June-2015). On the other hand, AK argues that creating useless institutions (referring to SBV) by spending money is certainly not Buen Vivir (interview, 27-July-2015). Although the government of Ecuador has increased in 300% its social spending for the creation of schools, hospitals and infrastructure (El Telégrafo 27-September-2015), the fact that the government also spends in the creation of institutions such as SBV – which does not have any concrete results until now – draws much criticism.

Thus, in spite of Buen Vivir being derived from the indigenous principles of Sumak Kawsay, there is a certain deviation from its original concept. Even if the Constitution includes the recognition and respect of the indigenous identities and collective rights, the rights of Nature, and the concepts of plurinationality and interculturality, the policies promoted by the government clash with the national charter and the organic principles of Sumak Kawsay. For instance, although Buen Vivir is the axis of public policies in Ecuador, there are reasons to believe that this does not work in practice. As put by Radcliffe, “Ecuador faces the challenge of establishing a plurinational-intercultural state in which social, civil and nature’s rights have precedence over the elite and private capitalist interests that have prevailed for 200 years” (2012: 248).

Moreover, the challenge mentioned by Radcliffe is even greater when we see that this leftist government has continued to use the concept of Buen Vivir, but Buen Vivir has merely been implemented as the center line of strategic planning for

14 Ban defines “neo-developmentalism” or “liberal neo-developmentalism” as “a new form of state activism. Its core is a national capitalist development program meant to guide the transition of developing countries away from the Washington Consensus. The main aim of this program of national capitalist development is the achievement of full employment in conditions of price and financial stability” (2012: 3). Although he refers explicitly to the case of Brazil, I consider neo-developmentalism for this thesis since it summarizes some of the actions taken by the Ecuadorian government; for instance, while moving away from the Washington Consensus neoliberal policies, the government still embraces many of the classic development proposals, such as the extraction of natural resources for the sake of a better performance in the international economy. 41

development at a national level after nine years in the government, meaning that the Ecuadorian state has yet to succeed in achieving Buen Vivir as its main goal. Regardless, Bretón Solo de Zaldívar considers that, “the discourse of Buen Vivir is becoming a device of power [based on] a rhetoric that has served to build an essentialized and static image of the Andean-Amazonian cultures” (2013: 73), separating the concept of Buen Vivir from Sumak Kawsay and appropriating Buen Vivir as an expression used by the government for its benefit.

Although the government calls for an end to neoliberalism and exalts the notion of sovereignty, it is possible to say that it implements neocolonial practices15 , meaning that “under the pretext of economic, educative, political […] inclusion and participation, [vulnerable populations] end up being absorbed by the State’s system” (Oviedo Freire 2011: 202). This becomes evident in the case of the appropriation of Buen Vivir, disregarding the importance Sumak Kawsay carries for the indigenous movement. One of the actions of the government in these past nine years has been the construction of mega-infrastructure projects, notably highways and schools. However, such projects “contribute to the acceleration of [neo]colonization and acculturation practices, as well as hasting the extraction of natural resources” (interview AK, 27-July-2015).

Regarding the infrastructure of the “Millennium schools”, AK argues that they represent “a rupture with the aesthetics of nature and of indigenous peoples, since the physical aspect [of the schools] also accounts for the violation of their cultural identities” (ibid). Moreover, in education, the recent elimination of communitarian schools based on an intercultural bilingual education since 2013 demonstrate how the national curriculum is being imposed over the languages and traditions of the indigenous peoples, clearly violating the principles of Sumak Kawsay of these communities. For this, AK argues that there is little understanding of the education forms of the

15 Neocolonialism is usually associated to a geopolitical connotation, describing “the different ways used by industrialized countries to continue dominating their former colonies […] not only [through] the political control, but mainly to the economic, social and cultural strategies implemented by those countries, to continue controlling their former colonies” (Permanent Working Group on Alternatives to Development 2013: 191-2). However, in this thesis I employ the term as employed by Oviedo Freire, who also employs the term as a form of neo-civilizing the indigenous, particularly regarding their knowledge. 42

indigenous peoples; instead, he proposes using these forms of educations as complementary to the national teaching methods in order to avoid a homogenizing system of education (ibid). This is in conflict with Buen Vivir, and more clearly Sumak Kawsay, since these are based on post-colonial stances that criticize the oppression that the indigenous peoples endured due to colonialism.

Concerning the Rights of Nature incorporated in the Constitution, these have not been fully respected by the government. According to AK, the government enjoys power and commodities that come from the exploitation of natural resources (interview, 27-July-2015). In spite of the fact that most of the oil reserves in the country are located in traditional indigenous territories, AK states that these indigenous communities have barely benefited from the utilities from these resources 16 (ibid). However, it is also important to remember that in the first National Development Plan 2007-2010, the goal was to become a post-petroleum economy due to its high impact in the natural patrimony of the country (SENPLADES 2007:42), which until 2015 has not been held. Moreover, it seems contradictory that, while many of the indigenous communities have suffered from the effects of extractivism – particularly regarding the pollution and abuse of their territories – they still seek to employ oil extraction in order to collect utilities from these resources, leaving aside the environmental and social impacts that these activities cause.

While including the notions of liberties, opportunities and potentialities, the understanding of Buen Vivir for the government already drift apart from the indigenous understanding of Sumak Kawsay. Simbaña considers that for the government, Buen Vivir “would be reduced to a mere redistribution of the benefits from development, but not necessarily to change the model nor destroying the real structures that hold [classic development]” (2012: 223). As such, this demonstrates how Buen Vivir is being

16 In 1992, the National Congress of Ecuador set up a law, Ley 010, which sought to redistribute the utilities from oil extraction. Initially, the law distributed USD $0.06 cents for every barrel; this law was amended in 2008 and set that for every barrel, USD $1.00 would be distributed to the indigenous communities through the Institute for the Amazon Development (ECORAE) (El Comercio, October 13, 2014). This law is currently under discussion, since prefects from the region are demanding that the government should increase the amount to 5% per barrel (El Comercio, February 2 2015). 43

questioned, whether it is merely being used in the national discourse of the government or if it really is put in practice on a day-to-day basis.

Moreover, the approach to Buen Vivir rarely takes into account perspectives outside that of the government. Instead of being an inclusive process where different viewpoints concur, Buen Vivir has become a technocratic tool of discourse employed by the government. This becomes evident not only through the high institutionalization of the concept – for example through SBV and SENPLADES – but also in the language managed in the policies and planning strategies for Buen Vivir. It is then possible to say that there has been an abuse of the concept of Buen Vivir, supporting the argument of scholars, who argue that it has become a mere tool of the government to advance its interests, as well as people that regard Buen Vivir as a simple “marketing tool” of the government, without proposing any real alternative to development (Fernández et al. 2014).

Even if a government official that was interviewed for this research argues that we need to create consciousness that nature is a subject of rights (interview FE, 22- July-2015), some of the laws derived from the State clearly violate this supposition. For instance, by allowing the exploitation in the Yasuní-ITT oil blocs, the extractivist activities would not only violate the rights of Nature on their own, but also the rights of the isolated indigenous communities that live in the area. This contradicts Article 57.7 of the Constitution, which states that the indigenous peoples have the right to be consulted regarding extractive activities in their territories, which may affect them culturally or environmentally; Article 57 also addresses the question regarding peoples in voluntary isolation, in whose territories “any extractive activity is forbidden” (Asamblea Constituyente, 2008).

The end of the Yasuní-ITT project thus provides evidence for the discourse change within the government. The political proposal of Alianza País 2013-2017 as well as the current PNBV established that the Yasuní-ITT initiative was a pillar for the government; yet, mere months after the elections of 2013, its exploitation was authorized. According to Rowlands, “the oil concessions in the Yasuní National Park have put in tension the applicability of the indigenous rights and of Pachamama, [since]

approximately 60 per cent of the Yasuní National Park, has been delivered in concession to transnational oil companies such as Texaco and Chevron” (2013: 84), putting in danger the Huaorani, Tagaeri and Taromenane nationalities that will be affected socially and environmentally for these activities. The lack of consultation processes for the indigenous groups close to Yasuní-ITT contradicts article seven of the 169th Convention of the International Labour Organization, which states that, “the peoples concerned shall have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development” (ILO 1989).

Additionally, bearing in mind that Buen Vivir is also the framework under which the State’s planning strategies for development are created, the analysis of the development plans of 2009-2013 and 2013-2017 allow us to study how the concept of Buen Vivir has evolved for the government as well as to understand how the government is incorporating Buen Vivir into practice. As put by a public servant who was interviewed, the government is not only approaching Buen Vivir through the Constitution, but also through laws that seek to promote dialogue with other actors, in topics such as the Rights of Nature, which would contribute to advancing the achievement of Buen Vivir (interview FE, 22-July-2015). However, one of the leaders of ECUARUNARI from the indigenous movement argues that some of the laws created by the government, such as the law on water and the law on lands, hinder directly the rights of the indigenous communities that are supposedly protected by the Constitution (interview CL, 24-July-2015).

As such, we may evidence how the concept of Buen Vivir has evolved throughout the nine years of government of President Correa. Moreover, as put by AK, “Buen Vivir promoted by the government does not correspond to the realities and expectations of the indigenous peoples [of Ecuador]” (interview, 27-July-2015), notably regarding the relationship with nature which is vital for the indigenous communities.

Regardless the controversy between what is stated in policy and in praxis, the concept of Buen Vivir is still being used in the discourse of the government and President Correa as a goal to be achieved17.

The evolution of Buen Vivir demonstrates not only a change in its original meaning – as stated in the Constitution – but also in the way it is being addressed by the government. While Buen Vivir initially promoted a civilizational change, it seems that currently it is directed to achieving the “socialism of Buen Vivir”. The relevance of this change demonstrates how the importance of a relationship with nature has been replaced by a proposal that challenges wealth accumulation and market domination. Indeed, this is represented by the constant criticism against capitalism and consumerism, arguing that Buen Vivir is diametrically opposed to such practices. This and similar arguments can be found in the television programs of SBV, whose goal is to promote examples of Buen Vivir at a national level (SBV 2014).

Moreover, the lack of results so far regarding Buen Vivir is not due to shortcomings in its content since it seeks a civilizational change and such a task takes time. These limitations are due to the inability to pass from the government’s discourse to practice. While the Constitution included the rights of Nature as an element closely linked to the realization of Buen Vivir, the government’s decision to continue with extractivism contradicts the proposal of Buen Vivir. A contradiction is also evident when the government considers development as the means of achieving Buen Vivir, especially since it is regarded in academia as an alternative to mainstream development. Such inconsistencies demonstrate the need for a real definition of Buen Vivir, not only for the political arena, but also for academia, leading to strong proposals that can be achieved without changing the meaning of the concept.

Sumak Kawsay: a call for a change in civilization

17 President Correa has promoted the concept of Buen Vivir nationally and internationally through speeches. One of his latest, in the 70th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, on September 28, 2015, he proposed as common objectives “Sumak Kawsay or the Buen Vivir of our ancestral peoples, which means living in dignity, satisfying basic needs, but in harmony with oneself, with other human beings, with other cultures, and in harmony with nature” (September 28 2015: 3-4). 46

In this section, I will address the goals proposed by Sumak Kawsay, notably to promote a civilizational change in Ecuador. To do so, I will also address the challenges that this philosophy encounters in the context of Ecuador to be fully implemented. Authors such as Martí I Puig et al. consider that the civilizational change is determined “from the proposal of indigenous world, which consists of a political, cultural and also economic alternative paradigm, based on ‘knowledge, social and cultural recognition, ethic and even spiritual codes of conduct in regard to society and nature, [among others]’” (2013: 9-10).

As Viteri Gualinga argues, in the indigenous communities the concept of development does not exist, so there is no dichotomy between “developed” and “underdeveloped” (2002: 1). Departing from this assumption, it is easier to understand that the proposal of Sumak Kawsay rises as a quest for a civilizational change based on a holistic perspective combining subjective and objective elements to improve life. Additionally, this proposal includes elements such as the relationship with nature, the importance of community and the significance of cultural identities, represented in the values and principles of the indigenous communities in order to achieve a fulfilled life. For instance, Pilataxi Lechón argues that Sumak Kawsay is based on the collective knowledges from the ayllus for the territorial, ecological, productive, cultural, social and spiritual management, creating integral conditions for a communitarian life (2014: 67).

Moreover, there is a strong association between indigenous knowledge and the relationship with nature of indigenous communities, translated into the guiding principles of Sumak Kawsay. BG argues that “the earth has everything [to provide; yet,] in the jungle we take advantage of this resources by using them in a natural way without destroying the environment” (interview, 18-August-2015). She further argues that nature, in the form of mountains or lagoons, has a natural spirit, contributing to the spiritual dimension referred to by academics and other interviewees. Indeed, the relationship with nature was a recurring element in the interviews, since AO mentioned that the respect for nature is derived from its personification: Mother Earth, Father Sun, and other “beings” are represented in a system based on integrality, one of the principles from Sumak Kawsay (interview 14-July-2015). Following these statements, we can consider Sumak Kawsay as an applied philosophy in the indigenous 47

communities given the implementation of their values and principles on a day-to-day basis, values that are the elements of the civilizational change proposed by Sumak Kawsay. Then, we can argue that civilizational change of Sumak Kawsay is based on the experience of these communities based on their knowledges and values.

Viteri Gualinga further states that the precision of Sumak Kawsay lays in the knowledge of the indigenous communities, which has been transmitted through generations, being able to transfer the values of these communities such as solidarity and reciprocity, which are still present in the practices such as the minga (2002: 2). Nonetheless, one of the challenges that Sumak Kawsay faces in the age of modernity is precisely maintaining the traditions and knowledges that have been passed from generation to generation in the indigenous communities in Ecuador. This challenge is of particular importance since, according to Guadinango Vinueza, the priorities of indigenous communities have changed so now the young generations have a different understanding of Sumak Kawsay than that of their parents and grandparents (2013: 225). Notwithstanding, many values and practices of Sumak Kawsay are still being practiced, such as the minga or ranti ranti18, which are embedded in the communal lives of the indigenous nationalities of Ecuador, and according to AA, these practices will be kept in the future (interview 18-June-2015).

Indeed, according to AO, many of these traditional values and practices from Sumak Kawsay are translated into the practices as a life system that emulates nature, understanding how nature works and adapting it to a human scale, contributing to nature instead of divorcing from it, forming a lifestyle integrated in nature and in harmony with the environment (interview 14-July-2015). Although Guadinango Vinueza argues that the new generations seek to break free from the indigenous traditions, some communities in the Amazon, notably Sarayaku, have kept these values and apply them today as part of their struggle against extractivism and the domination of their territories. In fact, BG, a member of Sarayaku, argues that they reject the classic notion

18 Please refer to footnote number seven 48

of poverty, saying that, “[people from our community] are not poor because we have clean air and clean water, which in the city would be impossible” (interview 18-August- 2015).

The fight against extractivism exemplifies the importance of nature for the indigenous communities, and thus, of Sumak Kawsay. AK mentions that “[the indigenous peoples] have developed a life experience that demonstrates that it is possible to live with dignity without destroying nature” (interview 27-July-2015). This demonstrates how Sumak Kawsay rejects extractivism and other practices that may harm the environment as opposed to the view of Buen Vivir, which seeks to employ the utilities obtained from the extraction of natural resources in order to improve the quality of life of citizens, “dignifying” their lives out of poverty according to the “socialism of Buen Vivir”. Instead, Pilataxi Lechón argues that to improve the quality of life without employing extractive practices, there should be a “social, communitarian, participative organization, auto-identified with its culture, established accordingly to its history, economically active, guided by Pacha Mama, maintaining the harmony with its ancestral territories in order to attain Sumak Kawsay” (2014: 128-9). This further exemplifies that communities such as San Pablo Urku, which Pilataxi is referring to, are economically active while respecting nature, contradicting the belief that the extraction of natural resources is needed in an indigenous community.

Following this line, there are proposals derived from Sumak Kawsay that would contribute to the economy without engaging in destructive activities for nature. Indeed, CL argues that through the strengthening of their cultural identities and territories, indigenous communities could engage in practices such as communitarian tourism19 (interview, 24-July-2015). However, any economic activity in which indigenous communities participate should recognize their identities, values and principles in order

19 Communitarian tourism is already being implemented in some indigenous communities throughout the Highlands and the Amazon regions of Ecuador. For instance, the Plurinational Federation of Communitarian Tourism of Ecuador (FETCE) seeks to improve the Buen Vivir of the indigenous communities through the sustainable management of their territories while also addressing their cultural identities (nd). Additionally, the concept can also be found in official documents from the government such as PNBV 2009-2013 and 2013-2017. 49

to maintain and respect Sumak Kawsay and enforce Buen Vivir, without detrimental effects, such as environmental pollution or the fragmentation of communities.

Regarding the developmentalist policies implemented in Ecuador since the 1960s, Pilataxi Lechón argues that, “development policies have penetrated through different channels to the interior of families and communities to disarticulate and disorganize them”, for example through migration from the rural to the urban areas and through urban growth of cities (2014: 69). For example, MS argues that the inhabitants of cities have lost their relationship with Mother Earth (interview, 18-August-2015), contributing to the loss of traditions and culture from the indigenous people. This may further explain the reason why Sumak Kawsay seeks to counter neoliberalism and classic development by promoting a new lifestyle based in harmony and equilibrium with nature.

One of the most interesting findings is that in order to maintain their identities and values, the indigenous people call for an inclusive education curriculum so that the values promoted by the communities contribute to strengthen the indigenous cultural identities. According to Article 45 of the Constitution, children are guaranteed to receive an education “in their languages and the cultural contexts of their own peoples and nationalities” (Asamblea Constituyente, 2008). Yet, as previously stated in this thesis, “the curriculum [of indigenous children] is undermined by the national educational curriculum” where there is an acceleration of the acculturation and neocolonial processes (interview AK 27-July-2015). This not only violates the rights of indigenous children established in the Constitution, but it also contradicts the struggle of the indigenous peoples of the country, who have fought in the last decades for the eradication of colonial processes.

The role of education in the civilizational change proposed by Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir is definitely crucial. “If children grow with education here and everywhere else, they would not have to harm nature, because nature would be sacred, and children would thus enjoy a full natural environment” (interview FE, 22-July-2015). Thus, education is a useful approach not only to transmit the knowledge of elders in indigenous communities, but also there would be a holistic understanding of how we

should address nature and resources, recognizing the importance of the environment and recognizing the cultural identities of the peoples. Indeed, MS contributes by saying that, “we need to promote indigenous knowledge [through education] as a model of science”, particularly regarding to the accurate management and protection of natural resources (interview 18-August-2015).

Despite the fact that Sumak Kawsay is used as a synonym for Buen Vivir in the government’s discourse, this research found that there is little to no evidence of this indigenous concept being fully incorporated in the national policies. In fact, the policies regarding Buen Vivir have ignored the principles and values of Sumak Kawsay that are already being implemented in the indigenous communities without necessity of being included in the local laws. For instance, the policies of Buen Vivir seek to address the inequalities between the population, as well as enhancing their quality of life without taking into account the practices based on reciprocity or complementarity that are found in indigenous communities. Also, Buen Vivir seeks to improve individual as well as communal well-being, although the role of community is an important basis of the civilizational change promoted by Sumak Kawsay. Thus, “it is possible to question in what measure it is possible to employ an indigenous cultural conception within a Western state structure with a developmentalist economy based on the extraction of natural resources” (Rowlands 2013: 94)

On the contrary, while Buen Vivir has not included perspectives outside of the official viewpoint of the government, Sumak Kawsay draws from a heterogeneous set of values and elements, regarding the particular context of the actors that participate in this proposal (interview DC, 17-August-2015). Recognizing such differences are important, since these strengthen the ways in which Sumak Kawsay evolves as an alternative to development. For instance, MS talks about the importance of women in the community of Sarayaku, where they are part of an unbreakable relationship with the rest of the community and with the nature surrounding them as based on the principle of duality of Sumak Kawsay (interview 18-August-2015).

Sumak Kawsay does not only adopt viewpoints from different perspectives into its discussion, but the recognition of such worldviews also strengthens the construction

of a plurinational and intercultural State. The goal of the Plurinational State “is to integrate, in State policies, all the cultural diversities existing in the [national] territory, displacing the notion of a monocultural State” (Guadinango Vinueza 2014: 215-6). Regardless, the inclusion of plurinationality in the Constitution is regarded as mere discourse that has not been respected, as is the case with other notions, such as the Rights of Nature (interview AK, 27-July-2015).

Contributions of Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir to the development debate

Firstly, we must recognize that Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are inscribed in the post-development framework and present an alternative to development. Yet, while Buen Vivir in theory seeks to break free from the classical notions associated with development, it becomes on its own a form of development alternative that accepts the structure of classic development in order to achieve a better quality of life for the citizens of Ecuador. On the other hand, Sumak Kawsay truly represents an alternative to classic development since it “generates other conceptual frameworks departing from the ideological departure [of development], exploring other social, economic and political orders from what we call development” (Gudynas 2012: 42).

The fact that Sumak Kawsay comes from the Andean indigenous worldview already demonstrates that it challenges modernity and colonial thought. Moreover, as put by Simbaña, “Sumak Kawsay does not depend on economic development, as supposed by capitalism, nor by economic growth required by neoliberalism, but it does not depend from extractivism but rather the defense of life in general” (2012: 223). Although Sumak Kawsay inspired Buen Vivir as put in the 2008 Constitution and in policies such as the first PNBV (2009-2013), the practices implemented thereafter in the name of Buen Vivir have not accomplished what was initially proposed. Authors such as Radcliffe argue that, “the ‘profound cultural shift’ of [Buen Vivir] has not been realized at a national level, as modernity and progress continue to have the same values as they did under (neoliberal) developmentalism” (2012: 247).

To some, Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay may be inscribed into the sustainable development debate, particularly since these paradigms seek to reduce the excessive use of natural resources, one of the postulates of sustainability. However, Salazar

argues that these are “much more than [emergent discourses] of engaged intellectuals and indigenous cultural activists contributing to the sustainability debate; [instead, it is] a strong criticism of the discourse of sustainable development itself” (2015). Indeed, while sustainable development still seeks economic growth through a better management of the resources to ensure future sustainability, Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay incorporate “an environmental dimension founded on biocentrism, [demanding] an ethically different relationship with nature” (ibid).

In short, while Sumak Kawsay promotes a civilizational change by respecting nature and the common values and identities of the indigenous peoples, Buen Vivir, as promoted by the government, promotes a “sustainable and endogenous development” through the political strategy of the government’s party and through the establishment of a socialism of Buen Vivir (Alianza País 2013: 31). However, both proposals react against the development model imposed by States, which has put in danger and, in some cases, broken the social and environmental equilibrium that indigenous peoples have maintained” (Aylwin 2013: 176). Regardless, it is important to acknowledge that in order to achieve such a civilizational change, the difference between the two proposals is that, on one hand, Sumak Kawsay rejects any sort of development, as it has been harmful to the indigenous communities. On the other hand, Buen Vivir tries to redistribute the utilities from mainstream development activities – such as extractivism – while also promoting sustainability. This, however, may seem contradictory since a sustainable management of the resources calls for moving towards a post-extractivist economy.

The call for a recognition of the diversity of perspectives driven by Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay clearly represent an element of post-development, since “scholars argue for the need to recognize a multiplicity of livelihoods, of social relations and economic practices, as well as a design based on the relationships between human groups and between them and nature, taking into consideration the different cultural worldviews” (Aylwin, 2013: 175). Thus, under post-development, the process of civilizational change calls for being more inclusive, taking into account both proposals of Buen Vivir as well as that of Sumak Kawsay. Through a real recognition and appreciation of the knowledge gathered from the diverse perspectives that enrich the 53

debate around Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay, challenging not only mainstream development, but also neocolonialism and modernity. For instance, DC argues that Buen Vivir is leaving aside the traditions and values of indigenous and afro-Ecuadorian communities framed under the Sumak Kawsay paradigm; as a consequence, Buen Vivir is losing its critical perspective that was previously seen as an alternative to development (interview, 17-August-2015). Hence, there is a need to recognize the diversity of perspectives and paradigms surrounding the debate of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay in order to address the challenges that these encounter in their implementation in Ecuador as real and viable post-development alternatives.

The goal of the civilizational change proposed by Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir does not only involve a better relationship with the natural environment, but also with society as a whole, recognizing the differences between actors but encouraging respect and cooperation. Indeed, the indigenous movement’s proposal of interculturality and plurinationality contribute to the quest for a change in civilization by encouraging the participation of diverse actors and different perspectives, acknowledging that the cultural identities of the nationalities of the country contribute to making Ecuador a hotspot for diversity. That is why AK argues that we need more political consciousness, to render the government accountable for its proposals included in the Constitution, to make sure these are being fulfilled and that the collective rights are respected (interview, 27-July-2015). Authors like Salazar argue that “as an Andean cultural-political project, it doesn’t seek a return to an ancestral indigenous past”, as many critics to Sumak Kawsay have argued; instead, “the call is to construct common ancestral futures, where different knowledges come together, not only under the directive of Western rationality” (2015).

The implementation of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay as civilizational changes has to be accompanied by a process of consciousness from everyone in society; yet, their implementation in policy also call for a change of the political, economic and social structures that have been established throughout modernity. For instance, Sumak Kawsay is based on a communal system of dialogue and consensus that may even challenge the basis of democracy – understood as the rule of majorities. Hence, it is possible to say that the application of Sumak Kawsay in local communities, whether 54

indigenous or not, is more feasible than implementing it at a national or global level where there would need to be a restructuring of how politics work. Additionally, the role of the community for Sumak Kawsay is of utmost importance according to Simbaña (2012: 224), and it is precisely this importance that leads the indigenous movement to promote plurinationality as a central element of their political proposal.

Since Buen Vivir draws from different Western theories ranging from feminism and degrowth to human development, it is possible that it has a better chance to be incorporated into policy to achieve the goal of having a plentiful life and living in harmony with society and nature. Nonetheless, even if the Ecuadorian government’s implementation of Buen Vivir into a policy framework has been promoted as a path towards a civilizational change, there needs to be a shift in the economy from being based on extractivism – or neoextractivism20 – to an economy driven to achieve human wellbeing for everyone while also respecting their backgrounds and identities without falling into a new form of colonialism. Yet, this represents a bigger challenge because on a worldwide level, GDP is still considered the most important indicator to measure development; thus, Buen Vivir needs to start considering other factors such as the respect for the natural environment without extracting more than necessary in spite of what is promoted through classic measurements for GDP.

Moreover, “while recognizing the great importance in advancing the incorporation of indigenous cosmology, it is worthy to consider the real impacts and the ways in which the state’s appropriation of the indigenous notions of Buen Vivir have taken place” (Rowlands 2013: 94). For instance, there is a need to reformulate the economic activities, moving beyond extractivism; among these activities, sustainable alternatives framed under manufacture, agriculture, tourism and especially knowledge (Acosta 2013: 80), which brings us back to the goal promoted by the government

20 Alberto Acosta and Eduardo Gudynas define neoextractivism as a “contemporary version of extractivism, [which] maintains involvement in the international market in a subordinate position that serves the globalization of transnational capitalism. It not merely maintains but increases the fragmentation of territories with relegated areas and extractive enclaves linked to global markets” while maintaining the social and environmental impacts of traditional extractive industries (Acosta 2013: 72) 55

towards the “revolution of knowledge, where innovation, science and technology will be fundamental for the change in the productive scheme of the State” (SENPLADES 2013: 17), as well as to the proposal of communitarian tourism stated above.

The initiatives of the government to measure and quantify Buen Vivir are inscribed in modernity as trying to put arithmetic values in some things that the indigenous peoples of the country consider invaluable due to its subjective nature (interview CP, 30-August-2015). Indigenous authors such as Simbaña further support this claim, arguing that, “it is absurd to consider Sumak Kawsay as a quantitative notion that encompasses rights, policies, and moral precepts” (2012: 219). This further evidences the influence of Western thought, particularly regarding the measurement of well-being of citizens, which seeks to address both objective and subjective dimensions of people’s lives.

One of the most notable challenges that Buen Vivir faces in terms of its effective implementation into practice in Ecuador is the recognition of the importance of Sumak Kawsay and its values to the indigenous populations in the country. By appropriating the term of Buen Vivir and changing its meaning for its own benefit, the Ecuadorian government is, in the end, engaging in a sort of neocolonialism closely linked to the modern belief that we should abandon what does not make us advance or progress. Notably, the social context of Ecuador, which still considers the indigenous aspect of the population as backward, is framed by the colonial practices that have been carried out for the past 500 years. Thus, the recognition of Sumak Kawsay as a valid alternative way of living still needs to occur, breaking free from the traces of colonial thought in which the Ecuadorian society is still based on.

While Sumak Kawsay rejects mainstream development, Buen Vivir seeks to employ it in order to achieve the goals established through the planning strategies, aiming to construct a “society of Buen Vivir”. However, Sumak Kawsay is a lifestyle that is already being practiced on a day-to-day basis in the indigenous communities, rejecting development as something negative due to the colonial and capitalist processes that undermine the role of nature for these communities, excessively abusing the natural resources without considering the cultural and environmental implications of

extractive activities. Additionally, classic development practices have brought some consequences to these communities, since BG argues that the pollution of the territories and the destruction of life systems are contradicting Sumak Kawsay (interview 18-August-2015), leading to what AK determines Llaki Kawsay 21 or “bad living” (interview 27-July-2015).

Finally, the arguments proposed by Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are not perfect; in fact, they have gathered much criticism for their theoretical approximation as an alternative to development but a weak implementation in praxis. Yet, according to AO, these critiques come from a lack of understanding of the indigenous reality, meaning that in some cases, people believe that the philosophy of Sumak Kawsay is no longer being implemented since the indigenous have been “dominated and conquered”, but in fact, the indigenous movement in Ecuador is an example of resistance, which has kept these traditions and these are slowly gathering strength (interview, 14-July-2015). Moreover, MS argues that these proposals do not mean going back to the past, but that it would be important indeed to recover the best experiences from the past by changing the civilizational model under which the world currently lives (interview, 18- August-2015).

As such, Acosta (2013: 82) can summarize the civilizational change promoted by Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay, stating that, as alternatives to development,

[These] offer an opportunity to construct another society characterized by human coexistence, in diversity and in harmony with Nature, based on the recognition of the range of cultural values that exist in each country and the world as a whole. The vital element in [these proposals], which may even be rolled out globally, lies in taking a great revolutionary step forward that will encourage us to make the transition from anthropocentric visions to socio-biocentric ones, with all the concomitant political, economic and social consequences.

21 According to Hidalgo-Capitán et al., Llaki Kawsay may originate for a bad soil, forest or water management, leading to poor crops, overexploitation of the land and pollution (2014: 51). The authors also argue that Llaki Kawsay may also occur when Western values and knowledge are introduced in the indigenous communities, “displacing the values [and knowledges] of the indigenous culture, creating a colonization of knowledge and practices” that disregard ancestral practices (2014: 51). Thus, we may argue that neocolonialism, as explained in this chapter, contributes to Llaki Kawsay instead of Sumak Kawsay or Buen Vivir. 57

6. Conclusion and recommendations

This final chapter gathers the conclusions obtained throughout the whole research process. An additional subsection on the challenges and limitations of these concepts is also included at the end of the chapter. Finally, this chapter will end with recommendations from the author for future implementations of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay in policy and practice as alternatives to classic development.

Challenges and limitations

Throughout this research, I have tried to advance the recognition of Sumak Kawsay; yet, it may not necessarily represent the goals of the different indigenous peoples of Ecuador. As such, there is a need to recognize the diverse knowledges from the distinct indigenous nationalities that coexist in the country. This not only calls for more visibility from the indigenous proposals in the country, but also for the Ecuadorian society to be more accepting of the diversities that make Ecuador a plurinational and intercultural country. In the end, the values promoted by Sumak Kawsay – namely reciprocity, complementarity or generosity – seek to create a better and more inclusive society where the common good is more desirable than individuality, while also improving our understanding of the importance of nature as a vital part of our communities and our lives.

Additionally, the government’s actions, enforced through the planning strategies for development such as PNBV, still have to redefine development in the terms and context of the country, but especially in practice and not only in discourse. Indeed, although Buen Vivir may be considered a process of change for Ecuador and the region, the extractivist practices along with the criminalization of indigenous people and the violation of their collective rights are a clear contradiction of what Buen Vivir is supposed to be, and these actions fall too close in the neocolonial aspects that Buen Vivir is supposed to break free from.

Recommendations

Although the Ecuadorian government is already putting into practice Buen Vivir as the main axis of public policy, it is crucial to keep in mind its origin, particularly the 58

aspects that are drawn from the indigenous populations of the country. For example, while the educational policies of the State would still look for reaching the entire population, it would be important to incorporate the traditional values of Sumak Kawsay into the curriculum to strengthen the identities of the different indigenous nationalities under a real intercultural and plurinational state. By doing so, the State will not be only fulfilling its constitutional mandate, but also will be redirecting its goal to achieving Buen Vivir for all the Ecuadorian citizens regardless of their differences.

The government of Ecuador has to move past the critique of development in order to fully implement Buen Vivir as an alternative to classic development. Yet, if by Buen Vivir the State only means to improve the road infrastructure or to build hospitals and schools, the concept of Buen Vivir lies too close to what it seeks to challenge in the first place. One of the issues with the modern era is that we believe that better infrastructure leads to a more advanced – or developed – society; nonetheless, the policies focused on Buen Vivir should also incorporate the human aspect by incorporating better and inclusive health policies or educational curriculums.

By redirecting the national public policies towards accomplishing the framework of Buen Vivir – as established in the Constitution –, then we would be heading towards a real plurinational and intercultural state while also redefining what it means to be a State in the Modern era. However, CP considers that this is impossible to do at the moment due to the power of the government over the institutions of the state (interview 30-August-2015). Yet, I believe that Ecuador has a real opportunity of changing the way we understands how states are structured currently; the only way of doing this is by putting in practice the concepts of plurinationality and interculturality that already exist in the policy framework through their inclusion in the Constitution. By doing so, the cultural identities of the different indigenous nationalities of the country would be strengthened.

Moreover, I consider that education is crucial for changing the current civilizational model and of putting Buen Vivir into practice while keeping its original meaning and its proposal to become a real alternative to classic development. While keeping in mind that Buen Vivir presents an opportunity for a new harmonious lifestyle between society and nature, Sumak Kawsay would finally be incorporated into national

policies by keeping its original value; through its inclusion in the national educational curriculum, Sumak Kawsay would not only challenge the neocolonial educational model that is currently being implemented in the country, but it would also enhance the recognition for the respect of the teachings and values transmitted in the indigenous communities.

As with Buen Vivir, plurinationality and interculturality, concepts such as communal rights and the rights of nature are already incorporated in policy through the Constitution or even in the earlier version of PNBV. However, the real challenge before the Ecuadorian government is implementing these concepts into practice while respecting the existing policies. Hence, I consider that the question lies not in demonstrating how Buen Vivir and these concepts present a breakthrough in the policy frameworks of the country, but rather implementing them through a real political change. This is only possible by breaking free from the neocolonial and Eurocentric constructions of the State, but also by reconceptualizing the State’s goals and duties to the citizens of a country.

Given that the government considers Buen Vivir as a concept in permanent construction, there is an increasing need of incorporating more and different perspectives that contribute to a Buen Vivir that can still be aligned with the beliefs of the indigenous peoples promoted through Sumak Kawsay since, after all, the concept originates from an indigenous perspective. Thus, it does not matter if the government considers Buen Vivir as a socialist alternative for constructing a new society or if Buen Vivir is understood as happiness, as long as the diverse nationalities and the knowledges from the indigenous communities are being respected.

Thus, I consider that while Sumak Kawsay really seeks to become an alternative to development by challenging classic notions of progress and wealth accumulation, Buen Vivir still has a long way to go, since it incorporates developmentalist practices in order to achieve the State’s goals and objectives promoted through the planning strategies and policies, such as PNBV. However, to become a real alternative to development, I consider that Buen Vivir should firstly renounce to the extractive and neocolonial processes based on an ideological, cultural and practical domination over

the indigenous peoples’ concept of Sumak Kawsay. Moreover, as long as the alternatives proposed by the indigenous movement are not respected and recognized– namely plurinationality and interculturality –, then Buen Vivir does not fully contest the principles exposed by classic development and modernity.

Beyond being an alternative to development, the contribution of Buen Vivir really lies in moving past the dominant structures set by modernity by reincorporating the knowledge and experiences of the indigenous peoples of Ecuador. I consider that it is precisely through the indigenous worldviews, which do not rely on a linear understanding of progress, that we are able to challenge modernity, neoliberalism, colonialism and the classic developmentalist thinking. Rather, Buen Vivir gives us the opportunity of thinking beyond these frameworks by incorporating the alternatives proposed from different actors from the Global South – notably Sumak Kawsay –, but also from the North given its rich ontology that draws from approaches ranging from feminism to sustainable development. Yet, only through the recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches is that Buen Vivir may become a real alternative for changing the current model of civilization, based on a Western ideal of progress.

Closing remarks

The search for alternatives to mainstream development has become evident, and this is represented by the acknowledgement and recognition of the importance of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay by the rest of the world. This is why, regardless of the role it plays currently for the ruling party, Buen Vivir needs to be maintained in the country, if not as the central axis of public policy, at least as the ultimate goal to be achieved in order to ensure a better life for the citizens of Ecuador. As put by Radcliffe, “it remains to be seen whether the political will and intellectual capacity required for overcoming postcolonial [as well as classic developmentalist and neoliberal] exclusions can be found and acted upon” (2012: 248).

Reorienting the political, economic and social aspects of Ecuador towards a fulfilled living of all the citizens not only presents an enormous opportunity for the country, but also for others who seek to follow initiatives similar to Buen Vivir. The case of Bolivia’s Vivir Bien, while similar regarding its indigenous origin in Suma Qamaña, has

a different way of being implemented. Yet, as with most innovative approaches, one must first wait in order to reap the results, whether they are successful or not. Ecuador has demonstrated that, on a theoretical approximation, Buen Vivir has proven to be effective as to challenging classic development and neoliberalism; however, in practice, many of the policies drafted and enforced by the government contradict many of its principles. Moreover, while Buen Vivir is being used as the ultimate goal of the government in discourse, and it should be achieved through the success of the planning strategies for development, Sumak Kawsay is already being put into practice by implementing the values and principles that are enforced by the indigenous peoples of Ecuador on a day-to-day basis throughout their communal activities.

In this thesis I have addressed the appropriation of Buen Vivir by the government of Ecuador. However, it is also important to note that it has also been appropriated in academia by bringing it into a Western world. As mentioned previously, Buen Vivir is concept in permanent construction; indeed, “the debate around [Buen Vivir] has exceeded the Ecuadorian and Latin-American frontiers, having promoted the political and academic reflection, and having drawn from the ideas of social movements, academics, political leaders and public policy makers” (SENPLADES 2013: 19). Regardless, the appropriation of these concepts is why I decided to confront this Western analysis by bringing Sumak Kawsay as understood by the indigenous peoples of Ecuador into the discussion; however, recognizing that Sumak Kawsay carries a significant meaning for the indigenous communities, it may not necessarily be understood in Western scholarship. Thus, I have tried to represent my findings independently of my interpretations, which are not based on the indigenous tradition and knowledge. As such, I have tried, to the best of my extent, to present the reality behind the concept of Sumak Kawsay so it can be later included in the larger development discussion as an alternative to development purely based on economic growth.

Moreover, this thesis was based on a discourse research by analyzing the policy implementation of Buen Vivir through the perspective of the national government and of practical applications of Sumak Kawsay in the indigenous peoples of Ecuador. To enrich the discussion even further, I consider that more empirical research is needed 62

regarding the economic models employed by these actors and the convivial experiences of the indigenous communities. This would contribute to understanding how the two perspectives contribute to an alternative to classic development in praxis, beyond the beliefs and tools of discourse that promote them as post-development alternatives.

List of references

Acosta, A. (2009). “Siempre más democracia, nunca menos. A manera de prólogo”. In Acosta, A. and Martínez, E. (Eds.), El Buen Vivir: Una vía para el desarrollo, (pp. 19-30). Quito: Abya-Yala ––––––. (2013). “Extractivism and neoextractivism: two sides of the same curse”. In Lang, M. Fernando, L. and Buxton, N. (Coord.), Beyond Development, (pp. 61- 86). Amsterdam: Transnational Institute / Rosa Luxemburg Foundation ––––––. (2014). “Prólogo: El fantasma del desarrollo”. In Unceta, K., Acosta, A. and Martínez, E. (Eds.), Desarrollo, postcrecimiento y Buen Vivir: Debates e interrogantes, (pp. 7-24). Quito: Abya-Yala Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE-THE HAGUE THEN LONDON-,26, 413-413. Alianza País. (2007). Plan de Gobierno del Movimiento PAIS 2007-2011. ––––––. (2013). Programa de Gobierno 2013-2017: Gobernar para profundizar el cambio. 35 Propuestas para el Socialismo del Buen Vivir. Altmann, P. (2013). El Sumak Kawsay en el discurso del movimiento indígena ecuatoriano. INDIANA, 30, pp. 283-299 Álvarez González, F.J. (2013). “La distorsión del Sumak Kawsay”. In Oviedo Freire, A. (Comp.), Bifurcación del Buen Vivir y el Sumak Kawsay, (pp. 87-124). Quito: Ediciones Sumak Amazon Watch. (nd). The Yasuní-ITT Initiative. Retrieved on October 1, 2015 from http://amazonwatch.org/work/yasuni Asamblea Constituyente. (2008). Constitución de la República del Ecuador. Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. (1998). Constitución Política de la República del Ecuador. Aylwin, J. (2013). “Bolivia: Desarrollo o Buen Vivir. El caso del TIPNIS”. In Aylwin, J., Martí i Puig, S., Wright, C. And Yáñez, N. (Eds.), Entre desarrollo y el Buen Vivir. Recursos naturales y conflictos en los territorios indígenas, (pp.168-200). Madrid: Catarata Ban, C. (2012). Brazil’s liberal neo-developmentalism: New paradigm or edited orthodoxy?. Review of International Political Economy, pp. 1-34 Becker, M. (2013). “Ecuador: The Rights of Nature Threatened in Yasuní National Park”. Retrieved on October 1, 2015 from http://upsidedownworld.org/main/ecuador- archives-49/4442-ecuador-the-rights-of-nature-threatened-in-yasuni-national- park Boeije, H. (2010). “Principles of qualitative analysis”. Chapter 5 in Analysis in Qualitative Research. Los Angeles: Sage

Borón, A. (2010). “El socialismo del siglo XXI: notas para su discusión”. In SENPLADES, Los nuevos retos de América Latina. Socialismo y Sumak Kawsay, (pp. 109- 132). Quito: SENPLADES Bretón Solo de Zaldívar, V. (2013). Etnicidad, desarrollo y ‘Buen Vivir’: Reflexiones críticas en perspectiva histórica. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies No. 95, pp. 71-95 Bryman, A. (2012). “Ethics and politics in social research”. Chapter 6 in Social Research Methods, 4th edition, (pp. 129-155). Oxford: Oxford University Press Calisto Friant, M. and Langmore, J. (2015). The Buen Vivir: A Policy to Survive the Anthropocene?. Global Policy, 6(1), pp. 64-71 Carpio Benalcázar, P. (2009). “El Buen Vivir más allá del desarrollo, la nueva perspectiva Constitucional en Ecuador”. In Acosta, A. and Martínez E. (Eds.). El Buen Vivir: una vía para el desarrollo, (pp. 115-148). Quito: Abya-Yala. CONAIE – Confederación de las Nacionalidades y Pueblos Indígenas del Ecuador. (1994). Proyecto político de la CONAIE. Quito: CONAIE ––––––. (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, Equitativo y Laico. Quito: CONAIE Correa, R. (September 28 2015). Intervención del Presidente Rafael Correa en el septuagésimo período (70) de sesiones de las Naciones Unidas. Retrieved on October 19 2015 from http://www.presidencia.gob.ec/wp- content/uploads/downloads/2015/09/70-DE-LA-ONU-NY.pdf Cortez, D. (2012). La construcción social del “Buen Vivir” (Sumak Kawsay) en Ecuador. Genealogía del diseño y gestión política de la vida. Published online: http://www.plataformabuenvivir.com/2012/03/cortez-construccion-social-del- buen-vivir/ Cresswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. (2011). “The Foundations of Mixed Methods Research”, Chapter 2 in Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, (pp. 19-52). Los Angeles, London: Sage ––––––. “Collecting Data in Mixed Methods Research”, Chapter 6 in Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, (pp. 171-198). Los Angeles, London: Sage El Comercio (October 13 2014). “Los cinco puntos que debe saber sobre la Ley 010” Retrieved on November 3, 2015 from http://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/ley-010-ecuador-petroleo-amazonia.html ––––––. (February 2 2015). “Prefectos llegan a acuerdo sobre Ley 010”. Retrieved on November 3, 2015 from http://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/ley-010- prefectos-acuerdos-pachakutik.html El Telégrafo. (September 27 2015). “Ecuador increment su gasto social en más de 300% en los últimos años”. Retrieved on October 29, 2015 from

http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/sociedad/item/el-delegado-del-pnud-destaca- politicas-redistributivas-del-pais.html Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press ––––––. (2015). Degrowth, postdevelopment and transitions: a preliminary conversation. Sustainable Science, 10, pp. 451-462 Federación Plurinacional de Turismo Comunitario del Ecuador. (nd). Information retrieved on November 1, 2015 from the Facebook Page of FPTCE, https://www.facebook.com/feptce/info/?tab=page_info Fernández, B., Pardo, L., Salamanca, K. (2014). “El buen vivir en Ecuador: ¿marketing político o proyecto en disputa? Un diálogo con Alberto Acosta”. Íconos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 48, pp. 101-117 Esteva, G. (1992). “Development”. Chapter 1 in W. Sachs (Ed), The Development Dictionary: A guide to Knowledge as Power, Second edition (2010), (pp.1-23). New York: Zed Books Guandinango Vinueza, Y.A. (2013). “Del Sumak Kawsay al Alli Kawsay relaciones socioculturales en los sistemas familiars comunitarios una mirada desde las comunidades Kichwas”. In von Barloewen, C., Rivera, M. and Töpfer, K. (Eds.), (2014). Desarrollo sostenible en una modernidad plural: Perspectivas latinoamericanas, (pp. 213-229). Quito: Abya-Yala Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (1994). “Competing paradigms in qualitative research”. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research, (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Gudynas, E. (2011). Buen Vivir: Today’s tomorrow. Development, 54(4), pp. 441-447 ––––––. (2012).”Debates sobre el desarrollo y sus alternativas en América Latina: Una breve guía heterodoxa”. In Lang, M. and Mokrani, D. (Eds.), Más allá del desarrollo, (pp. 21-54). Quito: Abya-Yala Hidalgo-Capitán, A.L., Arias, A., and Ávila, J. (2014). “El pensamiento indigenista ecuatoriano sobre Sumak Kawsay”. In Hidalgo-Capitán, A., Guillén García, A., and Deleg Guazha, N. (Eds.), Sumak Kawsay Yuyay. Antología del Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano sobre Sumak Kawsay, (pp. 25-74). Cuenca: Programa Interdisciplinario de Población y Desarrollo Local Sustentable – PYDLOS ILO – International Labour Organization. (1989). C169 – Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989. Adopted in Geneva, 76th ILC session. Entry into force: September 5, 1991. Retrieved on November 20, 2015 from http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_I LO_CODE:C169 INEC – Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. (2015). “INEC realiza taller internacional para generación de métricas del Buen Vivir”. Retrieved on October 1, 2015 on http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/inec-realiza-taller-internacional- para-generacion-de-metricas-del-buen-vivir/

Lang, M. (2013). “Crisis of civilisation and challenges for the left”. In Lang, M. and Mokrani, D. (Eds.), In Lang, M. Fernando, L. and Buxton, N. (Coord.), Beyond Development, (pp. 5-14). Amsterdam: Transnational Institute / Rosa Luxemburg Foundation León, M. (nd). Después del “desarrollo”: “el buen vivir” y las perspectivas feministas para otro modelo en América Latina, pp. 35-44. Retrieved on September 11, 2015 from http://www.dhl.hegoa.ehu.es/ficheros/0000/0540/Despu%C3%A9s_d...pdf Macas, L. (1991). “El levantamiento indígena visto por sus protagonistas”. In Almeida, I. (Ed). Indios: una reflexión sobre el levantamiento indígena de 1990, (pp. 17-36). Quito: Abya-Yala ––––––. (2010). Sumak Kawsay: La vida en plenitud. América Latina en Movimiento 452, pp. 14-16 Martí I Puig, S., Aylwin, J., Wright, C., Yáñez, N., and Ayuso, A. (2013). “Introducción: El punto de partida”. In Aylwin, J., Martí i Puig, S., Wright, C. And Yáñez, N. (Eds.), Entre desarrollo y el Buen Vivir. Recursos naturales y conflictos en los territorios indígenas, (pp.9-18). Madrid: Catarata Mella, P. (2015). “El debate ético político sobre el ‘Buen Vivir’ (Sumak Kawsay, Suma Qamaña)”, Chapter 4 in Ética del posdesarrollo, (pp. 161-200). Santo Domingo: Instituto Filosófico Pedro F. Bonó Oviedo Freire, A. (2011). Qué es el Sumakawsay. Más allá del capitalismo y el socialismo. Camino alter-nativo al desarrollo. Una propuesta para los “indignados” y demás desencantados de todo el mundo. Quito: Sumak Editores. ––––––. (2014). “Ruptura de dos paradigmas. Una lectura de la Izquierda desde la Filosofía Tetrádica Andina”. In Oviedo Freire, A. (Comp.), Bifurcación del Buen Vivir y el Sumak Kawsay, pp. (137-225). Quito: Ediciones Sumak Permanent Working Group on Alternatives to Development. (2013). “Glossary”. In Lang, M. Fernando, L. and Buxton, N. (Coord.), Beyond Development, (pp. 189-194). Amsterdam: Transnational Institute / Rosa Luxemburg Foundation Pilataxi Lechón, C. (2014). Sumak Kawsay organización comunitaria y emprendimiento productivo. El caso de San Pablo Urku, Cayambe. Quito: Abya-Yala Prada Alcoreza, R. (2012). “El vivir bien como modelo de Estado y modelo económico”. In Lang, M. and Mokrani, D. (Eds.), Más allá del desarrollo, (pp. 227-263). Quito: Abya-Yala Quintero, R. (2009). “Las innovaciones conceptuales de la Constitución de 2008 y el Sumak Kawsay”. In Acosta, A. and Martínez, E. (Eds.), El Buen Vivir: Una vía para el desarrollo, (pp. 75-91). Quito: Abya-Yala Quirola Suárez, D. “Sumak Kawsay. Hacia un nuevo pacto social en armonía con la naturaleza”. In Acosta, A. and Martínez, E. (Eds.), El Buen Vivir: Una vía para el desarrollo, (pp. 103-114). Quito: Abya-Yala

Radcliffe, S. (2012). Development for a postneoliberal era? Sumak Kawsay, living well and the limits to decolonisation in Ecuador. Geoforum, 43, pp. 240-249 Ramírez Gallegos, R. (2009). “Presentación”. In SENPLADES, Plan Nacional del Buen Vivir 2009-2013, (pp. 9-16). Quito: SENPLADES ––––––. (2010). “Socialismo del sumak kawsay o biosocialismo republicano”. In SENPLADES, Los nuevos retos de América Latina. Socialismo y Sumak Kawsay, (pp. 55-76). Quito: SENPLADES Research & Degrowth. (nd). Definition. Retrieved on October 1, 2015 from http://www.degrowth.org/definition-2 Rist, G. (2006). “Before Thinking about What Next: Prerequisites for alternatives”. In: What Next:, Vol. 1, Setting the context. Development dialogue 47, (pp. 65-95). Uppsala, Sweden: Dag Hammarskjöld Centre. Published online: http://www.dhf.uu.se/pdffiler/DD2006_47_vol_1/DD2006_47_4.pdf Rowlands, J. (2013). “Estados latinoamericanos frente a la consulta indígena: tensión cultural en la implementación de los derechos territoriales”. In Aylwin, J., Martí i Puig, S., Wright, C. And Yáñez, N. (Eds.), Entre desarrollo y el Buen Vivir. Recursos naturales y conflictos en los territorios indígenas, (pp.68-98). Madrid: Catarata Sachs, W. (2009). “Preface to the New Edition”. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, Second Edition (2010), (pp. vi-xiv). New York: Zed Books Salazar, J.F. (2015, July 23). “Buen Vivir: South America’s rethinking of the future we want”. Retrieved online on October 14, 2015 from http://theconversation.com/buen-vivir-south-americas-rethinking-of-the-future- we-want-44507 Sánchez-Parga, J. (2014). Alternativas virtuales vs. cambios reales. Derechos de la Naturaleza, Buen Vivir, Economía Solidaria. Quito: Centro Andino de Acción Popular – CAAP Sarayaku (2003). “El libro de la vida de Sarayaku para defender nuestro futuro”. In Hidalgo-Capitán, A., Guillén García, A., and Deleg Guazha, N. (Eds.), Sumak Kawsay Yuyay. Antología del Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano sobre Sumak Kawsay, (pp. 77-102). Cuenca: Programa Interdisciplinario de Población y Desarrollo Local Sustentable – PYDLOS SBV – Secretaría del Buen Vivir. (nd). “Propósito”. Retrieved on October 1, 2015 from http://www.secretariabuenvivir.gob.ec/valores-mision-vision/ ––––––. (2014). Acciones realizadas Secretaría del Buen Vivir 2013-2014. Retrieved on November 11, 2015 from http://issuu.com/secretariadelbuenvivir/docs/acciones_secretaria_bv_2013-2014 Schavelzon, S. (2015). Plurinacionalidad y Vivir Bien/Buen Vivir. Quito: Abya-Yala Sen, A. (2000). Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books

SENPLADES – Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo. (2007). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007-2010. Quito: SENPLADES ––––––. (2009). Plan Nacional del Buen Vivir 2009-2013, (pp. 9-16). Quito: SENPLADES ––––––. (2013). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo/Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir 2013- 2017. Versión resumida. Quito: SENPLADES Simbaña, F. (2012). “El sumak kawsay como proyecto político”. In Lang, M. and Mokrani, D. (Eds.), Más allá del desarrollo, (pp. 219-226). Quito: Abya-Yala Unceta, K. (2014). Desarrollo, postcrecimiento y Buen Vivir: Debates e interrogantes. Quito: Abya-Yala Viteri Gualinga, C. (2002). Visión indígena del desarrollo en la Amazonía. Polis, Revista de la Universidad Bolivariana, 1(3), pp. 1-6 ––––––. (2003). “Súmak Káusai. Una respuesta viable al desarrollo”, Thesis for the degree in Applied Anthropology, Quito: Universidad Politécnica Salesiana del Ecuador Wilson, S. (2001). What is an Indigenous Research Methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), pp. 175-179. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/234754037 Walsh, C. (2010). Development as Buen Vivir: Institutional arrangements and (de)colonial entanglements. Development, 53(1), pp. 15-21 Wray, N. (2009). “Los retos del régimen de desarrollo. El Buen Vivir en la Constitución”. In Acosta, A. and Martínez, E. (Eds.), El Buen Vivir: Una vía para el desarrollo, (pp. 51-62). Quito: Abya-Yala