“The socio-cultural dimension of territory as the foundation for participatory decentralization in Uruguay and Chile” Claudia Virginia Kuzma Zabaleta Thesis submitted to the University of Ottawa in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctorate in Philosophy degree in International Development School of International Development and Global Studies Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ottawa © Claudia Virginia Kuzma Zabaleta, Ottawa, Canada, 2021 ii Contents List of tables…………………………………………………………………………..…v List of figures…………………………………………………………………………...vi Abstract ..................................................................................................................... vii-viii Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................... ix-xii Table of contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 1-11 Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework ............................................................................ 12-57 2.1 The decentralization process in Latin America: Debates about its origin, causes and consequences ................................................................................................. 12-15 2.2 Which factors influence successful decentralization in Latin America? ........ 15-18 2.3 A fundamental factor? The political project and its conception of decentralization .................................................................................................... 18-29 2.4 Other factors: Territory and its implications for decentralization ................. 30-57 2.4. a Afro-descendants in Uruguay ............................................................................... 40-50 2.4. b Mapuche Community in Chile ............................................................................. 50-57 Chapter 3: Methodology .......................................................................................... 58-104 3.1 Research questions .......................................................................................... 58-59 3.2 Methodology ................................................................................................... 59-65 3.3 Criteria for selecting case studies and comparisons ...................................... 65-82 3.3. a Case studies in Uruguay ....................................................................................... 76-79 3.3. b Case studies in Chile ............................................................................................ 79-82 3.4 Operational definition of variables and causal relations ................................. 82-94 3.5 Techniques and instruments .......................................................................... 94-103 3.5. a Semi-structured interviews ................................................................................... 95-98 3.5. b Focus group .......................................................................................................... 98-99 3.5. c Social and resources mapping ............................................................................ 99-100 3.5. d Participant observation ..................................................................................... 100-103 3.6 Ethics .......................................................................................................... 103-104 Chapter 4: Implementing Participatory Decentralization in Uruguay ................... 105-147 4.1 National processes, progress and challenges ............................................. 105-117 4.2 Participatory decentralization from a territorial perspective: iii Characterization of three case studies in Uruguay ........................................ 118-147 4.2. a Municipality of Isidoro Noblía ......................................................................... 120-127 4.2. b Municipality A ................................................................................................. 128-139 4.2. c Municipality of Santa Rosa .............................................................................. 140-147 Chapter 5: Implementing Participatory Decentralization in Chile ........................ 148-188 5.1 National processes, progress and challenges .............................................. 148-160 5.2 Participatory decentralization from a territorial perspective: Characterization of three case studies in Chile ................................................................................ 161-188 5.2. a Municipality of Perquenco ............................................................................... 163-172 5.2. b Municipality of Recoleta .................................................................................. 173-181 5.2. c Municipality of Empedrado .............................................................................. 181-188 Chapter 6: Comparing the Uruguayan and Chilean processes of decentralization: Territory as the main factor to explain PD outcomes ................................. 189-263 6.1 Ethno-cultural dimension of territoriality effect on PD outcomes: More cross country similarities than within each country .................................................. 197-230 6.1. a Ethno-cultural dimension of territoriality effect on PD outcomes in Uruguay: Comparison within one country ................................................................................. 199-210 6.1. b Ethno-cultural dimension of territoriality effect on PD outcomes in Chile: Comparison within one country ................................................................................. 211-222 6.1. c Ethno-cultural dimension of territoriality effect on PD outcomes versus Political Project: Cross country comparison between Uruguay and Chile ............................... 223-230 6.2 Geographical residence effect on PD outcomes: More cross country similarities than nationally ones .......................................................................................... 231-263 6.2.a Geographical residence effect on PD outcomes in Uruguay: Comparison between urban and rural municipalities without high percentage of ethnic groups ........................................................................................................................ 233-242 6.2.b Geographical effect on PD outcomes in Chile: Comparison between urban and rural municipalities without high percentage of ethnic groups ........................................................................................................................ 243-252 6.2.c Geographical residence effect versus Political Project on PD outcomes: Cross country comparison between Uruguay and Chile ............................................ 253-263 Chapter 7: Conclusions .......................................................................................... 264-285 References ............................................................................................................. 286-307 Appendix A: List of interviewees participants ...................................................... 308-317 Appendix B: Ethic application approval. Consent forms ...................................... 318-331 iv Appendix C: Questionnaires, focus group, social and resources mapping guidelines……………………………………………………………………….. 332-341 Appendix D: Figures & tables ............................................................................... 342-360 Glossary………………………………………………………………………..…361-363 List of Acronyms………………………………………………………………....364-366 v List of tables Table 3.1 Comparison of fiscal, administrative and political decentralization between Uruguay and Chile………………………………………………………………………………………...63 Table 3.2 Territory vs Political Project Effects on PD outcomes ............................................... 68 Table 3.3 Selected case studies in Uruguay and Chile................................................................ 73 Table 3.4 Operationalization of independent, dependent and intervening variables ................... 88 Table 6.1 Political Project & Institutional Arrangements by municipalities ............................. 191 Table 6.2 Comparison within a country: Effect of the ethno-cultural dimension of territoriality on PD ............................................................................................................................................ 197 Table 6.3 Cross-country comparison. Effect of ethno-cultural dimension of territory on PD versus Political Project ........................................................................................................................ 224 Table 6.4 Effect of Geographical Residence on PD. Comparison within one country.............. 231 Table 6.5 Cross-country comparison. Effect of geographical residence (urban & rural) on PD versus Political Project ............................................................................................................. 254 Table 6.6 Party alignment in the selected case studies ............................................................. 263 Table D1 Research techniques applied in Municipalitites ........................................................ 357 Table D2 Techniques applied to national/central officials and scholars ................................... 357 Table D3 Incidence of poverty in persons by geographical area and ethnicity in Uruguay ...... 358 Table D4 Percentage of population with at least one UBN by departments