Why do some indigenous groups achieve coethnic political representation while others do not? In this paper, I highlight the primary role of communal property in shaping indigenous representation. While scholars often laud the developmental benefits of communal land titling, I argue that formalizing collectively held land can inhibit indigenous coordination to achieve political representation. Where communal land is informally held, indigenous groups are more likely to invest in traditional institutions that facilitate collective action to elect coethnic candidates to political office. Conversely, titling communal property secures indigenous land access but in the process erodes traditional institutions that would otherwise promote collective action during elections. I test my argument using a multi-method approach that includes interviews and experiments with three-hundred Peruvian indigenous leaders, historical land-title data, and information scraped from mayoral candidate CVs. The findings suggest that the oft-cited economic benefits of collective property may generate negative political effects.
AbramsonS. F.KocakK.MagazinnikA. (2019). What do we learn about voter preferences from conjoint experiments? Working paper.
2.
AlbóX. (1991). El retorno del indio. Revista Andina, 9(2), 299–366.
3.
AlbóX. (2008). Movimientos y Poder Indígena en Bolivia, Ecuador y Perú. CIPCA.
4.
AustinR. D. (2009). Navajo courts and Navajo common law: A tradition of tribal self-governance. University of Minnesota Press.
5.
BansakK.HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2020). Using conjoint experiments to analyze elections: The essential role of the Average Marginal Component Effect (AMCE). SSRN Paper, Rochester, NY.
6.
BentonA. L. (2017). Configuring authority over electoral manipulation in electoral authoritarian regimes: Evidence from Mexico. Democratization, 24(3), 521–543.
7.
BergJ.DickhautJ.McCabeK. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142.
8.
BottazziP.RistS. (2012). Changing land rights means changing society: The sociopolitical effects of agrarian reforms under the government of Evo Morales. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12(4), 528–551.
9.
BrülhartM.UsunierJ. (2012). Does the trust game measure trust?Economics Letters, 115(1), 20–23.
10.
CarterC. L. (2020). States of extraction: The emergence and effects of indigenous autonomy in the Americas (Doctoral dissertation). UC Berkeley.
11.
CarterC. L. (2021a). The autonomy-representation dilemma: Indigenous groups and distributive benefits in the Americas. Working Paper.
12.
CarterC. L. (2021b). Replication data for: The representational effects of communal property. Harvard Dataverse, V1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/M4ZWL8
13.
CrambR. A.WillsI. R. (1990). The role of traditional institutions in rural development: Community-based land tenure and government land policy in Sarawak, Malaysia. World Development, 18(3), 347–360.
14.
DaviesT. M. (1974). Indian integration in Peru: A half century of experience, 1900-1948. University of Nebraska Press.
15.
DegregoriC. I. (1998). Ethnicity and democratic governability in Latin America: Reflections from Two Central Andean Countries. In AgüeroF.StarkJ. (Eds.), Fault lines of democracy in post-transition Latin America (pp. 203–227). North-South Center Press/University of Miami.
16.
Díaz-CayerosA.MagaloniB.Ruiz-EulerA. (2014). Traditional governance, citizen engagement, and local public goods: Evidence from Mexico. World Development, 53, 80–93.
17.
Díaz-PolancoH. (1998). La Autonomía, Demanda Central de los Pueblos Indígenas: Significado e Implicaciones. In AltaV.IturraldeD.López BassolaM. (Eds.), Pueblos Indígenas y estado en América Latina (pp. 213–220.) Editorial Abya Yala.
18.
DippelC. (2016). Forced coexistence and economic development: Evidence from Native American reservations. In AndersonT. L. (Ed.), Unlocking the wealth of Indian nations (pp. 160–195). Lexington Books.
19.
DubertretF.Alden WilyL. (2015). Percent of indigenous and community lands. Data file from Landmark: The Global Platform of Indigenous and Community Lands. www.landmarkmap.org
20.
EisenstadtT. A. (2011). Politics, identity, and Mexico’s indigenous rights movements. Cambridge University Press.
21.
Empresa Peruana de Servicios Editoriales. (2019). Destacan Aprobación de Ley que Fortalece Rol de la Mujer en las Comunidades Campesinas. Andina.
22.
EstermannJ. (1998). Filosofía Andina: Estudio Intercultural de la Sabiduría Autóctona Andina. Abya-Yala.
23.
FieldE. (2007). Entitled to work: Urban property rights and labor supply in Peru. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(4), 1561.
24.
FlórezG. (2012). Rivalidades Comunales y Contiendas Electorales: Micropolítica en las Elecciones Distritales de Chuschi. In HurtadoA. D. (Ed.), Tensiones y transformaciones en comunidades campesinas (pp. 225–262). Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (CISEPA).
25.
Fonseca MartelC. (1974a). La Minka y elWaje-Waje: Relaciones de Reciprocidad de una Región Andina del Perú. UNMSM.
26.
Fonseca MartelC. (1974b). Modalidades de la Minka. In AlbertiG.MayerE. (Eds.), Reciprocidad e intercambio en los Andes peruanos (pp. 86–109). Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
27.
FreireG.Schwartz OrellanaS. D.Zumaeta AurazoM.CostaD. C.LundvallJ. M.Viveros MendozaM. C.LucchettiL. R.Moreno HerreraL. L.SousaL. D. C. (2015). Indigenous Latin America in the twenty-first century: The first decade (Technical report 98544). The World Bank.
28.
GarcíaM. E. (2005). Making indigenous citizens: Identities, education, and multicultural development in Peru. Stanford University Press.
29.
GuilletD. (1980). Reciprocal labor and peripheral capitalism in the Central Andes. Ethnology, 19(2), 151–167.
30.
HabyarimanaJ.HumphreysM.PosnerD. N.WeinsteinJ. M. (2009). Coethnicity: Diversity and the dilemmas of collective action. Russell Sage Foundation.
31.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548.
32.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30.
HtunM. (2016). Inclusion without representation in Latin America: Gender quotas and ethnic reservations. Cambridge University Press.
35.
Huenchulaf CayuqueoM. (1998). La Temática Indígena en el Concierto Internacional. In AltaV.IturraldeD. A.López-BassolsM. A., (Eds.), Pueblos Indígenas y Estado en América Latina (pp. 147–159). Editorial Abya-Yala.
36.
HurtadoA. D. (2012). Tensiones y Transformaciones en Comunidades Campesinas. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, CISEPA.
JacksonJ. E.WarrenK. B. (2005). Indigenous movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies, ironies, new directions. The Annual Review of Anthropology, 34(1), 549–573.
40.
KeeferP.VlaicuR. (2008). Democracy, credibility, and clientelism. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 24(2), 371–406.
41.
LanjouwJ. O.LevyP. I. (2002). Untitled: A study of formal and informal property rights in urban Ecuador*. The Economic Journal, 112(482), 986–1019.
42.
LongN.RobertsB. R. (2014). Peasant cooperation and capitalist expansion in Central Peru. University of Texas Press.
43.
MadridR. L. (2012). The rise of ethnic politics in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.
44.
MallonF. E. (2014). The defense of community in Peru’s Central Highlands: Peasant struggle and capitalist transition, 1860-1940. Princeton University Press.
45.
MannheimB. (2013). The language of the Inka since the European invasion. University of Texas Press.
46.
MayerE. (2018). The articulated peasant: Household economies in the Andes. Routledge.
47.
MendozaR. R. (2002). Legislación Peruana sobre Comunidades Campesinas. UNMSM.
48.
MigdalJ. S. (1974). Peasants, politics and revolution: Pressures toward political and social change in the third world. Princeton University Press.
49.
Ministerio de Vivienda, Construccion, y Saneamiento. (2009). Directorio de Comunidades Campesinas del Peru 2009.
50.
Nuñez PalominoP. G. (1996). Derecho y Comunidades Campesinas en el Perú, 1969-1988. Centro Bartolomé de las Casas.
51.
OlsonM. (1971). The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press.
52.
PaigeJ. M. (1978). Agrarian revolution. Simon and Schuster.
53.
PlaceF.HazellP. (1993). Productivity effects of indigenous land tenure systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(1), 10–19.
54.
PolanyiK. (1944). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Beacon Press.
55.
PopkinS. L. (1979). The rational peasant: The political economy of rural society in Vietnam. University of California Press.
56.
PosteroN. G.ZamoscL. (2004). The struggle for indigenous rights in Latin America. Sussex Academic Press.
57.
RemyM. I. (2013). Historia de las Comunidades Indígenas y Campesinas del Perú. IEP.
58.
RiceR.Van CottD. L. (2016). The emergence and performance of indigenous peoples’ parties in South America: A subnational statistical analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 39(6), 709–732.
59.
Rights and Resources Initiative. (2015). Who owns the world’s land? A global baseline of formally recognized indigenous community land rights. Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative.
60.
ScottJ. C. (1977). The moral economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsistence in Southeast Asia. Yale University Press.
61.
SeligmannL. J. (1995). Between reform & revolution: Political struggles in the Peruvian Andes, 1969-1991. Stanford University Press.
62.
SjaastadE.BromleyD. W. (1997). Indigenous land rights in Sub-Saharan Africa: Appropriation, security and investment demand. World Development, 25(4), 549–562.
63.
SobelJ. (2005). Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(2), 392–436.
64.
StavenhagenR. (2000). Towards the right to autonomy in Mexico. In CalA. B.Mayory (Ed.), Indigenous autonomy in Mexico (pp. 10–23). IWGIA.
65.
SternS. J. (1993). Peru’s Indian peoples and the challenge of Spanish conquest: Huamanga to 1640. University of Wisconsin Press.
66.
ThompsonE. P. (1971). The moral economy of the English crowd in the eighteenth century. Past Present, 50(1), 76–136.
67.
Van CottD. L. (2001). Explaining ethnic autonomy regimes in Latin America. Studies in Comparative International Development, 35(4), 30–58.
68.
Van CottD. L. (2005). Building inclusive democracies: Indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities in Latin America. Democratization, 12(5), 820–837.
69.
Van CottD. L. (2009). Radical democracy in the Andes. Cambridge University Press.
70.
WebbR. C. (2013). Conexión y Despegue Rural. Universidad San Martin de Porres. Fondo Editorial.
71.
WinderD. (2014). The impact of the comunidad on local development in the Mantaro Valley. In LongN.RobertsB. R. (Eds.), Peasant cooperation and capitalist expansion in Central Peru (pp. 209–240). University of Texas Press.
72.
WutichA.BeresfordM.CarvajalC. (2017). Ayni real and imagined: Reciprocity, indigenous institutions, and development discourses in contemporary Bolivia. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 22(3), 475–494.
73.
YasharD. J. (1998). Contesting citizenship: Indigenous movements and democracy in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 31(1), 23–42.
74.
YasharD. J. (2005). Contesting citizenship in Latin America: The rise of indigenous movements and the postliberal challenge. Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
