In 2006, Rafael Correa was elected president of Ecuador on the promise that his Citizens’ Revolution would represent “a change of era” for the country, notably through the writing of a new constitution. The indigenous concept of sumak kawsay/buen vivir, which represents, among other things, a new development paradigm based on the decommodification of nature, became the guiding principle of this new constitution. While the failed Yasuní-ITT initiative represented an innovative attempt to translate buen vivir into policies, Correa’s reliance on neo-extractivism and the repression of indigenous communities deviated dramatically from the transformative path offered by sumak kawsay. The tensions between the sumak kawsay approach enshrined in the 2008 Constitution and the policies implemented by Correa can be explained, at least partly, by the Citizens’ Revolution’s anticorporatism and the “delegative democratic regime” Correa put into place.
En 2006, Rafael Correa fue elegido presidente de Ecuador con la promesa de que su Revolución Ciudadana representaría “un cambio de era” para el país, en particular a través de la redacción de una nueva constitución. El concepto indígena de sumak kawsay/buen vivir, que representa, entre otras cosas, un nuevo paradigma de desarrollo basado en la desmercantilización de la naturaleza, se convirtió en el principio rector de dicha Constitución. Si bien la fallida iniciativa Yasuní-ITT fue un intento innovador de traducir el buen vivir en políticas, la dependencia de Correa del neoextractivismo y la represión de las comunidades indígenas se desvió dramáticamente del camino transformador ofrecido por sumak kawsay. Las tensiones entre el enfoque sumak kawsay consagrado en la Constitución de 2008 y las políticas implementadas por Correa pueden explicarse, al menos en parte, a partir del anticorporativismo de la Revolución Ciudadana y el régimen de democracia delegativa establecido por Correa.
AcostaAlberto2012Buen vivir, sumak kawsay: Una oportunidad para imaginar otros mundos. Quito: Abya-Yala.
2.
AcostaAlberto2016 “Post-extractivismo: entre el discurso y la praxis, algunas reflexiones gruesas para la acción.” Ciencia Política11 (21): 287–332.
3.
AntonelliMirta2009 “Minería transnacional y dispositivos de intervención en la cultura: la gestión del paradigma hegemónico de la ‘minería responsable y el desarrollo sustenable,’” pp. 51–102 in SvampaMaristellaAntonelliMirta (eds.), Minería transnacional: Narrativas del desarrollo y resistencias sociales. Buenos Aires: Biblos.
4.
ArselMurat2012 “‘Between Marx and the markets’? The state, the ‘left turn’ and nature in Ecuador.” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie103 (2): 150–163.
5.
AvciDuyguFernández-SalvadorConsuelo2016 “Territorial dynamics and local resistance: two mining conflicts in Ecuador compared.” The Extractive Industries and Society3: 912–921.
6.
BáezMichelleSacherWilliam2014 “Los discursos del buen vivir y el sumak kawsay y la minería metálica a gran escala en Ecuador: rupturas y continuidades con el modelo de desarrollo,” pp. 233–276 in RamosG. C. Delgado (ed.), Buena vida, buen vivir: Imaginarios alternativos para el bien común de la humanidad. Mexico City: UNAM.
BebbingtonAnthonyBuryJeffrey (eds.) 2013Subterranean Struggles: New Dynamics of Mining, Oil, and Gas in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press.
9.
BeckerMarc2011a “Correa, indigenous movements, and the writing of a new constitution in Ecuador.” Latin American Perspectives38 (1): 47–62.
10.
BeckerMarc2011b Pachakutik: Indigenous Movements and Electoral Politics in Ecuador. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield.
11.
BeckerMarc2013 “Ecuador: indigenous struggles and the ambiguities of electoral power,” pp. 213–232 in WebberJ. R.CarrB. (eds.), The New Latin American Left: Cracks in the Empire. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield.
12.
BoelensRutgerdHoogestegerJaimeBaudMichiel2015 “Water reform governmentality in Ecuador: neoliberalism, centralization and the restraining of polycentric authority and community rule-making.” Geoforum64: 281–291.
13.
BroadRobinFischer-MackeyJulia2017 “From extractivism towards buen vivir: mining policy as an indicator of a new development paradigm prioritising the environment.” Third World Quarterly38: 1327–1349.
14.
BurchardtHans-JürgenDietzKristina2014 “(Neo-)extractivism: a new challenge for development theory from Latin America.” Third World Quarterly35: 468–486.
15.
CameronMaxwellHershbergEric (eds.) 2010Latin America’s Left Turns: Politics, Policies, and Trajectories of Change. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
16.
CollierRuth BerinsCollierDavid1991Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
17.
ConaghanCatherine2008 “Ecuador: Correa’s plebiscitary presidency.” Journal of Democracy19 (2): 46–60.
18.
ConaghanCatherine2011 “Ecuador: Rafael Correa and the Citizens’ Revolution.” pp. 206–282 in LevitskyS.RobertsK. (eds.), The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
19.
ConaghanCatherine2015 “Surveil and sanction: the return of the state and societal regulation in Ecuador.” European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies98: 7–27.
20.
ConaghanCatherine2017 “Contra-associational strategy in a hybrid regime: Ecuador, 2007–2015.” Bulletin of Latin American Research36: 509–525.
21.
CorreaRafael2007a Discurso de posesión de Rafael Correa Delgado como Presidente Constitucional de la República del Ecuador. Quito: Presidencia República del Ecuador.
22.
CorreaRafael2007b Intervención del Presidente de la República, Rafael Correa, en la ceremonia de inauguración de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. Quito: Presidencia República del Ecuador.
23.
CorreaRafael2008Intervención del Presidente de la República, Rafael Correa, en la ceremonia de clausura de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente. Quito: Presidencia República del Ecuador
DanglBenjamin2010Dancing with Dynamite: Social Movements and States in Latin America. Oakland, CA: AK Press.
35.
DávalosPabloAlbujaVerónica2014 “Ecuador: extractivist dynamics, politics and discourse,” pp. 143–171 in PetrasJ.VeltmeyerH. (eds.), The New Extractivism: A Post-Neoliberal Development Model or Imperialism of the Twenty-first Century?London and New York: Zed Books.
36.
De la TorreCarlos2013 “Technocratic populism in Ecuador.” Journal of Democracy24 (13): 33–46.
37.
EcheverríaJulio2015La democracia sometida: El Ecuador de la Revolución Ciudadana. Quito: Diagonal Ediciones.
38.
ELAW (Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide)2010Guidebook for Evaluating Mining Projects EIAs. Eugene, OR: Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide.
39.
EngelsBettinaDietzKristina2017Contested Extractivism, Society and the State: Struggles over Mining and Land. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
40.
GamsoJonas2016 “A case of diversified dependency: macrostructural change and policy alternatives in Ecuador.” Latin American Perspectives43 (1): 109–123.
GudynasEduardo2009 “Diez tesis urgentes sobre el nuevo extractivismo: contextos y demandas bajo el progresismo sudamericano actual,” pp: 187–225 in SchuldtJürgen, et al. (eds.), Extractivismo, política y sociedad. Quito: CAAP/CLAES.
GudynasEduardo2012 “Estado compensador y nuevos extractivismos: las ambivalencias del progresismo sudamericano.” Nueva Sociedad237: 128–146.
45.
HarneckerMarta2010 “Gobierno de Rafael Correa: innovación, eficiencia y credibilidad (Entrevista de Marta Harnecker al Canciller Ricardo Patiño).” http://www.rebelion.org/docs/110843.pdf (last accessed January 29, 2021).
46.
HarrisLeilaRoa-GarcíaMaría Cecilia2013 “Recent waves of water governance: constitutional reform and resistance to neoliberalization in Latin America.” Geoforum50: 20–30.
47.
KueckerG. D.2008 “Fighting for the forests revisited: grassroots resistance to mining in northern Ecuador,” pp. 97–112 in Stahler-SholkR.VandenH. E.KueckerG. D. (eds.), Latin American Social Movements in the Twenty-first Century: Resistance, Power, and Democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
LalanderRickardOspina PeraltaPablo2012 “Movimiento indígena y revolución ciudadana en Ecuador.” Cuestiones Políticas28 (48): 13–50.
50.
Le QuangMatthieu2016a “The Yasuní-ITT initiative: toward new imaginaries.” Latin American Perspectives43 (1): 187–199.
51.
Le QuangMatthieu2016b “La trajectoire politique de l’initiative Yasuní-ITT en Équateur: entre capitalisme vert et écosocialisme.” Cahiers d’Histoire: Revue d’Histoire Critique130: 1–13.
52.
LewisTammy2016Ecuador’s Environmental Revolutions: Ecoimperialists, Ecodependents, and Ecoresisters. Cambridge: MIT Press.
53.
Martínez DalmauRubén2016 “Democratic constitutionalism and constitutional innovation in Ecuador: the 2008 Constitution.” Latin American Perspectives43 (1): 158–174.
54.
Martínez DalmauRubénPastorRoberto Viciano2010 “Los procesos constituyentes latinoamericanos y el nuevo paradigma constitucional.” Revista del Instituto de Ciencias Jurídicas de Puebla A.C. 25: 7–29.
MooreJenniferVelásquezTeresa2013 “Water for gold: confronting state and corporate mining discourses in Azuay, Ecuador,” pp. 119–148 in BebbingtonA.BuryJ. (eds.), Subterranean Struggles: New Dynamics of Mining, Oil, and Gas in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press.
59.
MouffeChantal2005On the Political. London: Routledge.
60.
O’DonnellGuillermo1994 “Delegative democracy.” Journal of Democracy5 (1): 55–69.
61.
Ospina PeraltaPablo2011 “Corporativismo, Estado y revolución ciudadana: El Ecuador de Rafael Correa,” pp. 85–116 in BüschgesChristianKaltmeier, andOlafThiesSebastian (eds.), Culturas políticas en la region andina. Madrid: Iberoamericana Vervuert.
62.
PeetRichardWattsMichael (eds.) 1996Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development and Social Movements. London and New York: Routledge.
63.
PetrasJamesVeltmeyerHenry2014a “A new mode of extractive imperialism?” pp. 21–46 in PetrasJ.VeltmeyerH. (eds.), The New Extractivism: A Post-Neoliberal Development Model or Imperialism of the Twenty-first Century?London and New York: Zed Books.
64.
PetrasJamesVeltmeyerHenry2014b The New Extractivism: A Post-Neoliberal Development Model or Imperialism of the Twenty-first Century?London and New York: Zed Books.
RadcliffeSarah A.2012 “Development for a postneoliberal era? Sumak kawsay, living well and the limits to decolonisation in Ecuador.” Geoforum43: 240–249.
67.
RaftopoulosMalayna2017 “Contemporary debates on social-environmental conflicts, extractivism and human rights in Latin America.” International Journal of Human Rights21: 397–404.
68.
SawyerSuzana2004Crude Chronicles: Indigenous Politics, Multinational Oil, and Neoliberalism in Ecuador. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
69.
SilvaEduardoMossiFederico (eds.) 2018Reshaping the Political Arena in Latin America: From Resisting Neoliberalism to the Second Incorporation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
70.
SvampaMaristella2015 “Commodities consensus: neoextractivism and enclosure of the commons in Latin America.” South Atlantic Quarterly114 (1): 65–82.
71.
Van CottDonna Lee2005From Movements to Parties in Latin America: The Evolution of Ethnic Politics. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.
72.
van TeijlingenKarolienHogenboomBarbara2016 “Debating alternative development at the mining frontier: buen vivir and the conflict around El Mirador Mine in Ecuador.” Journal of Developing Societies32: 382–420.
73.
VelásquezTeresa2018 “Tracing the political life of Kimsacocha: conflicts over water and mining in Ecuador’s southern Andes.” Latin American Perspectives45 (5): 154–169.
74.
VillalbaUnai2013 “Buen vivir vs. development: a paradigm shift in the Andes?” Third World Quarterly34: 1427–1442.
75.
WalshCatherine2010 “Development as buen vivir: institutional arrangements and (de)colonial entanglements.” Development53 (1): 15–21.
76.
WarnaarsXimena2013 “Territorial transformations in El Pangui, Ecuador: understanding how mining conflict affects territorial dynamics, social mobilization, and daily life,” pp. 149–171 in BebbingtonA.BuryJ. (eds.), Subterranean Struggles: New Dynamics of Mining, Oil, and Gas in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press.
77.
WebberJeffery R.CarrBarry (eds.) 2013The New Latin American Left: Cracks in the Empire. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield.
