Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The moral imperative of “saving” Indigenous children has been historically used as a tool to facilitate land appropriation in Amazonia. This paper examines how three types of child-centered interventions—early colonial tutelage, state schools, and conditional cash transfers—have contributed to reinforcing development models that threaten Indigenous livelihoods. Drawing insights from governmentality and decolonial studies, this literature review foregrounds the interplay between child saviorism, land dispossession, and predatory extractivism in Amazonia. The paper concludes by calling for the integration of Indigenous perspectives in social policies to challenge the colonial legacy of child-centered development.

Keywords

Coloniality Children Governmentality Indigenous peoples Amazonia

In recent years, claims of infanticide among Indigenous communities surged in Brazil, particularly during Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency (2019-2022). Disseminated through viral videos in social media, these claims conveniently aligned with Bolsonaro’s agenda to “integrate” Amazonia through missionary interventions and extractive development (Salles et al., 2023). The moral imperative of “saving children” allegedly endangered by Indigenous beliefs seemed to justify Bolsonaro’s assault on Indigenous cultures and land rights (Londoño and Casado, 2020). However, using children as a pretext for territorial dispossession is neither an innovative political strategy nor an exclusively Brazilian technique of government. Across Amazonia, children have long been at the heart of colonization efforts. On the Peruvian side of the forest, enduring rumors of White people who eat babies (Belaunde, 2007) and rubber barons kidnapping youngsters (Gray, 1997: 31) suggest that children remain the primary targets of colonialism. Although child-centered interventions have evolved, their role in contemporary projects of assimilation and dispossession remains understudied. This paper fills this gap by showing how such interventions continue to be used as tools of control over Indigenous territories.

The notion of “children without childhoods,” or children in need of rescue, has been widely studied as a post-colonial construct that justifies ongoing interventions in formerly colonized territories (Burman, 1994; Liebel, 2017; Valentin and Meinert, 2009). In colonial contexts, this often implied that Indigenous children, perceived as lacking a “proper” childhood, needed to be saved from their communities through “civilizing missions” (de Leeuw, 2009; Mak, Monteiro, and Wesseling, 2020). Today, seemingly progressive policies such as conditional cash transfers can serve a similar purpose by integrating Indigenous families into the market economy while suppressing resistance against the commodification of natural resources (Yörük, Öker, and Șarlak, 2019). Therefore, government programs targeting Indigenous children can still coincide with the dispossession and exploitation of Indigenous lands (see de Carvalho, 2025). This raises a critical question: to what extent do contemporary interventions differ from or mirror earlier strategies of colonization, and is there an alternative path forward?

To address this question, this paper reviews the literature on child-centered interventions in Amazonia. Initially part of a larger study on the effects of government interventions on Shipibo-Konibo children in Peru (see de Carvalho, 2022), the scope of this review was later expanded to include neighboring countries. Drawing on the concepts of governmentality and colonialism, this paper examines how the discourse of “improving children’s prospects” has been used to justify the control and dispossession of forest peoples. Despite the limitations of a non-systematic review, this study provides a foundation for future research on the complex interplay between childhood, colonialism, and extractivism in the Amazon.

The paper is structured around three historical periods. Initially, it explores how colonial and early republican authorities infantilized Indigenous people to legitimize land appropriation. Subsequently, as education became central to nation-building projects, the offer of schooling was used to incentivize Indigenous families to relocate to smaller, settled communities. In recent decades, government programs such as conditional cash transfers have positioned Indigenous children as “beneficiaries” of an extractive development model that is, in fact, driving their families into poverty. Ultimately, this paper contends that these various attempts to “save” Indigenous children are rooted in the colonial belief that their future would be better if they were raised within the values of a Western, modern, and market-based society. By reflecting on the commonalities among these approaches, the conclusion offers recommendations for policymakers to dismantle this persistent rhetoric.

Governmentality and colonialism: why do children matter?

To better understand the links between child interventionism and land dispossession in Amazonia, it is worth reflecting on the connections between governmentality, children, and colonialism. Michel Foucault introduced the concept of governmentality to describe how modern institutions, techniques and strategies of governance shape societal behavior and exercise authority over people (Foucault, 1980). He argued that biopolitics—the impact of politics on life—was a key feature of governmentality, which instrumentalized different forms of knowledge, such as economics, sociology, and the biomedical sciences, to optimize and shape human behavior.

Governance operates both at the broader scale of population management, through tools like demographic censuses and laws, and at the microscale of families and schools (Foucault, 1995). In fact, the governance of intimate aspects of life was always considered essential to reducing friction between individuals and the state (Stoler, 2002). The policing of families and the institutionalization of children, famously described by Donzelot (1980), are key examples of government tactics used to correct the course of children considered “at risk” of deviation. Interventions targeting children ultimately aimed to produce docile citizens amenable to societal norms of conduct, who possessed skills that could contribute to national economic growth (Wells, 2016). The political and economic importance of optimizing human development naturally placed children at the heart of governmentality (Wells, 2011).

The idea of “saving” children arose from the belief that proper human development requires certain universal conditions (Hart, 2006). Within this logic, international agencies, Christian charities, and donors from affluent contexts often approach the struggles of children in low-income regions as evidence of their societies’ inability to provide the ideal conditions for child development (Pupavac, 2001; Scheidecker et al., 2023). At the same time, they position themselves as the superior external authority capable of “rescuing” those children (Burman, 1994). This paternalistic gaze rests on an assumption of Western and capitalist superiority (Liebel, 2017).

What is often overlooked in portrayals of children in need of rescue is the historical and political context that created their deprivation. This omission is particularly striking in colonized regions, where imperial powers systematically denied Indigenous children the privileges granted to their White counterparts (Wells, 2011). Such unequal treatment stemmed from racial divisions that sustained the logic of empire (Stoler, 2002). Central to this logic was the belief in a universal history of civilization, which, like the progression from childhood to adulthood, was thought to culminate in the cultural and political “maturity” expressed by the European Enlightenment (Rollo, 2018: 61; Liebel, 2020). An example of this thinking appears in an 18th-century lecture given by the German historian Friedrich von Schiller ([1789] 1972: 325):

The discoveries which our European seafarers have made in distant oceans and on remote shores afford us a spectacle which is as instructive as it is entertaining. They show us societies arrayed around us at various levels of development, as an adult might be surrounded by children of different ages, reminded by their example of what he himself once was and whence he started. A wise hand seems to have preserved these savage tribes until such time as we have progressed sufficiently in our own civilization to make useful application of this discovery, and from this mirror to recover the lost beginning of our race. But how embarrassing and dismal is the picture of our own childhood presented in these peoples!

The presumed superiority of Western thought fueled the belief that proper child-rearing could only be achieved through those values. Guided by this conviction, colonial authorities across the world implemented policies of Indigenous child removal and family separation as welfare initiatives that would improve Indigenous children’s prospects (de Leeuw, 2009; Jacobs, 2009). They portrayed the indoctrination of Indigenous children with so-called “civilizing” values as a noble effort to save them from the “barbarism” of their own cultures (Mak, Monteiro, and Wesseling, 2020; Van Krieken, 1999). In practice, these policies contributed to the erosion of Indigenous customs and, crucially, facilitated the encroachment of colonial administrations onto Indigenous lands under the guise of “rescuing” children (Wolfe, 2006).

The history of state interventions in Indigenous territories reveals how narratives of saviorism served to legitimize cultural assimilation and territorial dispossession in the name of progress. As this paper will show, child saviorism continues to shape development policies in Amazonia today, informing the governance of Indigenous children and their lands. Breaking this cycle requires acknowledging the colonial legacy in contemporary child policies and delinking our understandings of (child) “development” from the colonial narrative of universality that has shaped them (Mignolo, 2007).

The Presumed Infancy of Indigenous Peoples

Since the arrival of Europeans in the Americas, colonial powers saw Indigenous peoples as being trapped in an early stage of human development (de Leeuw, 2009). This portrayal, which cast Indigenous societies as lacking intellectual and government capacity, served to legitimize European control over them (Dean, 2002: 21). Such depictions were central to the colonial doctrine of terra nullius, which claimed that Indigenous territories were effectively “unoccupied” due to the absence of mature government structures (Rollo, 2018).

Infantilizing analogies also served to sustain colonial power by framing Indigenous peoples as orphaned children who needed state tutelage to adopt supposedly superior economic and cultural norms (Dean, 2002; Silva, 2018). Colonial oversight took the form of enforced religious education and settlements created with the intent to gradually impose “civilized” values on Indigenous communities (Carneiro da Cunha, 2012; Premo, 2005).

When Indigenous peoples resisted these forced changes, they were labelled as “savages.” Colonial authorities perceived Indigenous adult men as irredeemable rebels, but the behavior and beliefs of Indigenous children were potentially amendable (de Leeuw, 2009). The indoctrination of children occurred mainly through religious boarding schools, where children were distanced from the influence of their families. As a Jesuit priest in 16th-century Brazil noted, the target of such interventions was the “abomination of progenitors’ customs” (Chaves, 2000: 21).

Colonial norms also sanctioned the capture and legal detention of Indigenous children based on the belief that domestic labor would offer them a superior form of education than that of their original communities (Perrone-Moisés, 1992). In colonial Brazil, authorities referred to the trafficking of Indigenous children as the “innocent trade,” asserting that the practice could lift them from a so-called “primitive” state (Roller, 2021: 125). Many children were enslaved during conflicts among different Indigenous groups, often incited by colonial settlers to prevent alliances against colonial rule (Carneiro da Cunha, 1992). Others were acquired through trade, exchanged by their families as payment for increasingly necessary weapons and tools provided by the colonizers (Roller, 2021).

Government authorities targeted children as part of a broader strategy to subjugate Indigenous peoples. This effort not only sought to erase Indigenous identities but also played a crucial role in facilitating the dispossession of Indigenous lands (Carneiro da Cunha, 1995). Colonizers believed that raising children according to European customs would transform them into loyal subjects and even prepare them to act as emissaries of colonial rule within their communities (Carneiro da Cunha, 1995; Premo, 2005). Though the portrayal of Indigenous societies as childlike persisted into the early 20^th century, it evolved into a positivist rationale for intensifying government control over peoples and territories. This perspective is evident in a 1910 speech by Lieutenant Alípio Bandeira, one of the founders of Brazil’s Serviço de Proteção ao Índio (Indian Protection Service, SPI):

The Portuguese men who landed on Brazilian shores in the 16th century found in this part of America peoples of very easy assimilation, according to the testimony of ancient navigators and travellers. (. . .) These peoples were [living] in the infancy of humankind and, thus, participated in the vices and virtues inherent to this condition. Being like children, whose education can be moulded and shaped according to the will of the educator, a wise and humanitarian policy would have taken advantage of them for clearing the land and for the intellectual and moral effort that it was legitimate to expect of them. (Ferreira, 2007: 63)

Under Colonel Rondon’s leadership, the SPI’s original mission, as indicated by its name, was to shield Indigenous peoples from violent land disputes caused by settlers and pioneers encroaching on their territories (Davis, 1977: 25). However, this notion of “protection” was rooted in a broader strategy of governmentality aimed at asserting control over predominantly Indigenous frontier regions such as the Amazon forest (Lima, 1992). In practice, the dual function of tutelage enabled the government to exert authority over Indigenous populations under the guise of protection.

The creation of the SPI in Brazil reflects a pivotal historical moment when Latin American governments, grappling with highly diverse and unequal societies, sought to forge cohesive national identities. In this context, children were viewed as developing citizens who symbolized the future potential of these young nations (Nunes, 2011). This perspective led to the creation of new child-rearing institutions such as public schools and reformatories, designed to better prepare children for their future social and economic roles (Hecht, 2002). However, in Amazonia, the disciplining of Indigenous children was primarily centered on labor. Indigenous children were often recruited into apprenticeships with a promise of future wages that never materialized, as tutors later imposed charges for the training they provided (Morais Soares, 2022: 91).

The widespread use of Indigenous child labor, in stark contrast to the growing emphasis on formal education for non-Indigenous children, was justified by prevailing eugenic ideologies. Many politicians and scientists at the time argued that Latin America could only progress through the eradication of Indigenous cultures, which were often described as “backwards” (Davis, 1977). Media portrayals of Amazonia further dehumanized Indigenous peoples, reinforcing this belief. For instance, Chaumeil (2009: 60) found sensationalized images of Huitoto children in magazines, accompanied by claims that Indigenous child-rearing practices led children to consume human flesh from an early age. Such depictions implied that removing Amazonian children from their traditional customs was a humanitarian mission, essential to the region’s progress.

Intensive labor was commonly seen as a means of instilling discipline in Indigenous youth. In the Putumayo region, at the border between Peru and Colombia, children were frequently forced to work during the rubber boom, and were physically punished for low productivity (Hardenburg, 1912: 209). Pedro Flores, an elder Bora man who survived the rubber boom, recalls this exploitative labor as a form of ‘education:’

The White man brings with him machetes and axes that he hands to each [village] chief. [The chiefs], in turn, had to lend these instruments to their people. When someone wanted an axe and a machete for themselves, they had to give away a male child of about 10 years old [as payment]. The [White] boss had a trusted man named Shaba Carriba, (. . .) he was the one who trapped the boys and girls. Don Sharaba (. . .) helped boys grow up by teaching them how to work in the fields. His wife raised girls by teaching them [housework] (Castro de León, 1974: 32).

The portrayal of exploitative labor as “helpful” for child development illustrates how the prospects of Indigenous boys and girls were constrained by the extractive economy of Amazonia. Public schools only gained popularity after the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights established formal basic education as a fundamental human right (Ansell, 2016). However, the structure and purpose of state schools retained significant similarities with early colonial missions, using the promise of education for children to assert control over Indigenous lands.

Schools as Territorial Reductions

In 1951, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) issued a recommendation urging Latin American governments to undertake a coordinated effort to educate Indigenous peoples (Mendoza, 2005). This document recognized Indigenous peoples’ cognitive capacity and asserted that their education was a state responsibility, mirroring the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948. The ILO recommendation marked a turning point in centralized strategies of Indigenous governance, positioning schools as key instruments of state control (Foucault, 1995).

This shift coincided with a broader regional transformation in how childhood was perceived. Latin American governments became increasingly invested in the idea of proper child-rearing as a means to secure national progress (Hecht, 2002). Children came to symbolize their nations’ potential, embodying state aspirations for modernity and industrial advancement (Nunes, 2011). In international forums, Latin American children were portrayed as a “young race” full of promise, an image that contrasted sharply with representations of Indigenous societies as an “old race” impeding development (Nunes, 2012: 288). This dichotomy reinforced efforts to dissociate an emerging national identity from Indigenous traditions. Within this ideological framework, schools emerged as vital instruments for shaping future citizens by instilling modern values and preparing them for integration into national development projects (Wells, 2016).

The expansion of public schooling in Amazonia not only reflected these shifting perceptions of Indigenous peoples and children—it also followed the wider geopolitical and economic transformations influencing regional governance. The discovery of oil in the Amazon basin in the 1930s intensified state efforts to consolidate territorial control and assert sovereignty over strategic resources in this frontier region (Vasquez, 2014). Amid rising geopolitical tensions, educating Indigenous children became a means to foster allegiance to the nation-state, integrating remote communities into a unified national identity. In Brazil, for example, each SPI outpost included a school where nationalistic rituals—such as flag-raising, singing the national anthem, and locating one’s birthplace on a national map—were regularly performed (Lima, 1995).

Amazonia’s linguistic diversity posed a major challenge to the expansion of schooling, prompting Latin American governments to seek external support for Indigenous education. Their main partner organization in this task was the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), a US-based Protestant mission originally devoted to Bible translation (Barros, 2004). Between 1930 and 1970, SIL came to play a prominent role in Indigenous education across Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, and Brazil (Hvalkof and Aaby, 1981; Stoll, 1982b). Its extensive expertise in Indigenous languages, along with a fleet of hydroplanes, enabled SIL to reach remote areas beyond the logistical capacities of national governments (Stoll, 1982a). Over time, SIL was increasingly recognized as a linguistic authority, and formalizing collaborations with governments across the region. The Peruvian Ministry of Education established a formal partnership with SIL in 1952, tasking it with developing the first official Indigenous education program in Amazonia (Trudell, 1990). In 1969, the same model was adopted by the Brazilian government (Barros, 2004).

SIL’s bilingual education program offered some practical benefits for Indigenous families, such as enabling communication with government representatives and settlers who, drawn by the Amazon’s economic potential, were increasingly encroaching on Indigenous lands (Davis, 1977; Flemmer, 2018). However, formal schooling also promoted unwanted changes within Indigenous territories, disrupting the traditional lifestyles and settlement patterns of its students.

Indigenous families seeking access to formal education were often required to relocate to villages established by missionaries, a practice that turned schools into centers for congregating previously dispersed populations. This role led to the popular designation of school settlements as reducciones (territorial reductions) in Spanish (Chirif and García Hierro, 2007), or agrupamento (grouping) in Portuguese (Lima, 1995). Enrollment also required students to present a name and surname—a bureaucratic requirement that disregarded traditional Indigenous naming customs (Espinosa, 2019). Lacking official identification, many students initially registered using the surname of their extractive bosses, which caused confusion when families changed employment. To resolve this, teachers often assigned their own surnames to students, effectively standardizing names across entire communities (Montoya, 1995: 21). Over time, students internalized a hybrid identity that combined national symbols and Christian values promoted within the school environment. Communities surrounding these schools also began to distinguish themselves from nomadic “savages,” further reinforcing the impact of missionary and state-led schooling on Indigenous identities (Gow, 1991; Rival, 2000).

During this period, the image of Indigenous children in school uniforms was often used by governments as a symbol of “progress” in the Amazon (Lima, 1992; 1995). However, the creation of reducciones and agrupamentos gave rise to numerous sanitary challenges for settled families (see also Elsass, 1992). The high population density within these settlements strained local resources, reducing the availability of game and fish and facilitating the spread of infectious diseases such as cholera (Cueto, 2000). To mitigate these risks, SIL trained Indigenous teachers in sanitation practices and equipped them with livestock, edible plants, medicine, firearms, and electric torches (Stoll, 1982a). In their visits to remote villages to recruit students, these affluent-looking teachers personified the state’s promise of transformation through education.

The relocation of Indigenous communities to fixed settlements was aligned with a vision of Amazonia as an “empty” frontier ripe for development. Governments offered this supposedly uninhabited land as ideal for resettling landless peasants, and a solution to social tension in regions demanding agrarian reform (Barclay, 1991: 199; Lima, 1995). These settler communities were then enlisted to advance the national development agenda, clearing trees and constructing highways to facilitate the extraction and commercialization of natural resources (Davis, 1977). The new roads served as gateways for activities such as logging, mining, cattle farming, and other profit-driven ventures, with little regard for their detrimental impact on Indigenous populations (Merino, 2024).

Despite their resistance, Indigenous peoples had limited means to prevent the encroachment onto their territories. Although several national governments began recognizing Indigenous land rights between 1970 and 1990, constitutional provisions continued to grant the state authority over so-called “unclaimed” areas of Amazonia, which made up most of the forest (Carneiro da Cunha, 2012; Chirif and García Hierro, 2007). This legal framework curtailed Indigenous families’ access to essential resources, as population growth and accelerating deforestation further depleted them. The erosion of subsistence livelihoods, coupled with illegal incursions into demarcated Indigenous territories, led to the widespread impoverishment of Indigenous populations.

Harnessing The Forest’s Human and Natural Resources

The settler occupation of Amazonia and the construction of highways marked a new phase in the governance of the region (Drinot, 2014). By the turn of the century, the forest and its Indigenous inhabitants were increasingly viewed as untapped assets for national development. Political leaders such as Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa (2007-2017) argued that Amazonian nations should not remain “beggars sitting on a sack of gold” (cited in Lang, 2017: 80), presenting the forest as a lucrative but unused resource, and Indigenous communities as impediments to progress. A similar view was expressed by Peruvian president Alan García (2006-2011), who wrote:

There are millions of idle hectares of timber, other millions that communities have not cultivated nor will ever cultivate, in addition to hundreds of mineral deposits that cannot be exploited (. . .) There are also millions of workers who do not exist even though they labour, because their work does not give them social security or pensions, and they do not contribute what they could to multiply national savings. (García Perez, 2007)

The portrayal of Amazonia as a region of unexplored human and natural potential was key to justify the expansion of extractive development. Politicians framed state-led extraction as essential for harnessing the region’s wealth to solve widespread poverty (Lang, 2017; Santos-Granero, 2015). Amid a global surge in demand for oil, minerals, and agricultural products, rising commodity prices prompted national governments to expedite the commodification of the forest (Sánchez-Ancochea, 2021). Consequently, Amazonia’s resource abundance was reimagined as a financial reservoir for funding large-scale programs of socioeconomic inclusion (Gudynas, 2016; Svampa, 2015).

Extractive royalties and the taxation of exports enabled national governments to allocate significant funds to social programs, with over half of the region’s social spending channeled into conditional cash transfers (CCTs) (Sánchez-Ancochea, 2021). CCTs were informed by human capital theory, which posits that investments in children’s health and education can lead to increased future labor productivity (Heckman, 2000). The focus on impoverished families stemmed from research linking economic hardship to a range of adverse outcomes for children including malnutrition, delayed school enrollment and completion, and heightened exposure to physical and emotional harm (Jones and Sumner, 2011). Impoverished by centuries of resource dispossession, Indigenous children became priority targets for interventions aimed at maximizing their potential human capital.

The CCTs implemented in Amazonia made financial aid contingent on the adoption of behaviors deemed essential for lifting children out of poverty, such as regular school attendance and health check-ups (Vásquez Huamán, 2020). Complementary programs also sought to train Indigenous parents in child-rearing techniques considered more effective than traditional practices for promoting early childhood brain development (Scheidecker et al., 2023). The emphasis on behavioral change in such interventions reflects the persistence of colonial child governance, as programs still operate on the assumption that Indigenous child-rearing customs are inherently inadequate or even harmful (Liebel, 2017).

The introduction of social programs in Amazonia sparked widespread suspicion among Indigenous communities, particularly amid ongoing conflicts with the state over the commodification of forest resources (Svampa, 2021). While some families accepted the cash transfers, they struggled to grasp the rationale behind these interventions, perceiving themselves as resource-rich despite being classified as income-poor (Sarmiento Barletti, 2015). Many eligible families were wary of the true intentions behind the CCTs, recalling past experiences where seemingly generous offers from the state concealed an unfair trade of territorial rights or communal values (Lang, 2017; Verdum, 2016). Some families were even reluctant to enroll, fearing that sharing information about their children with government officials could jeopardize their safety (Santos-Granero and Barclay, 2011). A common belief was that the documentation required for registration could be appropriated by the government to either facilitate further resource extraction or forcibly enlist Indigenous youth into the military (Correa Aste, Roopnaraine, and Margolies, 2018: 164). The conditional nature of these programs, where assistance depended on compliance with prescribed behaviors, only worsened these apprehensions.

In theory, CCTs were designed to enable impoverished families to make better decisions for their children by reducing their reliance on child labor and easing the financial burden of school attendance (Buarque, 1994; Vásquez Huamán, 2020). In practice, however, their narrow focus on individual behaviors deflects attention from the structural inequalities that impede Indigenous children’s educational attainment, such as access to schools and the poor quality of education provided (de Carvalho, 2025). Many Indigenous families question the actual benefits of regular school attendance, given that chronic teacher absenteeism and limited resources often prevent local schools from delivering meaningful learning outcomes (Verdum, 2016). Despite these concerns, families comply with program requirements to avoid losing the benefits upon which they have become increasingly dependent (de Carvalho, 2025; Verdum, 2016). This dynamic suggests that conditionalities serve less as a pathway to genuine social transformation and more as a disciplinary tool, representing a contemporary form of child-centered governmentality.

Studies examining the effects of CCTs on Indigenous communities suggest the programs can also induce some negative behavior shifts. For instance, CCTs promote an individualized approach to economic well-being by allocating benefits at the household level, which conflicts with traditional practices of resource-sharing (Correa Aste, Roopnaraine, and Margolies, 2018; Novo, 2018; Santos-Granero, 2015). In addition, since recipients need to travel to urban centers to access funds, they are more exposed to consumerism and materialistic understandings of wealth (Verdum, 2016). This shift towards a market-oriented lifestyle aligns with neoliberal ideas of development that prioritize individual economic growth over communal well-being (Drinot, 2014).

CCTs also fail to account for the environmental dimensions of poverty in Amazonia. In rural Indigenous contexts, economic vulnerability is closely tied to the degradation of forest ecosystems and the resulting erosion of subsistence livelihoods (Lang, 2017). By attributing poverty to individual behaviors and choices, these programs obscure how deforestation and environmental degradation contribute to the intergenerational reproduction of poverty within Indigenous communities (de Carvalho, 2025). Moreover, by facilitating integration into the market economy without improving the sustainability of traditional livelihoods, CCTs risk further distancing recipients from their traditional territories and customs. In doing so, they reproduce the colonial logic of governmentality by casting rural subsistence economies as an obstacle to (self-)development (Drinot, 2014: 182; Fotta and Balen, 2018).

While CCT programs contributed to a notable reduction in monetary poverty in Latin America from 27% in 2000 to 12% by 2014 (Balakrishnan and Toscani, 2018), they also entrenched a development model structurally reliant on extractive industries (Gudynas, 2016). Rather than pursuing progressive tax reform in support of redistributive social policies, governments have continued to fund social spending through revenue generated by commodity exports (Holland and Schneider, 2017). This reliance on a predatory extraction economy compels politicians to prioritize short-term profit over long-term socioenvironmental sustainability (Svampa, 2015). In practice, this has driven the expansion of resource frontiers into Indigenous territories, further eroding subsistence economies and deepening ecological degradation (Lang, 2017). The moral justification of CCTs as essential to “saving children” from poverty conceals these harms, legitimizing extractivism as both economically rational and socially just. It also produces a fundamental contradiction: while CCTs aim to break cycles of intergenerational poverty, the extractive industries that finance them are likely to exacerbate rural poverty over time (de Carvalho, 2025).

Conclusion and Ways Forward

The history of Amazonia provides numerous examples of how child-centered interventions have served as instruments of population and territorial control. From colonial tutelage to contemporary social protection programs, state interventions reflect a persistent colonial logic: the assumption that Indigenous livelihoods, knowledge systems, and child-rearing practices are deficient and in need of reform. As a result, these interventions have often undermined Indigenous self-determination, facilitated extractive development, and promoted the assimilation of Indigenous children into an individualistic, market-oriented society.

In recent decades, CCT programs have gained prominence across Latin America as effective tools for reducing monetary poverty. However, their narrow focus on recipient behavior change perpetuates the same colonial logic. The policy narrative behind CCTs frames poverty as a product of individual failings rather than structural inequality. Moreover, because these programs were largely financed during a boom in commodity exports, they contributed to building a broader consensus around the need to intensify resource exploitation (Sánchez-Ancochea, 2021). Instead of pursuing progressive tax reforms when commodity prices fell, governments intensified extractive activities, often enabling incursions into Indigenous territories. However, expanding extractive frontiers to fund social spending tends to exacerbate the very cycles of poverty that CCTs intend to break (de Carvalho, 2015).

Recognizing these enduring colonial patterns—what Mignolo and Walsh (2018: 129) call the “analytic of coloniality”—is crucial to reimagining social welfare beyond the logic of colonial governmentality. A meaningful departure from this legacy requires placing Indigenous self-determination at the heart of social policy (see also Segato, 2013). This would entail actively involving Indigenous communities, including children, in the design and implementation of the programs intended to benefit them. Culturally grounded and participatory solutions are more likely to address the complex needs and aspirations of diverse Indigenous populations. Ultimately, social programs should support Indigenous children to thrive on their own terms, inclusively rooted in their traditions and territories.

Footnotes

Dr. Thaís de Carvalho is a Lecturer in Sustainable Development at The Open University (United Kingdom). Her interests include childhood issues, social policy, and environmental justice.

References

Ansell

Nicola

2016 “Globalizing education from Christian missionaries to corporate finance: Global actors, global agendas, and the shaping of global childhoods,” pp. 257–276 in Ansell

Nicola

Klocker

Nancy

Skelton

Tracey

(eds.), Geographies of Global Issues: Change and Threat. Singapore: Springer.

Barclay

Frederica

1991 “Protagonismo del estado en el proceso de incorporación de la Amazonia,” pp. 43–101 in Amazonia, 1940-1990: El extravío de una ilusión. Lima: CISEPA, PUCP.

Barros

Maria Cândida Drummond Mendes

2004 “A missão Summer Institute of Linguistics e o indigenismo latino-americano: História de uma aliança (décadas de 1930 a 1970).” Revista de Antropologia 47: 45–85. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-77012004000100002.

Belaunde

Luisa Elvira

2007 “Infancia amazónica, epidemias y colonización,” pp. 417–440 in Rodríguez

Pilar

Manarelli

María Emma

(eds.), Historia de la infancia en América Latina. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.

Buarque

Cristovam

1994 A revolução nas prioridades: Da modernidade técnica à modernidade ética. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.

Burman

Erica

1994 “Innocents abroad: Western fantasies of childhood and the iconography of emergencies.” Disasters 18 (3): 238–253.

Carneiro da Cunha

Manuela

(ed.)1992 História dos Índios no Brasil. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.

Carneiro da Cunha

Manuela

1995 “Children, politics, and culture: The case of Brazilian Indians,” pp. 282–300 in Stephens

Sharon

(ed.), Children and the Politics of Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Carneiro da Cunha

Manuela

2012 Índios no Brasil: História, direitos e cidadania. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.

10.

Castro de León

Manuel

1974 Los Bora y Huitoto de la región del Ampiyacu: Estudio etnográfico. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

11.

Chaumeil

Jean-Pierre

2009 “Guerra de imágenes en el Putumayo,” pp. 37–74 in Chirif

Alberto

Chaparro

Manuel Cornejo

(eds.), Imaginario e imágenes de la época del caucho: Los sucesos del Putumayo. Lima, Copenhagen: CAAAP, IWGIA.

12.

Chaves

Antonio Marcos

2000 “Os significados das crianças indígenas brasileiras (Séculos XVI e XVII).” Journal of Human Growth and Development 10 (1): Article 1. https://revistas.usp.br/jhgd/article/view/39509/42394.

13.

Chirif

Alberto

García Hierro

Pedro

2007 Marcando territorio: Progresos y limitaciones de la titulación de territorios indígenas en la Amazonía. Copenhagen: IWGIA.

14.

Correa Aste

Natalia

Roopnaraine

Tessa

Margolies

Amy

2018 “Conditional cash transfer program implementation and effects in Peruvian Indigenous contexts,” pp. 160–183 in de Sardan

Jean-Pierre Olivier

Piccoli

Emmanuelle

(eds.), Cash Transfers in Context: An Anthropological Perspective. New York: Berghahn Books.

15.

Cueto

Marcos

2000 El regreso de las epidemias: Salud y sociedad en el Perú del siglo XX. Lima: IEP.

16.

Davis

Shelton

1977 Victims of the Miracle: Development and the Indians of Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17.

de Carvalho

Thaís

2022 “Childhood and neo-extractive development: Shipibo children’s shifting livelihoods and social protection in the Peruvian Amazonia.” PhD diss., University of East Anglia. https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/91515/1/THESIS%20FINAL.pdf.

18.

de Carvalho

Thaís

2025 “Integrating environmental justice into child-sensitive social protection: The environmental roots of intergenerational poverty in Amazonia.” European Journal of Development Research 37 (1): 79–99. .

19.

de Leeuw

Sarah

2009 “‘If anything is to be done with the Indian, we must catch him very young:’ Colonial constructions of Aboriginal children and the geographies of Indian residential schooling in British Columbia, Canada.” Children’s Geographies 7 (2): 123–140.

20.

Dean

Carolyn

2002 “Sketches of childhood: Children in colonial Andean art and society,” pp. 21–51 in Hecht

Tobias

(ed.), Minor Omissions: Children in Latin American History and Society. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

21.

Donzelot

Jacques

1980 The Policing of Families. New York: Hutchinson.

22.

Drinot

Paulo

2014 “Foucault in the land of the Incas: Sovereignty and governmentality in neoliberal Peru,” pp. 167–190 in Drinot

Paulo

(ed.), Peru in Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

23.

Elsass

Peter

1992 Strategies for Survival: The Psychology of Cultural Resilience in Ethnic Minorities. New York: New York University Press.

24.

Espinosa

Oscar

2019 “Etnónimos, ‘comunidades nativas’ y otras categorías problemáticas del estado en contextos de diversidad cultural: El caso de la Amazonía peruana.” Forum Historiae Iuris, Debatten (Rechtliche Kategorien und Identität in Lateinamerika – und wenn ja, wie viele?).

25.

Ferreira

Andrey Cordeiro

2007 “Tutela e resistência Indígena: Etnografia e história das relações de poder entre os terena e o estado brasileiro.” PhD diss, University of Rio de Janeiro.

26.

Flemmer

Riccarda

2018 “Stuck in the middle: Indigenous interpreters and the politics of vernacularizing prior consultation in Peru.” Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 23 (3): 521–40.

27.

Martin

Fotta

Balen

Maria Elisa

(eds.) 2018 Money from the Government in Latin America: Conditional Cash Transfer Programs and Rural Lives. London: Routledge.

28.

Foucault

Michel

1980 Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.

29.

Foucault

Michel

1995 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.

30.

García Pérez

Alan

2007 “El síndrome del perro del hortelano.” El Comercio, October 28.

31.

Gow

Peter

1991 Of Mixed Blood: Kinship and History in Peruvian Amazonia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

32.

Gray

Andrew

1997 “Indigenous rights and development: Self-determination in an Amazonian community,” in The Arakmbut of Amazonian Peru, vol. 3. Providence: Berghahn Books.

33.

Gudynas

Eduardo

2016 “Natural resource nationalisms and the compensatory state in progressive South America,” pp. 103–117 in Haslam

Paul A.

Heidrich

Pablo

(eds.), The Political Economy of Natural Resources and Development: From Neoliberalism to Resource Nationalism. London: Taylor & Francis.

34.

Hardenburg

Walter

1912 The Putumayo, the Devil’s Paradise: Travels in the Peruvian Amazon Region and an Account of the Atrocities Committed upon the Indians Therein. London: T. Fisher Unwin.

35.

Hart

Jason

2006 “Saving children: What role for anthropology?” Anthropology Today 22 (1): 5–8.

36.

Tobias

Hecht

(ed.) 2002 Minor Omissions: Children in Latin American History and Society. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

37.

Heckman

James

2000 “Policies to foster human capital.” Research in Economics 54 (1): 3–56.

38.

Holland

Alisha C.

Schneider

Ben Ross

2017 “Easy and hard redistribution: The political economy of welfare states in Latin America.” Perspectives on Politics 15 (4): 988–1006.

39.

Hvalkof

Søren

Aaby

Peter

1981 Is God an American? An Anthropological Perspective on the Missionary Work of the Summer Institute of Linguistics. Copenhagen: IWGIA.

40.

Jacobs

Margaret D.

2009 White Mother to a Dark Race: Settler Colonialism, Maternalism, and the Removal of Indigenous Children in the American West and Australia, 1880–1940. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

41.

Jones

Nicola

Sumner

Andrew

2011 Child Poverty, Evidence and Policy: Mainstreaming Children in International Development. Bristol: Policy Press.

42.

Lang

Miriam

2017 ¿Erradicar la pobreza o empobrecer las alternativas? Quito: Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Abya Yala.

43.

Liebel

Manfred

2017 “Children without childhood? Against the postcolonial capture of childhoods in the Global South,” pp. 79–97 in Invernizzi

Antonella

Liebel

Manfred

Milne

Brian

Budde

Rebecca

(eds.), ‘Children Out of Place’ and Human Rights: In Memory of Judith Ennew. Cham: Springer.

44.

Liebel

Manfred

2020 Decolonizing Childhoods: From Exclusion to Dignity. Bristol: Policy Press.

45.

Lima

Antônio Carlos de Souza

1992 “O governo dos índios sob a gestão do SPI,” pp. 155–172 in da Cunha

Manuela Carneiro

(ed.), História dos Índios no Brasil. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.

46.

Lima

Antônio Carlos de Souza

1995 Um grande cerco de paz: Poder tutelar, indianidade e formação do estado no Brasil. São Paulo: Editora UNESP.

47.

Londoño

Ernesto

Casado

Letícia

2020 “As Bolsonaro keeps Amazon vows, Brazil’s Indigenous fear ‘ethnocide.’” New York Times, April 19. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/19/world/americas/bolsonaro-brazil-amazon-indigenous.html.

48.

Mak

Geertje

Monteiro

Marit

Wesseling

Elisabeth

2020 “Child separation: (Post)colonial policies and practices in the Netherlands and Belgium.” BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review 135 (3–4): 4–28. https://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.10871.

49.

Mendoza

César Augusto Carranza

2005 “Nos olhos do outro: Nacionalismo, agencias indigenistas, educação e desenvolvimento, Brasil-Mexico (1940-1970).” PhD diss., State University of Campinas.

50.

Merino

Roger

2024 “The open veins of the Amazon: Rethinking extractivism and infrastructure in extractive frontiers.” Journal of Peasant Studies 51 (6): 1387–1408.

51.

Mignolo

Walter

2007 “Delinking.” Cultural Studies 21 (2–3): 449–514.

52.

Mignolo

Walter

Walsh

Catherine

2018 On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham: Duke University Press.

53.

Montoya

Rodrigo

1995 “Los niños indígenas en el Perú: Entre la exclusión histórica y la promesa de una ciudadanía étnica.” América Indígena 55 (3): 67–104.

54.

Morais Soares

Ana Luiza

2022 “Surviving the concrete jungle: Indigenous children in the Brazilian Amazon (1860–1910).” PhD diss., University of Illinois at Chicago.

55.

Novo

Marina Pereira

2018 “Dangerous desires: The affects (and affections) of cash transfer programs among the Kalapalo from the Aiha Village (Upper Xingu, Mato Grosso, Brazil),” pp. 130–144 in Fotta

Martin

Balen

Maria Elisa

(eds.), Money from the Government in Latin America. London: Routledge.

56.

Nunes

Eduardo Silveira Netto

2011 “A infância como portadora do futuro: América Latina, 1916-1948.” PhD diss., University of São Paulo.

57.

Nunes

Eduardo Silveira Netto

2012 “La infancia latinoamericana y el Instituto Internacional Americano de Protección a la Infancia (1916–1940),” pp. 273–302 in Sosenski

Susana

Albarrán

Elena Jackson

(eds.), Nuevas miradas a la historia de la infancia en América Latina: Entre prácticas y representaciones. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

58.

Perrone-Moisés

Beatriz

1992 “Índios livres e índios escravos: Os princípios da legislação indigenista do período colonial (séculos XVI a XVIII),” pp. 115–132 in da Cunha

Manuela Carneiro

(ed.), História dos Índios no Brasil. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.

59.

Premo

Bianca

2005 Children of the Father King: Youth, Authority, and Legal Minority in Colonial Lima. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

60.

Pupavac

Vanessa

2001 “Misanthropy without borders: The international children’s rights regime.” Disasters 25 (2): 95–112.

61.

Rival

Laura

2000 “Formal schooling and the production of modern citizens in the Ecuadorian Amazon,” pp. 108-122 in Levinson

Bradley A. U.

Borman

Kathryn M.

Eisenhart

Margaret

Foster

Michéle

Fox

Amy E.

Sutton

Margaret

(eds.), Schooling the Symbolic Animal: Social and Cultural Dimensions of Education. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield.

62.

Roller

Heather F.

2021 Contact Strategies: Histories of Native Autonomy in Brazil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

63.

Rollo

Toby

2018 “Feral children: Settler colonialism, progress, and the figure of the child.” Settler Colonial Studies 8 (1): 60–79.

64.

Salles

Débora

de Medeiros

Priscila Muniz

Santini

Rose Marie

Barros

Carlos Eduardo

2023 “The far-right smokescreen: Environmental conspiracy and culture wars on Brazilian YouTube.” Social Media + Society 9 (3): 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231196876.

65.

Sánchez-Ancochea

Diego

2021 “The surprising reduction of inequality during a commodity boom: What do we learn from Latin America?” Journal of Economic Policy Reform 24 (2): 95–118.

66.

Fernando

Santos-Granero

(ed.) 2015 Images of Public Wealth or the Anatomy of Well-Being in Indigenous Amazonia. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

67.

Santos-Granero

Fernando

Barclay

Frederica

2011 “Bundles, stampers, and flying gringos: Native perceptions of capitalist violence in Peruvian Amazonia.” Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 16 (1): 143–67.

68.

Sarmiento Barletti

Juan Pablo

2015 “‘It makes me sad when they say we are poor. We are rich!’: Of wealth and public wealth(s) in Indigenous Amazonia,” pp. 139–160 in Santos-Granero

Fernando

(ed.), Images of Public Wealth or the Anatomy of Well-Being in Indigenous Amazonia. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

69.

Scheidecker

Gabriel

Chaudhary

Nandita

Keller

Heidi

Mezzenzana

Francesca

Lancy

David F.

2023 “‘Poor brain development’ in the Global South? Challenging the science of early childhood interventions.” Ethos 51 (1): 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/etho.12379.

70.

Segato

Rita

2013 La crítica de la colonialidad en ocho ensayos y una antropología por demanda. Buenos Aires: Prometeo Libros.

71.

Silva

Elizângela Cardoso de Araújo

2018 “Povos indígenas e o direito à terra na realidade brasileira.” Serviço Social & Sociedade 133: 480–500. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-6628.155.

72.

Stoler

Ann Laura

2002 Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule. Berkeley: University of California Press.

73.

Stoll

David

1982a Fishers of Men or Founders of Empire? The Wycliffe Bible Translators in Latin America. London: Zed Books.

74.

Stoll

David

1982b “The summer institute of linguistics and Indigenous movements.” Latin American Perspectives 9 (2): 84–99.

75.

Svampa

Maristella

2015 “Commodities consensus: Neoextractivism and enclosure of the commons in Latin America.” South Atlantic Quarterly 114 (1): 65–82.

76.

Svampa

Maristella

2021 “Social movements in times of extractivism: The ecoterritorial turn in Latin America,” pp. 285–295 in Akram-Lodhi

A. Haroon

Dietz

Kristina

Engels

Bettina

McKay

Ben M.

(eds.), Handbook of Critical Agrarian Studies. Worcester: Edward Elgar Publishing.

77.

Trudell

Barbara

1990 “El instituto linguistico de verano y la educación bilingüe en el Perú: Una perspectiva.” Amazonia Peruana 9 (18): 39–52.

78.

Valentin

Karen

Meinert

Lotte

2009 “The adult north and the young south: Reflections on the civilizing mission of children’s rights.” Anthropology Today 25 (3): 23–28.

79.

Van Krieken

Robert

1999 “The ‘stolen generations’ and cultural genocide: The forced removal of Australian Indigenous children from their families and its implications for the sociology of childhood.” Childhood 6 (3): 297–311.

80.

Vásquez Huamán

Enrique

2020 La niñez del Perú en la mira: Qué podemos aprender de los programas sociales. Lima: Universidad del Pacífico.

81.

Vasquez

Patricia I.

2014 Oil Sparks in the Amazon: Local Conflicts, Indigenous Populations, and Natural Resources. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

82.

Verdum

Ricardo

2016 Estudos etnográficos sobre o programa bolsa família entre povos Indígenas. Brasília: MDS.

83.

von Schiller

Friedrich

1972 “The nature and value of universal history: An inaugural lecture [1789].” History and Theory 11 (3): 321–34.

84.

Wells

Karen

2011 “The politics of life: Governing childhood.” Global Studies of Childhood 1 (1): 15–25. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2304/gsch.2011.1.1.15.

85.

Wells

Karen

2016 “Governing the global child: Biopolitics and liberal subjectivities,” pp. 238–55 in Ansell

Nicola

Klocker

Natascha

Skelton

Tracey

(eds.), in Geographies of Global Issues: Change and Threat. Springer Singapore.

86.

Wolfe

Patrick

2006 “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native.” Journal of Genocide Research 8 (4): 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520601056240.

87.

Yörük

Erdem

Öker

Ibrahim

Șarlak

Lara

2019 “Indigenous unrest and the contentious politics of social assistance in Mexico.” World Development 123: 104618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104618.

Saving Indigenous Children? The Government of Childhood and the Coloniality of Development in Amazonia

Abstract

Keywords

Governmentality and colonialism: why do children matter?

The Presumed Infancy of Indigenous Peoples

Schools as Territorial Reductions

Harnessing The Forest’s Human and Natural Resources

Conclusion and Ways Forward

Footnotes

References