توسعه اقتصادی نئو صنفی و سرزمینی: جنبش بومی اکوادور در دولت محلی

This article argues that the democratization of local governments that has been led by indigenous movements in Ecuador can best be described as “neocorporatist”. The article, based on the evidence from two cases of indigenous local governments in the Andes, argues that the forms of “neo-corporatism” created by the Ecuadorian indigenous movement on its entry into government are designed as participatory institutional frameworks that also serve as channels for the expression of social movements’ demands. The neocorporatist practices deployed by indigenous movements in these areas have had mixed results, both in terms of their implementation and of their capacity to foster viable income-generating activities for poor rural areas. On balance, while the forms of neocorporatist government fostered by the indigenous movement can have positive impacts on economic development, there are still two broad limitations. First, it continues to be difficult to foster a process of territorial economic development that effectively addresses the distinct interests that exist among different community organizations. Second, the negative effects of the wider economic context in which local territories find themselves remain beyond the control of the local government.

Since the late 1980s, the Ecuadorian indigenous movement has emerged as a social and political actor with a speed and visibility almost unprecedented in the countries’ history. Given that it questions the very underpinnings of the country-State founded two centuries ago, the movement’s importance stems as much from its historical and moral weight as its symbolic significance. But what, in the final instance, have been the effects of this movement on the political economy of local territorial development in Ecuador? How (if at all) are its actions altering the power relationships, institutional frameworks, and the operating conditions of the Ecuadorian economy?

This paper makes two linked arguments. First, that the experiences of two local governments led by the indigenous movement can best be characterized as “neocorporatist.” They are corporatist because they seek to strengthen the role of grassroots organizations in channeling local democratic participation and in making decisions on public policy and investment priorities. Their form of corporatism is “new” because it differs from the classic corporatist model of twentieth century Latin America in the sense that it does not presume that these groups be subordinated to the political actors or party that dominate the state. Their corporatism also has elements of the “old” in the sense that it continues to be based on organizational and political traditions with their roots in deeper agrarian traditions of indigenous communities grounded in the kinship ties that were so effectively manipulated by the pre-capitalist hacienda.