Advertisement

How to face the “fight of an ant against a giant”? Mobilization capacity and strategic bargaining in local ethnic conflicts in Latin America

  • Marie-Sophie HeineltEmail author
Aufsätze
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Since democratic liberalization, local ethnic conflicts have proliferated in Latin America—often triggered by decision-making on extractive or infrastructure projects on indigenous land. This article offers new insights on how to resolve these conflicts peacefully and particularly examines the effects of consultation and territorial autonomy rights for indigenous peoples. The proposed analytical framework refines actor-centered institutionalism with network-theoretical concepts to link the institutional level of rights with interaction-based and organization-centered factors whose effects have not yet been analyzed systematically. Empirical scrutiny builds on comparative process tracing of three exemplary conflicts: the decision-making process concerning a national park in Colombia (as an ideal case with prior consultations), the conflict over a hydroelectric dam in Panama (as a deviant case resulting in ethnic violence despite indigenous autonomy) and a mining project in Chile (as another deviant case leading to a peaceful agreement despite a least-likely setting without rights). For within-case analyses, network-analytic methods are used to examine access and bargaining mechanisms. One of the study’s results—which is of particular relevance for the scholarly discussion on multicultural legal renovations—is that regular channels of interaction of indigenous groups with public authorities foster peaceful interest intermediation. These can be created by consultation and autonomy rights but also by difference-blind decentralization reforms. The empirical analysis also shows how indigenous groups can accommodate to the bargaining logic of decision-making on their land; they do have relevant power resources at their disposal and can deploy them effectively.

Keywords

Ethnic conflicts Indigenous rights Latin America Comparative process tracing Network analysis 

Wie lässt sich der „Kampf der Ameise gegen einen Giganten“ friedlich führen? Mobilisierungsfähigkeit und strategischer Einsatz von Verhandlungsressourcen in lokalen ethnischen Konflikten in Lateinamerika

Zusammenfassung

Seit der demokratischen Liberalisierung haben lokale ethnische Konflikte in Lateinamerika zugenommen – häufig ausgelöst durch Entscheidungen über Rohstoff- oder Infrastrukturprojekte auf indigenem Land. Der Artikel bietet neue Erkenntnisse zu Möglichkeiten der friedlichen Regelung dieser Konflikte und prüft hierzu insbesondere die Wirkung von Konsultations- und Autonomierechten für indigene Völker. Der Analyserahmen verfeinert den Akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus mit netzwerktheoretischen Konzepten, um die institutionelle Ebene von Rechten mit interaktionsbasierten und akteurzentrierten Faktoren zu verknüpfen, deren Ineinanderwirken bisher noch nicht systematisch untersucht wurde. Die empirische Analyse fußt auf vergleichendem Process Tracing zu drei exemplarischen Konflikten: der Entscheidung über einen Nationalpark in Kolumbien (als ideal case mit Konsultationsrechten), dem Konflikt um einen Staudamm in Panama (als deviant case, der trotz indigener Autonomie in ethnischer Gewalt mündete) und einem Minenprojekt in Chile (als weiterer deviant case, bei dem auch ohne Gruppenrechte eine friedliche Einigung erzielt wurde). Für die Fallanalysen werden netzwerkanalytische Methoden verwendet, um Zugangs- und Verhandlungsmechanismen zu untersuchen. Eines der Ergebnisse der Studie – das für die wissenschaftliche Diskussion um multikulturelle Reformen von besonderer Relevanz ist – ist, dass regelmäßige Interaktionskanäle zwischen indigenen Gruppen und öffentlichen Institutionen eine friedliche Interessenvermittlung befördern. Diese können durch Konsultations- und Autonomierechte, aber auch durch konventionelle Dezentralisierungsreformen geschaffen werden. Die empirische Analyse zeigt außerdem, wie sich indigene Völker an die Verhandlungslogik von Entscheidungsprozessen anpassen können; sie verfügen über hierfür relevante Machtressourcen und können diese effektiv einsetzen.

Schlüsselwörter

Ethnische Konflikte Indigene Rechte Lateinamerika Process Tracing Netzwerkanalyse 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the interviewees for their time, interest, and contribution. The author is also grateful for the feedback of the two reviewers. Research for this article was funded by the German Foundation for Peace Research (DSF) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).

Supplementary material

12286_2019_417_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (475 kb)
Questionnaire and case chronologies

References

  1. Alcalá, Pilar R., and Maria Victoria Uribe. 2016. Constructing memory amidst war: the historical memory group of Colombia. International Journal of Transitional Justice 10(1):6–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond, Gabriel A. 1956. Comparative political systems. Journal of Politics 18(5):391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ANAM Nacional. 2008. Informe del Foro Público. Panama City: ANAM Nacional.Google Scholar
  4. Andolina, Robert, Nina Laurie, and Sarah Radcliffe. 2009. Indigenous development in the Andes: culture, power, and transnationalism. London: Duke Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arsel, Murat, Barbara Hogenboom, and Lorenzo Pellegrini. 2016. The extractive imperative and the boom in environmental conflicts at the end of the progressive cycle in Latin America. The Extractive Industries and Society 3(4):877–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson, Michael M., and William Coleman. 1992. Policy networks, policy communities and the problems of governance. Governance 5(2):154–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barros, Alonso. 2016. The fetish mechanism: A post-dogmatic case study of the Atacama Desert people and the extractive industries. In Handbook of indigenous peoples’ rights, ed. Corinne Lennox, Damien Short, 223–236. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Pedersen. 2013. Process tracing methods. Michigan: University.Google Scholar
  9. Bebbington, Denise, and Anthony Bebbington. 2010. Extraction, territory, and inequalities: gas in the Bolivian Chaco. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 30(1):259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Betancur, Ana C., and William Vila. 2016. Mining and indigenous peoples in Colombia, IWGIA Report. http://www.iwgia.org/publications/search-pubs?publication_id=739. Accessed 16 June, 2017.Google Scholar
  11. Blatter, Joachim, and Markus Haverland. 2012. Designing case studies: explanatory approaches in small-N research. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blatter, Joachim, Phil Langer, and Claudius Wagemann. 2018. Qualitative Methoden in der Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boeder, Shane. 2013. At any cost: big coal crushes, fragile communities in Colombia, Journal for the Study of Peace and Conflict: 42-64, https://www.uwsp.edu/cols-ap/WIPCS/Documents/Journals/j12.pdf. Accessed: February 25, 2019.Google Scholar
  14. Borgatti, Stephen P., G. Everett Martin, and Jeffrey Johnson. 2013. Analyzing social networks. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  15. Brysk, Alison. 2000. Democratizing civil society in Latin America. Journal of Democracy 11(3):151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coleman, James. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Conaf. 2005. Comanejo reserva nacional Los Flamencos. Antofagasta: Conaf, provided to the author.Google Scholar
  18. Cordell, Karl, and Stefan Wolff. 2009. Ethnic conflict. Causes, consequences, responses. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  19. Corema. 2007. Resolución de Calificación Ambiental. Resolución exenta nº 0366 /2007. Antofagasta: Corema.Google Scholar
  20. Dietz, Kristina. 2017. Direct democracy in mining conflicts in Latin America: mobilising against the la Colosa project in Colombia. Canadian Journal of Development Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2018.1467830 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dür, Andreas. 2008. Measuring interest group influence in the EU: a note on methodology. European Union Politics 9:559–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eaton, Kent, Jean-Paul Faguet, Imke Harbers, Arjan H. Schakel, Liesbet Hooghe, Gary Marks, Sara Niedzwiecki, Sandra Chapman Osterkatz, and Sara Shair-Rosenfield. 2018. Measuring and theorizing regional governance, territory, politics, governance. Territory, Politics, Governance.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2018.1445021.Google Scholar
  23. El Colombiano. 2014. Bahía Portete en la Guajira, declarado Parque Nacional Natural. http://m.elcolombiano.com/bahia-portete-en-la-guajira-declarado-parque-nacional-natural-DJ946713. Accessed 6 Mar, 2017.Google Scholar
  24. El Espectador. 2014. Bahía Portete, regalo de Navidad. 21.12.2014. http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/medio-ambiente/bahia-portete-regalo-de-navidad-articulo-534419. Accessed 25 May, 2017.Google Scholar
  25. El Heraldo. 2014. Empieza retorno a Portete, tras 10 años de la masacre. 22.12.2014. https://www.elheraldo.co/nacional/empieza. Accessed 4 Mar, 2018.Google Scholar
  26. Environmental Justice Atlas (Ejatlas). 2017. Environmental Justice Atlas. https://ejatlas.org/. Accessed 16 June, 2017.Google Scholar
  27. Falleti, Tulia G., and Julia F. Lynch. 2009. Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies 42:1143–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Falleti, Tulia G., and Thea N. Riofrancos. 2018. Endogenous participation. Strengthening prior consultation in extractive economies. World Politics 70(2):86–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fisher, Eloy. 2014. Constitutional struggle and indigenous resistance in Latin America. The case of Panama. Latin American Perspectives 41(6):65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fontana, Lorenza B., and Jean Grugel. 2016. The politics of indigenous participation through “Free Prior Informed Consent”: reflections from the Bolivian case. World Development 77:249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Freedom House. 2017. Freedom in the World. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017. Accessed 16 June, 2017.Google Scholar
  32. Genisa. 2007. Encuesta Socio-económica. Anam Regional: David, Chiriqui.Google Scholar
  33. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gerring, John. 2007. Is there a (viable) crucial-case method? Comparative Political Studies 40:231–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. González, Miguel. 2016. The unmaking of self-determination, Bulletin of Latin American Research 35(3), 306–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Granovetter, Mark. 1976. Network sampling: some first steps. American Journal of Sociology 81(6):1287–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gurr, Ted R. 1993. Minorities at risk. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
  38. Gustafson, Bret. 2002. Paradoxes of liberal indigenism. In The Politics of Ethnicity, ed. Maybury-Lewis, David, 1-28. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Haarstad, Håvard. 2012. Extracting justice? Critical themes and challenges in Latin American natural resource governance. In New political spaces in Latin American natural resource governance, ed. Havard Haarstad, 1–16. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hale, Charles. 2004. Rethinking indigenous politics in the era of the Indio Permitido. NACLA Report on the Americas 38(2):16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hale, Charles R. 2002. Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, cultural rights and the politics of identity in Guatemala. Journal of Latin American Studies 34(3):485–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary Taylor. 1996. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies XLIV, 936–957.Google Scholar
  43. Heinelt, Marie-Sophie. 2015. Collective Rights, Mobilization and Accessibility, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 21 (4): 465-486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Herrera, Francisco. 2012. La evolución de las demandas indígenas sobre la tierra y las respuestas del Estado en Panamá. Caderns-e 17(1):44–59.Google Scholar
  45. Hillón Vega, Yulieth T. 2014. La consulta previa en la solución de conflictos socio-ambientales. Revista De Derecho.  https://doi.org/10.14482/dere.41.4839.
  46. Hochstetler, Kathryn, and Ricardo Tranjan. 2016. Environment and consultation in the brazilian democratic developmental state, Comparative Politics 48 (4), 497-516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Horowitz, Donald L. 1985. Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  48. Horton, Lynn. 2006. Contesting state multiculturalisms: indigenous land struggles in eastern Panama. Journal of Latin American Studies 38:829–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hristov, Jasmin. 2009. Social class and ethnicity/race in the dynamics of indigenous peasant movements. The case of the CRIC in Colombia. Latin American Perspectives 36(4):41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Htun, Mala. 2016. Inclusion without representation in Latin America: Gender quotas and ethnic reservations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. IWGIA. 2013. The indigenous world. Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. http://www.iwgia.org/publications/search-pubs?publication_id=613. Accessed June 10, 2017.
  52. Jaramillo, Pablo. 2011. Post-multicultural anxieties? Reparations and the trajectories of indigenous citizenship in la Guajira, Colombia. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 16(2):335–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jenkins, J. Craig. 1983. Resource mobilization. Theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology 9:527–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jong, Wil, and David Humphreys. 2016. A failed social licence to operate for the neoliberal modernization of Amazonian resource use: the underlying causes of the Bagua tragedy of Peru. Forestry 89(5):552–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Knoke, David. 1983. Organization sponsorship and influence reputation of social influence associations. Social Forces 61(4):1065–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Knoke, David. 1990. Political networks. The structural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Knoke, David, and Ronald Burt. 1983. Prominence. In Applied network analysis: a methodological introduction, ed. Ronald S. Burt, Michael Minor, 195–222. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  58. Knoke, David, Franz U. Pappi, Jeffrey Broadbent, and Yutaka Tsujinaka. 1996. Comparing policy networks. Labor politics in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Kymlicka, Will. 2013. Neoliberal multiculturalism? In Social resilience in the neoliberal era, ed. Peter A. Hall, Michèle Lamont, 99–126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Laitin, Ashutosh V. 1995. Ethnic Conflict and Rational Choice: A Theoretical Engagement, Working Paper 95 (11) (Cambridge, Mass.: Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, 1995). https://wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/ethnic-conflict-and-rational-choice-theoretical-engagement. Accessed 17 June 2017.Google Scholar
  62. Lalander, Rickard, and Markus Kröger. 2016. Ethno-territorial rights and the resource extraction boom in Latin America: do constitutions matter? Third World Quarterly 37:682–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lapidoth, Ruth. 1997. Autonomy: flexible solutions to ethnic conflicts. Washington: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  64. Laumann, Edward O., Peter Marsden, and David Prensky. 1983. The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In Applied network analysis, ed. Ronald Burt, Michael Minor, 18–34. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  65. Lijphart, Arend. 1977. Democracy in plural societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Lijphart, Arend. 2012. Patterns of democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Lucero, Jose Antonio. 2008. Struggles of voice: the politics of indigenous representation in the Andes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mähler, Annegret, and Jan H. Pierskalla. 2015. Indigenous identity, natural resources, and contentious politics in Bolivia: a disaggregated conflict analysis, 2000–2011. Comparative Political Studies 48(3):301–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Marsh, David. 1998. The utility and future of policy network analysis. In Comparing policy networks, 185–197. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Martí y Puig, Salvador, and Gonzalo Delamaza. 2018. Presentación. América Latina Hoy 79:3–18.Google Scholar
  71. Martínez Dalmau, Rubén. 2016. Democratic constitutionalism and constitutional innovation in Ecuador. The 2008 constitution. Latin American Perspectives 43(1):158–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McNeish, John-Andrew. 2012. More than beads and feathers: Resource extraction and the indigenous challenge in Latin America. In New Political Spaces in Latin American Natural Resource Governance, ed. Havard Haarstad, 39-60. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McNeish, John Andrew. 2018. Resource extraction and conflict in Latin America. Colombia Internacional 93(Enero):3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Méon, Pierre-Guillaume, and Khalid Sekkat. 2005. Does corruption grease or sand the wheels of growth? Public Choice 122(2):69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Merino, Roger. 2015. The politics of extractive governance: indigenous peoples and socio-environmental conflicts. The Extractive Industries and Society 2(1):85–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Merino, Roger. 2018. Re-politicizing participation or reframing environmental governance? Beyond indigenous’ prior consultation and citizen participation. World Development.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ministerio del Ambiente. 2014a. Resolución 2096 del 19 de diciembre del 2014. Bogotá: Ministerio del Ambiente.Google Scholar
  78. Ministerio del Ambiente. 2014b. Nuevo Parque Nacional Natural de Colombia Bahía Portete. Bogotá. http://www.minambiente.gov.co/index.php/component/content/article/2-noticias/1610-nuevo-parquenacional-natural-colombia-bahia-portete. Accessed 25 May 2017.Google Scholar
  79. Muro, Diego. 2012. Ethnicity, nationalism, and social movements. In The oxford handbook of social movements, ed. Della Donatella Porta, Mario Diani, 185–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Nagel, Jack H. 1975. The descriptive analysis of power. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Negretto, Gabriel L. 2009. Paradojas de la reforma constitucional en América Latina. Journal of Democracy 1(1):38–54.Google Scholar
  82. O’Faircheallaigh, Ciaran. 2017. Shaping projects, shaping impacts: community-controlled impact assessments and negotiated agreements. Third World Quarterly 38(5):1181–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Oliver, Pamela E. 1993. Formal models of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology 19:271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Havard University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Parques Nacionales Naturales (PNN). 2014a. Documento síntesis. Propuesta de Declaratoria de un Área Protegida del Sistema de Parques Nacionales Naturales de Colombia, en Bahía Portete, Territorio Wayuu. Santa Marta: PNN, provided to the author.Google Scholar
  86. Parques Nacionales Naturales (PNN). 2014b. Implicaciones Puerto Nuevo. Santa Marta: PNN, provided to the author.Google Scholar
  87. Parques Nacionales Naturales (PNN). 2014c. Implicaciones Kamushiwöu. Santa Marta: PNN, provided to the author.Google Scholar
  88. Parques Nacionales Naturales (PNN). 2014d. Implicaciones Yariwanishi. Santa Marta: PNN.Google Scholar
  89. Perreault, Tom. 2015. Performing participation: mining, power, and the limits of public consultation in Bolivia. The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 20(3):433–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Peruzzotti, Enrique, and Andrew Seele. 2009. Participatory innovation and representative democracy in Latin America. New York: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Postero, Nancy. 2007. Now we are citizens: indigenous politics in post-multicultural Bolivia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Restrepo, Elvira Maria. 2016. Leaders against all odds: women victims of conflict in Colombia. Palgrave Communications.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rhodes, R.A.W., and David Marsh. 1992. New directions in the study of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research 21:181–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Richards, Patricia. 2010. Of indians and terrorists: how the state and local elites construct the Mapuche in neoliberal multicultural Chile. Journal of Latin American Studies 42(1):59–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rodríguez-Garavito, César. 2010. Ethnicity.gov. Global governance, indigenous peoples, and the right to prior consultation in social minefields. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 18(1):1–44.Google Scholar
  96. Saldaña, Maximo. 2007. Certificación del Cacique General sobre el Estudio Ambiental a Generadora del Istmo, S. A. sobre Barro Blanco. Alto Caballero, provided to the author by the ANAM Nacional.Google Scholar
  97. Scharpf, Fritz. 2000. Interaktionsformen. Akteurzentrierter Institutionalismus in der Politikforschung. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  98. Schilling-Vacaflor, Almut. 2017. Who controls the territory and the resources? Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as a contested human rights practice in Bolivia. Third World Quarterly 38:1058–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schilling-Vacaflor, Almut, Riccarda Flemmer, and Anna Hujber. 2018. Contesting the hydrocarbon frontiers: State depoliticizing practices and local responses in Peru. World Development 108:74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. SEA. 2008. Suministro de Agua Pampa Colorada. http://seia.sea.gob.cl/expediente/ficha/fichaPrincipal.php?modo=ficha&id_expediente=1986330. Accessed 25 May, 2017.Google Scholar
  101. Shepard, Glenn, Klaus Rummenhoeller, Julia Ohl-Schacherer, and Yu W. Douglas. 2010. Trouble in paradise: Indigenous populations, anthropological policies, and biodiversity conservation in Manu National Park, Peru. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 29:252–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Stewart, Frances. 2011. Horizontal Inequalities as a cause of conflict. A review of CRISE findings, World Development Report. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTWDR2011/Resources/6406082-1283882418764/WDR_Background_Paper_Stewart.pdf. Accessed June 16th, 2017.Google Scholar
  103. Tarrow, Sidney. 1996. States and opportunities. The political structuring of social movements. In Comparative perspectives on social movements. Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings, ed. Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, 41–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2010. Diagnóstico socio económico y cultural para la declaración de Bahía Portete como área protegida Alta Guajira, Colombia. Santa Marta: TNC, provided to the author by Maria Acosta.Google Scholar
  105. Tomaselli, Alexandra. 2016. Exploring indigenous self-government and forms of autonomy. In Handbook of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, ed. Corinne Lennox, Damien Damien Short, 83–100. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Van Cott, Donna L. 2000. The friendly liquidation of the past. The politics of Diverstiy in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittburgh Press.Google Scholar
  107. Van Cott, Donna L. 2006. Multiculturalism against neoliberalism. In Multiculturalism and the welfare state, ed. Keith Banting, Will Kymlicka, 272–296. London: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Van Waarden, Frans. 1992. Dimensions and types of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research 21:29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Walter, Mariana, and Joan Martinez-Alier. 2010. How to be heard when nobody wants to listen: community action against mining in Argentina. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 30(1–2):281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Walter, Maure, and Leire Urkidi. 2015. Community mining consultations in Latin America (2002–2012): the contested emergence of a hybrid institution for participation. Geoforum 84:265–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1995. Social network analysis. Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Weible, Christopher M., and Paul Sabatier. 2005. Comparing policy networks: marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal 33:181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wilson, James Q. 1961. The strategy of protest: problems of negro civic action. Conflict Resolution 5(3):291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Wright, Claire. 2018. Expanding extractive industries, contracting indigenous rights. In Contracting human rights. Crisis, accountability, and opportunity, ed. Alison Brysk, Michael Stohl, 38–53. Cheltenham: Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Yashar, Debohra. 2005. Contesting citizenship. The rise of indigenous movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  116. Young, Iris M. 2009. Structural injustice and the politics of difference. In Contemporary debates in political philosophy, ed. Thomas Christiano, John Christman, 365–383. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  117. Zaremberg, Gisela, and Marcela Torres Wong. 2018. Participation on the edge: prior consultation and extractivism in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America 10:29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Lehrgebiet für Vergleichende PolitikwissenschaftFernUniversität in HagenHagenGermany

Personalised recommendations