Abstract
Why has Ecuador been much more successful at implementing participatory policy than Peru despite the similarity between the two countries’ policies and despite their similarly low state capacity? To answer this question, this article draws on insights from implementation literature that point to factors such as incentives written into policy, the commitment of administrations and bureaucratic agencies, and few veto points in the chain of implementation. While this article does not challenge such findings, it suggests that we must look further back in the causal chain to understand what brings such facilitating conditions about. Through an examination of ethnodevelopment policy in Ecuador and Peru, I find that the strength of social movements is most responsible for creating the conditions that foster implementation. Neither civil society nor the state alone can bring about successful participatory policy implementation. Rather, strong social movements can make the state comply with its own laws.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The period under review here is 1997–2005.
Social fund policies are laws mandating the establishment of indigenous-run state agencies to oversee development funds targeted toward indigenous communities.
In his discussion of the comparative democratization literature, Kitschelt (2003) suggests that political scientists seek deeper, as opposed to more proximate, variables for understanding Eastern European democratization. In the argument developed in this article, social movements constitute “deeper” variables. The article also takes seriously Kitschelt’s suggestion that “shallow explanations without depth are empty, deep explanations without mechanisms are blind” (74).
Also see Abers and Keck (2009) for a helpful examination of the ways that civil society can affect the implementation of participatory policies more specifically.
A wider conceptualization of implementation often refers to agency output, beneficiary compliance, social impact, and policy revision (Grindle 1980; Mazmanian and Sabatier 1983). I examine outputs as opposed to impact here, as social impacts are notoriously hard to study with fluctuations in social indicators such as poverty and development often having little to do with the administration of policies aimed towards affecting them.
Several of these indicators are standard to studies of policy implementation, while others are specific to the study of ethnodevelopment. The strength and reach of a bureaucratic agency as well as funding breadth are all standard measures of policy output (Hill and Hupe 2002; Mazmanian and Sabatier 1983; Pressman and Wildavsky 1973; Van Horn 1979). Self-management of programs and services is particular to the implementation of ethnodevelopment policy. While compliance on the part of beneficiaries is a standard outcome of interest in implementation studies, here it is of particular import as ethnodevelopment is in part defined by the participation on the part of indigenous communities themselves.
Important to note here is the relative success of Ecuador vis-à-vis Peru. Many Ecuadorian policy experts see much room for improvement in the delivery of services (Interview, Jorge León, Quito, 12/9/04).
As Abers and Keck (2009) suggest, state capacity can certainly be created in the process of implementing policies.
The Inter-American Development Bank assigns the two countries similarly low “state capacity” ratings (Stein et al. 2005). Moreover, a World Bank report (Kaufmann et al. 2005) rates “Government Effectiveness” in Peru to be higher than Ecuador’s (with both still scoring quite low on a relative scale), and Kohli (2010) gives Peru a higher rating than Ecuador on the “Quality of Bureaucracy.”
Here, I follow Tarrow’s (1994) definition of social movements as “collective challenges, based on common purposes and social solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities” (4).
Though Yashar is defining organizational strength, this indicator is eventually used to make conclusions about countries’ overall movement strength.
While Tilly (1999) and others use the unity of social movements to help measure strength, it is important to note that recent and significant work by such scholars as Colloredo-Mansfeld (2009), Lucero (2008), and Lucero and Garcia (2007) challenge the idea that division and fragmentation necessarily signify weakness in burgeoning movements.
As presidents play the largest policy-making role in the policies discussed here, the theoretical assumptions also place presidents in the primary policy-making role.
As I have documented elsewhere, those presidents most likely to form this partnership are in the midst of intensely competitive situations in which their political survival is under threat. They therefore perceive new sources of support as necessary (Chartock 2009).
The period under review here ends at 2005. It is important to note that since that time, CONAIE is not as unified as it was during the period of review, and has not been able to generate the same degree of protest and mobilization discussed here.
To be sure, in addition to the divisions between the three primary organizations, there have also been notable divisions within CONAIE. These divisions have come particularly between those leaders in the national spotlight and those more connected to local communities (Interview, CONAIE activist, Quito, 11/4/04). In fact however, as Colloredo-Mansfeld (2009) contends, various divisions within the indigenous population in Ecuador (and the strategies to manage them) have been sources of indigenous movement strength.
In the last decade, a number of indigenous federations have come together, and have been discussed as possible future national level representative forces in Peruvian indigenous politics (Garcia 2005). However, since these federations were not especially strong during the time period under study, they are therefore not considered here.
Importantly, Lucero (2008) and Lucero and Garcia (2007) warn against the assumption that the regional nature of Peruvian indigenous movements necessarily makes the movement a weak one. Indeed, Lucero’s work (2008) points to the idea that fragmentation, rather than unity, can often lead to certain indicators of success for a movement (such as the election of Evo Morales as President of Bolivia in 2005). While this important research indeed calls into question whether the indicators of strength discussed here lead to all measures of “success,” as I show in what follows, unity is in fact important for the implementation outcomes discussed here.
Though CODENPE is still functioning at the time of this writing, the period under study is limited to 1998–2005.
Though the fund also targeted the Afro-Ecuadorian community, I only examine output in indigenous communities here.
A longer discussion of the formulation and enactment of the law establishing CODENPE is beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, the fact that there was a nationally organized and institutionalized push from the bottom for the establishment of CODENPE is important to note here, as it contrasts with the case of Peru. For more on the social movement coalition push for CODENPE, see Lucero (2003, 2008) and Chartock (2009).
There are also differing viewpoints on the social impact of PRODEPINE and CODENPE, though these are beyond the scope of this article.
Aquise claims that CONAPA’s mission was to strengthen indigenous organizations only. In fact, the decree that created CONAPA states that strengthening organizations is just one of several objectives of the institution in addition to overseeing policy development in the realm of indigenous affairs as well as all “programs and projects corresponding to [the indigenous] population” (Supreme Decree N° 111-2001-PCM).
As is often cited in news reports about Karp and CONAPA, the First Lady had completed graduate work in Latin American indigenous cultures and speaks Quechua, the most widely spoken indigenous language of Peru.
Servindi, “Perú: Congresó aprobó autonomía del INDEPA,” 12/8/07. Can be accessed at: http://www.servindi.org/archivo/2007/3018.
Certainly, as Conaghan and Malloy (1994) show for these same country cases, it is where civil society is shut out of the process that neoliberal economic policy implementation is most likely to move forward. Thus, the relative roles of state and society likely hinge on the nature of the policy itself.
See also Abers and Keck (2009).
References
Abers RN, Keck ME. Mobilizing the state: the erratic partner in Brazil’s participatory water policy. Polit Soc. 2009;37:289–314.
Andrews KT. Social movements and policy implementation: the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty, 1965 to 1971. Amer Soc Rev. 2001;66:71–95.
Bretón V. Cooperación al desarrollo y demandas étnicas en los Andes ecuatorianos. Quito: FLACSO; 2001.
Brysk A. From tribal village to global village: Indian rights and international relations in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2000.
Cambio de posta: Eliane Karp renuncia a presidir la Conapa. El Comercio (Ecuador). 7/4/03: A4; 2003.
Chartock S. Ethnodevelopment in Latin America: political competition and the making of ethnically-targeted participatory policy in Ecuador, Peru and Guatemala, 1985–2005. PhD dissertation, Princeton University; 2009.
Colloredo-Mansfeld R. Fighting like a community: Andean civil society in an era of Indian uprisings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2009.
Conaghan CM, Malloy JM. Unsettling statecraft: democracy and neoliberalism in the central Andes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 1994.
Cornejo Menacho D, editor. Indios: una reflexión sobre el levantamiento Indígena de 1990. Quito: Instituto Latino-Americano de Investigaciones Sociales (ILDIS); 1991.
De la Cadena M. Indigenous Mestizos: the politics of race and culture in Cuzco, 1919–1991. Durham: Duke University Press; 2000.
Ex-funcionario destapa documento. El Comercio (Ecuador). 6/1/04: A7.
Garcia ME. Making indigenous citizens: identities, education and multicultural development in Peru. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2005.
Geddes B. Politician’s dilemma. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1994.
Giugni M. Social protest and policy change. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2004.
Giugni M, McAdam D, Tilly C, editors. How social movements matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1999.
Greene S. Incas, indios, and indigenism in Peru. NACLA Rep Am. 2005;38:34–9.
Greene S. Getting over the Andes: the geo-eco-politics of indigenous movements in Peru’s twenty-first century Inca empire. J Lat Am Stud. 2006;38:327–54.
Grindle M, editor. Politics and policy implementation in the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1980.
Guerrero A. The construction of a ventriloquist’s image: liberal discourse on the ‘miserable Indian race’ in late 19th century Ecuador. J Lat Am Stud. 1997;29:1–36.
Hale C. Neoliberal multiculturalism: the remaking of cultural rights and racial dominance in Central America. Pol Legal Anthr Rev. 2005;28:10–28.
Hey JAK, Klak T. From protectionism towards neoliberalism: Ecuador across four administrations (1981–1996). Stud Comp Int Dev. 1999;34:66–97.
Hill MJ, Hupe PL. Implementing public policy. London: Sage Publications; 2002.
Inter-American Development Bank. Compilación de legislación sobre asuntos Indígenas. Department of sustainable development. 2005. Data can be accessed at http://www.iadb.org/sds/ind/ley/index.cfm.
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). Republic of Ecuador, Development Project for Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples (PRODEPINE): intermediate evaluation. (Informe No. 1503-EC). Quito: IFAD; July 2004.
Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M. Governance matters IV: governance indicators for 1996–2004. Washington DC: World Bank; 2005.
Kitschelt H. Accounting for outcomes of post-communist regime diversity: what counts as a good cause? In: Ekiert G, Hanson S, editors. Capitalism and democracy in Central and Eastern Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2003. p. 49–88.
Kohli A. State capacity for development. United Nations Development Programme, Global Event Working Paper. New York: UNDP; 2010.
Lucero JA. Locating the “Indian problem”: community, nationality and contradiction in Ecuadorian indigenous politics. Lat Am Perspect. 2003;30:23–48.
Lucero JA. Representing ‘real Indians’: the challenges of Indigenous authenticity and strategic constructivism in Ecuador and Bolivia. Lat Am Res Rev. 2006;41:31–56.
Lucero JA. Struggles of voice: the politics of indigenous representation in the Andes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2008.
Lucero JA. Decades lost and won: indigenous movements and multicultural neoliberalism in the Andes. In: Burdick J, Oxhorn P, Roberts K, editors. Beyond neoliberalism in Latin America? New York: Palgrave-Macmillan; 2009. p. 63–81.
Lucero JA, Garcia ME. In the shadows of success: indigenous politics in Peru and Ecuador. In: Becker M, Clark K, editors. Highland Indians and the state in modern Ecuador. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press; 2007. p. 234–48.
Mazmanian DA, Sabatier PA. Implementation and public policy. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company; 1983.
McClintock C. Reform governments and policy implementation: lessons from Peru. In: Grindle M, editor. Politics and policy implementation in the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1980. p. 64–97.
Pinto V, editor. Peru: Informe alternativo 2010: sobre el cumplimiento del Covenio 169 de la OIT. Can be accessed at: http://servindi.org/pdf/Inf_alternat2010.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2011
Piven FF, Cloward RA. Poor people’s movements: why they succeed and how they fail. New York: Vintage; 1979.
Pressman JL, Wildavsky A. Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1973.
Skocpol T, Finegold K. State capacity and economic intervention in the early New Deal. Pol Sci Quarterly. 1982;97:255–78.
Stein E, Tommasi M, Echebarria K, Lora E, Payne M, editors. The politics of policies. Washington DC: Inter-American Development Bank; 2005.
Tarrow S. Power in movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
Tilly C. From interactions to outcomes in social movements. In: Giugni M, McAdam D, Tilly C, editors. How social movements matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1999. p. 253–70.
Uquillas JE. The Indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian Peoples Development Project (PRODEPINE I). LCR Sustainable Development Paper No. 20. Washington DC: World Bank; 2004.
Uquillas JE, Van Nieuwkoop M. Social capital as a factor in indigenous peoples development in Ecuador Latin America and Caribbean Region. Sustainable Development Working Paper 15. Washington DC: World Bank; 2003.
Van Cott DL. The friendly liquidation of the past: the politics of diversity in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; 2000.
Van Cott DL. From movements to parties in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
Van Horn CE. Policy implementation in the federal system. Lexington: Lexington Books; 1979.
Wade P. Race and ethnicity in Latin America. London: Pluto Press; 1997.
Walsh C. La (re)articulación de subjetividades políticas y diferencia colonial en Ecuador: reflexiones sobre el capitalismo y las geopolíticas del conocimiento. In: Walsh C, Schiwy F, Castro-Gómez S, editors. Indisciplinar las ciencias sociales. Quito: UASB/Abya Yala; 2002. p. 175–214.
Weber M. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: The Free Press; 1964.
Wolff J. (De-) mobilizing the marginalized: a comparison of the Argentine piqueteros and Ecuador’s indigenous movement. J Lat Am Stud. 2007;39:1–29.
World Bank. Evaluation: Indigenous and Afro-Peruvian Peoples Development Project; implementation completion report, No. 30700. Washington DC: World Bank; 2004.
Yashar DJ. Contesting citizenship in Latin America: the rise of indigenous movements and the postliberal challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
Zamosc L. Agrarian protest and the Indian movement in the Ecuadorian highlands. Lat Am Res Rev. 1994;29:37–68.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Previous versions of this article were presented at the American Political Science Association, the Latin American Studies Association, The College of New Jersey, and Temple University. In addition to the helpful discussions at these presentations, I would particularly like to acknowledge the helpful feedback provided by Kent Eaton, Evan Lieberman, Miriam Lowi, Rachel Beatty Riedl, Prerna Singh, Hillel Soifer, Maya Tudor, Deborah Yashar, the editor, and three anonymous reviewers. The research presented here was originally supported by the Fellowship of Woodrow Wilson Scholars, the Princeton University Institute for International and Regional Studies, the Center for Migration and Development, and the Program in Latin American Studies, all at Princeton University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chartock, S. How Movement Strength Matters: Social Movement Strength and the Implementation of Ethnodevelopment Policy in Ecuador and Peru. St Comp Int Dev 46, 298–320 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-011-9090-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-011-9090-3