buen vivir: praise, instrumentalization, and reproductive pathways … vivir... · 2017-08-05 ·...

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rlac20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 29 June 2017, At: 10:11

Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic Studies

ISSN: 1744-2222 (Print) 1744-2230 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlac20

Buen Vivir: Praise, instrumentalization, andreproductive pathways of good living in Ecuador

Rafael Domínguez, Sara Caria & Mauricio León

To cite this article: Rafael Domínguez, Sara Caria & Mauricio León (2017) Buen Vivir: Praise,instrumentalization, and reproductive pathways of good living in Ecuador, Latin American andCaribbean Ethnic Studies, 12:2, 133-154, DOI: 10.1080/17442222.2017.1325099

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17442222.2017.1325099

Published online: 26 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 56

View related articles

View Crossmark data

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rlac20http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rlac20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/17442222.2017.1325099http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17442222.2017.1325099http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rlac20&show=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rlac20&show=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/17442222.2017.1325099http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/17442222.2017.1325099http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17442222.2017.1325099&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-06-26http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17442222.2017.1325099&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-06-26

Buen Vivir: Praise, instrumentalization, and reproductivepathways of good living in EcuadorRafael Domíngueza, Sara Cariab and Mauricio Leónc

aDepartment of Economics, University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain; bDepartment of InternationalRelations, Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales, Quito, Ecuador; cFacultad de Ciencias Económicas,Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador

ABSTRACTIn this article, we trace the avatars of the official concept of BuenVivir (Good Living), and its understanding and translation asSumak Kausay in the new Constitution of Ecuador, where it wasconverted from a subaltern concept that emerged in the 1990s tothe country’s trademark. Our main hypothesis is that althoughBuen Vivir may be described as a social phenomenon in somespecific social contexts (such as among Amazonian Sarayaku indi-genous communities), it mostly represents an invented tradition.As a subordinate hypothesis, we argue that Buen Vivir, whichoriginally appeared at the margins of the State and politicalpower, later became an empty signifier, allowing for its instrumen-talization and co-optation by the Citizens’ Revolution and gener-ating an opening for future prospects in the way ofoperationalization and internationalization that converged withefforts to promote alternative measures and notions of develop-ment to the GDP.

KEYWORDSBuen Vivir; alternativedevelopment; Citizens’Revolution; inventedtradition; empty signifier;Ecuador

Introduction

In this article, we trace the avatars of the official term Buen Vivir (Good Living), and itsunderstanding and translation as Sumak Kausay in the new Constitution of Ecuador,where it was converted from a subaltern concept that emerged in 1990s to the country’strademark under the presidency of Rafel Correa and the government-sponsored Citizens’Revolution. In June 2013, the Secretaría Nacional del Buen Vivir (National Secretariat forGood Living)1 was created specifically to manage its promotion. Our main hypothesis isthat, although Buen Vivir may be described as a social phenomenon in some specificsocial contexts (such as the Amazonian Sarayaku indigenous communities) (Cubillo-Guevara and Hidalgo-Capitán 2015, 3), it mostly represents an ‘invented tradition’(Hobsbawm 1983). Following Hobsbawm (1983), an ‘“Invented tradition” is taken tomean a set of practices . . . which seek to inculcate certain values and norms of behaviorby repetition, which automatically implies continuity with the past’ that needs not to beprecisely in terms of time or content (1–2). Moreover, ‘the use of ancient materials to

CONTACT Rafael Domínguez [email protected] University of Cantabria, Department of Economics, Avda. delos Castros s/n, Santander 39005, Spain

LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ETHNIC STUDIES, 2017VOL. 12, NO. 2, 133–154https://doi.org/10.1080/17442222.2017.1325099

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

http://www.tandfonline.comhttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/17442222.2017.1325099&domain=pdf

construct invented traditions . . . is accumulated in the past of any society, and anelaborate language of symbolic practice and communication is always available’ (9),thereafter ‘all invented traditions . . . use history as a legitimator of action and cement ofgroup cohesion’ (12).

As a subordinate hypothesis, we argue that Buen Vivir, which originally appeared at themargins of the State and political power (Radcliffe 2012, 245) as a ‘simbolic insurgency’(Ortiz-T 2005, 33), later became an ‘empty signifier’ (Lacau 2005; Lacau 2006), allowing forits instrumentalization and co-optation by the Citizens’ Revolution.2 Following JacquesLacan’s interpretation of Freud, which states that fullness is unachievable, we suggest thatBuen Vivir has been replaced by ‘partial objects’ that embody its ‘retrospective illusion’ or‘impossible totality’ (Lacau 2006, 651). These partial objects are the ‘empty signifiers’. Anempty signifier is a ‘pure name that does not belong to the conceptual order’ or, moreprecisely, ‘a figural term that is catachrestical [rhetorical] because it names and, thus, givesdiscursive presence to an essential void within the signifying structure’ (Lacau 2006, 653).Empty signifiers act as ‘objects of political identification’ through a ‘constitutive exclusion’,which totalizes ‘a system of differences’ (Lacau 2006, 652, 656). Specifically, the ‘socialproduction of empty signifiers’ is a ‘hegemonic operation’3 that ‘arises from the need toname an object which is both impossible and necessary’ (Lacau 2005, 72, 98), and whosepurpose is to construct ‘the people as a collective actor’ starting off a ‘contingentaggregation of heterogeneous elements’ (Lacau 2006, 664, 667).

From this pluralist theorethical framework, we adopt a methodology based on thecritical revision of the emerging – and unceasing – literature on Buen Vivir/SumakKawsay (Table 1). Both terms, rarely used until 2007, became well known after theyappeared in the new Ecuadorean Constitution in 2008 (preamble, title II, second chapterentitled ‘Rights of Good Living’, title IV, ‘Development Regime’, and title V ‘Good LivingRegime’),4 reaching a peak in 2011 and again in 2014, after a short decline.5

Through examination of the substantial number of publications on the topic, we candistinguish three moments of Buen Vivir, which will be used to organize this essay. Thefirst moment (analyzed in section one) describes the phase in which it appeared in thetitle of four texts (Santi (2003 2014); UIAW (Universidad Intercultural Amawtay Wasi)2004; Vacacela 2007; Viteri 2003) and received significant praise. Subsequently, duringthe constitutional debate (2006–2008), the term Buen Vivir and its common sense

Table 1. References published in Spanish, Italian, English, and German on Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay by title.

Number of references % of total Accumulated

≤2007 4 1.3 1.32008 14 4.7 6.12009 24 8.1 14.12010 36 12.1 26.32011 61 21.5 46.82012 50 16.8 63.62013 36 12.1 75.82014 72 24.2 100.0Total 297 100.0

Source: prepared from searches following recursive literature method, ngram Google and Google(combining Buen Vivir pdf Ecuador, Sumak Kawsay Ecuador pdf, Good Living Ecuador pdf, GutLeben Ecuador pdf).

134 R. DOMÍNGUEZ ET AL.

translation into Sumak Kawsay spread widely and resulted in a hybrid of the threemeanings that were then attributed to it: (i) the pluralist (the utopian Buen Vivir of theecologist movement or post-developmental stream); (ii) the particularist (the SumakKawsay of the indigenous movement or pachamamista/cultural stream); (iii) and theuniversalist (the official Buen Vivir of the socialist government, or state-centric/ecomarx-ist stream) (Le Quang and Vercoutère 2013, 19–48; Hidalgo-Capitán and Cubillo-Guevara2014; Cubillo-Guevara, Hidalgo-Capitán, and Domínguez 2014, 32–37; Vanhulst 2015).

The second moment (section two) accounts for Buen Vivir’s instrumentalization andco-optation by the government, expressed with particular clarity in the second NationalDevelopment Plan/National Plan for Good Living (2013–17). Both processes (instrumen-talization and co-optation) were strengthened by the decision to suspend the morator-ium on oil extraction in the Yasuni National Park in 2013, which was accompanied by anoutpouring of critique from epistemic, political economy, and feminist perspectives.

The third moment (section three) analyzes the three evolutionary pathways followedby Buen Vivir over time: (i) the historization of the concept for academic purposes(genealogical strategy); (ii) its operationalization for public policies (official strategy ofBuen Vivir’s measurement in the GDP-and-beyond style); and (iii) its internationalization,through two forked strategies, namely a utopian one (in dialogue with other alternativeviews) and a governmental one (through the use of the emerging concept, onceoperationalized, as a country trademark).

In the last section, we conclude by suggesting that, due to its vagueness, theconstitutional meaning of Buen Vivir (and its translation as Sumak Kawsay) has failedto become a feasible alternative to the concept of development. Nevertheless, it hasbeen pretty successful in challenging and inspiring many Westerners to reconsider theirunsustainable and consumptionist lifestyle, as well as their understanding of quality oflife and happiness.

The moment of praise, dazzle, and hybridization

The hypothesis that Buen Vivir is an ‘invented tradition’ (Hobsbawm 1983) appears in theemerging literature on the concept. For some anthropologists, Buen Vivir represents astrategy for political mobilization that seeks legitimacy through an imagined continuitywith a fictional mythical past (Bretón 2013, 87; Sánchez-Parga 2011, 37; Viola 2011, 259;Viola 2014, 64). This argument rests on the fact that the phrase doesn’t appear inanthropological literature before 2000. Nevertheless, a recent inquiry into the originsof the term carried out by Cubillo-Guevara and Hidalgo-Capitán (2015, 3) found amention of Buen Vivir in a book by Descola written in 1986 on the Achuar people(jivaroan). Specifically, Hidalgo-Capitán, Arias, and Ávila (2014, 35), as well as Cubillo-Guevara and Hidalgo-Capitán (2015, 11), suggest that Sumak Kawsay was ‘enacted’ as aconcept by the leaders of Sarayaku community (Amazonian kichwas) in the 1990s. Inparticular, indigenous intellectual Carlos Viteri Gualinga (Viteri 2005; Viteri 2003) wasresponsible for the dissemination of the term that had previously appeared as groundfor indigenous organization claims since de 1940s (Iñuca in this issue).

The conception of Buen Vivir as social practice of the good life lacks consistency for atleast three reasons, which reconfirm the invented tradition hypothesis. First, Achuar’sBuen or Bien Vivir (Shiir Waras) in Descola’s writings (Descola 1986), far from referring to

LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN ETHNIC STUDIES 135

an idyllic society, describes the individual equilibrium between ‘the external environ-ment constantly traversed by very serious social tensions . . . a society where relationshipwith the other is mainly mediated by war’ and ‘domestic peace’, reached through thepoligamic prescription of marrying women who are sisters to one another, as ‘the bestmeans of obtaining peace at home; the affection between the co-wives prevents themto compete for the favors of thier husband’ (415). Descola argues that Buen Vivir ‘is akind of normative horizon of domestic life, an optimal goal that is neither desired norreached by all Achuars’, because ‘in certain houses . . . wives are regularly beaten by theirhusbands, sometimes to death’, and ‘female suicide is not exceptional and is a weaponof dramatic protest against repeated abuse’ (416). Of course, this praxis is inconsistentwith the ‘harmonius life’ (Viteri 1993, 148) and with the three harmonies – with oneself,with others, and with/in nature – that Acosta (2008, 38, 47; 2010c, 100), Coraggio (2011,330), Correa and Falconí (2012, 267), Santi ([2003] 2014, 3–4), and Unceta (2013,204–205; 2014a, 131–133; 2014b, 72–75); characterize as the foundation of constitutionalBuen Vivir, unless we accept that harmony with others and with/in nature can beachieved through positive malthusian checks (female suicide and war to maintainsustainable population density).

Buen Vivir is often linked to the Kichwa terms Ally Kausay and Sumak Kawsay in reference toSarayakuruna’s (people of Sarayaku) struggles to defend their territory against the oil com-pany Texaco in the Amazonian region. Although the terms were popularized by localintellectual Carlos Viteri (1993),6 they are at the same time a product of an intense processof his own acculturation in the international cooperation industry. This is the second reasonwhy the term of Buen Vivir as social practice fails, which also confirms the invented traditionargument. Indeed, Viteri is the key figure in the creation of themyth of Buen Vivir (and its laterinstrumentalization by the government). Born in Sarayaku community in 1962, Viteri is theself-appointed transalator of Buen Vivir as Sumak Kawsay and its equivalence of a ‘harmoniuslife’ (Viteri 1993, 148), defined as ‘living in abundance, wisdom and dignity’.7 But, like any otherintellectual, Viteri’s knowledge is situated: He worked as a consultant at UNICEF (1997–2001),ILDIS-Friedrich Ebert Foundation8 (1997–2002) andwas the first indigenous person appointedas an Inter-American Devolopment Bank (IDB) official in Washington (2002–09).9 Lastly, Viteriwas the director of ECORAE, the Amazonic Institute of Ecodevelopment (2009–2013), and in2013 became deputy of PAIS Alliance (Patria Altiva y Soberana, Proud and SovereignHomeland, the political party-movement of Citizens’ Revolution).10 As President of theBiodiversity Commission at the National Assembly, Viteri led the Assembly debate to suspendthe moratorium on oil drilling at Yasuní National Park in 2014.11

Finally, there is a third institutional factor that confirms the invented tradition argu-ment. While among the Sarayaku Kichwas, the communitarian aspect of Sumak Kawsayis highly emphasized (Viteri [2002] 2005, 26), Descola (1986, 440) describes the Achuar as‘deeply horrified by the idea of collective life in village communities’.12 An example isthe absence of communal work, or minga, common in the Andes, in their organizationalstructure.13 Also, while it can be affirmed that the Achuar have a very intimate relation-ship with nature – different from the Western conception – that doesn’t mean theirpractices of natural resources management are sustainable. On the contrary, now thatpopulation increase is no longer constrained by continuous war and high infant mor-tality, the demand for scarce resources is causing an accelerated deterioration of theforest around community establishments. Therefore, the notion is a collage of traditions


that includes what fits within the utopia (the three harmonies) and leaves aside thosethat don’t (patriarchal structures and natural resource depredation). Alberto Acostahimself, one of the main representatives of an utopian Buen Vivir, admits that, at thebeginning of the discussion about possible alternatives to neoliberalism at ILDIS, ‘Webegan to investigate whether these alternatives to neoliberalism could be found in theindigenous world’ (interview whith Acosta, in Fernández, Pardo, and Salamanca 2014,103). The Otavalo communities were ruled out, given their propensity toward capitalism,and Acosta and his collaborators turned their attention to the Kichwas of the PastazaAmazonic Province.14

Extracted from its origins in subaltern thought (Iñuca in this issue; Radcliffe 2012,245), in the defense of territory and culture laid out by Carlos Viteri (1993; [2002] 2005;2003), and in the proposals of the indigenous movement (Leonardo Viteri 2005; Santi(2003 2014), Buen Vivir evolved to become the motto of the Alianza PAIS program in theconstitutional debate, and finally emerged as one of the pillars of the new Constitutionof Montecristi in 2008. The common understanding of Buen Vivir (and its officialtransaltion as Sumak Kawasy) in the Constitution, could be defined as folllows: theeffective enjoyment of the rights of individuals, communities, peoples and nationalities,and the exercise of their responsibilities within a framework of peaceful coexistence – whichincludes interculturalism, respect for diversities, and respect for personal and collecitvedignity – and harmonious coexistence with nature that promotes democracy and putsthe common good and public interest over private interests. After the Constitution’sapproval and further academic celebration, a new phase began, that of hybridizationamong the three approaches or meanings of the term (Le Quang and Vercoutère 2013,19–48; Hidalgo-Capitán and Cubillo-Guevara 2014; Vanhulst 2015).

The first approach was pluralist (the utopian Buen Vivir of the ecologist movement orpost-developmental stream), whose best known defenders are Acosta and Gudynas (seebelow for comments on their works). The second consisted of a particularist view (theSumak Kawsay of the indigenous movement or pachamamista/cultural stream), repre-sented by the organic intellectual of Pachakutik Mouvement, Dávalos (2008b) 2014,Dávalos (2008b) 2014, Dávalos (2011 2014), a mestizo economist and AssociateProfessor of PUCE (Pontifician Catholic University of Ecuador) in Quito. The third approachwas universalist (the official Buen Vivir of the socialist government or state-centric/eco-Marxist stream), widely espoused by organic intellectual and government official Ramírez(2008; 2010a; 2010b; 2012a; 2012b) and by the Minister of Culture and Heritage GuillaumeLong (2015) in an acrimonious public debate with Immanuel Wallerstein (2015). Thesethree understandings share consensus about the multidimensional harmonies containedin Buen Vivir: with oneself, with others, and with/in nature. They also share the theoreticalpossibility of a convergence, which is very unlikely in real terms due to the strongopposition of utopian and indigenous streams to the government of Rafael Correa.Finally, they also agree on the principles of sustainability (ecologists), identity (pachama-mistas), and equity (pro-governmental) (Hidalgo-Capitán and Cubillo-Guevara 2015).Nevertheless, each approach maintains its own specificities with regards to its organizingprinciples, the definition of means/ends, and the conception of individual/social life: Theutopian approach prioritizes the ecological dimension; the indigenous approach, theidentity dimension; and the official approach, the social dimension (Table 2).


The constitutional originality and the proliferation of local publications on Buen Vivir,which reached a peak in 2011 – both terms were included into the Glossary of SocialSciences and Indigenous Peoples (see Cid 2010, 239–245) – were the cause of theastonishing success of the concept among European and North American academics,the orphans of inspiring utopias.15 Who could reject Good Living when it is defined as aworld in which ‘everyone goes together, no one is left behind, there is enough foreveryone, and no one lacks anything?’16

The moment of instrumentalization, co-optation, and criticism

Buen Vivir unites the overlapping types of invented tradition described by Hobsbawm(1983): ‘those establishing or symbolizing social cohesion or the membership of groups,real or artificial communities; those establishing or legitimizing institutions, status orrelations of authority; and those whose main purpose was socialization, the inculcationof beliefs, value systems and conventions of behavior’. All these overlapping functionsindicate that the concept – undetermined, vague, and elusive – was a perfect candidatefor the instrumentalization and co-optation strategy of the government, which was theopposite of the very ethos of Buen Vivir/Sumak Kausay (Acosta 2011a, 52; Beling andVanhulst 2014, 35; Peters 2014, 147; Vanhulst and Beling 2014, 60; Waldmüller 2014, 24;Walsh 2010, 20). Indeed, the first definitions of Buen Vivir by indigenous peoples andecologists met the description of Laclau’s ‘empty signifiers’ as an ideological artifact forsocial mobilization (our subordinated hypothesis).

From this perspective, Buen Vivir is an empty signifier that unifies and gives coher-ence to diverse social movements’ demands confronting neoliberalism (the term forconstitutive exclusion). Because of this, it is not surprising that a term, which functionedas an invented tradition to support the political mobilization of a heterogeneouscoalition of groups, was later co-opted by the government and given the function ofan empty signifier to link the opposition to neoliberal policies (Caria and Domínguez2014, 148, 154; Manosalvas 2014, 102, 115, 117; Viola 2014, 68;). In that role, theconceptual weakness of Buen Vivir, so persistently pointed out by the literature,17

facilitated the government’s task. For the chief of Sarayaku, Sumak Kawsay joins ‘har-mony with oneself and with nature’, and serves a conception of hard sustainability forthe ‘life of fullness’ (Santi (2003 2014), 79–80, 87), or a ‘limpid and abundant life’, in thewords of Leonardo Viteri (2005), leader of Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities ofEcuador (CONAIE). These thoughts can constantly be found in indigenous thinking on

Table 2. Buen Vivir (Sumak Kawsay) approaches.Approaches Pluralist: utopian BV Particularist: indigenous BV Universalist: official BV

Political/epistemic filiation

Ecologist/post-developmental

Pachamamista/cultural

Statist/ecomarxist

Organizing principle Ecosystem integrality Plurinationality Human needsEnds Human dignity Spirituality HappinessMeans Quality of life Interculturality CapabilitiesIndividual/social life Equality

collectiveDifference

communityEquity

public (State)

Source: see text.


Sumak Kawsay and such self-referential and metaphorical expressions reflect the claimfor territorial autonomy and cultural respect (Altmann 2013, 285; Altmann 2014a, 11).18

Before these incantations, the definition of Buen Vivir allowed it to serve as anumbrella for very heterogeneus demands, thus serving to effectively mobilize disparatepolitical forces. Thus, in the 1940s, the term of alli causai [sic], translated as ‘good life’,was used to articulate indigenous claims by CONACNIE (Ecudorian National CoordinationCouncil for Indigenous Peoples) and other indigenous organizations connected to theCommunist Party of Ecuador (Iñuca in this issue). Later, in 2003, for DevelopmentCouncil of Nationalities and Peoples of Ecuador (CODENPE)19 Buen Vivir correspondedto ‘personal, family, communitarian an collective wellbeing’ (cited in Maldonado 2006,14), a definition coherent with pénker pujustin or Good Living as ‘well-being’ or ‘goodlife’ (in the sense ‘everything is secured’) to Achuar and Shuar peoples (Mader 1999, 166,169, 185). The Alianza PAIS electoral program of 2006 promoted ‘Buen vivir in harmonywith nature, under a unrestricted respect of human rights’ (cited in Altmann 2013, 209;Altmann 2014a, 88), and by 2007, Buen Vivir became equivalent to ‘well-being’ inCONAIE’s proposal for the new Constitution (Altmann 2013, 294).

This represents a succession of paradoxes, taking into account that Viteri (2002 2005),26) had already highlighted the mistake of identifying Sumak Kauwsay with welfare, andthat it was probably Alberto Acosta, very influential in Alianza PAIS at the time, whointroduced Buen Vivir in the constitutional debate and proposed its official translation toSumak Kawsay. He knew and cited Viteri’s orginal work – circulated in 2000 (Viteri (20022005)) – as early as 2001 (Acosta 2001, 321). After Acosta resigned as the AssemblyPresident in 2008, he undertook the task of the construction and reconstruction of anutopian Buen Vivir, understood from Viteri’s point of view, as critical of the welfaristapproach to development. For Acosta, the concept ‘cannot be simplistically associatedwith “Western welfare”’ (Acosta 2008, 34); rather it is ‘an opportunity to collectively build anew development regime’ (38), and ‘a proposal edge underlining the concept of devel-opment as a post-developmental option to be built’ (Acosta 2010a, 6; see also; Acosta2008, 43; Acosta 2010b; Acosta 2011b, 193; Acosta 2011c, 25–26; Gudynas and Acosta2011a, 80; Gudynas and Acosta 2011b, 72–73; and similarly; Unceta 2014b, 71–72).

However, while Buen Vivir was still unfolding as an utopian alternative to capitalismwith increasingly blurred profiles (Acosta 2015, 309–310), the Citizens’ Revolution wasalready reshaping the concept from its initial ‘love and be loved’ dream of biosocialism(Ramírez 2010a, 61; Ramírez 2010b, 134–135). This became particularly evident in 2013with the government’s suspension of the moratorium on oil explotation at YasuníNational Park, which had hitherto been emblematic of Buen Vivir and the possibilityfor a convergence of the three approaches to the concept.

By that time, the potential contestatory power of t Buen Vivir had been neutralizedthrough its incorporation into processes of ‘neoliberal multiculturalism’ (Bretón 2013,77), which started the moment that the term reemerged as an alternative to sustainabledevelopment promoted by most international cooperation agencies. Indeed, Ecuadorwas the pilot for World Bank ethno-development programs. The most important of suchprograms was PRODEPINE (Development Project for the Ingenous and Black Peoples ofEcuador), which was implemented between 1998 and 2004 and was the main instru-ment for the epistemological, organizational, and leadership co-optation of social move-ments (Ortiz-T 2005, 39, 41–48; Bretón 2013, 90). In fact, by 2005, the canonical work of


Viteri (2002 2005) was already included in a publication on indigenous peoples andeducation sponsored by GTZ (Altmann 2013, 290), a technical development cooperationagency that played an early role in supporting intercultural education projects, includingthe promotion of sumac causai [sic] during the 1980s (Iñuca in these issue). It was in thiscontext that leaders of the government-sponsored ‘Citizens’ Revolution’ proposed amoratorium on the incorporation of the word into the discussion of Buen Vivir andissued a National Development Plan (Plan Naciónal para Buen Vivir 2009–2013), in whichthe word ‘development’ (in the sense of economic and social model or paradigm)appears three times more than ‘Buen Vivir’. Important to note is that the plan wasformulated by the National Secretariat for Planning and Development (SecretaríaNacional de Planificación y Desarrollo, or SENPLADES) (Domínguez and Caria 2014,42–43), which partly explains why usage of notions of development (such as growthand structural change or activity) triple, once again, mentions of ‘Buen Vivir’ in therenewed Plan (Plan Naciónal para Buen Vivir 2013–2017). In his own words, Viteri(2002 2005), 26) acknowledged that the concept was ‘a category in permanent con-struction’, thus facilitating its reformulation by Ramírez (2010a, 61; 2010b, 139); who, asminister of SENPLADES, also noted that it was a complex concept ‘historically con-structed, and therefore is in constant resignification’. While serving as Minister ofCulture and Heritage in 2015, Guillaume Long provided one of the most recent officialdefinitions of Buen Vivir as ‘a cornerstone of our policies reflecting our capacity to thinkin terms of both non-orthodox indicators of development . . . at the same time, meetingthe basic material necessities of human beings (the reduction of poverty, inequality, andthe prevision of service for the guaranteeing of rights)’.

The inconsistencies between utopian and official versions of the concept, togetherwith its epistemic fragilities, have generated two main fronts of criticism. The first ispartially based on epistemological critiques of the elusive and ideological character ofthe concept (Álvarez 2011, 109–112; Sánchez-Parga 2011) and incoherence between therhetoric and public policies of the Citizens’ Revolution. A main focus of this literature isthe inherent contradiction in the government between its environmentalist, pachama-mista discourse, on the one hand, and its expansion of neoextractivist policies20 on theother, which makes Ecuador one of the ‘most paradoxical scenarios of the CommoditiesConsensus in Latin American’ (Svampa 2013, 38). The second front stems from feministcriticism of official and indigenous conceptions of Buen Vivir, which argues that officialconcept reflects a liberal approach to equal opportunity that is blind to gender bias. Inparticular, they suggest that indigenous Sumak Kawsay is a mystification of communityorganization, which is based on a patriarchal tradition of sexual divisions of labor andthat denies nonheterosexual identities and processes of individuation (Vega 2014b, 357,359–360; Pérez Prieto and Domínguez 2015, 46–47).

Thus, after 2013 the crisis of legitimacy generated by criticism subjected Buen Vivir toa dialectical process. On the one hand, the internal discourse shifted toward a statist orRostownian orientation: Buen Vivir as utopian, performative horizon to be achievedthrough the replacement of sustainable development for structural change (Caria andDomínguez 2014, 152, 158, 160; Cori and Monni 2014, 3; Domínguez and Caria 2014a,33, Domínguez and Caria 2014b, 19; Manosalvas 2014, 108; Viola 2014, 68).21 On theother hand, the operationalization of the concept in public policies was increasinglytechnocratic. Buen Vivir in this sense can be understood as a mechanism of Foucaldian


‘governmentality’, ‘pastoral power’, ‘power dispositive’ or ‘political dispositive of govern-ment’ (Radcliffe 2012, 243, 248; Bretón 2013, 73; Viola 2014; Cortez 2014, 342).

The moment of reproductive pathways

This conceptual evolution leads us to the final moment in the trajectory of the concept.As its utopian horizon changed over time, Buen Vivir evolved across three differentreproductive pathways: historization, operationalization, and internationalization.Historization refers to the genealogical approach of academics to reconstruct the historyof the concept, in some cases also examining its lost foundations, which was initiated byCortez (2010) and later pursued by a plethora of scholars, including Cortez (2014)himself (see also Altmann 2013; Altmann 2014a; Altmann 2014b; Hidalgo-Capitán,Arias, and Ávila 2014; Bretón 2013; Fernández Dávila and Huertas 2013; Hidalgo-Capitán, Cubillo-Guevara and Hidalgo-Capitán 2015; Marras 2013; Ramón 2014). Thisbody of literature rectifies the rhetorical excesses of some early works, which are aconsequence of understanding the concept as an invented tradition. The point here isnot to disregard the oral traditions of ancient cultures, a counter argument of somedefenders of the postmodern Buen Vivir (Gudynas 2013, 186–189). Rather, it is anexhortation to retrieve a cultural heritage (Yachay Tinkuy, or wisdom, thoughts, anddialogue of the senses) that might otherwise be irreparably lost, and that also has deeproots in the political mobilization and claims of indigenous peoples since at least the1940s (Iñuca in this issues).

The second pathway is operationalization. Although such strategy has been criticizedas a form of ‘domesticating’ Buen Vivir (Gudynas 2013, 195), it can also be considered anattempt to address other critiques that stem from the challenge of implementing BuenVivir-oriented public policies (De La Cuadra 2015, 3) and a consistent monitoring andevaluation mechanism (Arias 2011, 55; Guevara 2014; Friant and Longmore 2015; Yánez2013). For Gudynas (2013), being operationalized like human development, ‘would bethe worst that could happen to Buen Vivir . . . ending its days as a new buen vivirdevelopment index calculated by UNDP’.22 It is worth mentioning that UNDP supportedthe ‘Conceptual Framework of Social Indicators for Indigenous Peoples’ designed byCarlos Viteri for the Integrated Social Indicators System of Ecuador (SIISE) from2000–2001, also publishing the book Democracia, Pobreza y exclusión social enEcuador, which includes a chapter by Viteri (2000).23 Following a 2004 seminar in NewYork on the collection and disaggregation of data on indigenous peoples, sponsored bythe initiative of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (where Viteri participated asan expert representative of the IDB), UNDP initiated a research project to measure andthen generalize data (from indigenous people to all populations of the country) in BuenVivir terms (Cabrero 2015).24 Furthermore, it is important to remember that the oper-ationalization process (measurement of Buen Vivir) is the ‘cornerstone’ of Ecuadorianpublic policy (Long 2015).

Attempts to measure Buen Vivir can largely be divided into two approaches: asubjective approach (Alominos 2012; Guardiola 2011; Guardiola and García Quero2014; Phélan and Guillén 2012); and an objective one, which can be based onexisting indicators (Friant and Longmore 2015), or focused on the building of newones, basically, although not exclusively, objective (Arroyo 2014; León 2015; Phélan


and Guillén 2011; Ramírez 2012a; Ramírez 2012b). The UNDP adopted the objectivein its latest regional report of human development (PNUD 2016, 115–116). Overall,these proposals differ with regards to their outreach, dimensional approach, andthe indicators considered, which highlights a need for a greater public deliberationon this subject.

It could be argued that the third reproductive pathway of Buen Vivir, internatio-nalization, was an attempt to catalyze a deeper public discussion on the issues theconcept evokes. However, it was actually a strategy to build political alliances. Fromthis perspective, internationalization represents a twofold pathway of political strug-gle, which places the utopian approach of Buen Vivir in confrontation with the officialversion. On the one hand, internationalization can be seen as the result of effortsestablish dialogue with other systemic alternatives to capitalist development: rangingfrom Zapatista to Mapuche movements in Latin America; from the South AfricanUbuntu to Indian ecological Swaraj; or from European sustainable degrowth move-ments to global ecologist feminism (Kothari, Demaria, and Acosta 2015; Unceta2014b). On the other hand, official approaches to Buen Vivir have undeniably beensuccessful in international arenas with statements such as Por un nuevo OrdenMundial para Vivir Bien (A New World Order for Good Living), which came out ofthe 50th anniversary of the G77 (currently conformed by 133 countries) in June 2014in Santa Cruz Bolivia, and with the October 2015 Declaración de La ConferenciaMundial de los Pueblos sobre Cambio Climático y Defensa de La Vida (OfficialStatement of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and Life Defence).In both documents, a rhetoric of rights for Pachamama (Mother Earth) is integratedwith the right to development: in the first text, Buen Vivir (referred to as Vivir Bien inBolivia) is described as a form of ‘comprehensive development which aims at meet-ing the material, cultural, and spiritual needs of societies, within the context ofHarmony with Nature’ (Group of 77 2014, §31); in the second text, Buen Vivir isdefined as ‘complementarity between the rights of peoples and the rights of MotherEarth, which implies building a relationship of equilibrium among human beings andnature to re-establish harmony with Mother Earth’ (CMPCC 2015, 2).25

This process of official internationalization generated dialogue among researchprograms that focused on operationalizing Buen Vivir and other efforts to promotealternative definitions of development beyond GDP (Gross National Happiness,OECD’s Better Life, The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life Index, UNDP’sMultidimensional Progress, FOESSA Index of Social Welfare in Spain). From thispoint of view, some authors argue that Buen Vivir ‘can offer fertile insights thathelp to build a renewed understanding of the theory and practice of development’,including the public policy of international development cooperation (Monni andPallottino 2015, 50, 55). This, together with the use of Buen Vivir and its officialmotto – ‘Discover it: It’s inside of you’ – as Ecuador’s trademark to promote anational culture that values quality over quantity, speak to the success of this laststrategy. Furthermore, similar concepts are now being applied in some Europeancountries, such as Spain and Germany, and in several UN System documents (PNUD(Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo) 2016, 115–116, 165–169;UNESCO 2015, 31–32).


Conclusions

Sutton (1989), who defined development as ‘a major ideology of our times’, spoke of itscapacity to ‘inspire and frustrate’ aspirations for a better life, particularly through the‘vagueness, imprecision, utopian exaggeration, and the many contradictions that usefulideologies commonly show’ (35). Official versions of Buen Vivir, born as an inventedtradition with the vocation to be an alternative to development, ended up sharing withdevelopment much of the characteristics described by Sutton.

In this article, we have traced the avatars of the official term of Buen Vivir and itsunderstanding and translation as Sumak Kausay in the new Constitution of Ecuador. Theexpansion of Buen Vivir from its emergence in subaltern thought in the 1990s to atrademark of the Correa government-sponsored Citizens’ Revolution in Ecuador confirmsour main and subordinated research hypothesis. Regarding our main hypothesis, BuenVivir and its official equivalent Sumak Kawsay turned out to be an invented tradition:available studies on indigenous peoples show no evidence of Buen Vivir as socialpractice of communities; the term itself is historically associated with the work ofdevelopment practitioners; and the fundamentals of Buen Vivir cannot be assumed torepresent universally shared values among Andean and Amazonian nationalities.

As a subordinate hypothesis, we have argued that Buen Vivir, which originallyappeared at the margins of the State and political power, later became an emptysignifier, allowing for its instrumentalization and co-optation by the Citizens’Revolution and opening up future prospects in the way of operationalization andinternationalization that converged with efforts to promote alternative measurementsand notions of development to the GDP. While Rafael Correa’s electoral triumph per-mitted the inclusion of Buen Vivir in the Constitution and in Ecuador’s public policies, itssocial construction as an empty signifier also facilitated its instrumentalization and co-optation by the government, independently of the potential convergence among thethree rival conceptions in the battle on the meanings of Buen Vivir: a pluralist position(based on utopian visions that draw from the ecologist or post-developmental move-ments), a particularist position (largely represented by the Sumak Kawsay of the indi-genous movement or pachamamista/cultural lineage), and the universalist approach(espoused by the socialist governments of Correa and Morales as an official version ofBuen Vivir based on state-centric or eco-Marxist approaches). If during the early stages ofthe Citizens’ Revolution (2007–2009), it seemed feasible for those three positions toconverge, with the renewal of the National Development Plan for 2013–2017 and thesuspension of the moratorium on oil drilling at Yasuní National Park in 2014, anypossible agreement between them was broken.

From that moment on, alternative definitions of Buen Vivir proliferated in differentreproductive pathways. If with the historization pathway, the concept achieved con-siderable academic acknowledgement, with operationalization it gained a high level oflegitimacy, and became successful as a means to question unsustainable lifestyles ofWestern consumption as well as predominant understandings of quality of life andhappiness. However, this came at the cost of losing its character as an alternative todevelopment to become just another buzzword of alternative development (sustainable,human, participatory, or inclusive), thus converting it into mainstream thinking.


This reconstruction of the Buen Vivir’s conceptual and political uses allows a betterunderstanding of its role as a guiding principle of public policy in Ecuador in the lastdecade, a period during which the country has undergone deep institutional andeconomic transformations. From this point of view, Buen Vivir accomplished its missionat home, whether or not it has fulfilled the social expectations of its diverse proponents.This explains why the term is currently disappearing from governmental and socialmovement discourses. Conversely, the term is increasingly used externally; it becameone of the pillars of the new agenda for international cooperation, and has become thenew empty signifier complementing and/or replacing sustainable development. Thus,Buen Vivir has just begun its mission abroad and has a long life moving forward.

Notes

1. Executive Decree no. 30 sets out the functions of the new Secretaría, which include to‘promote the construction of a way of ethical, responsible, sustainable, and consciousliving, working with all State institutions and the different actors in society, so that GoodLiving becomes citizen practice for the life pattern at the State, national and internationallevel;’ see http://www.secretariabuenvivir.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Decreto30_low-2.pdf.

2. The Citizens’ Revolution was officially a project to gradually achieve a socialist society inEcuador in the twenty-first century, under the democratic leadership of President RafaelCorrea beginning in 2008 (see Errejón and Guijarro 2015, 4-11; Sousa 2014). However, someauthors describe it to the contrary as a project of capitalist modernization through thedomestication of civil society under Correa’s authoritarian regime (Acosta 2014a; Acosta2014b; Acosta y Cajas 2015; Muñoz Jaramillo 2014; Ortiz Lemos 2014, 2015; Ospina et al.2015; Unda 2013).

3. While Laclau avoids the classical use of the term ideology, his explanation resembles a mixbetween Marx’s false consciousness and Gramsci’s offensive weapon.

4. For the analysis of Buen Vivir in the Ecuadorean Constitution, see Barié (2014), Carpio (2009),Gudynas (2011a), Larrea (2011), Ortiz-T (2009), Quintero (2009), Silva (2008), Wray (2009),Vega (2014a).

5. Our results partially coincide with the revision of the literature by Vanhulst (2015, 40) fromthe Google Scholar database extracted with Publish or Perish software.

6. This community was very active against the new exploration and exploitation of oil fields asa result of the tremendous spills during the previous years caused by Texaco in the rainforest region. These struggles, lead by Alfredo Viteri (2004), Carlos Viteri’s brother, were thebreeding ground from which Sumak Kawsay theorizing reemerged, from its very spiritualorigins as the defense of a ‘land without evil:’ without multinational incursions (‘a model ofdeath’) on the territory; considered ‘not a resource to be exploited’ but a ‘space of life’ and‘source of knowledges and wisdom, culture, identity, traditions, and entitlements’. See alsoFontaine (2003), Lara (2009), Ortiz-T (2012, 335-344), Santi (2008), Tassi (personal commu-nication, 5 November 2015, Quito), Yanza (2003).

7. See his official webpage at: https://carlosviterigualinga.wordpress.com/biografia/.8. ILDIS is the Latin American Institute of Social Research, a local counterpart of Friedrich-

Ebert-Stiftung (the foundation of the German Social Democratic Party), which is financedregularly by the GTZ (now GIZ), the German Agency of Technical Cooperation.

9. Viteri was Descola’s pupil at Salesian Politechnic University and finished his BA dissertationas a prerequisite to be appointed as an IDB official. Importantly, Viteri was paired withItalian anthropologist Giovanna Tassi, who was the editor of the 1992 book Náufragos delmar verde: La resistencia de los Huaorani a una integración impuesta (Castaway of the greensea: the resistance of the Huaorani to an imposed integration). On his role, Tassi stated, ‘I


http://www.secretariabuenvivir.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Decreto30_low-2.pdfhttp://www.secretariabuenvivir.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Decreto30_low-2.pdfhttps://carlosviterigualinga.wordpress.com/biografia/

provide Carlos the aid for systematizing [Buen Vivir] inside the western concepts . . . follow-ing books with lectures that question the concept of western development’ (personalcommunication, 5 November 2015, Quito).

10. See the official webpage at: http://www.desarrolloamazonico.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/hoja_de_vida.pdf; https://carlosviterigualinga. wordpress.com/tag/hoja-de-vida/.

11. For the rise and fall of the Yasuní initiative, see Bravo (2005), Caria and Domínguez (2014,140, 150-151), García (2014), and Vallejo et al. (2015, 181).

12. Similarly, Tassi (1992) argues that community organization is an ‘organizational conceptassimilated by Kichwa and Shuar’, but not by the Huaorani.

13. This very Andean concept has also been idealized. Martínez (2002, 42) argues that theminga, as institution of collective free work, has been used by ‘traditional rural powerstructure in its own benefit’, extracting labor surplus in exchange for land for pasture.

14. ‘And there we had some very interesting workshops, where old people, adults, someelderly indigenous communities had been conveying how life was in communities beforethe arrival of mestizos and capitalism; this is an area of permanent expansion, conquest,and colonization. They still had some memories that were collected in a few pagesdocument written by Carlos Viteri Gualinga. He worked on this issue on behalf of theOrganization of Indigenous Peoples of Pastaza (OPIP) . . . Sarayaku worked out a Life Plan,which is fundamental. So from there comes another proposal, one could say that it isanother vigorous policy proposal for discussion of Buen Vivir, in addition to the officialview of the indigenous movement, i.e. CONAIE. In it [the Life Plan], indigenous experi-ences are partly synthesized, and it is also a mixture of political and academic discussion,which would later nourish directly Alianza PAIS discussion’ (Fernández, Pardo, andSalamanca 2014, 103). Alberto Acosta, a white economist trained in Germany and witha long-standing and very closed relation to the German International Cooperation System(specifically FES-ILDIS), is an Associate Professor of Latin American Faculty of SocialSciences (FLACSO) in Quito.

15. In Portugal (Sousa 2010a; Sousa 2010b), Spain (Hernández 2009; Moreno 2011; Sempere et al.2009; Tortosa 2009; 2011; Unceta 2011), France (d’Arcier-Flores 2010), Belgium (Houtart 2009;Houtart 2010; Houtart 2011a; Houtart 2011b), Italy (De Marzo 2009; 2010), Germany (Helfrich2011; Willer 2011), Austria (Hörtner 2010; 2011), and Canada (Thomson 2011).

16. Such is the motto of Buen Vivir reflected in the promotional video of the Secretaría Nacionaldel Buen Vivir, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNaM2mVqJgI& feature=youtu.be.

17. See, among others, Beling and Vanhulst (2014, 35), De La Cuadra (2015), Domínguez andCaria (2014a, 38), Peters (2014), Sánchez-Parga (2011), Vanhulst and Behling (2014, 55, 60),139), and Viola (2014, 60, 64, 68).

18. See also, among others, Chancosa (2010), Chuji (2009 2014), 157; Chuji (2010 2014), 231-233),Dávalos (Dávalos (2011 2014), Dávalos 2014a), Flores (2006), Kowii (2009 2014), 168), Macas(2010 2014), Ortiz-T (2012, 227, 249, 268), and Viteri (2002 2005), 24; Viteri 2003, 46).

19. CODENPE is an organization that gathers the main social movements of Ecuador: FENOCIN(National Confederation of Indigenous and Afro-ecuadorian Peasants Organizations,Indigenous and Black Organizations), FEINE (Council of People and Evangelic IndigenousOrganizations of Ecuador) and Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador(CONAIE); see: http://www.codenpe.gob.ec/.

20. Early arguments in Acosta (2009, 148; 2010a, 38; 2010b, 72); Escobar (2009; 2010, 21-23);Fatheuer (2011, 29), Gudynas (2009, 214; 2010, 80; 2011b, 268); and Walsh (2010); for morerecent literature, see, Acosta (2014b), Acosta and Cajas (2015), Acosta, Martínez, and Sacher(2013, 314-317), Beling and Vanhulst (2014, 36), Caria and Domínguez (2014, 151-152),Dávalos (2014b, 26-28, 61), Deneulin (2012, 2, 7-8), Domínguez and Caria (2014a, 31-32),Gudynas (2013, 209), Huertas and Urquidi (2015, 4-5), Lalander (2014, 167-168), Lo Bruttoand Vázquez (2015, 64-65), Manosalvas (2014), Monni and Pallotino (2013, 18), Peters (2014,139-140, 147), Radcliffe (2012, 346, 248), Unceta (2013, 140; 2014a, 136); Vanhulst andBehling (2014, 60), and Vega (2014a, 190-191).


http://www.desarrolloamazonico.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/hoja_de_vida.pdf;http://www.desarrolloamazonico.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/hoja_de_vida.pdf;https://carlosviterigualingahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNaM2mVqJgI%26http://www.codenpe.gob.ec/

21. The most representative author in this regard is Larrea (2014, 237-238), who argues thatBuen Vivir is ‘a mobilizing idea, that is, a dream, a utopia that allows joint wills toward a newhorizon of meaning’, or, in Eduardo Galeano’s style, ‘a long-term horizon showing whichway to walk’.

22. These comments contrast to Acosta considerations about the necessity to build Buen Vivir’sown indicators (Acosta 2011d, 44-45): ‘These new indicators will provide a great opportu-nity not only to denounce the limitations and fallacies of the dominant systems ofindicators . . . while discussing methodologies to calculate differently and with renewedcontents other indexes of development, it will be advance in the design of new tools to tryand measure how far or how close we are to building sustainable and democratic societies’.

23. See the official webpages at: http://www.desarrolloamazonico.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/hoja_de_vida.pdf; https://carlosviterigualinga. wordpress.com/tag/hoja-de-vida/.

24. See: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/236/94/PDF/N0423694. pdf?OpenElement. In the last report of human development for Latina America and theCaribbean, the UNDP uses the Buen Vivir concept and measurement as ‘intrinsically relatedto development’ (PNUD (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo) 2016, vii).

25. In spite of its title alluding to social movements, the presidents of Bolivia, Ecuador, andVenezuela participated in the CMPCC (Conferencia Mundial de Pueblos Sobre CambioClimático y Defensa de la Vida) (2015); this undoubtedly influenced the final statement,where, among the Peoples’ actions to strengthen the Vivir Bien ways, ‘alternative tocapitalism’ can be read: ‘to build and encourage the egalitarian harmonious productiveeconomic model for Vivir Bien, with the horizon toward eco-socialism, based on a harmo-nious relationship between man and nature, that guarantees a rational, optimal, andsustainable exploitation of natural resources respectful of nature’s processes and cycles’(CMPCC (Conferencia Mundial de Pueblos Sobre Cambio Climático y Defensa de la Vida)2015, 12). The UN General Secretary, Ban Ki-moon and more than 4,800 delegates of 54countries participated in this second Summit; see: http://www.miradasalsur.com.ar/2015/10/13/latinoamerica/declaracion-de-la-conferencia-mundial-de-los-pueblos-sobre-cambio-climatico-y-defensa-de-la-vida/.

References

Acosta, A. 2001. “Teoría Del Desarrollo. ¿Tradicional Asignatura Alemana?” In Teoría Del Desarrollo.Nuevos Enfoques Y Problemas, edited by R. E. Thiel, 312–351. Caracas: Nueva Sociedad.

Acosta, A. 2008. “El Buen Vivir, Una Oportunidad Por Construir.” Ecuador Debate 750: 33–48.Acosta, A. 2009. La Maldición De La Abundancia. Quito: Abya-Yala.Acosta, A. 2010a. “El Buen Vivir En El Camino Del Post-Desarrollo. Una Lectura Desde La

Constitución De Montecristi.” Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Policy Paper, no. 9.Acosta, A. 2010b. “El Buen Vivir, Una Utopía Por (Re)Construir.” Boletín ECOS 11: 1–19.Acosta, A. 2010c. “Respuestas Regionales Para Problemas Globales.” In Sumak Kawsay / Buen Vivir Y

Cambios Civilizatorios, edited by I. León, 89–104. Quito: FEDAEPS.Acosta, A. 2011a. “Riesgos Y Amenazas Para El Buen Vivir.” Ecuador Debate 84: 51–56.Acosta, A. 2011b. “Sólo Imaginando Otros Mundos, Se Cambiará Éste. Reflexiones Sobre El Buen

Vivir.” In Vivir Bien: ¿Paradigma No Capitalista?, coordinated by I. Farah y L. Vasapollo, edited byMontecristi Vive, 189–208. La Paz: CIDES/UMSA.

Acosta, A. 2011c. “Otra Economía Para El Buen Vivir. En La Senda Del Postdesarrollo.” Economistas129: 22–31.

Acosta, A. 2011d. “El Buen (Con) Vivir, Una Utopía Por (Re) Construir. Lecturas Desde LaConstitución De Montecristi.” Obets. Revista De Ciencias Sociales 6 (1): 35–67. doi:10.14198/OBETS2011.6.1.03.

Acosta, A. 2014a. “Prólogo. Ecuador Ya Cambió.” In Balance Crítico Del Gobierno De Rafael Correa,edited by F. Muñoz Jaramillo, 11–21. Quito: Universidad Central del Ecuador.


http://www.desarrolloamazonico.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/hoja_de_vida.pdf;http://www.desarrolloamazonico.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/10/hoja_de_vida.pdf;https://carlosviterigualingahttp://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/236/94/PDF/N0423694http://www.miradasalsur.com.ar/2015/10/13/latinoamerica/declaracion-de-la-conferencia-mundial-de-los-pueblos-sobre-cambio-climatico-y-defensa-de-la-vida/http://www.miradasalsur.com.ar/2015/10/13/latinoamerica/declaracion-de-la-conferencia-mundial-de-los-pueblos-sobre-cambio-climatico-y-defensa-de-la-vida/http://www.miradasalsur.com.ar/2015/10/13/latinoamerica/declaracion-de-la-conferencia-mundial-de-los-pueblos-sobre-cambio-climatico-y-defensa-de-la-vida/https://doi.org/10.14198/OBETS2011.6.1.03https://doi.org/10.14198/OBETS2011.6.1.03

Acosta, A. 2014b. “Gran Reacomodo Capitalista De La Economía. Enredos De La InvoluciónCiudadana.” In La Restauración Conservadora Del Correísmo, 289–302. Quito: Montecristi Vive.

Acosta, A. 2015. “El Buen Vivir Como Alternativa Al Desarrollo. Algunas Reflexiones Económicas YNo Tan Económicas.” Política Y Sociedad 52 (2): 299–330. doi:10.5209/rev_POSO.2015.v52.n2.45203.

Acosta, A., and J. Cajas. 2015. “Ecuador: La Herencia Económica Del Correísmo. Una Lectura Frentea La Crisis.” Sin permiso, October 10. http://www.sinpermiso.info/ textos/ecuador-la-herencia-economica-del-correismo-una-lectura-frente-a-la- crisis.

Acosta, A., E. Martínez, and W. Sacher. 2013. “Salir Del Extractivismo: Una Condición Para El SumakKawsay. Propuestas Sobre Petróleo, Minería Y Energía En El Ecuador.” In Alternativas AlCapitalismo/Colonialismo Del Siglo XXI, edited by Grupo Permanente de Trabajo sobreAlternativas al Desarrollo, 307–382. Quito: Abya-Yala.

Alominos, A. 2012. “La Medición Del Buen Vivir.” In Construyendo El Buen Vivir, edited by A. Guillénand M. Phélan, 163–180. Cuenca: PYDLOS.

Altmann, P. 2013. “El Sumak Kawsay En El Discurso Del Movimiento Indígena Ecuatoriano.” Indiana30: 283–299.

Altmann, P. 2014a. “El Sumak Kawsay Y El Patrimonio Ecuatoriano.” Histoire(S) De L’amérique Latine10 (7): 1–16.

Altmann, P. 2014b. “Good Life as a Social Movement Proposal for Natural Resource Use: The IndigenousMovement in Ecuador.” Consilience. the Journal of Sustainable Development 12 (1): 82–94.

Álvarez, F. 2011. “Políticas Públicas De Naciones Y Pueblos Indígenas O La Seducción Dela PolíticaDe La Gestión.” In Debates Sobre Cooperación Y Modelos De Desarrollo. Perspectivas Desde LaSociedad Civil En El Ecuador, edited by G. Weber, 175–182. Quito: Centro de InvestigacionesCIUDAD and Observatorio de la Cooperación al Desarrollo en Ecuador.

Arias, Y. A. 2011. “Políticas Públicas Ambientales, Neoliberalismo Y ‘Buen Vivir’. Ensayo Sobre ElPapel De Las Alternativas Al Desarrollo.” Cultura Investigativa 3: 48–58.

Arroyo, M. 2014. “Aproximación a la medición del Bienestar (‘Buen Vivir’) en el Ecuador.Indicadores objetivos versus indicadores subjetivos del bienestar, una aplicación a las medidaseconómicas contemporáneas del mismo desde una perspectiva regional.” Master’s diss.,Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Barié, C. G. 2014. “Nuevas Narrativas Constitucionales En Bolivia Y Ecuador: El Buen Vivir Y LosDerechos De La Naturaleza.” Latinoamérica 59: 9–40.

Beling, A. E., and J. Vanhulst. 2014. “Buen Vivir: New Wine in Old Wineskins?” Alternautas 1: 29–40.Bravo, E. 2005. “Explotación Petrolera En La Reserva De La Biosfera Yasuní-Ecuador.” In Asalto Al

Paraíso: Empresas Petroleras En Áreas Protegidas, edited by M. Editores, 36–77. Oilwatch, Quito:Manthra Editores.

Bretón, V. 2013. “Etnicidad, Desarrollo Y ‘Buen Vivir’: Reflexiones Críticas En Perspectiva Histórica.”European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 95: 71–95.

Cabrero, F. 2015. “Datos Desagregados Y ‘Buen Vivir’. Los Aportes Del PNUD Junto Con LasOrganizaciones De Los Pueblos Indígenas.” Revista Humanum, April. http://www.revistahumanum.org/revista/datos-desagregados-y-buen-vivir-los- aportes-del-pnud-junto-con-las-organizaciones-de-los-pueblos-indigenas/.

Caria, S., and R. Domínguez. 2014. “El Porvenir De Una Ilusión. La Ideología Del Buen Vivir.” AméricaLatina Hoy 67: 139–163. doi:10.14201/alh201467139163.

Carpio, P. 2009. “El Buen Vivir, Más Allá Del Desarrollo. La Nueva Perspectiva Constitucional EnEcuador.” In El Buen Vivir. Una Vía Para El Desarrollo, edited by A. Acosta and E. Martínez, 115–148. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.

Chancosa, B. 2010. “Sumak Kawsay Desde La Visión De La Mujer.” In Sumak Kawsay Yuyay.Antología Del Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano Sobre Sumak Kawsay, edited by A. L.Hidalgo-Capitán, A. Guillén García, and N. Deleg Guazha, 221–228. Huelva: CIM.

Chuji, M. (2009) 2014. “Modernidad, Desarrollo, Interculturalidad Y Sumak Kawsay O Buen Vivir.”In Sumak Kawsay Yuyay. Antología Del Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano Sobre SumakKawsay, edited by A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán, A. Guillén García, and N. Deleg Guazha, 153–158.Huelva: CIM.


https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_POSO.2015.v52.n2.45203https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_POSO.2015.v52.n2.45203http://www.sinpermiso.info/%A0textos/ecuador-la-herencia-economica-del-correismo-una-lectura-frente-a-la-%A0crisishttp://www.sinpermiso.info/%A0textos/ecuador-la-herencia-economica-del-correismo-una-lectura-frente-a-la-%A0crisishttp://www.revistahumanum.org/revista/datos-desagregados-y-buen-vivir-los-%A0aportes-del-pnud-junto-con-las-organizaciones-de-los-pueblos-indigenas/http://www.revistahumanum.org/revista/datos-desagregados-y-buen-vivir-los-%A0aportes-del-pnud-junto-con-las-organizaciones-de-los-pueblos-indigenas/http://www.revistahumanum.org/revista/datos-desagregados-y-buen-vivir-los-%A0aportes-del-pnud-junto-con-las-organizaciones-de-los-pueblos-indigenas/https://doi.org/10.14201/alh201467139163

Chuji, M. (2010) 2014. “Sumak Kawsay versus Desarrollo.” In Sumak Kawsay Yuyay. Antología DelPensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano Sobre Sumak Kawsay, edited by A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán, A.Guillén García, and N. Deleg Guazha, 229–236. Huelva: CIM.

Cid, V. M. 2010. Glosario De Ciencias Sociales Y Pueblos Indígenas. Nicaragua: n.p.CMPCC (Conferencia Mundial de Pueblos Sobre Cambio Climático y Defensa de la Vida). 2015.

“Declaración De La Conferencia Mundial De Los Pueblos Sobre Cambio Climático Y Defensa DeLa Vida.” La Rázon, October 12. http://84.246231.95/sites/default/files/files/TIQUIPAYA/01%20DECLARACION%20DE%2 0TIQUIPAYA%2012_10_2015%20FINAL.pdf. .

Coraggio, J. L. 2011. Economía Social Y Solidaria. El Trabajo Antes Que El Capital. Quito: Abya-Yala.Cori, A., and S. Monni. 2014. “The Resource Curse Hypothesis: Evidence from Ecuador.” SEEDS

Working Paper no. 28.Correa, R., and F. Falconí. 2012. “Después De “Río +20”, Bienes Ambientales Y Relaciones De

Poder.” Revista De Economía Crítica 14: 257–276.Cortez, D. 2010. “Genealogía Del ‘Buen Vivir’ En La Nueva Constitución Ecuatoriana.” In Gutes Leben

Als Humanisiertes Leben. Vorstellungen Vom Guten Leben in Den Kulturen Und Ihre Bedeutung FüRPolitik Und Gesellschaft Heute, edited by R. Fornet-Betancourt, 227–248. Frankfurt am Main:Wissenschaftsverlag.

Cortez, D. 2014. “Genealogía Del Sumak Kawsay Y El Buen Vivir En Ecuador: Un Balance.” In Post-Crecimiento Y Buen Vivir. Propuestas Globales Para La Construcción De Sociedades Equitativas YSustentables, edited by G. Endara, 315–352. Quito: FES-ILDIS.

Cubillo-Guevara, A. P., and A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán. 2015. “El Sumak Kawsay Genuino ComoFenómeno Social Amazónico Ecuatoriano.” Paper presented at the III CongresoLatinoamericano y Caribeño de Ciencias Sociales, Quito, August, 26–28.

Cubillo-Guevara, A. P., A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán, and J. Domínguez. 2014. “El Pensamiento Sobre ElBuen Vivir. Entre El Indigenismo, El Socialismo Y El Posdesarrollismo.” Revista Del CLAD ReformaY Democracia 60: 27–58.

d’Arcier-Flores, H. F. 2010. “El ‘Buen Vivir’: ¿Un Remedio Al Malestar Global?” Revue Interdisciplinaire deTravaux sur les Amériques 4. http://www.revuerita.com/ notes-de-recherche-60/el-buen-vivir.html.

Dávalos, P. 2008a) 2014. “El Sumak Kawsay (Buen Vivir) Y Las Censuras Del Desarrollo.” In SumakKawsay Yuyay. Antología Del Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano Sobre Sumak Kawsay, editedby A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán, A. Guillén García, and N. Deleg Guazha, 133–142. Huelva: CIM.

Dávalos, P. 2014a. “El Sumak Kawsay – Suma Qamaña Y El Acontecimiento Indígena: Una CríticaDesde La Ontología Política De La Resistencia.” In Perspectivas Alternativas Del Desarrollo. ActasDel II Congreso Internacional De Estudios Del Desarrollo, edited by A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán and A.Moreno, http://www.uhu.es/IICIED/pdf/2_3_1_sumak.pdf

Dávalos, P. 2014b. Alianza País O La Reinvención Del Poder. Siete Ensayos Sobre El PosneoliberalismoEn El Ecuador. Bogotá: Ediciones desde abajo.

Dávalos, P. (2008b) 2014. “Reflexiones Sobre El Sumak Kawsay (El Buen Vivir) Y Las Teorías DelDesarrollo.” In Sumak Kawsay Yuyay. Antología Del Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano SobreSumak Kawsay, edited by A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán, A. Guillén García, and N. Deleg Guazha, 143–152. Huelva: CIM.

Dávalos, P. (2011) 2014. “Sumak Kawsay (La Vida En Plenitud).” In Sumak Kawsay Yuyay. AntologíaDel Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano Sobre Sumak Kawsay, edited by A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán,A. Guillén García, and N. Deleg Guazha, 253–266. Huelva: CIM.

de La Cuadra, F. 2015. “Buen Vivir: ¿Una Auténtica Alternativa Post-Capitalista?” Polis RevistaLatinoamericana 40: 1–10.

De Marzo, G. 2009. Buen Vivir. per Una Nuova Democracia Della Terra. Roma: Ediesse.De Marzo, G. 2010. Buen Vivir. Para Una Democracia De La Tierra. La Paz: Plural.Deneulin, S. 2012. “Justice and Deliberation about the Good Life: The Contribution of Latin

American Buen Vivir Social Movements to the Idea of Justice.” Bath Papers in InternationalDevelopment 17. http://opus.bath.ac.uk/31884/.

Descola, J. 1986. La Selva Culta. Simbolismo Y Praxis En La Ecología De Los Achuar. Quito: Abya-Yala.


http://84.246231.95/sites/default/files/files/TIQUIPAYA/01%20DECLARACION%20DE%2%A00TIQUIPAYA%2012_10_2015%20FINAL.pdfhttp://84.246231.95/sites/default/files/files/TIQUIPAYA/01%20DECLARACION%20DE%2%A00TIQUIPAYA%2012_10_2015%20FINAL.pdfhttp://www.revuerita.com/%A0notes-de-recherche-60/el-buen-vivir.htmlhttp://www.uhu.es/IICIED/pdf/2_3_1_sumak.pdfhttp://opus.bath.ac.uk/31884/

Domínguez, R., and S. Caria. 2014a. “La Ideología Del Buen Vivir: La Metamorfosis De Una‘Alternativa Al Desarrollo’ En Desarrollo De Toda La Vida.” Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar,Pre-Textos Para el Debate, no. 2.

Domínguez, R., and S. Caria. 2014b. “Cambio Estructural Y Trampa De Renta Media En Ecuador.”Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar Pre-Textos Para el Debate, no. 4.

Errejón, I., and J. Guijarro. 2015. “Post-Neoliberalism’s Difficult Hegemonic Consolidation. AComparative Analysis of the Ecuadorean and Bolivian Processes.” Latin American Perspectives,April. 1–19. doi:10.1177/0094582X15579901.

Escobar, A. 2009. “Una Minga Para El Postdesarrollo.” América Latina en movimiento June. http://www.alainet.org/es/active/38111.

Escobar, A. 2010. “Latin America at a Crossroads. Alternative Modernizations, Post- Liberalism, orPost-Development?” Cultural Studies 24 (1): 1–65. doi:10.1080/09502380903424208.

Fatheuer, T. 2011. Buen Vivir. A Brief Introduction to Latin America’s New Concepts for the Good Lifeand the Rights of Nature. . Vol. 17. Berlin: Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Publication Series on Ecology.

Fernández, B. S., L. Pardo, and K. Salamanca. 2014. “El Buen Vivir En Ecuador: ¿Marketing Político OProyecto En Disputa? Un Diálogo Con Alberto Acosta.” Íconos. Revista De Ciencias Sociales 48:101–117. doi:10.17141/iconos.48.2014.1212.

Fernández Dávila, V., and B. M. Huertas. 2013. “La Propuesta De Sumak Kawsay / Buen Vivir En LosEstados Plurinacionales De Bolivia Y Ecuador.” Cuadernis PROLAM/USP 12 (1): 48–58.doi:10.11606/issn.1676-6288.prolam.2013.82516.

Flores, G. 2006. “Aportes Para Entender El Desarrollo Desde La Perspectiva Indígena.” In Retos DelDesarrollo Local, edited by P. C. Benalcazar, 355–364. Quito: OFIS/ILDIS/Abya-Yala.

Fontaine, G. 2003. “Estamos Frente a Un Fundamento De La Economía Ecológica (La Texaco Y LasDemandas Indígenas).” In El Oriente Es Un Mito. Segundo Foro De Ecología Y Política, edited byComité Ecuménico de Proyectos, 60–66. Quito: Abya-Yala.

Friant, M. C., and J. Longmore. 2015. “The Buen Vivir: A Policy to Survive the Anthropocene?” GlobalPolicy 6 (1): 64–71. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12187.

García, S. 2014. “La Iniciativa Yasuní-ITT: Auge Y Caída De Una Propuesta Innovadora,Esperanzadora E Integral.” Revista Economía 103: 131–148.

Group of 77. 2014. “Declaración De Santa Cruz: Por Un Nuevo Orden Mundial Para Vivir Bien.” June15. http://www10.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2014/13959a02 pdf.

Guardiola, J. 2011. “¿Qué Aportan Los Estudios De Felicidad Al Buen Vivir Y Viceversa?” Obets.Revista De Ciencias Sociales 6 (1): 97–109. doi:10.14198/OBETS.

Guardiola, J., and F. García Quero. 2014. “Buen Vivir (Living Well) in Ecuador: Community andEnvironmental Satisfaction without Household Material Prosperity?” Ecological Economics 107:177–184. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.032.

Gudynas, E. 2009. “Diez Tesis Urgentes Sobre El Nuevo Extractivismo. Contextos Y Demandas BajoEl Progresismo Sudamericano Actual.” In Extractivismo, Política Y Sociedad, edited by CAAP/CLAES, 187–225. Quito: CAAP/CLAES.

Gudynas, E. 2010. “Si Eres Tan Progresista ¿Por Qué Destruyes La Naturaleza? Neoextractivismo,Izquierda Y Alternativas.” Ecuador Debate 79: 61–81.

Gudynas, E. 2011a. “Desarrollo, Derechos De La Naturaleza Y Buen Vivir Después De Montecristi.”In Debates Sobre Cooperación Y Modelos De Desarrollo. Perspectivas Desde La Sociedad Civil En ElEcuador, edited by G. Weber, 83–102. Quito: Centro de Investigaciones CIUDAD andObservatorio de la Cooperación al Desarrollo en Ecuador.

Gudynas, E. 2011b. “Sentidos, Opciones Y Ámbitos De Las Transiciones Al Postextractivismo.” InMás Allá Del Desarrollo, edited by Grupo Permanente de Trabajo sobre Alternativas al Desarrollo,265–298. Quito: Abya-Yala.

Gudynas, E. 2013. “El Malestar Moderno Con El Buen Vivir: Reacciones Y Resistencias Frente a UnaAlternativa Al Desarrollo.” Ecuador Debate 88: 183–206.

Gudynas, E., and A. Acosta. 2011a. “El Buen Vivir Más Allá Del Desarrollo.” Qué Hacer 181: 70–81.Gudynas, E., and A. Acosta. 2011b. “La Renovación De La Crítica Al Desarrollo Y El Buen Vivir Como

Alternativa.” Utopía Y Praxis Latinoamericana 53: 71–83.


https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X15579901http://www.alainet.org/es/active/38111http://www.alainet.org/es/active/38111https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380903424208https://doi.org/10.17141/iconos.48.2014.1212https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1676-6288.prolam.2013.82516https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12187http://www10.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2014/13959a02%A0pdfhttps://doi.org/10.14198/OBETShttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.032

Guevara, M. J. 2014. “What has the Sumak Kawsay-Good Living- done for women? The Beginnings,Tools and Challenges of the Ecuadorian Development Approach from a Feminist Perspective.”Master’s diss., London School of Economics and Political Science.

Helfrich, S. 2011. “Gemeingüter Und Buen Vivir. Zwei Sich Ergänzende Konzepte Jenseits DerVerwertungslogik.” Ila-Informationsstelle Lateinamerika 348. https://commonsblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ila348-commons.pdf.

Hernández, M. I. 2009. “Sumak Kawsay Y Suma Qamaña, El Reto De Aprender Del Sur. ReflexionesEn Torno Al Buen Vivir.” Obets. Revista De Ciencias Sociales 4: 55–66. doi:10.14198/OBETS2009.4.06.

Hidalgo-Capitán, A. L., A. Arias, and J. Ávila. 2014. “El Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano Sobre ElSumak Kawsay.” In Sumak Kawsay Yuyay. Antología Del Pensamiento Indigenista EcuatorianoSobre Sumak Kawsay, edited by A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán, A. Guillén García, and N. Deleg Guazha,25–73. Huelva: CIM.

Hidalgo-Capitán, A. L., and A. P. Cubillo-Guevara. 2014. “Seis Debates Abiertos Sobre El SumakKawsay.” Íconos. Revista De Ciencias Sociales 48: 25–40. doi:10.17141/iconos.48.2014.1204.

Hidalgo-Capitán, A. L., and A. P. Cubillo-Guevara. 2015. “La Trinidad Del Buen Vivir En Ecuador.”Estudios de Política Exterior September 14. http://www.politica exterior.com/latinoamerica-analisis/la-trinidad-del-buen-vivir-en-ecuador/.

Hobsbawm, E. 1983. “Introduction: Inventing Traditions.” In The Invention of Tradition, edited by E.Hobsbawm and T. Ranger, 1–14. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hörtner, W. 2010. “Das Gute Leben. Verfassungsziel.” Gazette 27: 51–56.Hörtner, W. 2011. “Sumaq Kawsay Oder Das Bruttonationalglück.” Südwind-Magazin 1/2: 2–7.Houtart, F. 2009. “Socialismo Del Siglo Xxl. Superar La Lógica Capitalista.” In El Buen Vivir. Una Vía

Para El Desarrollo, edited by A. Acosta and E. Martínez, 149–168. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.Houtart, F. 2010. “La Crisis Del Modelo De Desarrollo Y La Filosofía Del Sumak Kawsay.” In Los

Nuevos Retos De América Latina: Socialismo Y Sumak Kawsay, edited by SENPLADES, 91–98.Quito: SENPLADES.

Houtart, F. 2011a. “El Concepto De Sumak Kawsay (Buen Vivir) Y Su Correspondencia Con El BienComún De La Humanidad.” Ecuador Debate 84: 57–76.

Houtart, F. 2011b. “Los Indígenas Y Los Nuevos Paradigmas Del Desarrollo Humano.” In Vivir Bien:¿Paradigma No Capitalista? edited by I. Farah and L. Vasapollo, 125–131. La Paz: CIDES/UMSA.

Huertas, B. M., and V. Urquidi. 2015. “O Buen Vivire Os Saberes Acesntrais Frente Ao Neo-Extractivismo Do Século XXI.” Polis. Revista Latinoamericana 40: 1–14.

Kothari, A., F. Demaria, and A. Acosta. 2015. “Buen Vivir, Degrowth and Ecological Swaraj:Alternatives to Sustainable Development and the Green Economy.” Development 57 (3–4):362–375. doi:10.1057/dev.2015.24.

Kowii, A. (2009) 2014. “El Sumak Kawsay.” In Sumak Kawsay Yuyay. Antología Del PensamientoIndigenista Ecuatoriano Sobre Sumak Kawsay, edited by A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán, A. Guillén García,and N. Deleg Guazha, 159–168. Huelva: CIM.

Lacau, E. 2005. On Populist Reason. London: Verso.Lacau, E. 2006. “Why Constructing a People Is the Main Task of Radical Politics.” Critical Inquiry 32

(4): 646–680. doi:10.1086/508086.Lalander, R. 2014. “Rights of Nature and the Indigenous Peoples in Bolivia and Ecuador: A

Straitjacket for Progressive Development Politics?” Revista Iberoamericana De Estudios DelDesarrollo 3 (2): 148–173.

Lara, P. R. 2009. “La Construcción de la Etnicidad en el Conflicto entre Sarayakuy el Estado Nacionalecuatoriano.” Master’s diss., Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (Sede Ecuador).

Larrea, A. M. 2011. “El Buen Vivir Como Contrahegemonía En La Constitución Ecuatoriana.” UtopíaY Praxis Latinoamericana 53: 19–70.

Larrea, A. M. 2014. “El Buen Vivir Como Alternativa Civilizatoria.” In Post-Crecimiento Y Buen Vivir.Propuestas Globales Para La Construcción De Sociedades Equitativas Y Solidarias, edited by G.Endara, 237–254. Quito: FES-ILDIS.

Le Quang, M., and T. Vercoutère. 2013. Ecosocialismo Y Buen Vivir: Diálogo Entre Dos Alternativas AlCapitalismo. Quito: IAEN.


https://commonsblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ila348-commons.pdfhttps://commonsblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/ila348-commons.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.14198/OBETS2009.4.06https://doi.org/10.14198/OBETS2009.4.06https://doi.org/10.17141/iconos.48.2014.1204http://www.politica%A0exterior.com/latinoamerica-analisis/la-trinidad-del-buen-vivir-en-ecuador/http://www.politica%A0exterior.com/latinoamerica-analisis/la-trinidad-del-buen-vivir-en-ecuador/https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2015.24https://doi.org/10.1086/508086

León, M. 2015. Hacia Un Sistema De Indicadores Del Buen Vivir: Pluralidad De Unidades De Análisis YMultidimensionalidad. Mimeo, Quito: INEC.

Lo Brutto, G., and C. O. Vázquez. 2015. “¿Buen Vivir O Desarrollo? Buscando Alternativas YHorizontes.” Tla-Melaua. Revista De Ciencias Sociales 37: 50–69.

Long, G. 2015. “Open Letter to Professor Immanuel Wallerstein.” http://guillaumelong. com/inicio/dear-professor-wallerstein/. com/inicio/dear-professor-wallerstein/.

Macas, L. (2010) 2014. “Sumak Kawsay. La Vida En Plenitud.” In Sumak Kawsay Yuyay. Antología DelPensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano Sobre Sumak Kawsay, edited by A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán, A.Guillén García, and N. Deleg Guazha, 169–176. Huelva: CIM.

Mader, E. 1999. Metamorfosis Del Poder. Persona, Mito Y Visión En La Sociedad De Shuar Y Achuar(Ecuador, Perú). Quito: Abya-Yala.

Maldonado, L. 2006. Pueblos Y Nacionalidades Indígenas Del Ecuador. De La Reivindicación AlProtagonismo Político. Ibarra: Escuela de Gobierno y Políticas Públicas de los Pueblos yNacionalidades del Ecuador.

Manosalvas, M. 2014. “Buen Vivir O Sumak Kawsay. En Busca De Nuevos Referenciales Para LaAcción Pública En Ecuador.” Íconos. Revista De Ciencias Sociales 49: 101–121. doi:10.17141/iconos.49.2014.1273.

Marras, R. 2013. “La Distruzione Della Distruzione. Dalla Distruzione Del TahuantinsuyuAll’affermazione Del Sumak Kawsay: Letteratura E Política Indigenista Nella SocietàEcuatoriana.” Quaderni Di Palazzo Serra 23: 245–260.

Martínez, L. 2002. Economía Política De Las Comunidades Indígenas. Quito: Abiya- Yala.Monni, S., and M. Pallotino. 2013. “Beyond Growth and Development: Buen Vivir as an Alternative

to Current Paradigms.” Dipartimento di Economia Università degli studi Roma Tre, WorkingPaper, no. 172.

Monni, S., and M. Pallotino. 2015. “A New Agenda for International Development Cooperation:Lessons Learnt from the Buen Vivir Experience.” Development 58 (1): 49–57. doi:10.1057/dev.2015.41.

Moreno, F. 2011. “Universalidad Del Buen Vivir Y Economía Por La Vida. La Vuelta Al Revés De LasFinanzas, La Economía, La Sociedad Y Los Valores Dominantes.” Historia Actual Online 26: 165–180.

Muñoz Jaramillo, F. 2014. “Introducción General.” In Balance Crítico Del Gobierno De Rafael Correa,edited by F. Muñoz Jaramillo, 23–33. Quito: Universidad Central del Ecuador.

Ortiz Lemos, A. 2014. “Sociedad Civil Y Revolución Ciudadana En Ecuador.” Revista Mexicana DeSociología 74 (4): 583–612.

Ortiz Lemos, A. 2015. “Taking Control of the Public Sphere by Manipulating Civil Society: The Citizens’Revolution in Ecuador.” European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 98: 29–48.

Ortiz-T, P. 2005. “Representaciones Sociales, Autonomía Y Desarrollo: Banco Mundial Y PueblosIndígenas Amazónicos De Ecuador En Los Albores Del Siglo XXI.” In Políticas De Economía,Ambiente Y Sociedad En Tiempos De Globalización, edited by D. Mato, 33–51. Caracas:Universidad Central de Venezuela.

Ortiz-T, P. 2009. “Sumak Kawsay En La Constitución Ecuatoriana De 2008: Apuntes En Torno a SusAlcances Y Desafíos.” Alteridad 77–87.

Ortiz-T, P. 2012. “Espacio, Territorio e Interculturalidad. Una aproximación a sus conflictos yresignificaciones desde la Amazonía de Pastaza en la segunda mitad del siglo XX.” Phd diss.Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar (Sede del Ecuador).

Ospina, P., M. Mancer, C. Burneo Salaza, and J. Cuvi. 2015. “Sobre El Agotamiento Del Progresismo:El Caso De Ecuador.” Rebelión, October 17. http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=204564.

Pérez Prieto, L., and M. Domínguez. 2015. “Una Revisión Feminista Del Decrecimiento Y El BuenVivir. Contribuciones Para La Sostenibilidad De La Vida Humana Y No Humana.” Revista DeEconomía Crítica 19: 34–57.

Peters, S. 2014. “Post-Crecimiento Y Buen Vivir: ¿Discursos Políticos Alternativos O AlternativasPolíticas?” In Post-Crecimiento Y Buen Vivir. Propuestas Globales Para La Construcción DeSociedades Equitativas Y Solidarias, edited by G. Endara, 123–162. Quito: FES-ILDIS.

Phélan, M., and M. Guillén. 2011. “La Medición Del Buen Vivir (Sumak Kawsay). Ideas Para LaDiscusión.” Paper presented at the V Jornadas de Investigación de FaCES/UCV, Caracas, April 6–7.


http://guillaumelong.%A0com/inicio/dear-professor-wallerstein/.%A0com/inicio/dear-professor-wallerstein/http://guillaumelong.%A0com/inicio/dear-professor-wallerstein/.%A0com/inicio/dear-professor-wallerstein/https://doi.org/10.17141/iconos.49.2014.1273https://doi.org/10.17141/iconos.49.2014.1273https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2015.41https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2015.41http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=204564

Phélan, M., and M. Guillén. 2012. “Aproximación Metodológica Para La Medición Subjetiva DelBuen Vivir (Sumak Kawsay).” In Construyendo El Buen Vivir, edited by A. Guillén and M. Phélan,181–196. Cuenca: PYDLOS.

PNUD (Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo). 2016. Progreso Multidimensional:Bienestar Más Allá Del Ingreso. Informe Regional Sobre Desarrollo Humano Para América LatinaY El Caribe. New York: United Nations Development Program.

Quintero, R. 2009. “Las Innovaciones Conceptuales De La Constitución De 2008 Y El SumakKawsay.” In El Buen Vivir. Una Vía Para El Desarrollo, edited by A. Acosta and E. Martínez, 75–92. Quito: Ediciones Abya-Yala.

Radcliffe, S. A. 2012. “Development for a Postneoliberal Era? Sumak Kawsay, Living Well and theLimits to Decolonisation in Ecuador.” Geoforum 43: 240–249. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.09.003.

Ramírez, R. 2008. “La Felicidad Como Medida Del Buen Vivir En Ecuador. Entre La Materialidad Y LaSubjetividad. ” SENPLADES Documento de Trabajo no. 1.

Ramírez, R. 2010a. “Socialismo Del Sumak Kawsay O Biosocialismo Republicano.” In Los NuevosRetos De América Latina: Socialismo Y Sumak Kawsay, edited by SENPLADES, 55–76. Quito:SENPLADES.

Ramírez, R. 2010b. “La Transición Ecuatoriana Hacia El Buen Vivir.” In Sumak Kawsay / Buen Vivir YCambios Civilizatorios, edited by I. León, 125–142. Quito: FEDAEPS.

Ramírez, R. 2012a. “La Vida Buena Como ‘Riqueza’ De Las Naciones.” Revista De Ciencias Sociales135: 237–249.

Ramírez, R. 2012b. La Vida (Buena) Como Riqueza De Los Pueblos. Hacia Una Socioecología PolíticaDel Tiempo. Quito: IAEN.

Ramón, G. 2014. “El Sumak Kawsay: Un Concepto En Disputa Y Construcción.” In Diálogos SobreEconomía Social Y Solidaria En Ecuador. Encuentros Y Desencuentros Con Las Propuestas Para OtraEconomía, edited by Y. Jubeto, L. Guridi, and M. Fernández Villa, 333–348. Bilbao: UPV/EHU.

Sánchez-Parga, J. 2011. “Discursos Retrovolucionarios: Sumak Kawsay, Derechos De La Naturaleza YOtros Pachamamismos.” Ecuador Debate 84: 31–50.

Santi, B. 2008. “Ecuador: La Lucha De Sarayaku Contra Las Petroleras.” In Territorios Y RecursosNaturales: El Saqueo versus El Buen Vivir, edited by Broederlijk Denle and ALAI, 112–114. Quito:Broederlijk Denle and ALAI.

Santi, M. (2003) 2014. “Sarayaku Sumak Kawsayta Ñawpakma Katina Killka El Libro De La Vida DeSarayaku Para Defender Nuestro Futuro.” In Sumak Kawsay Yuyay. Antología Del PensamientoIndigenista Ecuatoriano Sobre Sumak Kawsay, edited by A. L. Hidalgo-Capitán, A. Guillén García,and N. Deleg Guazha, 77–102. Huelva: CIM.

Sempere, J., A. Acosta, S. Abdallah, and M. Ortí. 2009. Enfoques Sobre Bienestar Y Buen Vivir. Madrid:CIP-Ecosocial.

Silva, C. 2008. “¿Qué Es El Buen Vivir En La Constitución?” In Constitución Del 2008 En El ContextoAndino: Análisis De La Doctrina Y El Derecho Comparado, edited by R. Ávila, 111–154. Quito:Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos.

Sousa, B. 2010a. “La Difícil Construcción De La Plurinacionalidad.” In Los Nuevos Retos De AméricaLatina: Socialismo Y Sumak Kawsay, edited by SENPLADES, 149–154. Quito: SENPLADES.

Sousa, B. 2010b. “La Hora De L@S Invisibles.” In Sumak Kawsay /Buen Vivir Y Cambios Civilizatorios,edited by I. León, 13–26. Quito: FEDAEPS.

Sousa, B. 2014. “¿La Revolución Ciudadana Tiene Quién La Defienda?” Público, May 9. http://blogs.publico.es/espejos-extranos/2014/05/09/la-revolucion-ciudadana- tiene-quien-la-defienda/.

Sutton, F. X. 1989. “Development Ideology: Its Emergence and Decline.” Daedalus 118 (1): 35–60.Svampa, M. 2013. “‘Consenso De Los Commodities’ Y Lenguajes De Valoración En América Latina.”

Nueva Sociedad 244: 30–46.Tassi, G. 1992. “Todas Las Sangres.” In Náufragos Del Mar Verde: La Resistencia De Los Huaorani a

Una Integración Impuesta, edited by G. Tassi, 75–79. Quito: Abya- Yala.Thomson, B. 2011. “Pachakuti: Indigenous Perspectives, Buen Vivir, Sumaq Kawsay and Degrowth.”

Development 54 (4): 448–454. doi:10.1057/dev.2011.85.Tortosa, J. M. 2009. “Sumak Kawsay, Suma Qamaña, Buen Vivir.” Fundación Carolina, August. http://

experienciasdetransformacion.entrepueblos.org/wp- content/files_mf/vivirbien.jm.tortosa.pdf.


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.09.003http://blogs.publico.es/espejos-extranos/2014/05/09/la-revolucion-ciudadana-%A0tiene-quien-la-defienda/http://blogs.publico.es/espejos-extranos/2014/05/09/la-revolucion-ciudadana-%A0tiene-quien-la-defienda/https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2011.85http://experienciasdetransformacion.entrepueblos.org/wp-%A0content/files_mf/vivirbien.jm.tortosa.pdfhttp://experienciasdetransformacion.entrepueblos.org/wp-%A0content/files_mf/vivirbien.jm.tortosa.pdf

Tortosa, J. M. 2011. Maldesarrollo Y Malvivir. Pobreza Y Violencia a Escala Mundial. Quito: Abya-Yala.UIAW (Universidad Intercultural Amawtay Wasi). 2004. Aprender En La Sabiduría Y El Buen Vivir

/Sumak Yachaypi Alli Kawsaypipash Yachaikuna /Learning Wisdom and the Good Way to Live.Quito: Universidad Intercultural Amawtay Wasi.

Unceta, K. 2011. “El Buen Vivir Frente a La Globalización.” Ecuador Debate 84: 107–116.Unceta, K. 2013. “Decrecimiento Y Buen Vivir. ¿Paradigmas Convergentes? Debates Sobre El

Postdesarrollo En Europa Y América Latina.” Revista De Economía Mundial 35: 197–216.Unceta, K. 2014a. Desarrollo, Postcrecimiento Y Buen Vivir. Debates E Interrogantes. Quito: Abiya-Yala.Unceta, K. 2014b. “Post-Crecimiento Y Desmercantilización: Propuestas Para El Buen Vivir.” In Post-

Crecimiento Y Buen Vivir. Propuestas Globales Para La Construcción De Sociedades Equitativas YSolidarias, edited by G. Endara, 59–92. Quito: FES-ILDIS.

Unda, M. 2013. “Modernización Del Capitalismo Y Reforma Del Estado.” In El Correísmo Al Desnudo,edited by T. Silvana González, 33–38. Quito: Montecristi Vive.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). 2015. Replantear LaEducación. ¿Hacia Un Bien Común Mundial? París: United Nations Educational. Scientific, andCultural Organization.

Vacacela, R. C. 2007. Sumac Causai. Vida En Armonía. Quito: Instituto Quichua de BiotecnologíaSacha Supai.

Vallejo, M. C., R. Burbano, F. Falconi, and C. Larrea. 2015. “Leaving Oil Underground in Ecuador: TheYasuní-ITT Initiative from a Multi-Criteria Perspective.” Ecological Economics 109: 175–185.doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.013.

Vanhulst, J. 2015. “El Laberinto De Los Discursos Del Buen Vivir: Entre Sumak Kawsay Y SocialismoDel Siglo XX.” Polis. Revista Latinoamericana 40: 1–21.

Vanhulst, J., and A. E. Behling. 2014. “Buen Vivir: Emergent Discourse within or beyond SustainableDevelopment?” Ecological Economics 101: 54–63. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.017.

Vega, F. 2014a. “El Buen Vivir-Sumak Kaway En La Constitución Y En El PNBV Del Ecuador.” Obets.Revista De Ciencias Sociales 9 (1): 167–194. doi:10.14198/OBETS2014.9.1.06.

Vega, S. 2014b. “Sumak Kawsay, Feminismos Y Post-Crecimiento: Articulaciones Para ImaginarNuevas Utopías.” In Post-Crecimiento Y Buen Vivir. Propuestas Globales Para La Construcción DeSociedades Equitativas Y Solidarias, edited by G. Endara, 353–372. Quito: FES-ILDIS.

Viola, A. 2011. “Desarrollo, Bienestar E Identidad Cultural: Del Desarrollismo Etnocida Al SumakKawsay En Los Andes.” In Etnicidad Y Desarrollo En Los Andes, edited by P. Palenzuela and A.Olivi, 255–302. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla.

Viola, A. 2014. “Discursos ‘Pachamamistas’ versus Políticas Desarrollistas: El Debate Sobre El SumakKawsay En Los Andes.” Íconos. Revista De Ciencias Sociales 48: 55–72. doi:10.17141/iconos.48.2014.1209.

Viteri, A. 2004. “Tierra Y Territorio Como Derechos.” Pueblos, December 1. http://www. revistapueblos.org/old/spi

buen vivir: praise, instrumentalization, and reproductive pathways … vivir... · 2017-08-05 ·...

Documents