Buen vivir as an Alternative Development Model: Ecuador’s Bumpy Road toward a Postextractivist Society

• Published date: 01 May 2021
• Author: Jorge Enrique Forero
• Date: 01 May 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0094582X211008147
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X211008147

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 238, Vol. 48 No. 3, May 2021, 227–244

DOI: 10.1177/0094582X211008147

© 2021 Latin American Perspectives

227

Buen vivir as an Alternative Development Model

Ecuador’s Bumpy Road toward a Postextractivist Society

by

Jorge Enrique Forero

The Rafael Correa administration, usually characterized as “neo-extractivist,” did in

fact propose an alternative development model that, under a particular understanding of

the notion of buen vivir, aimed to overcome the country’s economic dependence on extrac-

tive activities through its gradual replacement by a knowledge-intensive economic sector.

An examination of this model, some of the main policies implemented in order to configure

it, and the main obstacles encountered in the process confirms the classic intuition of so-

called dependency theory: that the ability of peripheral countries to overcome their reliance

on commodities exports is constrained by economic and institutional mechanisms that

limit their room for maneuver.

La administración de Rafael Correa, generalmente caracterizada como “neoextracti-

vista”, propuso un modelo de desarrollo alternativo que, bajo un entendimiento particular

de la noción del buen vivir, tenía como objetivo superar la dependencia económica del país

de las actividades extractivas a través de una sustitución gradual por un sector económico

intensivo en conocimiento. Un análisis de este modelo, algunas de las principales políticas

implementadas para configurarlo, y los principales obstáculos encontrados en el proceso

confirman la clásica intuición de la llamada teoría de la dependencia: que la capacidad de

los países periféricos para superar su dependencia de las exportaciones de productos bási-

cos está limitada por mecanismos económicos e institucionales que limitan el margen de

maniobra.

Keywords: Buen vivir, Productive transformation, Ecuador, Rafael Correa, Dependency,

Neo-extractivism

A few years after the beginning of the twenty-first century, the world wit-

nessed a series of electoral victories of Latin American leftist political organiza-

tions, a phenomenon labeled in English as the “pink tide.” Among the national

political processes of this regional turn to the left, that of Ecuador received

considerable attention for its use of the concept of buen vivir (sumak kawsay in

Kichwa) as part of its political project. The notion was used to highlight its

alleged inspiration by indigenous peoples’ struggles against colonialism and

environmental degradation that are frequently dismissed by traditional leftist

political discourses. After the initial enthusiasm generated by the pink tide,

criticism emerged from activists and intellectuals regarding the continuing

reliance of those countries, including Ecuador, on extractive activities and its

Jorge Enrique Forero is an associate researcher in the Environment and Sustainability Area at the

Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar.

1008147LAPXXX10.1177/0094582X211008147LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVESForero / BUEN VIVIR AS AN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT MODEL

research-article2021

228 LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES

environmental and socioeconomical consequences. A landmark article by

Gudynas (2010) pointed to the problematic contradiction stemming from the

fact that the progressive governments relied on commodity exports to carry out

their progressive social policies. This was the core of his concept of “neo-extrac-

tivism,” which he used to characterize a governance model that uses the redis-

tribution of extractive rents to justify the commodification of nature and the

expropriation of communities on behalf of transnational capital.

Gudynas’s depiction was immediately accepted, promoted, and referenced

by leftist and broadly progressive accounts of the period (for example, Ceceña,

2009, and Svampa, 2011). Despite being published at the beginning of the polit-

ical cycle, the core of the initial characterization has not substantially changed

(see Gudynas, 2013, and Webber, 2016). Among the main features attributed by

Gudynas to neo-extractivism was that there were “no profound discussions of

neo-extractivism outside of the ones over the income generated” (2010: 9); the

use of this income in compensatory social policies served to defend the extrac-

tive activities (8). Rather than question the institutional rules of the global

world market driven by neoliberalism, governments tended to “accept this

new global commercial institutionalism and move according to its rules” (4).

Their administration model therefore played “a subordinate and functional

role in inserting itself into commercial and financial globalization” (13).

In this article I will focus on one case labeled by several writers (see Burchardt

etal., 2016; Svampa, 2011; Webber, 2016), including Gudynas himself, as

“neo-extractivism”: Ecuador during Rafael Correa´s administration (2007–

2017). I will argue that (1) Correa’s government actively promoted a develop-

ment model that under a very particular understanding of the concept of buen

vivir aimed to overcome the country´s reliance on fossil-fuels exploitation; (2)

the administration recovered substantial extractive rents from transnational

capital that were invested not only in social programs but also in the education,

science, and technology sector, seen as strategic for the alternative model pro-

posed; (3) the latter, along with many of the related policies implemented,

openly challenged the current institutional rules of the world economy, as well

as key neoliberal prescriptions for peripheral countries and the economic inter-

ests of transnational capital; and (4) the strong reactions of transnational corpo-

rations and the binding nature of global institutional rules limited the

possibilities of implementation of this alternative development model. I would

like to bring to the discussion a classic intuition of the so-called dependency

theory: that the ability of peripheral countries to overcome their reliance on

commodities exports is constrained by a series of economic and institutional

mechanisms that limits their room for maneuver. Therefore, these mechanisms

need to be accounted for in studying the prevalence in peripheral countries of

economic patterns such as the so-called extractivism.

The article is divided into four sections. In the first I describe the alternative

development model proposed by the Correa administration, briefly addressing

the underlying understanding of the notion of buen vivir. In the other three

sections I characterize the policies implemented in the key areas—the oil sector,

trade, and intellectual-property regulation—considered strategic by the

administration for attaining this alternative development model. The article

ends with some conclusions that stress the importance of including structural