University of Amsterdam
Department of Human Geography, Planning and International Development Graduate School of Social Sciences
Master in International Development Studies
Looking for alternatives to development: Buen Vivir and
Sumak Kawsay and their implementations in the
Ecuadorian context
María Fernanda Viteri Vela
10967702
ferviteri@gmail.com
Thesis supervisor: Courtney Vegelin Second reader: Enrique Gomez-Llata
Acknowledgements ... ii
Acronyms ... iii
Abstract ... iv
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Theoretical framework ... 7
Post-development: a search for alternatives to mainstream development ... 7
Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir: origins and theoretical stances ... 13
3. Methodology and research methods ... 23
Research questions ... 23
Ontology and Epistemology ... 24
Methodology ... 26
Methods ... 26
4. Empirical context ... 30
5. Data analysis and findings ... 35
Buen Vivir as an axis of public policy in Ecuador ... 35
Sumak Kawsay: a call for a change in civilization ... 46
Contributions of Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir to the development debate ... 52
6. Conclusion and recommendations ... 58
Challenges and limitations ... 58
Recommendations ... 58
Closing remarks ... 61
ii Acknowledgements
To my family, for always being my rock and my support and for always inspiring me to be better.
To the people interviewed during research, thank you for sharing your knowledge with me.
To the indigenous peoples of Ecuador, for inspiring me to dream of a better world, one we all hope to live in one day.
iii Acronyms
CODENPE Council for the Development of Nationalities and Peoples of Ecuador
CONAIE Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador ECUARUNARI Confederation of Peoples of Kichwa Nationality in Ecuador
PNBV National Plan for Buen Vivir
SENPLADES Secretariat for Planning and Development
iv Abstract
Ecuador makes use of the concepts of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay as alternatives to development. Regardless of their similarities, the concepts represent diverging approaches in Ecuador – Buen Vivir through policy and planning strategies by the national government, and Sumak Kawsay by the indigenous nationalities based on their traditional values and principles. However, each concept encounters challenges in its implementation, be it through a change in their meaning as is the case of Buen Vivir, or with regard to the recognition of diverse knowledges in Ecuador for Sumak Kawsay. Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay have become popular concepts since their inclusion in the Ecuadorian Constitution, meaning that literature addresses them from 2009 onwards. Yet, the majority of the existing literature found is in Spanish, limiting the promotion of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay in English-speaking academic debates regarding Southern alternatives to development.
This research examines how Buen Vivir is being implemented in comparison of Sumak Kawsay in the Ecuadorian context as alternatives to mainstream development. This document studies the origin and evolution of both concepts, analyzing how they can be incorporated within post-development theory. Additionally, it assesses the civilizational change promoted by both concepts, which seeks a harmonious lifestyle with nature and with society. Information was gathered through in-depth interviews with actors with different worldviews, from indigenous people to government officials and scholars that have studied these concepts, enriching the debate around them. Moreover, an analysis of secondary sources was made, including policy documents and existing academic literature.
By being critical of mainstream development and of economic growth based on wealth accumulation, Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are inscribed in the post-development paradigm, challenging notions of neoliberal and capitalist development. Thus, Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay contribute to an epistemic rupture of how we understand progress by promoting a civilizational change based on a harmonious relationship with nature, where the role of community and cultural identities are valued and where diverse knowledges are recognized. This thesis brings some insight into the debate between Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay as innovative political and academic proposals from the Global South. This paper contributes to future analyses of new alternatives to the development problem by evaluating both concepts’ viability.
Key words: Buen Vivir, Sumak Kawsay, indigenous knowledge, post-development alternatives
1 1. Introduction
In the last decades, it has become evident that there is a need for a new paradigm of development that focuses on more than economic growth. Indeed, new alternatives have been proposed to the mainstream understanding of development which privileges economic growth, such as the de-growth movement, human development or even sustainable development. This has also allowed that alternatives from the Global South be taken into consideration. Such is the case of Buen Vivir in Ecuador, which, according to the preamble of the 2008 National Constitution, is a harmonious way of living between society and nature. This paradigm is based on the worldviews of the different indigenous peoples of the Andes, what is called Sumak Kawsay in the case of Ecuador. Indeed, it has been used as a synonym for Buen Vivir throughout the Ecuadorian Constitution as well as other official documents from the national government. As explained by Gudynas, the concept of Buen Vivir has received “widespread attention, and in a short period of time received broad social, cultural and political support” (2011: 442). Hence, this thesis will focus on the Ecuadorian concepts of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay as possible alternatives to mainstream development.
The inclusion of the concept of Buen Vivir in the national charter of 2008 for the first time was groundbreaking since it promotes several rights of Buen Vivir – among these, a chapter on the Rights of Nature – and also a Regime of Buen Vivir, with elements such as inclusion and equality, health, biodiversity, among others, which is closely linked to a chapter in the Constitution that calls for a new development regime that seeks to establish planning strategies that contribute to attaining Buen Vivir for all citizens. As such, it is possible to state that the charter introduces Buen Vivir not only as a goal to be achieved in the sake of all Ecuadorians, but also as a policy framework where the development regime takes place. Furthermore, the goal of Buen Vivir as living harmoniously with society and with the environment can be visualized through the indigenous understanding of Sumak Kawsay, which calls for a communal-based way of living and sustainable use of the land. As such, we may say that Buen Vivir can be considered as a concept drawn from the indigenous perspective of Sumak Kawsay, as a policy framework under which the development strategies are drafted, and as the
2 central objective set by the government to be attained through the enforcement of public policy; all these points will be explained later on in this thesis.
Additionally, Buen Vivir is sometimes considered as a socialist ideology, “as Buen Vivir moves in a post-capitalist direction, it is common for many people to assume that it is a new type of socialism or that there is a socialist trend towards Buen Vivir” (Gudynas, 2011: 446). Indeed, Álvarez González considers that, “Sumak Kawsay is anticapitalist because its epistemic structure does not objectify nature, it is communitarian and its rise is possible due to the rupture of the scientific knowledge exclusive to Modernity” (2013: 116-7); then, Buen Vivir also questions capitalism since it is inspired by Sumak Kawsay. However, Gudynas also considers that Buen Vivir or Sumak Kawsay go beyond socialism as well as beyond capitalism; since both “explore and build alternatives beyond European modernity, [thus] moving away from Eurocentric political thought” (2011: 446). Further evidence from this research also shows that Buen Vivir draws from feminism as well as ecology (León, nd).
I believe it is necessary to turn to alternative proposals for development because mainstream development practices, such as the ones enforced in Latin America through the Washington Consensus, “have caused problems for the general wellbeing of the population, for example by provoking illnesses associated to pollution and pathologies derived from the lifestyles maintained in large cities, putting in danger the survival of mankind” (Unceta, 2014: 53)1. This can happen by firstly understanding the local context of “development” and “underdevelopment”. Buen Vivir may be considered as an alternative, vis-à-vis classic forms of economic development, not only because it comes from a non-Western perspective, but also since it includes nature and culture as part of the discussion. Moreover, the government of Ecuador has recently started to promote Buen Vivir internationally as an alternative lifestyle to ‘savage capitalism’ that, they argue, is only focused in unstoppable economic growth.
3 Buen Vivir has become a representation of an alternative way of development; however, it is important to understand that in fact, Buen Vivir is a rough translation of the indigenous concept of Sumak Kawsay. The novelty regarding Buen Vivir is that it was included in the new Constitution as a harmonious way of living with the social and natural environment (Asamblea Constituyente, 2008); in the Charter, Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are used interchangeably as synonyms. However, scholars and indigenous people consider that both terms are significantly different. As such, throughout this thesis, I will try to position both discourses of Buen Vivir and the of Sumak Kawsay into the development debate in order to contribute to fill in the knowledge gap about alternatives to development, particularly the ones coming from the Global South. With this theoretical contribution to the development debate, I expect that Buen Vivir is not only left as mere discourse being applied into policy, but also as a viable and sustainable alternative of development.
For the purpose of this thesis, I will use the term “Buen Vivir” when describing the views from the national government as opposed to “Sumak Kawsay” for the indigenous perspective2. Additionally, although Sumak Kawsay may not be the proper translation for this Andean worldview and way of life, I will employ this Kichwa term to encompass the different indigenous visions under a single umbrella term without disregarding the different conceptions from the several Ecuadorian indigenous nationalities; for instance, some communities employ the terms Alli Kawsay or Shiir
Waras, but they all are complementary and unique to their context. Hence, Sumak
Kawsay will be used not to homogenize the different perspectives but to help the reader understand the difference between the indigenous conceptions from the government’s understanding of Buen Vivir. According to Simbaña, the distinct indigenous voices are different; however, there is a similar sense in which these proposals “denote a life ideal
2 Altmann warns that “this pretended indigenous concept does not come directly from the indigenous movement and its long tradition of criticizing the occidental idea of development to claim the protection of nature”, yet its first written account comes from an indigenous community from the Ecuadorian Amazon which “systematizes Sumak Kawsay in the context of its struggle against oil exploitation in their territory” (2013: 284)
4 that does not cleave man and nature on the one hand, and, on the other, that within the reproduction and production of material life, and social and spiritual life [in which] man/woman and nature are part of Mother Earth” (2012: 228).
On a similar note regarding this thesis, using Buen Vivir, “implies a reconstruction from the indigenous perspective without this approximation becoming excluding and conforming to dogmatic visions; as such, this debate needs to be complemented and amplified by incorporating other discourses and other proposals from other parts of the planet, which also seek a transformation in society and which is based in community life and harmonious relationships with nature”, such as ubuntu, svadeshi, swaraj, suma
qamaña, and other similar concepts (Acosta 2014: 21-22). As such, in spite of
regrouping the worldviews of Ecuadorian indigenous communities under the concept of Sumak Kawsay in this thesis, the author recognizes their diversity and their rich contributions to the different understandings of lifestyles.
Moreover, recognizing the abstract nature of Buen Vivir and the way it is promoted and implemented by the Ecuadorian government, the research carried out also aimed to make visible the perspective of indigenous peoples regarding the Andean concept of Sumak Kawsay, which is commonly mistaken as the same as Buen Vivir. This further contributes to the discussion on alternative ways of understanding development in the current global setting. Yet, “Buen Vivir should not be conceived as a position limited to non-Western knowledge, but as a useful concept that can support and enhance critical traditions looking for alternatives to development. The critical approaches to development can complement the indigenous traditions and vice versa. […] Buen Vivir can be considered as a platform where critical views of development are shared” (Gudynas, 2011: 445).
Additionally, I am taking a critical perspective on the government of Ecuador in order to analyze Buen Vivir and the success of its implementation in the country. As such, although there is a bias against the government’s actions in some cases, I expect the data to speak for itself by allowing the reader to understand how the concept has parted away from Sumak Kawsay, illustrating the changes in the concept of Buen Vivir since its inclusion in the Constitution. Moreover, it is important to let the reader know
5 that the analysis presented throughout this thesis is also biased in a sense that it is based on a Western perspective, using tools that perhaps are inexistent in the indigenous worldviews I seek to explain.
The relevance of this topic is well embedded in the criticism of classic development being fixated only on economic growth and the accumulation of wealth (add sources here). As such, it brings a refreshing understanding of how development can obtain a new focus. Moreover, since much of the literature on the topics of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are written in Spanish, this thesis presents an opportunity for English-speakers to become acquainted with these proposed alternatives; for this purpose, the author has translated most of the Spanish texts used in this thesis as references. Additionally, it allows the recognition of indigenous knowledge that has been, in many cases, neglected due to the colonial stances of mainstream development. Indeed, bearing in mind that Ecuador is a multiethnic, plurinational and intercultural state, this thesis aims to make the indigenous voices of Sumak Kawsay heard, by analyzing both discourses and their implementations by the government and the indigenous actors.
This thesis is based on a theoretical and an analytical approach to the concepts of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay in Ecuador, as well as the processes of their evolution. As such, the following chapters will begin with a theoretical framework situating the research in the academic debates of development, particularly focused on a post-development approach. This chapter will further include a section that identifies the origins of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay and their incorporation in the larger development debate. The following chapter on methodology and research methods employed will explain how the data was gathered.
Then, a chapter presenting the empirical context where the context of Ecuador is explained in order to a better understanding of the reasons why Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay rose to prominence. The next chapter will be based on the data analysis and findings gathered throughout research. A section on the analysis of how both perspectives are being implemented in Ecuador through planning strategies by the national government and through traditional practices of indigenous communities is also
6 included. The final chapter will include the conclusions and recommendations, which will contribute to the consideration of how both Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay may be considered as alternatives to classical economic development by looking upon at their implementations and by reflecting upon the findings of this thesis.
7 2. Theoretical framework
This chapter will begin by situating the topic of this thesis into the academic development debate, particularly by the use of post-development theory. The section following the theoretical departure point of post-development, will address the origins of the concepts of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay and how they are introduced in the development debate by analyzing the way in which they have been addressed through other theories inscribed under the development paradigm.
Post-development: a search for alternatives to mainstream development
On 20 January 1949, when President Harry Truman took office and gave his inaugural speech, “a new era was opened for the world – the era of development” (Esteva, 1992: 1). Since then, economic growth and wealth accumulation achieved by nations have become symbols of progress that differentiate the “developed” and “underdeveloped” nations, promoting the importance of becoming developed in order to step in the era of modernity3. This further means that all of those who did not accomplish these goals of progress were seen as backward, as is the case of indigenous peoples who have been stranded in poverty and underdevelopment. Indeed, Esteva further argues that “[development] implies a favourable change, a step from the simple to the complex, from the inferior to the superior, from worse to better […] that one is doing well because one is advancing in the sense of a necessary, ineluctable, universal law and towards a desirable goal” (1992: 6). Development has further been linked to a promise of wellbeing, happiness and quality of life; however, “the members of [the Permanent Working Group on Alternatives to Development] believe that development inevitably ties us to a certain way of thinking – one that is
3 For the purpose of this thesis, “modernity” can be viewed under Giddens (1990) definition, understood as the “lifestyle or social organization that rose in Europe since the XVII century forwards, and which influence later on have turned them into more or less global” (cited in Unceta, 2014: 36). Additionally, according to Gudynas, “modernity is a particular ontology that in the last centuries determined the division between nature and society, a colonial distinction between modern and non-modern indigenous peoples, the myth of progress as a unidirectional linear path, and a strong confidence on Cartesian science” (2011: 447).
8 western, capitalist and colonial. This is because it seeks to get the excluded to follow a path marked out in advance by the global North, in order to achieve their inclusion in the hegemonic way of life.” (Lang, 2013: 9).
It is important to note that the rise of the mainstream understanding of development is linked with capitalism and neoliberalism, particularly since it has promoted the need for underdeveloped countries to follow the economic practices of developed countries in order to leave poverty behind. Yet, neoliberalism has also proven to be ineffective by enhancing the inequalities between the rich and poor. Additionally, as put by Sachs, “the development discourse is an outcome of the post-war era of fossil-fuel-based triumphalism, undergirded by colonial perceptions and the legacy of Western rationalism” (2009: xii), meaning that the search for new alternatives of development needs to address these issues to move past the mainstream understanding of development. As such, some of the new alternatives to development that come from the post-development debate emphasize the need to move away not only from the classic understanding of development but also from neoliberal practices based in capitalism that in the end contributed to the increase of poverty and inequality in certain regions, as is the case of Latin America.
This is why the main critics to this Westernized understanding of development, argue that this discourse of progress was maintained on the basis of economic growth as a characteristic of developed countries while all the others (particularly the “Third World” or “Global South”) were suffering from poverty and inequality; for example, Escobar further argues about the deployment of the discourse through practices by saying that, “[development] discourse results in the concrete practices of thinking and acting through which the Third World is produced” (1995: 11). Indeed, Sachs argues that “post-development initiatives attempt to push back the predominance of the economic world-view” (2009: xiii), further contributing to the belief that there is more to the development discussion than simply economic growth and wealth accumulation. Additionally, “to attack ‘development’ also means questioning the raison d’être of economic growth, the ‘natural’ (or primordial) state of scarcity, the evidence of unlimited human needs, the virtue of competition, the invisible hand of the market, the assumption that more is always better” (Rist, 2006: 16). Other post-development
9 thinkers have also introduced the importance of other perspectives into a post-development discussion by arguing the need for including other aspects into the picture, such as nature or culture; such is the case of Rodolfo Stavenhagen, the former Special Rapporteur of the United Nations regarding fundamental rights and liberties of indigenous peoples, who “proposes today ethno-development or development with self-confidence, conscious that we need to ‘look within’ and ‘search for one’s own culture’ instead of using borrowed and foreign views” (Esteva, 1992: 2).
Additionally, Escobar argues that, “the analysis in terms of hybrid cultures leads to a reconceptualization of a number of established views. Rather than being eliminated by development, many ‘traditional cultures’ survive through their transformative engagement with modernity” (1995: 219); yet, many societies, among them the indigenous populations, have lost their traditions in the hope of becoming modern and developed. Nonetheless, there are others that, instead of supporting this notion of development and modernity as the primordial goal of humanity, have contributed to a certain hybridization of paradigms, changing the notions of how development and modernity should be understood; for example, Amartya Sen argues that “an income-centered view is in serious need of supplementation, in order to have a fuller understanding of the process of development” (2000: 47), resulting in the human development paradigm, where there is a recognition that economic growth is desirable but the ultimate goal of development should be focused on the advancing of opportunities and capabilities of people. Furthermore, Unceta argues that perspectives such as human development and sustainability – also related to the critique towards the mainstream development debate – present a “conceptual rupture with the conventional way of understanding development, by vindicating the need of a new examination of the means and ends, the invalidity of the indicators employed, the analysis in terms of processes and not only results, and the consideration of different spatial areas at the time of studying the distinct aspects that contribute to human wellbeing” (2014: 73).
Post-development could be seen as a rupture of the development discourse given that it incorporates traditionally marginalized voices into the debate and decision-making processes that seek to go beyond classic forms of development. Then, the Foucauldian notions regarding the relationship between discourse and power are the
10 epistemological departure point of development theory. In the context of post-development research, Foucault argues that, “discourse analysis creates the possibility of ‘standing detached from the development discourse, bracketing its familiarity, in order to analyze the theoretical and practical context with which it has been associated’” (cited by Escobar, 1995: 6). Following this statement, then it is possible to argue that, by analyzing the context in which the development discourse has been associated and put into practice, then we may come up with different solutions that break free from the Westernized perspective on what development should imply for certain populations or regions; thus, the recognition of the different contexts will contribute to establishing new alternatives that address the needs of a certain population.
Post-development is also influenced by a strong criticism towards colonial discourse, which is defined by Bhabha as “an apparatus that turns on the recognition and disavowal of racial/cultural/historical differences” (cited by Escobar, 1995: 9); as such, Escobar further argues that based on the geopolitical background of colonial discourse, post-development could be considered as a response to the geopolitical imaginary shaped by classical discourse on development (1995: 9). A parallel can be drawn regarding “Latin American dependency theorists and other leftists intellectuals dedicated to criticizing all and every one of the development strategies that the North Americans successively put into fashion. […] According to them, the ‘backward’ or ‘poor’ countries were in that condition due to past lootings in the process of colonization and the continued raping by capitalist exploitation at the national and international level” (Esteva, 1992: 7). Thus, it is important to note that post-development and post-colonial discourses could be considered as similar critiques to traditional streams of thought by arguing in favor of those discourses that come from the Global South that contest capitalism and development, many of which have traditionally been excluded in academic literature coming from the West.
Furthermore, according to Carpio Benalcázar, post-development thinking breaks the universalizing design of development that ignores all cultural, economic or historical backgrounds (2009: 116). As such, it is possible to say that post-development presents an opportunity to access knowledge from these ignored backgrounds in current
11 academic debates, particularly given that mainstream development was based on a Westernized and colonial understanding of the States and their economies as the units of measurement. Moreover, through the recognition that mainstream development is no longer a valid and applicable experience, “the increasing understanding (and feeling) in South America is that the modernity project is exhausted, and this is an opportunity to make visible, understand and promote alternative worldviews to move away from what we yesterday called development” (Gudynas, 2011: 447).
This theoretical background is already applied into the rise of new alternatives linked to post-development, for example, the degrowth4 movement, which is a “downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions and equity on the planet” (Research & Degrowth, nd); yet, even this movement does not come from the Global South, it promotes a new alternative to mainstream economic development. As stated by Rist, “global (or general) growth is beside the point - the question is not whether there should be economic growth or not, but how a more decent life can be attained given natural constraints (the finite quantity of non-renewable resources) without depending on huge techno-structures (producing energy, food, transportation, etc.), and by restoring former social relations that have been destroyed by ‘development’” (2006: 86-87). As it can be seen, degrowth is based on the premise that some elements of the post-development critique could be included in policy-making strategies to promote better lifestyles.
For the purposes of this thesis, I consider that it is important to bear in mind the Foucauldian perspective of how the development discourse was based on the power relationships imposed from a Western point of view; yet, this also allows the researcher
4Sustainable degrowth further “calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means, with open, localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of democratic institutions. […] Degrowth does not only challenge the centrality of GDP as an overarching policy objective but proposes a framework for transformation to a lower and sustainable level of production and consumption, a shrinking of the economic system to leave more space for human cooperation and ecosystems” (Research & Degrowth, nd). As such, degrowth contrasts mainstream development by focusing in human wellbeing and the importance of sustainability while contesting economic growth as the most important aspect of development.
12 and the reader to understand that the Southern perspectives that will be studied in this thesis, such as Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay, present an epistemological rupture of this Western-based framework by challenging the notions that were defended by mainstream development. Additionally, in the post-development framework, the power structures between North and South become irrelevant by including different perspectives coming from the entire planet that seek human wellbeing as a common goal. However, Sachs (2009: xiii) presents a dichotomy on how post-development discourse has evolved in the North and in the South:
[In the global South] initiatives emphasize community rights to natural resources, self-governance and indigenous ways of knowing and acting [,] in the global North, post-development action instead centres on eco-fair businesses in manufacture, trade and banking, the rediscovery of the commons in nature and society, open-source collaboration, self-sufficiency in consumption and profit-making, and renewed attention to non-material values. […] The common denominator of those initiatives is the search for less material notions of prosperity, [since] human-wellbeing has many sources beyond money; drawing on them not only provides a base for different styles of prosperity, but makes people and communities more resilient against resource crises and economic shock.
Additionally, one of the contributions of post-development thinking is that it exalts the heterogeneity of the “Third World” thinking by framing it as an alternative to the Western dominance, particularly in the political, economic and cultural dimensions of research (Escobar, 1995: 99). Such is the case of Buen Vivir, which has become not only a theoretical contribution to post-development but also a political element that contests the Western-dominating paradigms. It is also important to notice that, while including some viewpoints regarding development in this framework, the post-development approach has been deeply criticized for only countering post-development on a theoretical basis instead of proposing and implementing practical solutions. This is why I have decided to analyze the practical contribution of alternatives such as Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay in the contestation of mainstream development.
As such, by incorporating Southern perspectives into post-development that have traditionally been ignored by the modern and colonial-based development debate, it also means that new alternatives can be promoted as frameworks that understand more than economic growth by establishing a more comprehensive scope in sake of human – and general – wellbeing for the global population. Such is the case with
13 Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir, which promotes a plentiful living by implementing a harmonious lifestyle with society as well as with nature by recognizing the importance of all actors as parts of a whole. Indeed, “Buen Vivir offers a common ground where critical perspectives on development, originated from different ontologies, meet and interact, is a new space for dealing with other alternate ontologies” (Gudynas, 2011: 447).
Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir: origins and theoretical stances
To understand where Buen Vivir comes from, firstly we need to make clear the origins of Sumak Kawsay. Buen Vivir consists of the political appropriation of Sumak Kawsay by the government of Ecuador, under President Correa, as a lifestyle based upon the harmonious living between human beings and nature based on the political proposal of CONAIE for the Constitutional Assembly (CONAIE, 2007: 1). Moreover, it is important to understand that both Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay carry their own ontologies and epistemologies, obtained from different paradigms. For instance, authors like León argue that Buen Vivir draws from the feminist and ecologist paradigms, for example through their shared criticism towards traditional capitalism and the classical and neoclassical economy and its predominant ways of wealth accumulation (nd: 36). As put by Calisto Friant and Langmore “Buen vivir is an inherently pluralistic concept. While its roots emanate from Andean cosmovision, it has evolved beyond native cosmology by incorporating alternative ideologies from the western world” (2015: 64).
Furthermore, as put by Radcliffe, it is crucial that for the understanding of both concepts we acknowledge that “Sumak Kawsay has a complex genealogy that draws from politico-intellectual reflections on developments by marginalized indigenous subjects, combined in selective ways with a state-based leftist program for greater equality” (2012: 241). As such, in this section I will firstly address the origins of Sumak Kawsay as conceived by the Andean indigenous groups in order to explain the origins of Buen Vivir through their different backgrounds and their relations to other theories of the development debate in order to have a better understanding of their purpose in the
14 Ecuadorian context as alternatives to development, which will be explained in another chapter.
Regarding the origins of Sumak Kawsay, we must first understand that it is “a historically constructed concept by the indigenous peoples of the Andean region of South America and which refers to a plentiful life, but for this to be possible, the relationship between nature and society must be based on the principles of harmony and equilibrium” (Simbaña 2012: 222). However, other authors argue that Sumak Kawsay “is a relatively new concept although it presents connective points to the indigenous movement discourse, particularly CONAIE, its greater organization” (Altmann, 2013: 295). Yet, it is precisely the incorporation of Sumak Kawsay into the political discourse of the indigenous movement that allowed the concept to be known outside of the indigenous communities at a national level, and later internationally through the use of Buen Vivir.
Here I must explain that Buen Vivir is a literal translation of Sumak Kawsay, which, according to Macas, in Kichwa means a “full life [;] life in material and spiritual excellence” (2010: 14); Gudynas supports this claim by arguing that it also means a “fullness of life in a community, together with other persons and Nature” (2011: 442). Nonetheless, as explained in the introduction to this thesis, Sumak Kawsay merely corresponds to the perspective of the Kichwa people of Ecuador and, for the purpose of this thesis, is being used as an umbrella term for other indigenous perspectives from Ecuador that promote similar ideals for life; on one hand, these different perspectives do not differentiate between men and nature. On the other hand, the similarities also arise between the material, social and spiritual aspects of life, including production and reproduction, since there is an inseparable interconnection between every being: men, women and nature, are part of Pachamama or Mother Earth, and between them, there
15 is a communion and dialogue based on a common rituality that claims nature as a sacred being (Prada Alcoreza5, 2012: 228).
Most of the existing literature about Sumak Kawsay (in the traditional sense and not used as a synonym of Buen Vivir) comes from an indigenous background, either being written by indigenous scholars and authors or by addressing it by linking it to the indigenous movement; however, these written accounts that include the Sumak Kawsay term can be found only after the year 2000. Altmann argues that “the first publication regarding the Ecuadorian indigenous movement about this concept comes from a local organization of the Amazon that in 2003 systematizes Sumak Kawsay in the context of their struggle against oil exploitation in their territory” (2013: 84); indeed, he refers to the Sarayaku community whose written proposal addresses an idea of setting an economic and political structure that allows the harmony between individuals, society and nature by incorporating the indigenous worldviews (Sarayaku, 2003). Another written account on Buen Vivir (Viteri Gualinga, 2003) already interprets it as a viable alternative to development. Hence, one of the most important aspects regarding Sumak Kawsay is the recognition of its indigenous roots as being the main contribution promoted by the indigenous movement for the creation of a new set of values that call for a change in civilization.
Moreover, “Sumak Kawsay, as practiced by indigenous communities, is sustained through a life style in which people, being part of nature, live under millenary and fundamental principles that determine that ‘we take what is needed from nature’” (Quirola Suárez, 2009: 105). This is further exemplified in the text of Sarayaku, which defines Sumak Kawsay based on the subjective traditions and beliefs of this community transmitted through elders and women, by not taking more than necessary from the jungle and by promoting a harmonious way of living with oneself, the community and
5 Prada Alcoreza talks about similar accounts in the Andean region by including Suma Qamaña from the Aymara or Ñandereco from the Guaraní peoples. However, in spite of being located in different countries, these discourses, along with Sumak Kawsay and other discourses from other indigenous nationalities of Ecuador, still seek a plentiful way of life by managing a harmonious interrelationship with nature and society.
16 nature, “permitting ourselves and other forms of life to continue with their cycle” (2003: 3-4). In a way, it is possible to say that this parallels other debates of post-development, such as the sustainable development paradigm, which seeks to use only what is necessary to allow the conservation for future generations; however, Sumak Kawsay is much more profound in a sense that it takes into account also a subjective dimension regarding the spirituality of these communities as one of its pillars. As Guadinango mentions, the indigenous populations of the Kichwa nationality manage this concept to express their expectations of life, framed and interrelated to:
[Ethics], production, consumption, familiar and communitarian interrelationships, spirituality, the transmission of knowledge(s), the practice of familiar, religious and communitarian festivities, the participation in internal and external decision-making processes, among others. [Sumak Kawsay] integrates the local and ancestral knowledge, the cultural diversity, and the different ways of understanding life in the ayllus and the allpamama, relationally and complementarily (2014: 213) 6.
As such, it is possible to say that Sumak Kawsay is an applied philosophy that comes from the indigenous communities and their values, which seek to establish an interrelationship with nature and society at all levels by recognizing that we are part of a whole.
Yet, even if the literature about Sumak Kawsay begins to appear in the beginning of the XXI century, scholars such as Oviedo argue that Sumak Kawsay exists in a consuetudinary way due to the traditional practices that have been getting lost since the colonial era (2014: 142). Guadinango supports that this concept “reflects the cultural and historical inheritance of the indigenous communities, transmitted orally through myths, advices and costumes practiced nowadays, which may vary according to each community, epoch, circumstances and generations” (2014: 213-4). Nonetheless, there are, for example, policy documents from the indigenous movement such as the 1994
6 According to Guadinango (2014: 214-5), Ayllu refers to the “historical unit of related family by consanguinity, relationship or affinity where there are norms of reciprocity, solidarity and cooperation in actions, beliefs and knowledge”. Allpamama refers to Mother Earth or Pachamama in the discourse of Sumak Kawsay. Additionally, although she refers to Alli Kawsay instead of Sumak Kawsay, it has been integrated under this concept as was explained in the introduction of this thesis. This is possible since she considers both concepts are complementary by Sumak Kawsay belonging to the state level and Alli
17 political proposal of CONAIE, we find the same values promoted by Sumak Kawsay, such as “an integral humanism where men and nature are in a tight and harmonic interrelationship that guarantees life” (1994: 11) without mentioning the term explicitly.
Since these notions of having a harmonic relationship between nature and society do not mention Sumak Kawsay before the year 2000, there has been some reluctance to accept it as a traditional valid concept; indeed, not all scholars have accepted the inclusion of Sumak Kawsay in the academic and political debate in Ecuador. For instance, Viola Recasens argues that “the formula of Sumak Kawsay has no precedents in the Andean tradition and, as such, it is impossible to know its uses in the past” (cited in Sánchez-Parga, 2014: 100), further calling it an “invented tradition”. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that Sumak Kawsay is only taken into account after the political participation of indigenous groups in Ecuador; for instance, “[its] rise to prominence as the new development paradigm is due to the meanings it acquired through political action, constitutional reform, and the search for new forms of social economy. While [its] origin lies in the political-cultural concerns of Ecuador’s indigenous movements, as a development model it reflects the outcomes for grassroots ‘insurgent’ alternatives in the political and economic realities of postneoliberal governmentality” (Radcliffe 2012: 240-1).
The concept of Buen Vivir on the other hand was first introduced in 2003 in development policies managed in the CODENPE’s strategic plan, but in this context, Buen Vivir was one of the goals to be achieved through development and was not an alternative to it (Altmann, 2007: 292). “In its most general sense, Buen Vivir denotes, organizes, and constructs a system of knowledge and living based on the communion of humans and nature and on the spatial-temporal-harmonious totality of existence” (Walsh, 2010: 18), which could be seen as a proposal for the change of civilization. Furthermore, Altmann also argues that it is only from the government of Rafael Correa that Buen Vivir is reintroduced as a political concept (2007: 293), in which it was incorporated in the National Constitution of 2008 after the political proposal of the indigenous movements that it was an innovative proposal of becoming an alternative to development; through its proposal, the indigenous movement sought “the construction of a post-capitalist and post-colonial society, a society that promotes the ‘Buen Vivir’
18 transmitted from generation to generation by our elders, a society that recovers the teachings of the ancestral peoples and that can live in harmony with our [Pachamama]” (CONAIE, 2007: 1).
Additionally, this proposal also includes a call for using the economy not for profit, but rather to achieve human wellbeing for a better living; “the economy should be based on ancestral principles such ‘Sumak Kawsay’ which proposes the good living, in the principle of reciprocity employed by the communities in practices such as the
minga, the randy randy7 […] principles that radically question wealth accumulation as
the goal of the economy” (2007: 21). As it may be seen, the values of Sumak Kawsay were impregnated in this proposal, which was adopted and included in the Constitution by translating it Buen Vivir as putting it in the national charter as one of its central elements.
Besides being included in the Charter, Buen Vivir has taken a central position for the government of Ecuador and its ruling party, Alianza País by the inclusion of this concept in the political plan of the party as well as in public policies directed to the planning strategies for development, such as the national plans for development (PNBV). Indeed, “according to Ecuadorian policymakers, reorienting development around the concept of [Buen Vivir] 8 represents a radical ‘new paradigm’ of development that initiates a series of socioeconomic transformations including postneoliberalism, popular capitalism and, eventually, ‘socialism of Sumak Kawsay’. […] Whereas [Buen Vivir] is formulated in discursive opposition to ‘western’ and ‘global neoliberal’ development, its engagement with indigenous claims entails a long-term, contested and
7 According to Guadinango, minka or minga refers to a “collective participation mechanism for achieving the common objectives of the ayllu or llakta, the space where daily coexistence takes place”. Ranti ranti or randy randy refers to “an experiential principle from the ayllu and the llakta that sets the behavior between the people that live in the communes, the members of each family and general members of the
ayllu and the llakta; this norms allows the reproduction of activities from the past, present and future,
embedded in a framework of solidarity, cooperation and mutual work” (2014: 215).
8 I have replaced Sumak Kawsay in the original quote for Buen Vivir in order to clarify that Buen Vivir is the actual terminology employed by the government. Additionally, this further exemplifies how there has been an official appropriation for the term by the government while changing the traditional meaning of Sumak Kawsay.
19 highly politicized process of conceptualizing, defining, and implementing development and its subjects” (Radcliffe, 2012: 241).
However, Mella argues that “Buen Vivir has become a political discourse from the State that, paradoxically, and it does not acknowledge or recognize the cultural transformation and the political achievements of the indigenous peoples in the last years, achievements that are precisely the result of the struggles of these peoples against the State’s development plans, especially during the last neoliberal phase” (2015: 162). Wray, a former congressman of the Constitutional Assembly adds that, “Buen Vivir as a development objective draws in part from the indigenous worldview, but in the constitutional text does not only includes this vision but integrates it with the need to fully enable the economic, social and cultural rights to enforce the capabilities and opportunities” (2009: 56), demonstrating that Buen Vivir has slowly drifted from the original meaning of Sumak Kawsay by incorporating it in other frameworks of development.
In spite of the growing differences between meaning and purpose of each concept, both Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir can be easily related to other theories of development that criticize the Western-based understanding of economic growth and wealth accumulations as the parameters of progress and modernity. For instance, both can be considered as “transition discourses” since these “take as their point of departure the notion that the contemporary ecological and social crises are inseparable from the model of social life that has become dominant over the past few centuries” (Escobar, 2015: 452). Indeed, Sumak Kawsay rose to prominence as a critique from the indigenous movement to the capitalist and neoliberal practices that took place in Ecuador in the past 40 years, and Buen Vivir seeks to promote a civilizational change that enhances a harmonious relationship with nature and society.
Additionally, Buen Vivir is also related to newer alternatives from post-development, such as degrowth, since both may be considered as transition discourses, which I explained above. While degrowth comes from the North and Buen Vivir from the Global South, both “posit a radical cultural and institutional transformation” (Escobar 2015: 453). Likewise, both proposals seek a civilizational
20 change in which economy plays a secondary role while the human being becomes the axis of policies. Nonetheless, it is also important to note that Buen Vivir may have a more biocentric approach to this proposal given its origin in the indigenous values of seeing nature as a central element of their worldviews.
Moreover, a clear link with Sen’s human development approach can be made since one of the goals for Buen Vivir is precisely to enhance the capabilities and opportunities for Ecuadorian citizens through the planning strategies for development. “Buen Vivir presupposes that exercising the rights, liberties, capacities, potentialities and real opportunities of the individuals and communities be expanded in order to achieve simultaneously that which society, territories, the diverse collective identities and each one – seen as a universal and particular human being at the same time – values as an objective of a desirable life” (Wray, 2009: 55). Moreover, the PNBV 2013-2017 has as a central objective to “strengthen the capabilities and potentialities of the citizens. […] All efforts must be centered to guarantee the rights to education for everyone with the conditions of quality and equity, having in the center the human being and the territory” (SENPLADES 2013: 59). Larrea also argues that “[Buen Vivir] implies improving the quality of life of the population, enhancing the capabilities and potentialities; counting with an economic system that promotes equality through the social and territorial redistribution of the benefits obtained from development” (cited by Simbaña 2012: 223).
What is more, as put by Radcliffe, “[Buen Vivir] is hence understood as a form of alterity [sic] to mainstream development, a paradigm unique to and appropriate for Ecuador in its search for alternatives to historic mal-development” (2012: 241). It is possible to argue then that Buen Vivir can be inscribed into the post-development paradigm precisely due to its critique towards the classic understanding of development; indeed, Gudynas considers that “although most of the early formulations of Buen Vivir were produced independently of those post-development questions, there are strong similarities, because they represent a radical deconstruction of the cultural base of development, its legitimating discourses, its applications and institutional frameworks” (2011: 442). For instance, Schavelzon exalts the similarities to post-development by stating that, “as an alternative to post-development, the concept of [Buen
21 Vivir] has also a sense of critique and opposition to extractivism, to a model of unmeasured growth, and to the idea of development as a non-neutral concept that is rather part of a state ‘discourse’ used for the subordination of ‘underdeveloped’ countries” (2015: 189).
Sachs argues that there is a need to “transition from economies based on fossil-fuel resources to economies based on biodiversity” (2009: xiii), which is consistent with Buen Vivir. For instance, Ramírez Gallegos9’s view on how Buen Vivir presents a shift towards a biocentric understanding of development, one which is constructed from the reinterpretation of the relationship between human beings and nature, moving from anthropocentrism to biopluralism (2009: 10); by “building on the country’s high level of biodiversity and cultural diversity, the current long-term goal is to create a ‘biopolis’ economy, generating wealth through biodiversity applications, bio- and nano-technology, and a vibrant ecological and communitarian tourism sector” (Radcliffe 2012: 241).
Moreover, Mella argues that there is an evident change from the first PNBV (2009-2013) to the second one (2013-2017) drafted by the government. While the former sets the importance of a “biocentric” perspective which made much more reference to the indigenous concept, the latter “displaces strategic discourse that change radically the practical objectives as the ethical valorizations and the appropriate means of public policies in Ecuador” by shifting towards a “socialism of Buen Vivir” (2015: 186). This further contributes to the critique towards the government that Buen Vivir has been appropriated in the discourse of the government and that “Buen Vivir is becoming another discursive tool and co-opted term, functional to the State and its structures with little significance for real intercultural, interepistemic, and plurinational transformation” (Walsh 2010: 20).
Buen Vivir can be further associated with feminist perspectives since it echoes the proposals of feminist economy, “questioning the notions of economy and wealth in
9 Scholar and former Secretary of Planning and Development at SENPLADES. Currently he is the Secretary of Education, Science and Technology.
22 their classic and neoclassic understanding, by promoting environmental and human sustainability as central and necessary elements” (Cortez 2012: 17). For instance, according to León, feminism proposes a “care-based economy”10 that challenges the economic principle of wealth accumulation. (nd: 37). By countering wealth accumulation and the traditional notions of economic growth, feminism is related to Buen Vivir by promoting a more inclusive understanding of the economy that addresses the human needs. Moreover, León also argues that Buen Vivir tries to set a new system where society, culture and nature are interrelated in order to take care of life (nd: 39), which is supported by the biocentric view presented above.
The framework presented in this chapter helps us understand the theoretical departure point of this thesis. Firstly, by situating the importance of seeking for new alternatives for development, Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay become inscribed in the post-development debate. Yet, while Sumak Kawsay corresponds to an applied philosophy from the indigenous peoples of Ecuador, Buen Vivir refers to the goal of the government to be achieved through public policies enforced by planning strategies. There is an inexorable conflict between these respective goals and approaches. The following chapters will deal with the methodology employed during research, as well as discussing the data analysis and findings in order to explain how these concepts are being applied in the context of Ecuador and how they contribute to the development debate by proposing a civilizational change that counters the classical understandings of development and progress.
10 León proposes an “inclusive economic system based on equal production and reproduction relations under the principles of sovereignty, solidarity, equality, redistribution, and social, economic and environmental justice in order to address the human needs and collective wellbeing by supporting the different economic initiatives” (nd: 38).
23 3. Methodology and research methods
This chapter will address the methodology and methods employed during research of the topic of this thesis. Firstly, there will be a section for the research questions on the topic, by taking the theoretical framework explained in the previous chapter as the departure point. Then, there will be a section on the ontology and epistemology of the research, which contributes to explaining the philosophical assumptions portrayed in the research design. Then, a third section on the chosen methodology employed during research, followed by a final section explaining the research methods employed and the way these contribute to the data collection process of this thesis.
Research questions
By having understood the theoretical framework under which this thesis is situated, I will now introduce the research questions posed during the investigation of this topic. This further contributes to addressing the data gathered during research in order to answer the questions posed, which will be done in the following chapters. These questions were posed during the design of the research, so the appropriate methodology and methods that best address them will be explained in the following sections.
As such, the main research question that this thesis aims to answer is: how is
the concept of Buen Vivir being put into practice in Ecuador in comparison to Sumak Kawsay as alternatives to mainstream development? This will be answered by firstly
understanding that, as critiques to classic development, both concepts are already inscribed into what we may understand as the broad post-development debate. However, I explore if these are viable alternatives that challenge classic economic development by looking at their implementation in the context of Ecuador as well as their relation and the evolution of both concepts.
For this purpose, I expect to address the issue of how Buen Vivir has evolved in the past nine years of President Correa’s government. This will also contribute to seeing whether Sumak Kawsay is being incorporated in the policies of the government or
24 whether it can be (re)incorporated in the national discussion on Buen Vivir. Consequently, this will lead to the analysis of how each of these concepts differ from the other, particularly through analyzing how the construction of the national planning strategies for development contributed to the distinction of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay. For instance, while Sumak Kawsay can be considered an applied philosophy from the indigenous peoples of Ecuador, Buen Vivir carries a more abstract role by being not only the ultimate goal for the national government, but also the framework under which public policies are constructed to achieve this goal; moreover, the constant evolution of the concept of Buen Vivir in the government’s discourse is consistent to their view that it is “a notion under permanent construction” (SENPLADES, 2013: 19). Finally, by exploring these questions, I will be able to determine how Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay contribute to expanding the post-development debate as alternatives to mainstream development.
Ontology and Epistemology
Having understood the theoretical stances of this thesis, I would like to address the ontology and epistemology that have been considered for this particular research. As explained in the introduction, the tools used throughout this thesis are based from a Western perspective, trying to grasp the knowledge derived from the indigenous traditions of the Andes. As such, we should be aware of how Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay stand against the West given their diverse ontologies and epistemologies. According to Cresswell and Plano Clark, the philosophical assumptions of a research, notably the epistemology behind a study, “inform the use of a theoretical ‘stance’ that the researcher might use” (2011: 38). For the purpose of this thesis, which seeks to explain how Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay are conceived and applied in Ecuador as alternatives to mainstream development, then we must acknowledge the fact that there is a clash between these competing concepts under the realm of social sciences. Furthermore, since different perspectives are being taken into account – for instance, the government’s understanding of Buen Vivir versus the indigenous understanding of Sumak Kawsay – then the ontological and epistemological departure points must be set in a combination of paradigms that allows the exploration of both perspectives and that fits best for the purpose of this research.
25 Moreover, as stated in the introduction, I have chosen to address the topic of Sumak Kawsay, in a way, to bring justice to the perceptions of the indigenous nationalities of Ecuador that have previously been neglected in academia or politics. Yet, the explanation of Sumak Kawsay presented throughout this thesis is based on a Westernized perspective in spite of this concept being very critical of many of the Western/modern traditions. Regarding Buen Vivir on the other hand, the PNBV 2009-2013 recognizes that the goal of the government is to construct a new “society of Buen Vivir”, that is derived from diverse epistemologies; thus, “we are no longer speaking about economic growth nor GDP; we are talking about relationships between human beings, nature, communitarian life, ancestors, the past and the future” (SENPLADES 2009: 32-3), instead of being directed by development’s one-sided perspective of history. Additionally, “Buen vivir is built on a rich diversity of ontologies and teleologies united in the creation of an alternative to hegemonic visions of development” (Calisto Friant and Langmore 2015: 64).
Hence, given the theoretical departing point of this thesis, I consider that it is important to make use of the ontologies and epistemologies derived from the West regarding post-development, post-colonialism and post-modernity, since all three represent the Western perspectives that inspire the origin of Buen Vivir as a political concept that would be adopted by the government as its reason for being. Nevertheless, we must also look at the Southern epistemologies and ontologies for this thesis, drawn from the “indigenous knowledge” that contrasts the “scientific knowledge” from the West, notably represented in Sumak Kawsay. Indeed, the use of “indigenous knowledge” for this thesis is relevant, since it “has permitted its holders to exist in ‘harmony’ with nature, using it sustainably” (Agrawal 1994: 1), denoting the principles promoted by Sumak Kawsay.
For the purpose of studying Sumak Kawsay, I have chosen to take an indigenous perspective; however, I am not able to research from an indigenous paradigm since my own background is distant to the knowledge transmitted in indigenous communities. Yet, throughout this thesis, I do my best to employ an
26 indigenous paradigm of research, even if the dominant research paradigms are from a Eurocentric perspective. As such, through the use of an indigenous paradigm, I was able to better comprehend the systems of knowledge of indigenous peoples, which are constructed in a relational understanding of knowledge, meaning that these “are built on the relationships [they] have, not just with people or objects, but relationships that we have with […] everything around us” (Wilson 2001: 176).
I consider that the appropriation of indigenous concepts in the case of Ecuador – notably of Sumak Kawsay and translating it into Buen Vivir – also led me to base this research on an indigenous paradigm, since, as a researcher, I wish to reduce in academia. This is why I believe that by using such a paradigm, I will be able to translate the indigenous knowledge transmitted in the communities of Ecuador while also recognizing its importance and validity. Thus, the choice of such a paradigm confirms the use of qualitative methods during research, as explained in the following section. Methodology
A transformative research design was employed through the use of diverse qualitative methods in order to “help address injustices or bring about change for an underrepresented or marginalized group” (Cresswell and Plano Clark, 2011: 194), in this case the indigenous populations of Ecuador whose concept of Sumak Kawsay differs from the government’s term of Buen Vivir. I used a combination of purposive and convenient sampling to obtain interviews from scholars, government officials and indigenous people that are experts on the topic. As such, data was collected both concurrently as well as sequentially. The chosen methodology benefits the analysis of Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay by regarding the participants of these paradigms such as government officials and indigenous people, without disregarding the academics that have contributed to the debate on these issues; indeed, regarding sampling selection, Cresswell and Plano Clark confirm that “[these] sampling strategies that improve the inclusiveness of the sample to increase the probability that traditionally marginalized groups are adequately and accurately represented” (2011: 195).
27 For this research, I used a mixed method approach consisting of in-depth interviews and policy analysis as well as an extensive literature review of secondary sources, ranging from academic articles to opinion columns in blogs and newspapers. The purpose of employing these methods was to analyze the discourse of Buen Vivir managed by the government and the discourse of Sumak Kawsay used by the indigenous populations. Eleven in-depth interviews were made with scholars, government officials and indigenous leaders in order to contrast their views of what Buen Vivir is, how it differs from Sumak Kawsay, and how both are being implemented on a day-to-day basis.
Although there are several policies inscribed in the Buen Vivir framework, I focused on the planning strategies that the government has in order to enforce Buen Vivir as a national development policy. For the purpose of this research, the National Plan of Development 2007-2010 and the National Plan of Buen Vivir 2009-2013 and 2013-2017 were analyzed in order to see the evolution of Buen Vivir throughout the eight years of President Correa’s government. Additionally, the ruling political party, Alianza País’s government plans of 2006-2011 and 2013-2017 were also taken into consideration in order to comprehend the evolution of the government’s discourse on Buen Vivir.
The use of these methods contributes to filling in the knowledge gap that exists in development literature on this particular topic. Indeed, the interviews with indigenous people and the revision of literature by indigenous scholars contribute to bringing to the table their own understanding of Sumak Kawsay in order to contrast it to the more recognized concept of Buen Vivir. Yet, although there are only two interviews with government officials, the analysis of policy documents contribute to the triangulation of their perspectives on Buen Vivir.
After the data was collected through the methods mentioned above, it was analyzed through thematic coding given its qualitative nature. Based on the spiral of analysis proposed by Boeije (2010: 90), the data was analyzed through open, axial and selective coding. For instance, the interviews were studied firstly through open coding by segmenting the data and coming up with a list of codes. Then, the axial coding
