Ethnodevelopment in Latin America: Political competition and the making of ethnically-targeted participatory policy in Ecuador, Peru and Guatemala, 1985--2005

An empirical puzzle presented by the surprising appearance and variation of a new type of participatory ethnically-targeted policy paradigm in Latin America motivates this dissertation. In the 1980s, Latin American countries such as Ecuador and Peru began to enact significant ethnodevelopment policies, or social and development policies that take into account indigenous poverty and that do so with a focus on culture and self-management. Other Latin American countries with similarly large indigenous populations and high levels of indigenous poverty such as Guatemala, in contrast, continued during this time to ignore ethnicity in domestic development policies, as had been the region-wide trend in decades past. Further adding to this puzzling variation, while Ecuador began immediately to implement these policies on the ground, in Peru, the strong policy paradigm was not translated into services and programs as promised in the law.;Drawing from elite interviews and extensive analysis of each country's legal and organizational literature, among other sources, I find that the most common explanations for the appearance of multicultural policies, such as those looking to levels of racism and international pressure, cannot explain this empirical puzzle. Rather, I find that distinctive patterns of domestic political competition and social mobilization best make sense of the three countries' ethnodevelopment policy records. Specifically, policy-makers unattached to core constituencies with interests and ideologies in opposition to any part of the ethnodevelopment paradigm were in the best position to reach out to the uncaptured constituency represented by indigenous communities. In Latin American countries, center-left presidents have thus been uniquely situated to use ethnodevelopment policy-making to appeal to indigenous voters when tight competition provides incentives for new sources of support. Only in Ecuador and Peru did center-left presidents take power during the period under study, and therefore only in these two countries was the paradigm introduced. In Guatemala, where no center-left president was elected, no ethnodevelopment paradigm took shape.;With the first policies placed on the legislative agenda in Ecuador and Peru by presidents of the center-left, formerly marginalized groups became perceived as a constituency based on ethnicity, rather than simply as a larger part of the general peasantry, poor or other class-based grouping. Now in "play," political actors in these two countries perceived the targeted ethnic groups as a possible voting bloc and one to be fought over when tight competition necessitated such action. Having seen benefits accrued by the center-left, other presidents from along the political spectrum thus helped to continue building the ethnodevelopment paradigm when in need of new sources of support.;The strength and presence of indigenous social movements best explains the variation in ethnodevelopment policy implementation levels in Ecuador and Peru. Specifically, both their early presence in pushing for multicultural policy as well as their links to local communities meant that indigenous social movements in Ecuador were in a beneficial position to see that implementation was carried out. The lack of such mobilization in Peru meant that the strong legislation that passed stayed "on the books," and off the ground.;This dissertation represents an original endeavor to explore a practically important empirical phenomenon that is insufficiently explained by the extant academic and policy literature. The broader argument put forth here not only makes sense of the particular empirical puzzle that motivates the study, but also shows evidence of traveling to other global contexts and policy-making situations. Thus, not only does the dissertation have important practical implications, but the findings here also contribute to the broader study of ethnic politics, policy-making, social movements and political parties.