![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper addresses new challenges and identifies starting points for development theory following recent debates in Latin America on ‘new or neo-extractivism’. It focuses on the concept of neo-extractivism and the context of its emergence, and on the changing role of the state. Looking at a number of social economic indicators, we find that, even after considering differences between countries, (neo-)extractivism is not merely a temporary economic strategy in the region. Instead, it exhibits features of a consolidated development project. Empirical evidence from the region shows the fundamental implications of resource-based development paths in politics, social relations and territorial orders. To grasp these implications conceptually, we argue for a shift in theoretical perspectives related to the link between development and resource extraction. Key elements for such a shift are to be found in recent studies in rentier theory and politics and new approaches in the field of political ecology.
Notes
1. The term ‘extractivism’ (derived from the Latin word ‘ex-tractum’) refers to the extraction of raw materials. It is usually used to describe economic models and sectors such as mining that revolve around the extensive extraction of raw materials and their export. Correspondingly ‘neo-extractivism’ is associated with a specific mode of development where the receipts from exports of primary goods are invested in social development and are used to widen social participation. For an overview, see Gudynas, “Extracciones, Extractivismos y Extrahecciones.”
2. See Fraser and Larmer, Zambia, Mining and Neoliberalism; Bridge, “Global Production Networks”; and Bridge, “Mapping the Bonanza.”
3. The extraction of raw materials such as oil, gas, copper, gold and silver has been a key feature of the political economy of Latin America for a long time. The history of the region is a history of extractivism. Both in colonial times and after the establishment of independent national states in the early 19th century Latin America was an important source of raw materials supplied to industrialising countries in Europe. The exploitation of raw materials in Latin America was not just a foundation for development in Europe. It was also a determinant in the shaping of social relations in Latin America. See Galeano, Las Venas Abiertas.
4. Important sources are cepal, Latin America and the Caribbean in the World Economy; and cepal, Panorama de la Inserción Internacional, Citation2011, Citation2012.
5. See ibd, “Crecimiento Económico y Recursos Naturales”; Sinnott et al., Natural Resources in Latin America; and Reid, “So Near and yet so Far.”
6. Gudynas, “Diez Tesis Urgentes sobre el Nuevo Extractivismo.”
7. oecd, “Towards Green Growth”; and unep, Towards a Green Economy.
8. Maggio and Cacciola, “A Variant of the Hubbert Curve.”
9. Roache, China’s Impact on World Commodity Markets.
10. hwwi, “ hwwi-Index der Weltmarktpreise.”
11. This dynamic is reinforced by attempts at the international level to regulate climate change and other environmental problems with the help of market-based instruments that lead to the commodification of nature. Commodification invites financial speculation and thus leads to price increases in natural goods such as land. See, for example, Sassen, “Land Grabs Today”; and Fairhead et al., “Green Grabbing.”
12. See Bárcena, “Desafíos y Oportunidades para el Rol del Estado”; Iglesias, “Economic Paradigms and the Role of the State”; and Sinnott et al., Natural Resources in Latin America.
13. Svampa, “Resource Extractivism and Alternatives.”
14. See Fairhead et al., “Green Grabbing”; and Peluso and Lund, “New Frontiers of Land Control.”
15. See Acosta, “Extractivismo y Neoextractivismo”; Bebbington, Social Conflict; Gudynas, “Estado Compensador y Nuevos Extractivismos”; Haarstad, “Extracting Justice?” Lang and Mokrani, Más Allá del Desarrollo; Veltmeyer, “The Political Economy of Natural Resource Extraction” for an overview of the debate. The participants in the discussions on raw materials-based development do not simply offer analyses and critiques of the model; they also develop alternatives. These either consist of alternative development strategies or ‘alternatives to development’. Key reference points are the notion of a ‘good and fulfilled life’ (‘buen vivir’) and the commitment to ‘post-extractivism’. See, for example, Acosta, El Buen Vivir; Cortez and Wagner “‘El Buen Vivir’”; Gudynas, “Postextractivismo y Alternativas al Desarrollo”; and Walsh, “Development as Buen Vivir.”
16. cepal, Panorama de la Inserción Internacional, Citation2010, 17.
17. cepal, Anuario Estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe, Citation2012.
18. Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.
19. All figures are from cepal, Anuario Estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe, Citation2012, 101.
20. cepal, Anuario Estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe, Citation2011; and Bebbington, “Underground Political Ecologies.”
21. All numbers from cepal, Anuario Estadístico de América Latina y el Caribe, 2011.
22. Bebbington, “The New Extraction,” 15.
23. Jiménez and Tromben, Política Fiscal en Países Especializados; and Kacef and Jiménez, Políticas Macroeconómicas en Tiempos de Crisis, 69.
24. Dávalos, “Las Falacias del Discurso Extractivista,” 6.
25. For an overview, see Matthes, Eine quantitative Analyse des Extraktivismus.
26. cepal, Panorama Social de América Latina 2011, 14–15.
27. Lopez and Perry, Inequality in Latin America.
28. Burchardt, “¿Democracia Desigual o Desigualdad Democrática?” and Burchardt, “¿Por qué América Latina es tan Desigual?”
29. cepal, Panorama Social de América Latina, 57.
30. Souza et al., Os Batalhadores Brasileiros.
31. Lustig et al., “The Decline in Inequality,” 18; and cepal, Panorama Social de América Latina, 23–24.
32. cepal, Panorama Social de América Latina 2011.
33. Segura-Ubiergo, The Political Economy of the Welfare State.
34. Goñi et al., Fiscal Redistribution.
35. See Barrientos, “Accounting for Change”; and Barrientos, Social Assistance in Developing Countries.
36. cepal, Panorama Social de América Latina.
37. Tokman, Informality.
38. cepal, Panorama Social de América Latina 2011; and oit, Panorama Laboral 2011.
39. See, for example, Delgado Ramos, “Extractivismo Minero,” 74; Chacaltana and Yamada, Calidad del Empleo; and Arze and Gómez, “Bolivia,” 127–154.
40. cepal, Panorama Fiscal de América Latina, 12.
41. Kacef and Jiménez, Políticas Macroeconómicas en Tiempos de Crisis, 66ff.
42. The concept of ‘rent’ figures heavily in the works of the classical political economists (Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx). It refers to a form of disposable income whose source is neither labour nor investment.
43. For an overview, see Rosser, The Political Economy of the Resource Curse.
44. See Karl, “Oil-led Development”; and Ross, The Oil Curse. For a critical account, see Brunnschweiler and Bulte, “The Resource Curse Revisited.”
45. Karl, The Paradox of Plenty.
46. Coronil, “‘It’s the Oil, Stupid!!!’,” 19.
47. Karl, “Oil-led Development,” 661.
48. See Mahdavy, “The Pattern and Problems of Economic Development in Rentier States.” See also Beblawi and Luciani, The Rentier State; and Dauderstädt and Schildberg, Dead Ends of Transition.
49. Basedau and Lay, “Resource Curse or Rentier Peace?” and Ross, The Oil Curse.
50. Elsenhans, State, Class and Development.
51. As long as systems based on state-centred clientelism have sufficient resources at their disposal, the elites have little interest in formalising and institutionalising social policy. After all, this could threaten the legitimacy of their rule. If the institutionalisation of social policy is limited, a configuration tends to emerge where the dominant strategy of controlling social action consists in client-based relationships and loyalty to the state. See Gough and Wood, Insecurity and Welfare Regimes.
52. See Beck, “Der Rentierstaats-Ansatz”; Mehlum et al., “Institutions and the Resource Curse”; and Ross, The Oil Curse.
53. Campodónico, “Renta Petrolera y Minera.”
54. See Castañeda, “Latin America’s Left Turn”; and Weyland, “The Rise of Latin America’s Two Lefts?”
55. This is confirmed by the fact that many social programmes (eg the missions in Venezuela) are characterised by their ‘assistentialism’ and clientelism: often benefits are provided in paternalistic manner, not as social rights or as impersonal transfers provided by the state. For more general accounts, see Barrientos and Santibáñez, “New Forms of Social Assistance”; and Lustig et al., “The Decline in Inequality in Latin America.”
56. See McNeish, Rethinking Resource Conflict.
57. Altvater, “Der Unglückselige Rohstoffreichtum.”
58. Rudas, “Regulación Minera y Regulación Ambiental.”
59. Watts and Peet, “Liberating Political Ecology,” 4.
60. Political ecology is not a coherent theoretical school. It includes numerous approaches diverging in terms of their disciplinary backgrounds and theoretical assumptions (eg structuralism, feminism, post-structuralism, actor-centred analyses). What they have in common is that they reject apolitical explanations for environmental problems that simply focus on poverty or population growth. Accordingly, they speak of a ‘politicised environment’ and see environmental problems and struggles as distributional conflicts between different social groups. For these approaches environmental questions are linked to categories referring to social structures and different forms of power. For an overview, see Alimonda, Los Tormentos de la Materia; Bryant, “Political Ecology”; Palacio Castañeda, Ecología Política de la Amazonia; Robbins, Political Ecology; Bryant and Bailey, Third World Political Ecology; and Paulson and Gezon, Political Ecology.
61. Gudynas, “Der Neue Progressive Extraktivismus,” 51.
62. See, for example, Coronado and Dietz, “Controlando Territorios, Reestructurando Relaciones Socio-ecológicas.”
63. Vandergeest and Peluso, “Territorialization.”
64. Belina, Raum, 89.
65. Omeje, “Extractive Economies and Conflicts in the Global South,” 10.