![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
How do variations in state–society relations affect development outcomes locally? Specifically, do local, non-state actors and informal institutions, including indigenous elders and traditional authorities, complement the work of the formal local authorities, or compete with them, with observable implications for long-term human development? This paper focuses on Guatemala, where despite nearly two decades having passed since the end of its civil war, and significant external statebuilding, governance and financial assistance, the country remains stricken with widespread poverty and crime. Most apparent in the Guatemala case is the well-documented disparity in living conditions between the capital region surrounding Guatemala City, and rural regions. Even within impoverished regions, however, there is unexplained variability in development outcomes across sub-regions and communities. Drawing from within-country case studies, the paper argues that qualitative differences in state–society relations at the community level — including the degree to which local indigenous leaders or other non-state actors either compete with or complement local formal authorities — have a direct bearing on development outcomes as indicated by human development indicators, and by demonstrated commitment to development programmes from formal authorities.
Notes
1 Certain scholars prefer ‘anti-regime war’ to ‘civil war’, given central government turnover throughout the war through electoral processes, even if the exclusionary economic, social and military policies that motivated different rebel factions persisted. The period is frequently referred to by Guatemalan press and scholars as the ‘armed conflict’.
2 ‘Latin American Wealth Gap Climbing, Despite Progress against Poverty’: http://www.ibtimes.com/latin-america-wealth-gap-climbing-despite-progress-against-poverty-un-752885, accessed 30 August 2012.
3 Including US$1.758 billion in International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IRBD) loans as of 31 May 2012 (http://data.worldbank.org/country/guatemala).
4 Including an average of approximately US$95 million in recent years from the US government for a country of almost 15 million people (http://www.foreignassistance.gov/OU.aspx?OUID = 205&FY = 2012&AgencyID = 0&budTab = tab_Bud_Planned&tabID = tab_sct_Peace_Planned). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) official development assistance (ODA) totalled an additional US$289 million in 2011 — second only to Haiti in the region (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode = TABLE2A). With ongoing security concerns, particularly related to the drug trade, Guatemala has increasingly been the target of foreign assistance.
5 The Agreement on Social and Economic Aspects and the Agrarian Situation was signed by representatives of the URNG and the Alvaro Arzú administration on 6 May 1996. Among the details, which included a commitment by the government to ensure availability of primary education and a 70% literacy rate by 2000, was the ‘potentially transformative’ commitment by the government to increase spending on health and education by 50% compared with 1995 levels, measured by percentage of GDP (Stanley Citation2013).
6 State Density Index (SDI) scores were produced for the 2009/2010 Human Development Report for Guatemala, and based on indicators of the level of state offices, bureaucracy and redistributed tax revenues per capita for each municipio. A more detailed description is available in the Statistical Annex of the report, page 410 (UNDP Guatemala 2010).
7 A more detailed methodology is available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/
8 A 2011 Procuraduria de los Derechos Humanos report (Procuraduria de Derechos Humanos Citation2011) reveals stark variation in illiteracy across different ethno-linguistic groups, and vastly different experiences between 2008 and 2011. The Sikapakense group, for example, largely concentrated in the Sipakapa municipio, experienced increased illiteracy (from 40% to 68% of its children from 2008 to 2011), while the Sakapulteca virtually eradicated illiteracy in the same time frame.
9 Article 66 of the 1985 Constitution recognises traditional leadership structures and their authority, but to what degree is unclear.
10 Interviews (2 February 2013).
11 Claudia Palma, ‘Gobiernos indígenas contra alcaldes electos in Totonicapán’: http://www.elperiodico.com.gt/es/20110709/pais/197910/, accessed 11 January 2013.
12 Interviews (February, 2013).
13 Interviews (February 8, 2013).
14 Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (Guatemala).
15 Lucía Escobar, ‘Autoridad indígena en Sololá’: http://www.elperiodico.com.gt/es/20070902/actualidad/43140/, accessed 11 January 2013.
16 According to the 2005 national Human Development Report, Totonicapán department had an HDI of 0.465, versus 0.457 in Sololá department in 1994. By 2002, Sololá had moved past Toto, with a score of 0.579 versus 0.540 in Toto with much of these gains scored under the sub-heading of ‘health’, in which Sololá scored 0.702 (a relatively high index score) versus 0.574 in Toto. In 2011, Sololá outstripped Toto in health and education and overall HDI scores, despite almost identical income levels.
17http://www.hancindex.org/
18 In remote communities in Totonicapán, for example, which were ‘prioritised’ by the year-old ‘Hambre Cero’ programme, not a single person in focus groups (56 people total) had heard of the programme or received a single benefit.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Matthew Klick
MATTHEW T. KLICK is a Program on Fragile States graduate fellow at the Sié-Chéou-Kang Center for International Security and Diplomacy and doctoral candidate at the University of Denver's Josef Korbel School of International Studies.