Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the emergence of a 'New Left' and its ability to build a post-neoliberal development
strategy. This phenomenon became evident with the election of new center-left or
left governments in Venezuela in 1999, in Argentina and Brazil in 2003, in Uruguay
in 2005, in Bolivia in 2006, in Ecuador and Nicaragua in 2007, in Guatemala and
Paraguay in 2008, in El Salvador in 2009, and with the recent election of Humala in
Peru (Cameron and Hershberg 2010; Levitzky and Roberts 2011; Wehr 2011). While
the heterogeneity of the ideologies and political strategies of these leaders and the
ongoing nature of the changes make it difficult to effect a coherent assessment, there
is an undeniably broad process of political economic realignment in the region.
As a broad characterisation, two main trends can be observed in the development
policies of these nations. On the one hand, they have made poverty alleviation and
delivery of basic social protection to the marginalised communities a central plank in
national development planning. On the other hand, to achieve this goal, they have
aspired to make the state and the office of the president significantly stronger with the
stated aim of shielding domestic political and economic structures from the detrimental
influence of the neoliberal policies dominating the global level. Bolivia and Ecuador are
arguably the two most important manifestations of these changes, where both trends
have been deeply integrated with the changing dynamics of natural resource extraction.
Specifically, the 'nationalisation' of extractive industries figures prominently in these
projects as a means of funding ambitious social policies aimed at reducing poverty
and inequality. Furthermore, 'nationalisation' serves both as a sphere for the exercise
of heightened state power and as a symbol of the re-established sovereignty for the
nation. Both the Bolivian and Ecuadorian state have made claims to being 'renewed',
and one of the clearest articulations of the revitalisation of these states can be observed
in the changing power dynamics between the state and extractive industries.
At a scholarly and political level, these changes have attracted considerable inter-
est. Some observers have dismissed the political and economic changes taking place in
these countries as autocratic attempts at power-grabbing (Colburn and Trejos 2010).
Others, coming from the left of the political spectrum, have denounced these changes
as insufficient at best and functional to the continuation of the neoliberal model at
worst (Webber 2010). Concrete assessments that provide evidence regarding both the
extent and nature of the changes taking place in the crucial extractive sector are just
beginning to emerge (see Pellegrini 2011; Grugel and Riggirozzi 2012; Molero and
Paz 2012). Conspicuously absent, however, has been a discussion regarding the mean-
ing of 'nationalisation'. Beyond scrutinizing the empirics of policy transformations,
it is necessary to situate the 'left turn' and its ambition of nationalisation within
a broader analytical framework of critical studies of conflict and co-operation over
natural resources (Arsel and Spoor 2010; Arsel and Buscher 2012).
Before taking on this task, however, we must first answer a seemingly simple
empirical question: What exactly is the subject of inquiry when we speak about
'nationalisation'? As we have demonstrated elsewhere (Pellegrini and Dasgupta, 2011;
Arsel 2012; Arsel and Angel 2012; Pellegrini 2012; Radhuber 2012), the discourse of
nationalisation (and its rhetorical handmaiden, 'sovereignty') has come with sweeping
constitutional, legal, social and political changes. In this chapter we focus primarily
on property rights, which lie at the heart of what nationalisation is usually understood
to entail. While it is difficult to differentiate the if, how and why of nationalisation,
due in large part to the fact that the goals, means and outcomes of such a profoundly
Search WWH ::
Custom Search