1
Introduction
Numerous movements have been implemented in the Amazon in attempts to
alleviate inequality. Until now, most have focused on stimulating economic growth.
Although the GDPs of many South American countries grew substantially over these
periods of time, this growth came at the cost of environmental degradation through
deregulated extractivism and did not improve living conditions for the many people living
in extreme poverty. In fact, development projects often displace traditional and
indigenous people, leading to resistance and unrest. Recently, scholars and indigenous
groups have begun presenting an alternative to traditional development philosophies,
called “buen vivir.” The movement aims to improve people’s quality of life and protect
the environment by shifting society and the governments’ focus away from materialism
and growth and instead towards harmony with nature. The philosophy is based on
indigenous values and concepts, but does bear resemblance and share ideals with
many modern and historic Western movements. This paper will first explain the concept
of buen vivir by presenting it’s scholarly definitions and constitutional forms, and using a
case study to demonstrate how buen vivir could be practically implemented as a
developmental philosophy. I will then examine the similarities between buen vivir and
other movements, and ask whether those similarities help or hinder the widespread
adoption of buen vivir.
Background
“Buen vivir,” which roughly translates to “good living,” is a Spanish term that
encompasses several similar indigenous South American concepts. The Quechua,
2
Aymará, Guarani, Ashuar, and Mapuche are just some of the South American peoples
with philosophies based around the need for a “good,” fulfilling life (Thomson 2011).
Eduardo Gudynas analyzes in particular “suma quamaña,” a Bolivian concept
maintaining that “good living” comes from “a harmonious balance between material and
spiritual components... in the context of a community, which is social but also
ecological,” (Gudynas 2011). These indigenous world views reject the stereotypical
Western separation between nature and society, instead favouring a “social-natural
continuum.” (Gudynas 2011). This merger of society and nature is a key component of
buen vivir that comes directly from indigenous views of life.
Buen vivir’s main role is as a replacement to the current model of development,
and as such accepts many such concepts that serve as alternatives to that model.
Nevertheless, there are elements common to most manifestations of this movement.
Buen vivir rejects the idea that development is a linear process, emphasizes the
connection between humans and nature, finds commonalities between differing views,
recognizes value on a non-economic basis, determines quality of life based on nonmaterial factors, and maintains fair trade relations and governance that satisfy both
humans and nature (Villalba, 2013). These elements are present in many of the
governmental implementations of buen vivir, and guide the concrete instances when
buen vivir is used as a model of development.
Constitutional Implementation
One of the more obvious criticisms of buen vivir is that it is very idealistic, and not
necessarily implementable in a realistic manner. Thus the movement gains much
legitimacy by being implemented on a governmental and organizational level. This has
3
occurred in both Ecuador and Bolivia, which have written buen vivir into their
constitutions (albeit in very different manners), as well as on a local level, which has
been chronicled by Kauffman and Martin in their case study of Tungurahua’s watershed
management reform. These examples of buen vivir, on two levels of implementation,
are very important to address criticisms of the movement’s feasibility.
Ecuador and Bolivia offer two methods by which buen vivir can be incorporated
into a nation’s constitutions, and by doing so demonstrate the variety possible within
buen vivir. Gudynas outlines the main differences between the two, stating that in
Bolivia it is a part of the “ethical and moral principles describing the values, ends and
objectives of the State,” includes different ideas from several indigenous cultures in a
multicultural manner, and is connected to the economic model of the state. In contrast,
the Constitution of Ecuador codifies buen vivir as a set of rights, along with more
conventional rights such as freedom and participation. This model clearly recognizes
the “rights of Nature,” and requires those rights to be respected in all developmental
projects.
Developmental Implementation
On a more localized level, Kauffman and Martin present a fascinating case study
of how Buen Vivir philosophies can be implemented in the development of the Amazon,
as they were in the development of a watershed management plan in Tunguraha,
Ecuador. In this situation, the ideals of Buen Vivir allowed the actors involved to develop
a plan that met local and indigenous approval and was extremely successful at
protecting the watershed and improving the quality of life in that region. The case
concerned the watershed of the Ambato River, which was being degraded due to poor
4
agricultural practices. The degradation lowered the quality of the water and limited the
productivity of the land. Several outside organizations, in particular the German
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), proposed a plan to levy a small
tax on water usage, which would go towards a fund dedicated to restoring the
watershed. This plan was rejected by indigenous and local populations, who were
morally opposed to the commoditization of natural resources, and felt that the system
would disproportionally impact poor farmers.
In response to this, GTZ worked with the community to create an entirely new
participatory system of government tasked with developing a plan to protect the
watershed, the “Water Parliament”. The community advocated for a plan people would
adopt based on the inherent communal interest in having a healthy ecosystem and
improved water supply. The Water Parliament introduced several initiatives to protect
the watershed and develop the region in general, such as encouraging farmers to
abandon monoculture (which is environmentally destructive and fails to provide much
variety of nutrients) in favour of growing combinations of native plants, processing waste
as organic fertilizer, and promoting literacy services and bilingual education. In the end
this organization did require a common fund to finance these activities; however, this
was implemented through voluntary donations from those that benefited from the
improved water. This process demonstrated how buen vivir can be implemented to
develop impoverished regions, and can in fact be more successful than tradition
developmental approaches since it takes into account the opinions and moral beliefs of
the people whose land is being developed.
5
These examples of buen vivir being practically implemented lend a lot of strength
to the movement; however, questions of its effectiveness and legitimacy still arise. Even
the constitutionally legitimate manifestations of buen vivir in Bolivia and Ecuador are
questionable. The Bolivian constitution merely presents buen vivir (in the form suma
qamaña) as one of the “ethical, moral principles of the plural society,” (Bolivia 2009) not
necessarily the most binding of wordings. Nevertheless, much of the rest of the
constitution guarantees rights that are in keeping with the principles of buen vivir, such
as emphasizing the importance of indigenous rights and culture and non-economic
contributors to quality of life, such as sports and recreation. In Ecuador, Villalba points
out that extractive industry is still continuing, despite the constitutionally assured rights
of nature, with several “new large-scale mining concessions” being granted (Villalba
2013). Regardless of these criticisms, however, the various implementations, both
constitutionally and on a smaller scale, of buen vivir-like philosophies do demonstrate
that buen vivir can at least nominally be enacted, and, judging from positive indigenous
response, could be an effective alternative to current developmental strategies that
often result in conflict with indigenous and traditional people.
Connections
The concepts that comprise buen vivir are not necessarily unique to South
American indigenous culture, although some popular and scholarly sources may
present them as such. In fact, buen vivir can be connected to many Western
movements and philosophies, both historical and modern, and both those considered
good and bad by mainstream scholars. These connections could have both positive and
6
negative effects on the mainstream opinion of buen vivir, which is crucially linked to any
movement’s success.
One historic movement that is particularly connected to buen vivir is American
nineteenth century transcendentalism. Like buen vivir, transcendentalism offered a
critique of strictly defined thought processes and materialism, instead suggesting that
people connect with nature for fulfillment. Transcendentalism also arose partly from a
fear that the natural environment was being degraded. There are of course some key
differences between the two movements. Most notably, transcendentalism focuses on
an individual’s connection with nature; main transcendentalist writers such as Ralph
Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau are known for going to the woods by
themselves to reach personal fulfillment. In contrast, buen vivir places great emphasis
on the power of community, between groups of people and the environment. This
difference is crucial, for the community aspect makes buen vivir a much more realistic
alternative to modern thought than transcendentalism was, as humans are (for the most
part) inherently social creatures.
Buen vivir also shares themes with many modern movements, including critical
development studies, radical environmentalism, and the degrowth movement. The
connection to critical development studies is obvious, as buen vivir is itself a criticism of
development. Buen vivir and radical environmentalism both “reject the anthropocentric
perspective of modernity” and acknowledge the “intrinsic values in the environment,”
once again a very clear connection (Gudynas 2011). The degrowth movement
recognizes the fact that infinite growth on a planet of finite resources is not possible,
and thus concluding that society must turn away from its current model of uncontrolled
7
growth and find ways of living in harmony with the Earth (Thomson 2011). Degrowth
connects to buen vivir at the end of that sentiment, as society must replace the growth
narrative with a new paradigm, a role for which buen vivir would work nicely. Thus buen
vivir is also connected to several positive modern movements arising from outside
South America.
Thus far the movements connected to buen vivir have all been those along the
same positive vein of environmentalism; however, some similarities also exist with the
much hated idea of development. Walsh points out that buen vivir’s implementation
looks very similar to the newest iteration of development, “integral and sustainable
human development,” which “focuses on the interconnectedness of economics with the
political, sociocultural, and environmental spheres, as well as the necessities,
capacities, and potentialities of human beings” (Walsh 2011). The systemic focus and
nod to the “environmental sphere” of life place integral and sustainable human
development firmly within the lines of some aspects of buen vivir. Villalba makes
another comparison to traditional development, stating that although in Ecuador social
spending towards reducing inequality has increased since the adoption of the new
constitution, this has been financed largely from natural resource extraction, which goes
agains the tenants of buen vivir. These connections to the development movement are
worrisome, since buen vivir is meant as a replacement to those traditional development
ideas.
It is possible for these connections in aggregate to harm the movement of buen
vivir. In this best case scenario, buen vivir can be dismissed as a rehashing of old ideas,
nothing more than a frankenchild of movements already present in the Western world.
8
This is a damaging viewpoint, as much of buen vivir’s power comes from its identity as a
revolutionary alternative to the mainstream world view. Walsh and Villalba’s analyses
bring up a far worse situation, in which buen vivir is just as bad and in the end will be
just as unsuccessful as the system of development it is trying to replace. Obviously this
is an aggressive criticism.
On the other hand, overall the connections, in conjunction with the practical
rather than constitutional examples of buen vivir’s implementation, could end up helping
the movement by lending it mainstream legitimacy and popular opinion. It is possible to
concede that Ecuador’s implementation of buen vivir ends up looking very much like
sustainable development; however, as buen vivir is an incredibly multifaceted and
inclusive movement that can be implemented on many levels of life, this does not
necessarily damage the whole movement. Examples such as the Tunguraha watershed
management plan show how buen vivir can be effectively implemented on a small scale
resulting in significant community benefit. Thus damaging connections to development
fall away, and all that remain are the connections to transcendentalism,
environmentalism, and degrowth, all of which benefit the movement by bringing in
mainstream supporters from other countries and raising awareness of the movements
philosophies.
Conclusion
Though its ideas have been implemented on many levels, buen vivir is at its core
a philosophical movement that relies on changing the way people approach life. Most
modern society places a disproportional emphasis on economic growth and material
wealth, and most development regimes imposed by “developed” nations on
9
“underdeveloped” nations exhibit these misplaced priorities, and thus result in increased
inequality and environmental degradation in pursuit of this material wealth. An approach
to combat this is to shift the focus from materialistic living to “good living,” or
appreciating the values inherent in strong communities with shared interests and
healthy ecosystems. For these ideas to be widely implemented on a governmental and
policy level, they must first gain widespread acceptance, a goal made more achievable
by connections to and similarities with movements already considered mainstream. The
benefits of implementing such a philosophy are great. The example of the Tunguraha
watershed management plan shows how working in concordance with buen vivir
principles can result in optimal solutions to development problems, and indicate that as
an alternative to development buen vivir would help avoid conflict with indigenous and
traditional populations.
On a larger scale, buen vivir has the potential to benefit regions outside of the
Amazon, should this acceptance spread even further. Overconsumption and
environmental exploitation are problems that face many countries, and buen vivir could
be a valid solution to these problems, but this will only happen if people begin to accept
its ideals and live by its principles. Connections to other movements are critical to this,
as they allow for the spread of ideas to reach a larger audience. Thus buen vivir’s
connections with other movements benefit the movement, and carry the potential to
benefit the world.
Sources
10
Escobar, A. (1992). Imagining a post-development era? critical thought, development
and social movements. Social Text, 31-32(31/32), 20-56. doi:10.2307/466217
(not yet used but probably will be incorporated)
Gudynas, E. (2011). Buen vivir: Today's tomorrow. Development, 54(4), 441-447.
doi:10.1057/dev.2011.86
John L. Hammond. (2011). Indigenous community justice in the bolivian constitution of
2009. Human Rights Quarterly, 33(3), 649-681.
(not yet used but probably will be incorporated)
Craig M. Kauffman, & Pamela L. Martin. (2014). Scaling up buen vivir: Globalizing local
environmental governance from ecuador. Global Environmental Politics, 14(1), 4058. doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00256
Thomson, B. (2011). Pachakuti: Indigenous perspectives, buen vivir, sumaq kawsay
and degrowth. Development, 54(4), 448-454. doi:10.1057/dev.2011.85
Villalba, U. (2013). Buen vivir vs development: A paradigm shift in the andes? Third
World Quarterly, 34(8), 1427-1442. doi:10.1080/01436597.2013.831594
Walsh, C. (2010). Development as buen vivir: Institutional arrangements and
(de)colonial entanglements. Development, 53(1), 15-21. doi:10.1057/dev.2009.93