2014 Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determined Development The Case of Community Enterprises in Chiapas

Doctoral Thesis
University of Trento
School of Social Sciences
Doctoral School in Local Development

and Global Dynamics
Indigenous Peoples and

Self-Determined Development:
the Case of Community Enterprises
in Chiapas
A dissertation submitted to the doctoral school of local development

and global dynamics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Doctoral degree (Ph.D.) in Local Development and Global Dynamics
Michela GIOVANNINI
29 April 2014
III
Advisor: Prof. Carlo BORZAGA,

Università degli Studi di Trento
Doctoral Committee: Prof. Giancarlo ROVATI,

Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano.
Prof. Gianluigi GORLA,
Università degli Studi della Val d’Aosta.
Prof. Pier Luigi NOVI INVERARDI,
Università degli Studi di Trento.
Prof. Bruno DALLAGO,
Università degli Studi di Trento.
A todxs lxs que resisten.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply indebted to my friend and colleague Giulia Galera, who

has been supporting and encouraging me in these years. I am also grate-
ful to my supervisor Carlo Borzaga, and to Euricse, which has been
supporting me economically and logistically. I am grateful to Ana Marı́a
Peredo and to the CCCBE at the University of Victoria for hosting me
as a visiting fellow. The thesis has benefited from comments by the par-
ticipants in the 3rd EMES PhD Summer School (Trento, July 2012) and
the 4th EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise
(Liege, July 2013).
Gracias a mis compas del Colectivo Laj Kin en San Cristóbal por todo
el soporte y el cariño, y a todas las personas que abrieron las puertas de
las organizaciones que visité en Chiapas y compartieron su tiempo y sus
ideas conmigo. No puedo agradecerles individualmente porque algunxs
me pidieron discreción, pero a todxs ustedes sobre todo va mi respeto y
mi agradecimiento más profundo.
Thanks also to my extended family (that includes old and new friends
spread in quite a few places), and especially to Matteo.
VII
Abstract
Most exogenous developmental models have not provided satisfac-

tory results in indigenous settings. The resulting development policies
have contributed to the expropriation of indigenous territories and to the
indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources, that have led to a gener-
alized worsening of indigenous peoples’ living conditions. The expression
“development aggression” has been coined to describe the violation of
indigenous individual and collective rights during development processes
that have been imposed top-down rather than shared and implemented
with the communities involved.
Against this background, several studies have pinpointed the role of
indigenous entrepreneurship in sustaining endogenous development pro-
cesses. Due to the low number of empirical studies supporting this propo-
sition, this research aims at contributing to the debate, claiming that
community enterprises are an effective vehicle for an indigenous self-
determined process of development. More specifically, these grassroots
entrepreneurial initiatives appear able to sustain an indigenous concep-
tion of well-being that has recently entered the Latin American debate
on development. This conception, named buen vivir, emphasizes the im-
portance of indigenous culture, the natural environment, and collective
well-being.
Based on a multidisciplinary approach that draws on entrepreneur-
ship, economic sociology, anthropology, and development studies, the re-
search combines theoretical and empirical approaches. An ethnographic
study has been carried out in the first half of 2012 and has investigated
IX
X Abstract
sixteen self-managed community enterprises that have been founded by

indigenous Mayan communities in the Mexican state of Chiapas. The
fieldwork has been based on in-depth semi-structured interviews, as well
as direct observation and analysis of secondary sources. The focus is on
identifying the enabling factors that have supported the emergence of
these enterprises and the impact they have had on improving indigenous
peoples’ well-being.
The main findings pinpoint the existence of some enabling factors
for the emergence of community enterprises in the indigenous context,
that have to be found in the indigenous cultural resources on which they
are based, in the linkages they hold with social movements, and in the
situation of social and economic stress of the context in which they are
embedded. The research has also highlighted that in the context ana-
lyzed community enterprises maintain some specific characteristics: they
have a civic origin, thus they are not externally driven; they pursue a
plurality of goals, which are not only social and economic, but also polit-
ical, cultural and environmental; they have a participatory governance,
based on equality among members and on democratic principles; and an
entrepreneurial dimension that is explicitly aimed at pursuing social ob-
jectives through the continuous production of goods or services. These
four characteristics explain the contribution that community enterprises
can offer in supporting alternative approaches to development, where lo-
cal communities are actors of their own development processes.
Keywords: ethnic groups, buen vivir, community enterprise, local

development, solidarity economy
Contents
Acknowledgements VII
Abstract IX
Introduction XVII
1 What model of development for indigenous peoples? 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Exogenous and endogenous approaches to local development 3
1.3 Embeddedness, institutions, and social capital . . . . . . 5
1.4 Sustainable development: theories and practices . . . . . 9
1.4.1 The role of enterprises in sustainable development 10
1.5 The impact of neoliberal policies in Latin America . . . . 16
1.6 Indigenous peoples in the world: definition and main facts 18
1.7 “Extractivism” and development aggression . . . . . . . 22
1.8 Development with identity or ethnodevelopment . . . . . 25
1.9 Buen vivir : an alternative to development . . . . . . . . 28
1.10 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2 Indigenous enterprises with a social aim: a multidisciplinary

approach 35
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2 The characteristics of indigenous economic initiatives . . 37
2.2.1 Anthropological insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.2.2 Entrepreneurial insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
XI
XII CONTENTS
2.3 The emergence of non conventional enterprises . . . . . . 43

2.3.1 Theoretical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.3.2 Conceptual issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.4 The social and solidarity economy in Mexico . . . . . . . 56
2.5 Enterprises with a social aim and local development . . . 59
2.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3 Research context: indigenous peoples in Chiapas 65

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.2 Indigenous peoples in the Mexican legal framework . . . 66
3.3 Chiapas: basic facts and data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.4 The issue of land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.5 Development programs for regional integration . . . . . . 74
3.6 The Zapatista insurrection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.7 A low-intensity conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.8 Government Development programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4 Empirical research: indigenous community enterprises in

Chiapas 87
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2 Design of the empirical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.2.1 Choice of the ethnographic approach . . . . . . . 91
4.2.2 Type of interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.2.3 Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.2.4 Interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.2.5 Secondary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.2.6 Further considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.3 Activities performed by the organizations . . . . . . . . . 96
4.4 Organizations’ size and location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.5 Members’ ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.6 Origins of the organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
CONTENTS XIII
4.7 Additional activities performed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

4.8 Activities in favor of the community . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.9 Community orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
4.10 Relationships with social movements . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.11 Relationships with external private actors . . . . . . . . 115
4.12 Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.13 More than material needs: the indigenous view of devel-
opment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.14 Relationship with public authorities and government de-
velopment programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.15 Cultural aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.16 Governance structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.17 Entrepreneurial aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.18 Competitiveness and prospects for development . . . . . 133
4.19 Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.20 Indigenous community enterprises as vehicles for buen vivir 137
4.21 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
5 Conclusions: community enterprises and local develop-

ment 143
5.1 Enabling factors for the emergence of community enterprises144
5.2 Supporting alternatives to development: what character-
istics of community enterprises? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.3 Different concepts for similar realities . . . . . . . . . . . 149
5.4 Policy implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
A Semi-structured interviews (English version) 155
B Semi-structured interviews (Spanish version) 161
Bibliography 169
List of Tables
4.1 Classification of the organizations investigated. . . . . . . 98

4.2 Organizations’ size and location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.3 Ethnicity of the organizations’ members. . . . . . . . . . 104
4.4 Origins of the organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.5 Influence of social movements on the organizations. . . . 113
4.6 Relations with private external actors. . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.7 Community’s needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4.8 Characteristics and challenges for indigenous community
enterprises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.9 Buen vivir and indigenous community enterprises. . . . . 139
XV
Introduction
The mainstream development model based essentially on market fun-

damentalism and translated into a “GDP fetishism” (Stiglitz, 2009) has
had a paramount role in causing undesirable social and environmental
consequences (Jackson, 2009). Not only development intended exclu-
sively as economic growth has proven to be ineffective in tackling social
issues, in supplying food, and in reducing inequalities, but this model,
based essentially on overconsumption, is also challenging the preservation
of the natural environment.
In this respect, indigenous peoples are among the most vulnerable
societies, since they often live in territories that are very rich in terms
of natural resources, and consequently attract the economic interest of
multinational corporations and national governments. However, they
usually do not benefit from the wealth generated by their territories, and
they are among the poorest and most marginalized groups of society. In-
deed, many studies have shown that indigenous people experience harsh
living conditions and socio-economic marginalization with respect to the
non-indigenous population living within the same country (Hall and Pa-
trinos, 2006; UNPFII, 2006; Patrinos and Skoufias, 2007; Tauli-Corpuz,
2012).
Mainstream development programs have failed to address indigenous
peoples’ needs, and neoliberal policies have sacked their territories and
natural resources without a significant positive impact on their well-
being. This development model has caused the destruction of entire
ecosystems, an increase in deforestation and extraction of minerals, oil,
XVII
XVIII Introduction
gas, as well as the construction of high-impact infrastructures, such as

large-scale mining or hydroelectric dams, in what has been defined as “de-
velopment aggression” (Tauli-Corpuz, 2008). Furthermore, this model
has led to the displacement of several communities, and to a general-
ized worsening of indigenous peoples’ life conditions (Gudynas, 2009).
This approach to development deliberately violates the “right to free,
prior and informed consent” and the “right to decide priorities for de-
velopment,” stated by the legally binding ILO Convention No. 169 on
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989).
Against this background, several development theories and policies
have started to take into account the role of indigenous culture and insti-
tutions, which have been considered as hurdles to progress and modernity
by some mainstream theories, such as for instance modernization theory.
Alternative conceptions of development have been proposed, mainly fo-
cusing on endogenous models that are believed as capable to effectively
satisfy the necessities of indigenous peoples. Indeed, approaches such
as “ethnodevelopment” or “development with identity” imply the local
determination of the objectives and strategies of development, the con-
trol of the development process by the indigenous communities, and the
exploitation of local human, cultural, natural, and economic resources.
These development processes are intended to produce benefits at the lo-
cal level while respecting the natural environment, given the traditional
attachment of indigenous peoples to their ancestral territories (Bonfil,
1982; Stavenhagen, 1986; Tauli-Corpuz, 2008).
However, few approaches to development have taken into account the
direct voice of indigenous peoples (Loomis, 2000). In this respect, buen
vivir (translatable as “good-living”) is an original indigenous conception
of well-being that has been considered as one of the most important
Latin American conceptual contribution to the debate on development
in recent years (Gudynas, 2011). Buen vivir conceives well-being not
in its individualistic western sense, but rather in the context of a com-
munity. Moreover, it considers the natural environment as a subject of
Introduction XIX
rights (arts. 71-74, Constitution of Ecuador). Buen vivir describes a

collective well being based on respectful exchanges between humans and
the natural environment, on the promotion of collective rights, and on a
community-based model of production. Buen vivir has been positioned
in the post-development theory and it can be defined as an alternative
to development, given that is radically opposed to the western idea of
development and it overcomes its colonial implications (Escobar, 1992;
Gudynas, 2011). A question that raises is how to make buen vivir con-
crete. Several scholars argue that the social and solidarity economy can
constitute a driver of an alternative view of development capable to lead
to buen vivir (Coraggio, 2011; Acosta, 2013).
The term social and solidarity economy identifies those initiatives
that are created by people who freely join to develop economic activities
and create jobs on the basis of solidarity, reciprocity, and cooperative
interactions, in order to build new social and labor relations that do
not reproduce the existing inequalities (Gaiger, 1999; Coraggio, 2011).
This term, mainly employed in the Latin American literature, is part
of a broader debate on economic initiatives with a social aim that have
been emerging and spreading in different geographic contexts, maintain-
ing some commonalities as well as some specific characteristics according
to the context analyzed.
Some traits of the European definition and approach to social en-
terprise (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001; Nyssens, 2006; Defourny and
Nyssens, 2012) appear useful in order to better classify and understand
indigenous economic initiatives. However, a specificity of indigenous en-
trepreneurial activities is the stronger orientation towards the commu-
nity. Consequently, this research considers indigenous economic initia-
tives in this context as community enterprises, given that their social
foundations lie in the community, and they are meant to have posi-
tive impact on the community as a whole (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006;
Somerville and McElwee, 2011). Community enterprises operating in
this context are considered as specific types of indigenous enterprises:
XX Introduction
this terminology allows to put an emphasis on the collective character

of these indigenous initiatives, and to stress the fact that they promote
self-management.
This research is devoted to investigate two main general research ques-
tions, which are directed to the understanding of the enabling factors that
have facilitated the emergence and spread of community enterprises in
the indigenous communities of Chiapas, and to the analysis of the main
conditions under which community enterprises contributed to the pursuit
of indigenous communities’ well-being intended as buen vivir.
It seems important to understand the factors that facilitate or hamper
the emergence of community enterprises in a specific context, in order to
understand how these socio-economic initiatives can be further sustained
by supportive actions and public policies. Furthermore, the understand-
ing of the view of development and of the specific needs that indigenous
people face, allows for a deeper assessment of the effectiveness of these
initiatives. As a consequence, this research investigates the potential of
community enterprises as suitable tools for sustaining a self-determined
development process implemented by indigenous communities. These
initiatives appear as capable to positively impact on the well-being of in-
digenous peoples, tackling a number of social, economic, environmental,
cultural, and political concerns that affect these communities.
Given the scarcity of empirical support to this claim, an ethnographic
study has been carried out in the Mexican state of Chiapas, with the
aim of investigating a number of entrepreneurial initiatives created and
managed by Mayan local communities. Chiapas offers fertile ground for
research due to the presence of several indigenous ethnic groups, and to
collective actions and grassroots initiatives that followed the 1994 Zap-
atista insurrection. The analysis of the history, organizational practices,
and challenges faced by these grassroots enterprises has focused on the
impact they have had on community well-being. This research is mul-
tidisciplinary, drawing on entrepreneurship, economic sociology, anthro-
pology, and development studies, and combines theoretical and empirical
Introduction XXI
approaches.
The first chapter focuses on the rationale behind the endogenous
model of development, with a specific regard to the factors that im-
pact on the improvement of indigenous peoples’ well-being. Against the
limited results provided by exogenous development models, that have
caused the expropriation of indigenous territories and natural resources
without any improvement in their living conditions, endogenous models
of development are explored as potentially more effective in addressing
indigenous peoples’ needs.
The second chapter explores the relations between development and
entrepreneurial activities. Analyzing the main common streams of liter-
ature on indigenous entrepreneurship, the study focuses on some anthro-
pologic and entrepreneurial factors that characterize indigenous economic
initiatives. This analysis highlights the general collective character of in-
digenous entrepreneurship, as well as its social orientation. Consequently,
the literature review focuses then on the ongoing conceptual debate on
non conventional entrepreneurial initiatives with a social aim. The main
approaches that have been developed in Europe, North America, and
Latin America are illustrated and the specificities of each conceptualiza-
tion are pinpointed with the aim of grasping the characteristics that are
most relevant to the context under analysis. While the North Ameri-
can interpretation is quite antithetic to the indigenous Latin American
context, mainly due to its emphasis on the individual entrepreneur as
agent of societal change, some useful insights can be grasped from the
European definition of social enterprise, as developed from the EMES
European Research Network, and from the Latin American analyses of
the social and solidarity economy.
The third chapter is devoted to the analysis of the historical and
socio-economic factors that characterize the context in which indigenous
peoples live in Chiapas. Moreover, the chapter focuses on the analysis
of public authorities’ role, both in addressing indigenous peoples’ needs
and in creating an adequate legal framework for the assertion of their
XXII Introduction
rights. The picture that emerges highlights the conditions of socioeco-

nomic marginalization that indigenous peoples experience and the scarce
effectiveness of the public development programs that have been imple-
mented at the federal and at the state levels. These programs indeed are
based on a paternalistic top-down approach, and they do not take into
account indigenous culture and specific necessities.
The fourth chapter focuses on the fieldwork that was carried out in
Chiapas in the first half of 2012. In depth-interviews and organizations’
visits have been conducted with 16 indigenous organizations operating
in four sectors of activity: handicraft, agriculture, services of social sup-
port and education, and ecotourism. The analysis has revealed some
general characteristics of indigenous enterprises in this context: they
are embedded in the indigenous community, they pursue explicit social
goals rather than profit-maximization, they are collectively owned and
managed through participatory governing bodies, and they have an en-
trepreneurial character since they produce goods or services to sustain
themselves and their members. The findings show that the positive out-
comes of these activities derive from community enterprises’ capacities
to mobilize a plurality of local resources in order to achieve community
objectives. These outcomes are not solely social and economic, but also
cultural, political, and environmental.
The final chapter summarizes the main findings with respect to the
role of community enterprises in sustaining, coherently with buen vivir,
a bottom-up development process self-determined by indigenous peoples.
Some policy implications are also illustrated.
Chapter 1
What model of development

for indigenous peoples?
1.1 Introduction
All over the world indigenous communities often live in areas that
are very rich in terms of natural resources. In spite of this wealth, they
are often among the poorest and most marginalized groups in society.
The classical reasons that have been employed to explain the hurdles
for indigenous communities in exploiting local resources to their own
advantage, typically focus on the lack of capital, know-how, and access to
markets. Consequently, natural resources located in territories inhabited
by indigenous communities have been often exploited by external actors,
such as national governments and multinational corporations. However,
these interventions have not caused significant positive changes in the
indigenous peoples’ socio-economic conditions.
Neoliberal policies promoted by the IMF, the World Bank and some
bilateral donors and based on the liberalization of investments, mining
activities, and management of territories, allowed for the expropriation of
indigenous territories and for the indiscriminate exploitation of their nat-
ural resources. This development model has rarely created an improve-
1
2 What model of development for indigenous peoples?
ment of the community well-being, while it has caused the destruction

of entire ecosystems, an increase in deforestation and extraction of min-
erals, oil, gas, as well as the construction of high-impact infrastructures.
Furthermore, this model has led to the displacement of several commu-
nities, and to a generalized impoverishment of indigenous peoples’ living
conditions. This approach deliberately violates the right to free, prior
and informed consent in relation to development projects, stated, among
other treaties, by the ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples in Independent Countries. This legally binding convention has
been ratified by 22 countries, including Mexico.
Against this exogenous development model, an alternative approach
to development based on an endogenous model seems more suitable in
order to improve socio-economic conditions of indigenous peoples. The
importance of endogenous resources and of a bottom-up development
approach are paramount in a theoretical contribution named buen vivir,
that builds on original practices and world views of several Latin Ameri-
can indigenous populations, and that has been elaborated by indigenous
and non-indigenous scholars. The most innovative aspects proposed by
buen vivir are: firstly, well-being is intended as tightly linked to the com-
munity; and secondly, the natural environment is considered as a subject
of rights.
The general objective of this chapter is to shed light on the ratio-
nale behind the endogenous model of development, with a specific re-
gard to the factors that allow for the improvement of indigenous peoples’
well-being. The chapter is organized as follows: it first analyzes some
common exogenous and endogenous approaches to local development; it
then analyzes socio-economic insights on the importance of embedded-
ness, institutions and social capital in endogenous development theories;
this framework is employed to analyze some concrete examples of local
development practices, namely the Italian industrial districts and the
case of the Mondragón cooperatives; the analysis will then shift to the
concept of sustainable development and some streams of literature that
Exogenous and endogenous approaches to local development 3
focus on the role of enterprises in sustaining it; the following section fo-
cuses on the Latin American case of development, with a description of
the neoliberal policies that have characterized the mainstream approach
to development in this area: these policies have increased inequalities
and consequently they had an impact in worsening indigenous peoples’
living conditions; a definition and some main facts that describe the con-
dition of marginalization that indigenous peoples suffer will be provided
next; against the failure of mainstream top-down development policies,
some bottom-up theoretical approaches are then described, leading to
the original indigenous conception of well-being named buen vivir, that
brings an alternative conception of development; finally, some concluding
remarks close the chapter.
1.2 Exogenous and endogenous approaches

to local development
The increased complexity and economic interdependence among coun-
tries and regions that has been triggered by globalization, has posed a
number of challenges to local and regional development theories, poli-
cies, and practices. The main approaches to local development can be
divided into two main streams, according to their focus on exogenous or
endogenous explanatory factors.
The first stream of development approaches focuses its attention on
external elements, such as extra-regional investments, infrastructures
provided by external authorities, and transfer of innovation generated
elsewhere, that can be moved to the local context through deliberate pol-
icy interventions. These development interventions are based essentially
on the provision of infrastructures and the enhancement of the industrial
sector. Most of these policies, inspired by the dominant neoliberal think-
ing based on free-market capitalism and liberalizations, have in many
cases failed to deliver the expected results. Neglecting the importance
of local aspects, such as culture, social capital, and the importance of

the local contexts that require differentiated and tailored development
solutions, these top-down approaches have produced serious downsides.
Indeed, the main consequences have been the increase of social and re-
gional inequalities, and the exclusion of a large number of unskilled work-
ers from the job market, with a parallel growth of the informal sector
(Rodrik, 2000; Stiglitz, 2002; Wade, 2004).
One of the main reasons of the failure of these top-down approaches

is ascribable to the belief that there could be only one recipe for develop-
ment, replicable and applicable to any contexts regardless of the social,
political and economic specificities of a region (Pike et al., 2006). Against
the failures of these exogenous policies, since the ’90s several approaches
based on endogenous resources have started to emerge (Pike et al., 2006).
This endogenous model of development “pursues the satisfaction of local
needs and demands through active participation of the local community
in development processes” (Vázquez-Barquero, 2003, p.22).
The objectives of the endogenous development strategies are not only

the improvement of the productive sphere, but also the betterment of
social and cultural conditions that impact on the well-being of the whole
society. As a consequence, the centrality of territory with its specific
characteristics and resources is crucial, and the historical evolution of a
place is believed to condition its development trajectory, according to
what has been defined as path dependence (Meyer-Stamer, 1998; Mar-
tin and Sunley, 2006). These bottom-up approaches to development are
based on the exploitation of endogenous assets that are accumulated at
the local or regional level, such as specific knowledge, natural resources,
human capital, and social capital, and on local processes that are coher-
ent with the local cultural environment. In several cases these models
have provided successful results, even though they seem to work only in
specific contexts and under specific conditions.
Embeddedness, institutions, and social capital 5
1.3 Embeddedness, institutions, and social

capital
Some theoretical and policy approaches to local and regional devel-

opment focus on both economic and non-economic endogenous factors of
development. These bottom-up approaches seem particularly interesting
because, besides economic considerations, they take into account some-
thing that is neglected by mainstream top-down approaches to develop-
ment: the socio-cultural environment that characterize the communities,
which are directly involved as actors of their own development.
In this framework, institutionalism and economic sociology provide
useful insights on the interpretation of these phenomena. A central con-
cept in the new economic sociology is the idea of the embeddedness of
the economy into social relationships, that was originally elaborated by
Polanyi (1944) and successively further developed by Granovetter (1985).
This interpretation supports the idea of the importance of the social con-
text as a basis on which development strategies and policies can be built.
Connected to this proposition, the role of formal (e.g. different types
of organizations) and informal (e.g. customs and traditions) institutions
appear crucial in supporting developmental strategies tailored on specific
contexts, given their capacity of enhancing trust in economic relations
(Pike et al., 2006).
Among the endogenous assets a key role is played by social capital.
This concept was first coined by Bourdieu (1980), to whom further elabo-
rations followed (Granovetter, 1985; Coleman, 1990; Portes, 1998). Even
though a shared definition of the concept is still lacking, social capital
individuates a set of informal norms and shared values, networks and
social trust, that favor cooperation among people in a community that
can thus pursue mutual benefit (Putnam, 1995; Fukuyama, 1995). The
definition by Coleman (1990) puts more emphasis on social networks,
rather than on shared culture and trust.
Even though the role of networks is crucial in the context of indige-

nous communities, as it will be analyzed below, the importance of a
shared culture and reciprocal trust is also paramount. Thus, a special
attention should be given to bonding social capital, that can be intended
as a sort of “internal” social capital (trust, norms, networks) among mem-
bers of the same social group or community (Gittel and Vidal, 1998). The
distinction among bonding and bridging social capital was introduced
by Gittel and Vidal (1998) and followed by Putnam (2000) and others
(among them Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). This distinction traces back
to the seminal work by Granovetter (1973), who identified weak (inter-
community) and strong (intra-community) ties. Accordingly, besides the
already mentioned bonding social capital, Gittel and Vidal identify also
“bridging” social capital, that is to say the establishment of ties, and
consequently the creation of social capital, among members of different
communities. A third type of social capital was introduced by Woolcock
(2001) who defined “linking” social capital as those networks between
individuals and groups that imply relations based on hierarchy or power,
like for instance those relationships established between local communi-
ties and formal institutions. The literature has usually described bond-
ing social capital with a negative connotation, given that it characterizes
closed and homogeneous groups of people unwilling to cooperate with the
external environment (Sabatini, 2008). This “dark side” of social cap-
ital characterizes amoral familism and criminal organizations (Banfield,
1967; Gambetta, 1992; Portes and Landolt, 1996; Putzel, 1997; Portes,
1998). However, in the context of indigenous communities it can have
a certain importance in strengthening social cohesion, but on the other
hand it can be dangerous if it is not balanced by bridging social capital,
because it can lead to isolation and closure of these communities. More-
over, bonding social capital can foster the creation of opposing factions,
and this risk is particularly evident in some specific contexts.
Even though it should be remarked that an effective development
model in one context is not necessarily replicable in another context
Embeddedness, institutions, and social capital 7
regardless of its social, cultural, economic and political specificities, some

concrete cases can help in the understanding of the key role played by
local communities in implementing local development practices.
An interesting case is that of the industrial districts in the north of
Italy, a case that was first developed in the pioneering studies by Be-
cattini (1979) at the end of the 70s. The concept of industrial district
was originally employed by Marshall who, in the Principles of Economics
(1890, Book 4, Chapter 10), referred to British industrial clusters in late
XIX century as propellers of economic progress. The concept was then
further analyzed and applied to the study of clusters of small and medium
enterprises in the north of Italy, where historically industrial districts reg-
istered an impressive growth after World War II. The industrial district is
described as a socio-territorial entity where a community of people and a
group of industrial enterprises interact and are somehow interconnected
(Becattini, 1989). One of the determinants of the industrial district’s
successful development is thus ascribable to socio-cultural cohesion in a
determined territory. Social cohesion is based on mutual trust and favors
the circulation of ideas and the interaction among people who share the
same culture, and who identify themselves in the interests and values of
the district (Becattini, 1989). People living within a territory where the
industrial district raises, share a homogeneous set of values based on work
ethics, family and reciprocity that involves several aspects of their daily
lives. This shared set of values, that can be translated into social capital,
constitutes both a prerequisite and a condition for the reproduction of
the industrial district.
Another paramount example for what concerns local solutions to de-
velopment and the importance of the social and cultural context in which
enterprises develop, derives from the experience of Mondragón. In Mon-
dragón, a small city in the Basque Country in northern Spain, an impor-
tant group of industrial, service and agricultural cooperatives emerged
in the 50s and it is nowadays the biggest industrial cooperative group
in the world. The Basque region was, and still is, a place with a very
strong linguistic and cultural identity, that results in a strong social co-
hesion which was somehow strengthened by the repression suffered under
Franco’s dictatorial regime (1939-1975). Social cohesion was translated,
among other outcomes, in an associative spirit that has had a role in
the Basque people inclination towards cooperative organizational forms,
strengthened by a high level of in-group solidarity (Johnson and Whyte,
1977). However, this cultural explanation is not sufficient to account for
the extraordinary success of Mondragón when compared to other coop-
erative enterprises in the same region (Whyte, 1982). A further key of
success is mainly ascribable to the establishment of a parallel system of
educational, insurance, banking and commercial cooperatives, that were
integrated and produced a mutually supporting system of organizations.
The analogies with the Italian industrial districts have to be found

in the cooperation and interaction among diverse entities operating in
a community with effective institutions and that shows a high level of
social cohesion. Moreover, some scholars, following Coleman, underline
the crucial importance of social networks, more than culture, trust and
civicness, as characteristics of social capital that favor local development
(Trigilia, 2001), as is the case of industrial districts in Italy, where an ef-
ficient networking activity with local politics facilitated the development
of the area.
To conclude, the analysis of social capital appears useful given its

capacity to highlight several characteristics of certain communities that
can facilitate the creation of community-based initiatives: in particular
shared values and norms, social trust, and social networks at different
levels (internal and external to the community), seem to be important
assets on which community initiatives can build.
Sustainable development: theories and practices 9
1.4 Sustainable development: theories and

practices
As highlighted by the analyses and examples provided in the pre-

vious sections, there has been a search for alternative conceptions of
development. More specifically, there has been a shift of attention from
the “quantity,” measured exclusively by economic growth, to the “qual-
ity” of development. The fideistic centrality of the GDP measure-or
“GDP fetishism,” as Stiglitz (2009) put it-has been questioned by many
as a measure of social welfare, and alternative conceptions, more focused
on social welfare and on the reduction of environmental pressure, have
started to gain attention (Van Den Bergh, 2011). This shift from a
quantitative to a qualitative conception of development, has led to the
emergence of the concept of sustainable development.
The concept of sustainable development emerged during the 1980s

in order to challenge the mainstream view according to which develop-
ment was produced exclusively by economic growth. The term “sustain-
able development” was coined by the Brundtland Commission, or “World
Commission on Environment and Development” (WCED), which vaguely
defined it as the meeting of “the needs of the present without compro-
mising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (WCED,
1987, p.43). The Commission recognized the failure of past develop-
ment models that, being based exclusively on economic growth, were
neither effective against poverty, nor able to safeguard the natural envi-
ronment. After this first definition, the idea of sustainable development
has been further elaborated, broadly employed and sometimes misused.
This work of conceptualization has lead to a multiplicity of definitions
that highlighted, to different extents, both social and environmental sus-
tainability as fundamental aspects to be taken into account when talking
about development. This ambiguity has allowed governments and busi-
ness to employ the term extensively and to declare themselves in favor
of sustainability, without really challenging the existing economic system

(Hopwood et al., 2005).
Several efforts have been made concerning the search for alternative
indicators, in order to find a welfare measure able to catch also social and
environmental aspects, by mixing economic metrics with social metrics.
After the introduction of the Human Development Index (HDI) in 1990,
that took into account also indices on health and education, as well as
income, several initiatives were launched and today there is a prolifera-
tion of alternative indexes devoted to measure socio-economic well-being.
Just to cite some of them, it can be recalled the well-known Fitoussi-
Stigliz-Sen “Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance
and Social Progress” established in 2008 on French government’s initia-
tive in order to look for alternative measures of well-being; or the Happy
Planet Index, created by the British New Economics Foundation, that
takes into account life expectancy, experienced well-being (intended as
subjective well-being) and Ecological Footprint; or the “Gross National
Happiness”, coined by the former Bhutanese king in the 1970s, that takes
into account in the measurement of well-being also the preservation of
culture and natural environment, and that successively has been attract-
ing the interest of western scholars.
1.4.1 The role of enterprises in sustainable

development
The idea of sustainable development inspired a variety of theoretical
and empirical approaches that focus on the role of enterprises as vehicles
for development. Several management and business scholars have put
their attention on the connections between business and development,
and they elaborated a number of normative theories which focus on the
role of enterprises. The role of enterprises is crucial as they are believed
capable of driving development: some popular concepts in this respect are
corporate social responsibility, shared value, and the Bottom of Pyramid.
Corporate social responsibility is expected to contribute to sustain-

able development through the direct and voluntary commitment of big
multinational corporations into social and environmental projects, which
are considered as part of their corporate strategy. This approach, that
was originally based on individual initiatives taken by single corporations,
has later been included in the development strategy of several interna-
tional organizations, such as the World Bank, the UN, and several na-
tional development agencies, such as CIDA (Canadian International De-
velopment Agency) or the British DFID (Department For International
Development). This international strategy can be read as a consequence
of the influence of the Washington Consensus and its consequent scarce
trust in the role of the state, and in favor of the private sector (Jenkins,
2005). However, these practices seem to have provided scarce results.
A concrete example of the scarce results that the actual implementa-
tion of corporate social responsibility has had in improving the well-being
of local communities is provided by Prieto-Carrón (2006), who describes
the working conditions of women employed in the Chiquita bananas plan-
tations in Nicaragua. Her research highlights that, in spite of the involve-
ment of Chiquita in corporate social responsibility projects directed to
improve labor conditions, no significant betterment in the workers’ lives
has occurred. According to the author, the failure is due to structural
issues of bananas industry and to its gendered nature (that is to say all
workers are women). On the contrary, she argues that one possible way
of implementing successful projects would be to involve the beneficiaries
directly in the implementation of practices able to face the structural
inequalities of the bananas industry.
Also the more recent theory of shared value focuses on the role of cor-
porations as agents of socioeconomic development (Porter and Kramer,
2011). The main argument of this approach is that the creation of eco-
nomic value by corporations cannot be detached from social considera-
tions: economic success should be directly connected to social progress.
Firms must create economic value through the creation of societal value,
and this can happen in three ways: i) reconceiving products and mar-
kets, by creating products able to satisfy societal needs; ii) redefining
productivity in the value chain, and iii) through the creation of indus-
trial clusters near the firm’s location.
One of the main limits of these approaches is that they are based on
voluntary behaviors of the firms. Moreover, critical management studies
argue that these theories are elaborated more to improve big multina-
tional corporations’ reputation, to legitimate and to consolidate their
power, and to compensate negative externalities they provoke, rather
than to pursue authentic anti-poverty strategies (Banerjee, 2008; Peinado-
Vara, 2006). Moreover, these theories and strategies seem incapable to
satisfy new and differentiated needs emerging from society.
Another popular concept in business is the “Bottom of Pyramid,”
impulsed by Prahalad’s work “The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyra-
mid” (2004). This approach focuses on the role of big corporations in
addressing low income peoples’ needs with profitable returns. It argues
that corporations have addressed only the needs of the people at the top
and at the middle of the economic pyramid, neglecting the potential of
low-income people who occupy the position at the bottom of it. This
potential market, composed of two-thirds of the world population, looks
appealing and profitable. Consequently, in order to satisfy the needs of
this vast sector of the population, multinational corporations should de-
velop specifically designed goods and services, or adapt the existing ones
making them available at a lower price. In this way they will also address
the social necessity of a more balanced distribution of resources with a
consequent improvement of low-income peoples’ life conditions (Prahalad
and Hart, 2002).
In reality, as some scholars argue, the BoP theory often inspires prac-
tices that are unsatisfactory and in some cases also produce negative
impacts. A case in point is reported by Jaiswal (2007), who describes
the impact that Coca Cola Company had on a village in Kerala, India:
instead of satisfying drinking water necessities of the area, the corpora-
tion not only depleted and polluted hydric reserves of the area, but also
distributed contaminated sludge deriving from the industrial process as
fertilizer to local peasants, with important consequences on their health
and on the quality of cultivated soil.
The main limit of this approach is that people at the bottom of
the pyramid are seen just as consumers, that is to say as a source of
profit, and not as active actors belonging to communities that have to
be involved in the decision making process regarding their resources and
territories (Jaiswal, 2007). Another critique to the BOP approach ar-
gues that instead of satisfying real needs emerging from impoverished
communities, corporations create new unnecessary needs, fostering con-
sumerism. Moreover, there is no distinction between priority needs (nu-
trition, health, education, housing) and non-priority areas of intervention
(for instance shampoo or detergent sold by corporations, as famous exam-
ples concerning Hindustan Unilever report) where people at the bottom
of the pyramid should spend the little money they have (Jaiswal, 2007).
These approaches appear essentially as make-up operations with re-
spect to the mainstream neoliberal model of development and business.
Karnani (2007) and Jaiswal (2007) argue that a possible solution to
poverty is to consider low-income people not as consumers or assisted
beneficiaries, but as producers, enhancing and supporting their existing
producing capacity and encouraging multinationals to buy goods and
services from them, supporting in this way poverty alleviation.
In this respect, one often mentioned practice is fair trade, that focuses
on the role of low-income people living in the global South as producers
of goods that are usually consumed by people living in industrialized
countries. Fair trade is based on a variety of practices that focus on
the direct relationship and partnership between producers, traders and
consumers. This idea originated as a social movement in Europe during
the 70s, with the main objective of seeking greater equity in international
trade. This has been possible through partnerships based on dialogue,
transparency and fair prices, pre-finance, as well as the implementation
of projects for capacity-building to the advantage of producers. A shared

definition of fair trade is provided by FINE1 , (Moore, 2004):
Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, trans-

parency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international
trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offer-
ing better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of
marginalized producers and workers - especially in the South.
Fair trade organizations (backed by consumers) are engaged
actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in
campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conven-
tional international trade.
Recent trends have seen fair trade engaging in partnerships with main-
stream businesses. However, a number of authors warn about the risks
that this engagement brings mainly in terms of co-optation and decreas-
ing reputation for fair trade (Doherty and Huybrechts, 2013). Further
critiques will emerge from the findings of this research.
A second and more recent practice, often intertwined with fair trade,
is responsible tourism. Also this movement raised in industrialized coun-
tries, when some tourism related actors, at the end of the 80’s, started
to express the necessity of having a more equitable relationship with
communities when traveling to developing countries. Their critique was
directed towards a mainstream approach to tourism that was not re-
spectful to the people and the environment of the visited countries. The
approach of responsible tourism, on the contrary, highlights the centrality
of the hosting communities, involving them in the decisions that affect
their lives, and favors a positive interaction between tourists, tourism
industry, and local communities, with the aim of sustaining the socio-
1
FINE is an informal network that involves the Fairtrade Labeling Organizations
International (FLO), the International Federation for Alternative Trade (IFAT), the
Network of European Shops (NEWS!), and the European Fair Trade Association
(EFTA).
economic development of the communities involved and of minimizing

negative social, economic, and environmental impacts2 .
Fair trade and responsible tourism are development practices ex-
plicitly connected with the conception of local sustainable development
(Strong, 1997). However, there is a risk of creating dependency and
their positive impact on local communities is not always clear (Utting-
Chamorro, 2005; Valkila, 2009). However, thanks to the implementation
of partnerships and networks, these practices can in some cases encourage
and support local entrepreneurial initiatives and environmentally sustain-
able practices, both in agriculture and tourist industry. This capacity is
ascribable to the fact that these entrepreneurial activities pursue a plu-
rality of goals, that are not solely economic, but also explicitly social,
environmental, and political (Huybrechts and Defourny, 2008).
However, even though the relationship with fair trade and responsible
tourism networks can be fruitful in order to access international markets,
the actual application of these practices is not always free of contradic-
tions and problematic implications. A particularly controversial topic in
the debate on sustainable and responsible tourism is ecotourism, that is
seen in some cases by activists and scholars as a neoliberal way to com-
modify nature, which seems to be conserved only in virtue of its market
value (Duffy, 2008). Moreover, some case-studies report the scarce bene-
fits that the local communities involved in the ecotourism business report
in terms of income and improvement of their well-being (Schellhorn, 2010;
Buultjens et al, 2010).
In many cases responsible tourism and fair trade organizations are
considered as social enterprises, as their social mission has the primacy
over economic aims, they have a limited profit distribution (if any) and a
certain degree of self-financing, and they focus on innovation (Huybrechts
and Defourny, 2008; von der Weppen and Cochrane, 2012). These two
2
See “Cape Town Declaration on Responsible Tourism in Destinations” (August
2002), available at: http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/tourism/Documents (accessed
2 April 2013).
practices are relevant to the present research, as they both consider com-
munities’ well-being and environmental preservation as crucial objectives.
1.5 The impact of neoliberal policies in

Latin America
In Latin America both exogenous and endogenous development mod-
els have been implemented, but the first one has undoubtedly dominated
the scenario. Indeed, most of the development policies have been essen-
tially imposed top-down in Latin America and they have been largely
inspired by the neoliberal thinking. This model has highly emphasized
the desirability of economic growth as a panacea for all the issues related
to development. However, the analysis of the reforms that were promoted
during the 80’s and the 90’s show how these policies were incapable to
provide the expected results (Stiglitz, 2002; Rodrik, 2001, 2004).
These reforms are ascribable to the strategy promoted by the Wash-
ington Consensus, a concept that was originally coined by John Williamson
in 1990 as a response to the high inflation and low economic growth reg-
istered in several Latin American countries. Although this strategy of
political economy was originally thought as a development strategy, it
was then applied in a broader sense, and not only to developing coun-
tries. Strong policy reforms were encouraged to face the stagnant situa-
tion that should have been inspired by ten main propositions: i) Fiscal
discipline; ii) A redirection of public expenditure priorities toward fields
offering both high economic returns and the potential to improve income
distribution, such as primary health care, primary education, and infras-
tructure; iii) Tax reform (to lower marginal rates and broaden the tax
base); iv) Interest rate liberalization; v) A competitive exchange rate;
vi) Trade liberalization; vii) Liberalization of FDI inflows; viii) Privati-
zation; ix) Deregulation (in the sense of abolishing barriers to entry and
exit); x) Secure property rights (Williamson, 1990).
The impact of neoliberal policies in Latin America 17
In spite of the more subtle meaning that the original conceptualization

made by Williamson had, the common and current understanding of
the concept can be summarized by the triple commandments “stabilize,
liberalize and privatize” (Rodrik, 2004) and the concept of neoliberalism
or market fundamentalism-this latter term mainly used by critics of the
Washington Consensus-are used interchangeably to pinpoint the main
characteristic of the Washington Consensus provisions.
Through these provisions the IMF, the World Bank and the U.S. Trea-
sury intended to face global economic challenges. Latin American policy
makers, as well as many post-soviet countries, adopted these strategies
based on the pillars of privatization, deregulation and trade liberalization
enthusiastically. These provisions were accompanied by a clear intent of
reducing the role of the state, instead of making it more effective, and
the role of the government was intended simply to guarantee macroe-
conomic stability and provide education. The reforms were essentially
market-oriented and did not pay enough attention to institutions and to
the complementary role of the private and public sectors of the economy
(Rodrik, 2001, Stiglitz, 2002). Moreover, the potential role that local
resources could play in supporting local development was completely ne-
glected.
The insufficient outcomes these policies have contributed to provide
are ascribable to the lack of understanding of developing countries’ eco-
nomic structures. As confirmed by the experience of many Latin Amer-
ican countries, market alone cannot produce satisfactory results in situ-
ations characterized by a changing technology and an industrial sector
that is not sufficiently developed. The role of the state can be crucial
in such situations, as the experience of the East Asian countries demon-
strates, and there should be a balance between the different institutions
that compose a modern economy, including public, for profit, and non-
profit organizations, with an attention to mechanisms of social insurance,
anti-poverty measures and safety nets (Rodrik, 2004). Moreover, as al-
ready remarked, the idea of imposing a unique development strategy to
countries with different economic, political and social backgrounds has

proved to be ineffective.
Indeed, neoliberal policies inspired by the Washington Consensus had
a dramatic impact in Latin American countries, where the industrial sec-
tor was not sufficiently developed. One important consequence in the
context of this study was that local industries were strongly penalized,
and rising interest rates made job creation virtually impossible. Latin
American countries had increasing poverty rates: the percentage of peo-
ple in state of poverty grew from 15.3 percent in 1987 to 15.6 percent in
1998, and the reforms did not have a positive impact in improving the
Human Development Index (Stiglitz, 2002). Moreover, these neoliberal
policies had a dramatic impact also in increasing inequalities (Rodrik,
2000; Stiglitz, 2002; Wade, 2004).
1.6 Indigenous peoples in the world:

definition and main facts
In contrast to the exogenous model above mentioned, the endogenous
approach, so far less studied, appears of particular interest in the context
of indigenous communities. The interest in exploring the endogenous
approach in this context stems from two main sets of reasons: on the
one hand, indigenous peoples are among the most marginalized sectors
of societies and, on the other hand, they bring their original contribution
towards an alternative approach to the idea of development, an approach
that derives from their ancestral knowledge and original world-view and
that will be described and discussed in the next section.
As several studies on the socio-economic conditions of indigenous peo-
ples in different part of the world report, the fact of being indigenous
increases an individual’s probability of being poor. Indigenous people
are often discriminated and marginalized from a social and economic
point of view, they experience racism and register higher poverty rates;
Indigenous peoples in the world: definition and main facts 19
higher rate of workers employed in the informal economy; lower access

to general-interest services; lower educational levels; and chronic unem-
ployment. That is to say, indigenous peoples suffer worse socio-economic
conditions than the rest of the population living within the same coun-
try (Hall and Patrinos, 2006; UNPFII, 2006; Patrinos and Skoufias, 2007;
Tauli-Corpuz, 2012).
More than 370 million indigenous people live all over the world: in-
digenous communities are present in all continents and they are not nec-
essarily minorities in terms of numbers. Indeed, in some Latin American
countries indigenous peoples constitute an important proportion of the
population (e.g. 62 percent in Bolivia, 41 percent in Guatemala). In
Latin America esteems report a number of indigenous people varying be-
tween 28 and 43 millions, depending on different definitions of indigenous
peoples and different methodologies employed in the census.
In spite of this numerical importance, difficulties arise when trying
to define indigenous peoples and several definitions of indigenous com-
munities are used at the international level. Three main approaches are
discussed hereby.
The International Labor Organization, rather than giving a definition
of indigenous peoples, provides some criteria in order to identify indige-
nous peoples, recognizing the importance of self-identification. The ILO
Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent
Countries states that it applies to:
Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indige-

nous on account of their descent from the populations which
inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the
country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization or
the establishment of present state boundaries and who irre-
spective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own
social, economic, cultural and political institutions (Art. 1 of
ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples
in Independent Countries, 1989).
A second approach is proposed by the World Bank, that identifies four

common characteristics shared by indigenous groups: i) self-identification
as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this
identity by others; ii) collective attachment to geographically distinct
habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural
resources in these habitats and territories; iii) customary cultural, eco-
nomic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the
dominant society and culture; and iv) an indigenous language, often dif-
ferent from the official language of the country or region. (World Bank,
2005).
A third, similar approach is adopted by the United Nations, which
identify indigenous peoples according to the following criteria: i) Self-
identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted
by the community as their member; ii) Historical continuity with pre-
colonial and/or pre-settler societies; iii) Strong link to territories and sur-
rounding natural resources; iv) Distinct social, economic or political sys-
tems; v) Distinct language, culture and beliefs; vi) Form non-dominant
groups of society; and vii) Resolve to maintain and reproduce their an-
cestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities
(UNPFII, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, 2007).
Common aspects shared by these approaches include essentially: the
attachment of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands and nat-
ural resources; their distinct social, economic and political institutions;
and their distinct cultural system, which includes native language, tra-
ditions and beliefs, with a specific world-view which is radically different
from the dominant one. These three main features can be seen as a
specific part of a more general idea, the concept of “identity.”
ILO was the first international organization to focus on the indige-
nous issues, starting with some exploratory investigation in the 1920s,
followed by a first treaty in 1957, the Indigenous and Tribal Populations
Indigenous peoples in the world: definition and main facts 21
Convention No. 107. This was later sharply criticized for its tendency
to indigenous peoples’ assimilation, that was adjusted and resolved in
1989 with the already mentioned ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous
and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. This convention is legally
binding and open to ratification: up to now has been ratified by 22 coun-
tries. It states the right for indigenous peoples to decide their priorities
for a self-determined development (art. 7: indigenous and tribal peoples
have the right to “decide their own priorities for the process of develop-
ment as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual well-being
and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control over
their economic, social and cultural development”), reflecting the right to
“free, prior and informed consent” for decisions affecting their resources
and territories.
The idea of identity has a prominent position in the United Nations
Declaration On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples that was adopted in
2007. This declaration, even though not legally binding, states some cru-
cial rights of indigenous peoples worldwide, paving the way for national
legislation adjustments for the effective protection of these populations
and the elimination of human rights violations against them. Seventeen
of the declaration’s forty-five articles deal with indigenous culture, fo-
cusing on its protection and promotion, and on the direct involvement
of indigenous peoples in the decision-making process. The declaration
states the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples and the right
to pursue their specific view on socio-economic development (artt. 3 and
323 ), that is to say this declaration supports the idea of an endogenous,
3
Article 3:
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they
freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and
cultural development.
Article 32:
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strate-
gies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples con-
bottom-up strategy of development.

Indigenous traditional institutions are protected by art. 5, that af-
firms the right to maintain and to strengthen them. The right to the
lands and territories that have been traditionally inhabited, owned or
otherwise acquired by indigenous peoples is also asserted (artt. 26-29).
The declaration shows also an advanced view on social rights, pinpointing
the right of indigenous peoples to establish and control their educational
system (art.14), the protection of children from economic exploitation
(art. 17), and the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women,
youth, children, and people with disabilities (art. 22).
The role indigenous peoples can play in the globalized world arises
several issues, on the one hand there are risks of romanticizing their way
of living and their spirituality, while on the other hand their traditions
and culture can be seen as residuals of an ancient past that should be
eliminated in order to pursue progress and development.
1.7 “Extractivism” and development

aggression
As illustrated above, when indigenous populations live in areas that
are very rich in terms of natural resources they have to face specific
problems created by the neoliberal development model. Indeed, natural
resources have attracted the economic interests of national governments
and multinational corporations, and the exogenous development model
based on the extraction of natural resources has not had positive impacts
cerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and
informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territo-
ries and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization
or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.
3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such ac-
tivities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental,
economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.
“Extractivism” and development aggression 23
on the socio-economic conditions of indigenous peoples. This mainstream

development model has a narrow conception of ‘need’ as essentially linked
to income, and the resulting policies are based on the liberalization of in-
vestments, mining industries, and territorial management-in other words,
the foundations of neoliberal development thinking. Policies based on
this paradigm have contributed to the expropriation of indigenous terri-
tories and to the indiscriminate exploitation of natural resources.
The ‘extractivist’ logic of this development model, often promoted
by the IMF, the World Bank and some bilateral donors, has had seri-
ous environmental and social consequences: entire ecosystems have been
destroyed, due to high-impact projects such as hydroelectric dams and
large-scale mining. These projects have caused the displacement of many
rural indigenous communities and a generalized worsening of their living
conditions (Gudynas, 2009).
In Latin America, as a matter of fact, there is a strong correlation
between indigenous peoples and poverty indexes, in spite of the fact that
they generally live on rich territories in terms of natural resources, as re-
ports by the World Bank recognize: the Human Development Indicators
(poverty, education, health, income determinants, and access to basic
services) are low (Hall and Patrinos, 2006), and the impact of the recent
economic crisis has worsened the situation even more.
Moreover, mainstream development theories and policies have rarely
taken into account aspects such as natural resources, institutions, so-
cial relations, and culture, and these theories have often neglected the
active role of indigenous peoples. According to modernization theory,
for instance, indigenous peoples should necessarily change their habits
and world-view in order to participate in the development process, as
their traditional culture and institutions are considered as obstacles to
progress. Consequently, indigenous peoples are seen as passive actors
that should renounce to their specific cultural features in order to pursue
economic growth and development. This colonialist view implies that
their assimilation to the dominant society is considered as a winning
strategy.
Starting from the 1960s, many projects were implemented in name of
this vision of development, and they were often launched by the World
Bank with the support of national governments. This top-down concep-
tion of development has been, and it still is, one of the main causes of
conflict between national states and native communities (Tauli-Corpuz,
2008). The expression “development aggression” has been coined to de-
scribe the violation of indigenous individual and collective rights dur-
ing development processes that have been imposed top-down rather than
shared and implemented with the communities involved. This expression
was employed for the first time by indigenous peoples in the Philippines,
where in the 70s they successfully fought against a project by the World
Bank, supported by the dictator Marcos, to build a dam for hydropower
(Tauli-Corpuz, 2008). Several other indigenous communities have been
involved in concerted actions against this development policies, and many
are still fighting for their rights on lands and natural resources, against
multinational companies and/or national governments. Some examples
are the Mapuche people’s fight in Argentina and Chile against Benetton
(Agosto and Briones, 2007); the famous “Cochabamba water wars” in
Bolivia in 2000 when communities demanded from the government the
access to a basic service like water provision (Assies, 2003); or the local
indigenous communities struggling in Oaxaca, Mexico, for the appropria-
tion of the process of production and commercialization of coffee (Anaya
Muñoz, 2004). Nowadays many conflicts between indigenous peoples and
corporations are still ongoing all over Latin America, and indigenous peo-
ples from Mexico to Patagonia are trying to resist mainly against mining
companies, or mega power projects such as dams or wind farms.
The potential contribution that indigenous peoples can give to the
implementation of sustainable development strategies appears particu-
larly important for what concerns the environmental dimension. Indeed,
several studies demonstrate the positive outcome that indigenous pop-
ulations generally register in terms of environmental impact when com-
Development with identity or ethnodevelopment 25
pared with colonists (Stocks et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2010). Thanks to their
shared cultural norms and values (i.e. indigenous defense of homeland
and common-property institutions) indigenous peoples in many cases
have a more respectful relation with natural resources that is translated,
for instance, into a lower rate of deforestation. However, some scholars
warn about the consideration of indigenous communities as single homo-
geneous units, also claiming that social homogeneity and sustainable use
of natural resources do not alway show a direct correlation (Agrawal and
Gibson, 1999). Furthermore, the attachment of indigenous communities
to their land is not always evident, especially when indigenous people are
displaced in urban settings and when their territories are dispossessed by
the expansion of intensive commercial agriculture, dams, highways, or
mining (Del Popolo, 2006; Bebbington et al., 2008).
Nevertheless, political resistance through collective action against the
attempts of governments and multinationals of exploiting natural re-
sources is not the only strategy that indigenous peoples pursue. A dif-
ferent strategy implemented by indigenous peoples is to pursue endoge-
nous development objectives through the engagement in entrepreneurial
activities (Berkes and Davidson-Hunt, 2007). These entrepreneurial ac-
tivities have multiple objectives: to establish a direct control on their
natural resources; to pursue collective benefits, related not only to eco-
nomic profit, but also to social and environmental goals; and to aim at
their self-determination. In some cases the political and entrepreneurial
strategies can also be complementary.
1.8 Development with identity or

ethnodevelopment
The alternative model of development pursued by indigenous peoples
highlights the importance of traditional aspects of indigenous heritage
that can be seen as a resource rather than a barrier to development.
These perspectives support the idea of the mobilization of endogenous

local resources (natural, cultural, human, social) as crucial in order to
pursue a sustainable development process able to emancipate indigenous
peoples from the intervention of external actors and donors.
This approach to development has been defined as “development with
identity” or “ethnodevelopment” (Bonfil, 1982; Stavenhagen, 1986), on
the ground that it is expected to pursue a sustainable and endogenous
development, controlled by the indigenous community itself, and it is
expected to respect and give value to the cultural identity of indigenous
peoples.
This concept has been elaborated by several UN agencies (includ-
ing IFAD, Inter-American Development Bank and UNESCO). The IDB
defines “Development with identity,” a concept initially promoted by in-
digenous peoples of Latin America (Tauli-Corpuz, 2008), as:
A process that includes strengthening of indigenous peoples,

harmony and sustained interaction with their environment,
sound management of natural resources and territories, the
creation and exercise of authority, and respect for the rights
and values of indigenous peoples, including cultural, economic,
social and institutional rights, in accordance with their own
world-view and governance. Development with identity seeks
to consolidate the conditions in which indigenous peoples can
thrive and grow in harmony with their surroundings by cap-
italizing on the potential of their cultural, natural and social
assets. (Sustaining Development For All, Inter-American De-
velopment Bank, 2006).
The same concept can be also described as “ethnodevelopment,” a term

promoted by the World Bank, which is not exclusively related to indige-
nous peoples:
Ethnodevelopment is essentially the autonomous capacity of

culturally differentiated societies to control their own pro-
Development with identity or ethnodevelopment 27
cess of change. The original key elements of the theory of

ethnodevelopment are: the need for indigenous peoples to
strengthen their own cultures, assert their ethnic identity as
peoples, and obtain recognition of their lands and territory
for self-determination; and the need to self-manage their de-
velopment process. (World Bank, 2004).
These concepts stress the necessity for indigenous peoples to establish

their own way to pursue socio-economic development, setting their own
priorities and strategies through the mobilization of their specific endoge-
nous resources.
It seems important to report that indigenous peoples’ leaders gave
their preference to the term “indigenous peoples’ self-determined devel-
opment,” instead of “development with identity and culture,” during
the “Consultation and Dialogue on Indigenous Peoples’ Self-Determined
Development or Development with Identity,” held in Italy in 2008 (Tauli-
Corpuz, 2008). The main characteristics of this indigenous view of de-
velopment can be summarized as follows:
• it is not aimed at pursuing economic growth per se, rather it aims

at tackling basic unmet needs of indigenous populations;
• it builds on the exploitation of local resources (natural, human, cul-

tural, technical), with a specific concern for the respect of natural
environment;
• it is based on existing cultural traditions that are not seen as ob-

stacles to development; and
• it is participatory, involving the whole community in the definition

of the main objectives and strategies (adapted from Stavenhagen,
1986).
This view is in line with the ILO convention no. 169, with the United
Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples (art. 5) and with
several national constitutions (e.g. Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and also

Mexico, as it will be reported in chapter 3), all affirming indigenous peo-
ples’ right to establish their own way to socio-economic development in
the setting of their own priorities and strategies through the mobilization
of their cultural, human, and natural resources.
1.9 Buen vivir : an alternative to

development
Even though many theoretical contributions and development poli-
cies have started to take into account the role of indigenous institutions
and culture, the role of indigenous peoples in proposing alternative ap-
proaches to development has been rarely considered (Loomis, 2000). In
this respect, an original conception of well-being that belongs to Latin
American indigenous peoples is buen vivir, translatable as ‘good living.’
Buen vivir originated among the heterogeneous Latin American in-
digenous populations and provides a range of conceptions that correspond
to specific world- views: in Quechua is called sumak kawsay, and suma
qamaña in Aymara. Many indigenous populations all over Latin Amer-
ica express similar concepts through different terms belonging to their
native languages4 . In Chiapas, where the fieldwork was conducted, the
term employed is lekil kuxlejal, in Tseltal language (Paoli, 2003).
Building on preexisting indigenous knowledge, indigenous and non-
indigenous activists, practitioners, and scholars have elaborated and sys-
tematized the concept (Yampara, 2001; Albó, 2009; Huanacuni, 2010;
Walsh, 2010). References to buen vivir can be found in several docu-
ments issued by indigenous organizations and social movements, where
they state their original contribution of buen vivir as an alternative model
4
Among them: Mapuche in Chile and Argentina, Kolla in Argentina, Araona in
Bolivian Amazon, Emberá in Colombia and Panama, Guaranı́ in Paraguay, Brasil,
Bolivia (Huanacuni Mamani, 2010; Albó, 2009).
Buen vivir: an alternative to development 29
to development, in opposition to indefinite material growth and commod-

ification of natural resources5 .
Some argue that buen vivir has been the most important Latin Amer-
ican contribution to the debate on development in recent years (Gudynas,
2011a). At the institutional level, buen vivir has officially inspired the
public policies of Ecuador and Bolivia, where it has been incorporated
into the national constitutions since 2008 and 2009 respectively. Buen
vivir has three innovative aspects: first, it is elaborated by peoples who
have been historically marginalized, and belong to the periphery of the
world (Acosta, 2013); second, well-being is not conceived in its individu-
alistic western sense, but rather in the context of a community; and third,
the natural environment is a subject of rights (arts. 71-74, Constitution
of Ecuador). These peculiarities derive from the indigenous belief of the
interconnectedness of all life forms (Whiteman, 2009).
Far from being a nostalgic and static idea imbued with mysticism and
rooted in a romantic past, buen vivir has not only philosophical and spir-
itual dimensions but also a range of practical applications, and not solely
for indigenous communities. An example is Ecuador’s National Plan for
Buen Vivir 2009-2013, which calls for the construction of a plurinational
and intercultural state. This plan, implemented by the government of
Ecuador, emphasizes that the economic system should be subordinated
5
See, for instance: “Acuerdo de los pueblos,” 22 April 2010 in occa-
sion of the “Cumbre de la madre tierra” in Cochabamba, Bolivia, avail-
able at: http://cmpcc.org/acuerdo-de-los-pueblos/; “IV Cumbre Conti-
nental de los pueblos indı́genas del Abya Yala,” convocatoria “Por esta-
dos plurinacionales y buen vivir,” Puno, Perú, 27-31 May 2009, avail-
able at: http://cumbrecontinentalindigena.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/iv-
cumbre-continental-de-pueblos-y-nacionalidades-indigenas-del-abya-yala/;
“IV Minga global por la madre tierra,” 12 October 2011, available at:
www.movimientos.org/enlacei/show text.php3?; “En recuperaciı̈¿ 12 n del buen
vivir: la visión de los pueblos indı́genas en Centroamérica”, CICA (Con-
sejo Regional Indı́gena de Centroamérica), PPT presentation available at:
www.cicaregional.org/leer.php/1045534.
to human needs and the natural environment, and this can only occur
through local systems based on reciprocity and cooperation that safe-
guard natural and traditional local resources. This plan reports in detail
twelve concrete objectives and relative policies. One of these objectives
is to establish a social, sustainable, and solidarity-based economic system
supported by buen vivir, in contrast to the neoliberal approach. The plan
aims at overcoming injustice and inequalities in order to sustain an en-
dogenous economy oriented towards buen vivir and a development model
constructed by and directed towards all the people living in Ecuador. In
this sense the economic system should be subordinated to human life
and the natural environment, through economic local systems based on
reciprocity and cooperation, directed to the safeguard of natural and tra-
ditional local resources. The idea is that economic pluralism, intended
as a pluralism of entrepreneurial forms, can lead to economic democrati-
zation, that also implies a direct participation of people in the decision
making that affects common good. Subjects of political participation are
not only individuals, but also communities and indigenous peoples are
specifically mentioned.
More in general, the role of the state is fundamental in guaranteeing
redistribution of resources and in the consolidation of the social and sol-
idarity economic system. Investments in education, health, housing, and
food sovereignty are considered as crucial, as well as employment gener-
ation and access to credit. This position is antithetical to some self-help
positions that have attracted the attention of the neoliberal thinking for
their potential of dismissing the redistributive role of the state (de Soto,
1989; Berner and Phillips, 2005). Nevertheless, some Ecuadorian and
Bolivian state policies have been criticized for their failure in maintain-
ing their initial anti-colonial character and their critical position towards
mainstream development approaches (Escobar, 2009; Báez and Cortez,
2012).
A critical aspect of buen vivir is the lack of suitable indicators for
measuring its impact, which should follow a shared conceptualization of
Buen vivir: an alternative to development 31
its fundamental pillars (Acosta, 2013). It is certainly important to mea-

sure its economic impact, as far as it concerns situations of peoples living
in extreme poverty, but social and environmental aspects are also cru-
cial. Consequently, two specific dimensions of buen vivir to be assessed
by indicators should be the quality of social relations and the quality of
relations with nature (Albó, 2011).
If compared to the conception of indigenous people self-determined
development, buen vivir is much more critical towards the very idea
of development. The alternative conception of well-being proposed by
buen vivir implies necessarily an alternative conception of development.
Indeed, while self-determined development tries to find an alternative
approach to development, as Gudynas (2011) argues, the buen vivir ap-
proach can be positioned within the stream of the post-development cri-
tique defined as ‘alternatives to development’ and in opposition to ‘alter-
native development,’ following Escobar (1992). Among others, Escobar
calls for deconstructing the mainstream western idea of development by
overcoming its colonial implications and its reliance on economic growth
and commodification of natural resources. The western idea of progress
is antithetic to buen vivir : some mainstream approaches to development,
such as modernization theory, consider indigenous culture as an obsta-
cle to progress, and indigenous peoples as passive actors that should
renounce their traditions in order to pursue development.
The role of grassroots social movements in this sense is crucial, be-
cause they can favor a reconceptualization of the ideas of development,
modernity and economy. As a consequence, a crucial role is played by
indigenous social movements: in opposition to the neoliberal discourse of
inclusion or assimilation of indigenous people into the dominant culture,
social movements claim indigenous peoples’ right to be different. In this
sense the defense of the “local,” that is to say of indigenous cultural speci-
ficities and livelihoods, is the main objective of social movements struggle
(Mohan and Stokke, 2000). Thus, the attachment of indigenous peoples
to their territories is reflected in the localization of social movements ac-
tion (Escobar, 2001), that in turn reflects itself in the embeddedness of

their socio-economic activity.
Social movements are indeed crucial in contributing to a different
view of development. Giving voice to subaltern groups, they can foster
processes of autonomy and construction of direct democracy. Thanks
to the contribution of social movements, where alternatives can be dis-
cussed and translated into political practices, the mainstream conception
of “need” can be overcome (i.e. needs are linked essentially to income),
it can be revised and adapted to the real necessities of people and com-
munities (Escobar, 1992). As a consequence, needs to be satisfied are
differentiated and expressed by the indigenous communities themselves,
instead of being imposed top-down like in the cases described above of
development aggression. The contribution of post-development theory
is interesting because, against the exclusion of civil society brought by a
“top-down, ethnocentric and technocratic approach” to development (Es-
cobar, 1995, p.44), it emphasizes its role as an autonomous entity that
can complement the role of the state and the market. Civil societies-the
indigenous communities in this case-are embedded in specific local con-
texts and, as a consequence, they have a deeper knowledge of what their
needs and socio-economic aspirations are.
1.10 Conclusions
The analysis proposed has highlighted the existence of different de-
velopment models. Starting from the consideration that the search for a
unique development solution that fits all the contexts is not meaningful,
the analysis of the specificity of a context with its historical, social, and
political trajectories appears fundamental. The original contribution of
Latin American indigenous population is to provide a broader definition
of well-being, not related solely to economic factors or GDP growth as a
measure of development. This alternative conception of well-being, syn-
thesized in the concept of buen vivir, implies an alternative conception
Conclusions 33
of development, that is based on an active participation of local commu-

nities and on the mobilization of endogenous resources. This conception
highlights the importance of social relations, local institutions, environ-
mental protection, and of indigenous culture and traditions. Further-
more, the importance of networks is crucial in building bridging social
capital: this avoids the risk of an excessive reinforcement of bonding so-
cial capital, that on the one hand is useful in maintaining social cohesion,
but on the other hand if it is not balanced by bridging social capital it can
lead to undesired effects of community closure and isolation that would
make the improvement of well-being more difficult.
The picture drawn so far supports the necessity of more locally-
focused theoretical and empirical analyses, that will be proposed in the
next chapters.
Chapter 2
Indigenous enterprises with a

social aim: a multidisciplinary
approach
2.1 Introduction
The analysis of top-down approaches to development has highlighted

the scarce results they have provided in improving the well-being of in-
digenous peoples. After the analysis of the potentialities provided by
alternative theories and processes of local development mainly based on
endogenous resources, it is interesting to focus on self-managed solutions
implemented by indigenous communities. These solutions often take the
form of grassroots entrepreneurial activities that aim to address a plu-
rality of indigenous communities’ unsatisfied needs.
These experiences can be understood in a broader framework that fo-
cuses on the existence of societal needs that neither the public sector nor
the traditional for profit enterprises have been able to address. Unsat-
isfied needs have triggered societal responses that have often taken the
form of non conventional enterprises. These entrepreneurial activities
originating from the civil society have taken different forms according
35
36 Indigenous enterprises with a social aim: a multidisciplinary approach
to the context analyzed, and they assumed different denominations and

specific characteristics. However, all of them are characterized by the
prevalence of the social objectives over profit-maximization considera-
tions. Also the entrepreneurial initiatives undertaken by indigenous peo-
ples can be classified in many cases as non conventional enterprises, that
are generally based on the incorporation of indigenous cultural features
and on collective and cooperative organizational models. These grass-
roots entrepreneurial initiatives exploit both economic and non-economic
endogenous resources and aim at addressing a plurality of objectives.
As anticipated in the previous chapter, this research considers that
economic and entrepreneurial aspects are not detachable from social con-
siderations, and this is particularly evident in the context of indigenous
communities, where cultural traditions show how economic aspects are
deeply rooted into communitarian social relationships. Accordingly, fol-
lowing a multidisciplinary approach, this study focuses on the indige-
nous contexts, where cultural characteristics, social capital, and natural
resources are indissoluble from economic aspects (Peredo and Chrisman,
2006). This type of analysis is mainly derived from economic anthro-
pology and economic sociology, where crucial attention is given to the
consideration that the economic sphere is embedded into social relation-
ships. Moreover, the role of local formal and informal institutions in
shaping tailored and self-managed development strategies is considered
as paramount.
The chapter starts with an analysis of the main characteristics of
indigenous economic initiatives, from an anthropological and from an
entrepreneurial point of view; the second section is devoted to the emer-
gence of non conventional enterprises with an analysis of some theoretical
and conceptual issues, that focuses on concepts elaborated in three main
macro-areas: Europe, North America, and Latin America; this is fol-
lowed by an analysis of the historical and legal evolution of the social
and solidarity economy in Mexico; the following section will focus on the
potential role of the enterprises with a social aim in sustaining processes
The characteristics of indigenous economic initiatives 37
of local development; some concluding remarks close the chapter.
2.2 The characteristics of indigenous eco-

nomic initiatives
2.2.1 Anthropological insights
The role of homo oeconomicus, the rational agent whose action is

driven by self interest, has been crucial in supporting the validity of
the mainstream economic paradigm. According to conventional studies,
economic agents care exclusively about their own welfare. Critiques to
this approach have been proposed from different perspectives. One that
seems particularly useful to the purpose of this study comes from the
substantivist school in economic anthropology (Polanyi, 1944; Polanyi et
al., 1957), that pinpoints the embeddedness of the economy into non-
economic institutions and social relations, as well as the importance of
reciprocity and non-monetary exchanges. This stream of analysis can
include those approaches to indigenous entrepreneurship that focus on
indigenous cultural features as enabling factors for their propensity to
elaborate their own specific models of entrepreneurial initiatives.
Seminal ethnographic works by Malinowski (1920) and Mauss (1925)
analyzed the importance of ritual gift exchange in traditional societies,
identifying reciprocal exchanges as a means to establish and reinforce so-
cial bonds. It is not only the material exchange that matters, but also the
symbolic dimension that it implies. The following theories on reciprocity
and exchange have built on these pioneering studies. In his landmark
book, Polanyi argues that economy is embedded into social relationships
and that the main drive of human action is the desire to safeguard her
social position, instead of maximizing her self-interest. Drawing on Ma-
linowski and Thurnwald, he identifies reciprocity, that is based on a sys-
tem of symmetric gift exchanges, as one of the four principles of economic
behavior in pre-market societies (Polanyi, 1944). Following Granovetter

(1985), the issue of embeddedness has been elaborated and discussed also
in relation to modern capitalist societies, and the debate on the degree
of embeddedness of economic action into social relations is still ongoing.
Non-monetary exchanges based on collective work and reciprocity
have survived through centuries inside several indigenous communities.
In Latin American indigenous communities some pre-Columbian prac-
tices are still alive (such as institutions like “minga,” “tequio,” or “ayni”),
mainly in the form of free collective work to the advantage of the whole
community, often accompanied by celebrations and rituals. Free work
can also be offered to the advantage of some individual community’s
member: the service can be reciprocated, but this is not a necessary con-
dition. Contemporary indigenous communities in the context analyzed
appear somehow caught in between traditional aspects, that are more
similar to pre-market societies, and the globalized world, with its chal-
lenges and opportunities. In this context they are trying to find their
own way to safeguard their culture and identity, without renouncing to
taking part in the global discourse.
As already mentioned, the idea of embeddedness is related, among
other factors, to the concept of social capital, that can be successful
when it is rooted and embedded in the local community, as is the case
for many indigenous groups. In this context, bounded solidarity and
trust have positive effects for the entire community, not only for its in-
dividual members (Portes and Mooney, 2002), and for this reason some
scholars have defined this endowment as communitarian or collective so-
cial capital, including in this concept also those informal sociocultural
institutions that belong to the entire community (Durston, 2000).
Other scholars have highlighted the role of bonding social capital in
sustaining local economies: as Leonard (2004) argues, thanks to com-
munities’ shared values and social cohesion, particular groups in society
may be favored in establishing niche economies. Bonding social capi-
tal can also be crucial in strengthening those sectors of society who feel
powerless, marginalized or politically insecure, and it can be functional

to poverty reduction strategies (Coffé and Geys, 2007). Nevertheless, as
already mentioned a potential risk inside indigenous communities that
should be taken into account is to reinforce only bonding social capital,
neglecting its bridging and linking forms. This could enhance indige-
nous peoples’ feeling of belonging to a closed and separated community,
reinforcing their sense of exclusion from the external social environment.
2.2.2 Entrepreneurial insights

Indigenous entrepreneurship has been investigated as an alternative
agent of socioeconomic development. Some attempts have been made to
analyze indigenous enterprises as small businesses, focusing on their prof-
itability and success only in financial terms (Fuller et al., 2005). However,
this reductive approach neglects the importance of other factors, such
as culture and indigenous organizational practices that are often trans-
lated into participatory models of governance. For this reason, this study
considers the organisations investigated as indigenous community enter-
prises, that is to say a specific type of indigenous enterprise that takes
the form of a community enterprise, as the analysis reported hereby will
illustrate.
Today’s world is characterized by a plurality of entrepreneurial forms.
Against the limited results of traditional models of enterprise that are
product of exogenous and top-down approaches to development, indige-
nous entrepreneurship represents a non-conventional form of entrepreneur-
ship. Indeed, indigenous enterprises have been investigated in several
parts of the world as agents of socio-economic development that allow
indigenous peoples to build their own economic model. These alternative
forms of entrepreneurship, that will be analyzed hereby, have been stud-
ied as devices that permit to foster the rebuilding of indigenous commu-
nities, driving them towards self-determination (Anderson et al., 2006;
Peredo et al., 2004; Berkes and Adhikari, 2006; Foley, 2003; Lindsay,
2005).
Indigenous entrepreneurship, as well as ethnic entrepreneurship1 , is
considered to have a positive impact on socio-economic development,
even though these two forms of entrepreneurial arrangement show differ-
ent features. Main distinctions can be found: in the attachment to an-
cestral lands and natural resources that indigenous entrepreneurs show,
in contrast to ethnic entrepreneurs that are usually migrants who build
entrepreneurial activities in new contexts; and in the collective nature of
the entrepreneurial effort of indigenous peoples, versus the individual or
family character of ethnic entrepreneurs (Peredo et al., 2004).
Indigenous entrepreneurship is characterized by several distinctive
features, that are intertwined with the cultural specificities of different
ethnic groups. As a consequence of the general indigenous view of society
as pluralistic and based on the community share of resources, indigenous
entrepreneurs usually do not intend profit as the ultimate goal of their
activity. The results of studies on indigenous entrepreneurship show a
general propensity of indigenous people towards the establishment of
a collective type of entrepreneurship, which activity is directed to the
well-being of the entire community, and it is pursued also in order to
overcome racism and negative stereotypes (Foley, 2003). This character-
istic does not characterize only indigenous enterprises, but it belongs to
a communitarian culture that is present also in other contexts (such as,
for instance, the experience of Mondragón cited in the previous chap-
ter, or the cooperative tradition in many parts of Europe). The need of
success typical of individual entrepreneurs clashes with indigenous tra-
ditional values, and individual indigenous entrepreneurs face the risk of
loosing links with the local communities to which they belong. Neverthe-
less, there are some exceptions, mostly in the Southwestern part of the
United States, where indigenous peoples are engaged also in individual
entrepreneurial initiatives (Peredo et al., 2004).
1
Ethnic entrepreneurship refers to those businesses operated by migrants in a
country different from their original one.
Some streams of literature refer to the theory of commons (Ostrom,

1990) and deal essentially with the role of indigenous entrepreneurial ini-
tiatives in the conservation of natural resources. This stream of literature
focuses also on the role of collective action, that is crucial for indigenous
peoples as it allows them to react against the socio-economic marginal-
ization they experience and to organize alternative, self-sustained and
community-based models of development. Indigenous entrepreneurial
initiatives can deal with a variety of natural resources, like for instance
forestry, ecotourism, coastal resources, wildlife. It is appropriate to talk
of common-pool resources, when: “(i) exclusion of beneficiaries through
physical and institutional means is especially costly, and (ii) exploitation
by one user reduces resource availability for others” (Ostrom et al. 1999,
p. 278).
Local natural environment is crucial to indigenous peoples, given that
its conservation is linked to their own survival (Berkes and Davidson-
Hunt, 2007). The relation that indigenous peoples establish with their
land is imbued with spiritual meanings and it appears as deeply con-
nected to their culture and identity. Traditional lands and natural re-
sources are in several cases the starting point for the rebuilding of in-
digenous economies and communities as nations (Anderson et al., 2006)
and this factor, which is one of the main components of the indigenous
identity, can be a powerful drive for collective action.
The traditional skills that are accumulated at the community level are
relevant in order to build an indigenous community-based entrepreneurial
activity (Peredo, 2010). These abilities can be traced back to an ances-
tral knowledge (for instance traditional arts and crafts, or traditional
methods in agriculture) but can also derive from skills learned by indige-
nous individuals in other jobs outside of the community (e.g. mining,
manufacturing). Community-based enterprises are those experiences, lo-
cated in rural areas, where the community acts both as an entrepreneur
and as an enterprise in order to pursue common well-being (Peredo and
Chrisman, 2006). Community-based enterprise is the result of a commu-
nity entrepreneurial process leading to an enterprise which is embedded

in existing social relations, and it can have a significant impact on local
development.
Some empirical studies highlight the challenges for collective action
that indigenous entrepreneurial initiatives have been facing in some spe-
cific contexts. Stronza (2010), for instance, analyzes how collective ac-
tion can be sometimes threatened when managing common property
resources. Analyzing an ecotourism project in the Peruvian Amazon,
she highlights the fact that economic benefits are expanding individual
production and extraction, as well as an increased individual attitude
towards entrepreneurship that threatens traditional values and institu-
tions.
Antinori and Bray (2005) analyze community forest enterprises in
Mexico, highlighting their dual objective, with diverse degrees of success,
of poverty alleviation and environmental protection. However, they pin-
point existing tensions between the traditional community governance
model and the enterprise management. They also argue that the or-
ganizations they investigated are not entirely self-organized, given that
the role of government and civil society is crucial in their upsurge. In
cases like this one, the costs of collective action in mobilizing indigenous
communities for entrepreneurial activities can be higher than perceived
benefits.
To sum up, three main approaches have been employed in order to
interpret indigenous grassroots entrepreneurial initiatives: i) community
enterprises that control common property resources, ii) social enterprises,
and iii) community-based enterprises. These approaches derive from dif-
ferent, but partially overlapping, theoretical frameworks.
The overlaps derive from the fact that social enterprises and community-
based enterprises are considered adequate to control common-property
resources (Berkes and Davidson Hunt, 2010; Davidson Hunt and Turner,
2012), and that boundaries between community-based enterprises (Peredo
and Chrisman, 2006) and social enterprises are not so evident and in some
The emergence of non conventional enterprises 43
cases the two terms are used interchangeably (see for instance Berkes
and Davidson Hunt, 2010). What emerges analyzing the literature, sug-
gests that the two terms should not always be used interchangeably:
community-based enterprise can be interpreted as a specific form of so-
cial enterprise, where a whole community or part of it is involved to
different degrees in the entrepreneurial activity (Peredo and Chrisman,
2006; Somerville and McElwee, 2011). Commonalities have to be found
in their multiple goals, that are not only economic, but also social, envi-
ronmental, and cultural, and in their participatory governance.
2.3 The emergence of non conventional en-

terprises
2.3.1 Theoretical background
Orthodox economic models are based on two main assumptions: first,

the self-interested hypothesis, which assumes that people are motivated
solely by their material self-interest; second, the fact that organizations
solely pursue profit maximization. Other assumptions include the effi-
ciency of competitive markets with standardized goods, and the role of
public organizations in distributing resources and achieving equity. Con-
sequences of these assumptions are an economic model relying on only
two actors, for-profit firms and the state, and the absence of interest
for other types of enterprises, like cooperatives and enterprises with an
explicit social aim (Borzaga et al, 2009).
Orthodox theory devoted some attention only to labor cooperatives.
Ward (1955) for instance, analyzing worker cooperatives, claims that the
main objective of these organizations is the maximization of the net in-
come of members, that in this case are also workers. As a consequence,
when the firm performs positive economic results the tendency will be
towards an increase of workers’ income that will lead to an increase of
salaries, with a consequent decrease in the number of workers employed.

Vanek (1977) also claims that the activity of worker cooperatives is un-
dermined by problems of undercapitalization.
Against this approach, new-institutionalism has shed light on the
processes of creation and diffusion of cooperatives and social enterprises,
which are considered as specific coordination mechanisms able to respond
to market and government failures. On the one hand, the creation of
cooperatives is linked essentially to the concentration of market power,
mainly monopoly in the output market and monopsony on the input
markets, and consumers, producers and worker cooperatives are seen as
remedies to this situation. On the other hand, non-profits are created
as a response to the existence of severe asymmetric information with the
aim of reducing incentives to privately exploit information advantages.
The new-institutional approach adopted by Hansmann (1996) ex-
plains the emergence of nonprofits claiming that the upsurge of an or-
ganizational form is the attempt to minimize the sum of all transaction
costs that the organization’s stakeholders sustain. The costs of the or-
ganization can be minimized through an efficient allocation of property
rights. Costs are estimated as contractual costs (market power; asym-
metric information; lock-in) and governance costs (control on managers;
costs of the decision making process; risk of negative profits).
Limits of the new-institutional approach are the assumption that
agents are self-interested and the focus on cost minimization and ef-
ficiency, that amounts to profit maximization in competitive markets.
This approach implies that the role of nonprofits and cooperatives can
be important in correcting market and contract failures, but their pres-
ence is going to diminish as markets failures are decreasing.
According to some scholars, the limited ability of these approaches
to explain the survival and the important role that cooperatives and
enterprises with a social aim play, can be overcome thanks to the contri-
bution of behavioral and evolutionary economics (Borzaga et al., 2009).
The first approach can contribute to the understanding of the motiva-
tional complexity that drives the action both at the individual and at
the organizational level, and that goes beyond the mere self-interested
hypothesis. The second approach can contribute to explaining the vari-
ety of objectives that organizations have, by focusing on the diversified
organizational routines they develop, and their institutional evolution.
2.3.2 Conceptual issues

All enterprises are generally seen as problem-solving devices, which
address unsatisfied needs through the production of various types of ser-
vices and goods. However, new forms of enterprises have started to
emerge due to the fact that for-profit and public enterprises were ei-
ther unwilling or unable to address a number of specific societal needs.
Consequently, non conventional enterprises with specific social aims have
started to emerge in different settings and different countries, each con-
text shaping these enterprises with specific characteristics. This array
of socio-economic institutions located between for-profit and public en-
terprises has been defined in various ways, depending on the definition
used pursuant to tradition, national context, and specific features em-
phasized. In the last decades there has been a lively debate, and social
economy, third sector, social enterprise, social entrepreneurship, social
and solidarity economy are blurring concepts utilized to identify simi-
lar experiences. However, these experiences maintain some specificities,
according to different cultural and geographic contexts.
In Europe, the model of social enterprise has started to emerge with
the intent of relaunching the cooperative form as less exclusively member-
oriented: indeed, social cooperatives were starting to provide general
interest services in order to benefit the community at large, as the Italian
experience will demonstrate in the next section. On the other hand, in
Latin America the social and solidarity economy term was coined in order
to differentiate it from the traditional cooperative sector, where in many
cases cooperatives were starting to adhere to capitalist principles and
mentality, especially in the agricultural sector2 .

The debate on how to define these initiatives is still ongoing at the
regional as well as at the international level, as witnessed by the fact that
in each context several terms are employed. The salient aspects of this
debate are analyzed hereby, making reference to three main macro-areas:
Europe, North America, and Latin America.
In Europe the two main trends are related to the concepts of so-
cial economy and social enterprise. The term social economy, of French
origin, is broader and includes cooperatives, mutual aid societies, foun-
dations and associations. This concept highlights the social mission of
these organizations that prevails over profit maximization purposes, and
the fact that they are intended to benefit either their members or a
larger community. Crucial factors are the democratic character of the
decision-making process and the prevalence of people and labour over
capital. This concept partially overlaps with the concept of social en-
terprise, that has been more systematically defined and deserves a more
in-depth analysis.
The term social enterprise appeared for the first time in Italy, where in
1990 it started to be promoted by a scientific journal with the same title3 .
The concept at that time was inspired by the experience of Italian social
cooperatives, that started to raise from the civil society during the 80s
and that were then regulated by a specific law in 1991 (Law 381/1991).
Social cooperatives started to emerge in order to deliver social services
to disadvantaged categories such as the disabled, the elderly, and people
with addictions, while pursuing at the same time the general interest
of the community, as the law 381/91 recognized. In this perspective,
the emergence of social enterprise can be interpreted as the consequence
of two main trends: on the one hand, the engagement of associations
and foundations in the provision of services, and on the other hand the
changed role of cooperatives in providing general-interest services also
2
A paramount case in this sense is Brasil, see Teixeira and Soler, 2002.
3
“Impresa sociale,” see: http://www.rivistaimpresasociale.it/.
for non-members. Social enterprises thus gathered on the one hand the
entrepreneurial component of the non-profit sector, and on the other hand
the most innovative component of the cooperative movement, through
the provision of services that are of interest to the entire community.
The interest in analyzing social enterprises raises from the competi-
tive advantage they show in particular sectors of the economy, such as
inclusive local development strategies. These advantage stems from their
salient features that combine with the entrepreneurial dimension. Spe-
cific features include the pursuit of explicit social goals and the adoption
of participatory governance models, which further the participation of
local stakeholders (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001). Social enterprises chal-
lenge the traditional paradigm based on only the market and the State,
that has proved to be unable to address the increasingly diversified needs
of societies (Borzaga et al, 2010).
The contribution that social enterprises can give to sustaining pro-
cesses of local development is due essentially to their capacity to address
unmet societal needs, thanks to the exploitation of both economic and
non economic resources that are accumulated at the local level (Borzaga
and Tortia, 2009). The main resources in this sense are cultural, hu-
man, and natural, as well as social capital, which is a prerequisite for the
establishment of social enterprises. Indeed, social enterprises are based
on a network of relations of trust that facilitate collective action (Ben
Ner and Gui, 2003) and they can in turn enhance social capital (Evers,
2001; Sabatini et al, 2012). Following Polanyi, social enterprises are con-
sidered able to combine the economic principles of reciprocity, market
and redistribution, making them work together (Defourny and Nyssens,
2006).
The entrepreneurial nature of social enterprises is based on the stable
and continuous production of goods and services, and on the assumption
of economic risk. At the same time they show some specific features: i)
the explicit social goal, which is reflected in the activity performed, char-
acterized by a merit or general-interest dimension, and by the promotion
of the interest of the broader community or of specific categories of vul-

nerable stakeholders; ii) the assignment of ownership rights and control
power to stakeholders other than investors (single or multi-stakeholder);
the participatory governance model, based on innovative forms of demo-
cratic participation and empowerment of users and/or workers, and on
the mobilization of a plurality of resources; and iii) the total or par-
tial non-distribution constraint, a complex mechanism that limits profit
maximizing behaviors, enhances trustworthiness for users and donors,
and attracts committed workers, managers, and volunteers.
The EMES European Research Network4 has proposed a definition
relying on nine economic and social criteria which has been applied in
most European countries, and this is undoubtedly the most complete
definition of social enterprise proposed so far. This definition synthe-
sized the two main concepts elaborated until then: the non-profit sector
and the social economy, and stems from an extensive interdisciplinary
dialogue and the consideration of the various definitions existing in Eu-
rope. From this definition are excluded both those organizations that
are not entrepreneurial (such as associations, charities, or foundations),
and those profit oriented business that are involved in social or envi-
ronmental projects. Social enterprises’ resources are hybrid, given that
they are composed by income from sale of goods or services, public sub-
sidies, private donations, and they also rely on volunteering (Defourny
and Nyssens, 2008).
According to the EMES approach the social enterprise is conceived
of as an economic entity pursuing an explicit social aim, where the social
goal is tightly linked to the stable and continuous production of goods
or services of general-interest (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001). This defini-
4
Originally a research network based in Europe, that is now becoming more
and more international, EMES goal has been so far to gradually build up a Eu-
ropean corpus of theoretical and empirical knowledge around the concepts of so-
cial enterprise, social entrepreneurship, social economy and solidarity economy. See
http://www.emes.net/.
tion emphasizes the collective and participatory dimensions that allow to

reduce opportunistic behaviors. The EMES definition, rather than being
prescriptive, constitutes an ideal-type, in the Weberian sense: the nine
criteria are not conditions to be entirely fulfilled to deserve the label of
social enterprise. More specifically, the nine criteria are:
Economic criteria:
1. A continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services.

Social enterprises, unlike some traditional non-profit organizations,
do not normally have advocacy activities or the redistribution of
financial flows (as, for example, many foundations) as their major
activity, but they are directly involved in the production of goods
or the provision of services to people on a continuous basis. The
productive activity thus represents the reason, or one of the main
reasons, for the existence of social enterprises.
2. A high degree of autonomy.

Social enterprises are created by a group of people on the basis
of an autonomous project and they are governed by these people.
They may depend on public subsidies but they are not managed,
be it directly or indirectly, by public authorities or other organiza-
tions (federations, private firms etc.). They have both the right to
take up their own position(”voice”) and to terminate their activity
(”exit”).
3. A significant level of economic risk.

Those who establish a social enterprise assume totally or partly
the risk inherent in the initiative. Unlike most public institutions,
their financial viability depends on the efforts of their members and
workers to secure adequate resources.
4. A minimum amount of paid work.

As in the case of most traditional non-profit organizations, so-
cial enterprises may also combine monetary and non-monetary re-

sources, voluntary and paid workers. However, the activity carried
out in social enterprises requires a minimum level of paid workers.
Social criteria:
5. An explicit aim to benefit the community.

One of the principal aims of social enterprises is to serve the com-
munity or a specific group of people. In the same perspective, a
feature of social enterprises is their desire to promote a sense of
social responsibility at the local level.
6. An initiative launched by a group of citizens.

Social enterprises are the result of collective dynamics involving
people belonging to a community or to a group that shares a well-
defined need or aim; this collective dimension must be maintained
over time in one way or another, even though the importance of
leadership-often embodied by an individual or a small group of
leaders -must not be neglected.
7. A decision-making power not based on capital ownership.

This criterion generally refers to the principle of ”one member, one
vote” or at least to a decision-making process in which voting power
is not distributed according to capital shares on the governing body
which has the ultimate decision-making rights. Moreover, although
the owners of the registered capital are important, the decision-
making rights are generally shared with the other stakeholders.
8. A participatory nature, which involves various parties affected by

the activity.
Representation and participation of users or customers, influence of
various stakeholders on decision-making and a participative man-
agement are often important characteristics of social enterprises.
In many cases, one of the aims of social enterprises is to further

democracy at the local level through economic activity.
9. A limited profit distribution.

Social enterprises not only include organizations that are char-
acterized by a total non-distribution constraint, but also organi-
zations which-like cooperatives in many countries-may distribute
profits, but only to a limited extent, thus allowing to avoid a profit-
maximizing behavior.
(Source: Borzaga and Defourny, 2001; pp. 16-18).
It is worth noting that the concept of social enterprise has not ob-
tained the same recognition in all European countries, and in some of
them it is not properly understood (Defourny and Nyssens, 2008). Dif-
ferent legal frameworks have been employed for the recognition of social
enterprise in several European countries, and this has contributed to clar-
ify the concept, even though legislations have had a different impact and
obtained different results (Galera and Borzaga, 2009).
The origins of social enterprises in the United States are ascribable to
a different phenomenon: the diminishing public funding supporting non-
profits. With respect to the European approach, the literature developed
in the United States, and to a certain extent also in Canada and the UK,
proposes an approach that is more focused on the social entrepreneur as
an individual. However, the terms social enterprise, social entrepreneur,
and social entrepreneurship are often used interchangeably (Seanor and
Meaton, 2007).
In the US social enterprises can assume several legal forms, such as
sole proprietorship, corporation, partnerships, limited liability company,
non-profit, and also for profit organization (Galera and Borzaga, 2009).
Less emphasis is given to the social goal: commercial activity and so-
cial activity can be separated, the former one being instrumental to the
latter, which can rely also on donations or specific financing projects
(Thomson, 2008). The collective dimension is less emphasized: the so-
cial entrepreneur, as an individual, is often seen as the key subject who

brings innovative solutions to the social needs that emerge in the commu-
nity. A social entrepreneur is an “extraordinary individual” who brings
about societal transformation and innovation (Dees, 1998, Roberts and
Woods, 2005, Seelos and Mair, 2005). According to the Ashoka founda-
tion, the social entrepreneur is a “visionary” who aims at transforming
the world. However, also in the US there are some critiques to this in-
dividualistic approach, like those expressed by Light, who criticizes this
“cult of personality” that does not take into account sufficiently the role
of organizations, the resources they rely on, and the organizational prac-
tices that can lead to their success or failure (Light, 2006). Furthermore,
the US approach seems to focus more on the supply-side of social en-
trepreneurs than on the demand-side, that is to say to the societal need
for the emergence of social enterprises and the availability of local re-
sources on which the organizations can build (Light, 2006).
Recent trends in the US have seen the growth of hybrid models, such
as the low-profit, limited liability company (L3C), created in order to
bridge the gap between non-profit and for profit and to attract a wider
range of investors. These new corporate structure has been regulated by
specific legal provisions in several states. The main objective is to bal-
ance a good capitalization structure with a charitable purpose. However,
this new model has been criticized mainly from the legal point of view,
given that it overlaps existing legislative provisions without being really
effective (Bishop, 2010; Callison and Vestal, 2010; Kleimberger, 2010).
In Latin America the economic sphere located between the state and
the market has been growing since the 1980’s as a response of civil so-
ciety to growing inequality, unemployment and social marginalization.
Its historical roots, however, can be traced back to pre-Columbian coop-
erative models, that were later influenced by participatory institutional
models introduced by European colonizers. Historically, the cooperative
movement was promoted at the end of XIX century, thanks to Euro-
pean immigrants who were bringing experiences that were developing in
their continent. The cooperative movement in Latin America started

to develop at the beginning of XX century and had strong influences
derived from utopian and socialist schools of thought, as well as from
trade unionism and the social doctrine of the Catholic Church (Coque,
2002). Older experiences are reported in Venezuela and Mexico, where
some forms of embryonic cooperatives were active since the first half of
the XIX century: in Mexico the Caja de Ahorros de Orizaba (a savings
bank), founded in 1839, was based on the principle “one head one vote.”
However, it should be kept in mind that these experiences were charac-
terized by discontinuity and heterogeneity, with different impacts at the
regional and national level (Gaiger, 2009).
From a conceptual viewpoint, the main terms employed in Latin
America are popular economy (economı́a popular ) and social and soli-
darity economy (economı́a social y solidaria), although the concepts of
third sector and social economy can also be found in the literature. As
the different denominations confirm, conceptualization is rather prob-
lematic and a shared definition able to draw a delimitation among the
different concepts is still matter of discussion.
Popular economy is a concept utilized to define those informal ex-
periences that arise from the civil society in order to face necessities of
income generation, generally without any margin of accumulation. These
community-based initiatives address the needs of subsistence, and social
relations appears crucial in this context, because of their capacity to
find appropriate solutions to actual conditions of living. However, the
material and relational assets on which these initiatives are based, can
constitute a fertile ground on which more developed organizations of the
social and solidarity economy can build.
The concept of social and solidarity economy has been elaborated by
several Latin American scholars since the 80’s (Razeto, 1986; Laville,
1998; Coraggio, 1999, 2011; Gaiger, 1999; Singer, 2000; Guerra, 2002,
2003; Arruda, 2003). With respect to the popular economy, the social and
solidarity economy departs from the mere adaptation to circumstances
and focuses on the economic activity as a vehicle that is capable to bring

about change. The entrepreneurial economic logic that emerges is based
on cooperation and exploits the potential of social relations, based also
on traditions and personal ties (Gaiger, 2009).
The social and solidarity economy sphere includes cooperatives, coop-
erative banks, mutual organizations, and in general associations of people
who freely join to develop economic activities and create jobs on the ba-
sis of solidarity and cooperative relations, among themselves and in the
society at large. The main drive is to ensure material conditions for the
survival of people, fighting against poverty in order to create short and
medium-term alternatives.
At the conceptual level, the social and solidarity economy can be seen
as the attempt of incorporating solidarity into the theory and practice of
the economy at a variety of levels, such as market, enterprises, produc-
tion, consumption, public sector, and economic policies (Razeto, 1999).
The three main levels in which solidarity economy can act as a factor of
change are production, distribution, and consumption.
In the production sphere labor is conceived as the main factor of
production in opposition to capital (Coraggio, 1999) and the role of as-
sociated workers is intended as crucial (Gaiger, 2009), as well exemplified
by the experience of empresas recuperadas, enterprises recuperated after
their bankruptcy and managed by their workers through worker coopera-
tives (Vieta, 2010). This experience originally emerged in Argentina after
the economic crisis of 2001, followed by similar experiences in Uruguay,
Venezuela and Brazil. Social and solidarity economy organizations allow
workers to raise their aspirations above the mere material needs, offering
the possibility of an alternative relation with the conditions and results
of their work. A crucial aspect is the community factor, the so-called “C
factor” (Razeto, 1998), intended as an organizational category. The “C
factor” involves several aspects like cooperation in the labor environment,
knowledge sharing, collective decision-making, additional non-monetary
benefits for workers.
In the distribution sphere social and solidarity economy acts not only
through monetary distribution flows, but also through other economic
relations such as reciprocity, redistribution, and cooperation. In the con-
sumption process social and solidarity economy encourages sobriety and
respect for the environment.
A specific characteristic of social and solidarity economy in Latin
America lies in its political connotation, that stems from the strong con-
nection with local social movements. Some streams of social and sol-
idarity economy stem from trade-unionism, such as the experiences of
Colacot (Confederación Latinoamericana de Cooperativas y Mutuales de
Trabajadores) in Colombia (Guerra, 2003) and of Cut, (Central Unica
dos Trabalhadores) in Brazil. Other streams spread from the social doc-
trine of the Catholic Church (Razeto, 1986), and from the movements
linked to the World Social Forum (Arruda, 2003).
Therefore, social and solidarity economy in Latin America generally
expresses the idea of an alternative economic and political system to the
capitalistic one, with a strong critique to neoliberalism (Guerra, 2002,
2003; Coraggio, 2005). Its primary aim is to build new social and labor re-
lations that do not reproduce inequalities and constitute an actual alter-
native to the capitalist economic system, questioning the existing socio-
economic structures. A crucial factor in this sense is self-management,
intended as a revolutionary practice that questions the capitalist system,
given that it is not based on exploitation but on the free association of
workers (Singer and Souza, 2000).
The social and solidarity economy is seen in Latin America as a means
to develop a different approach to economy, which implies necessarily a
different approach to politics, that is to say a political change. In this
sense the main objective of social and solidarity economy is an alternative
development to the capitalistic one, which implies a process of market
democratization. In this respect development is seen not only as an eco-
nomic process, but also as a political and cultural one: it is the result of a
communitarian effort in which the role of culture is paramount (Razeto,
2001).
2.4 The social and solidarity economy in

Mexico
As mentioned in the previous section, in Latin America the social
and solidarity economy is quite a recent phenomenon, which has been
developing mainly in the last two decades. Studies carried out in the
90s described the cooperative sector in Latin America as composed by
a number of organizations varying between 30,000 and 50,000, with a
number of members comprised between 17 and 23 millions, depending
on the source consulted. These varying data testify one of the greatest
weaknesses of the cooperative sector in Latin America: the lack of struc-
tural studies and of longitudinal data collected over time. Furthermore,
data are biased by the lack of legal recognition that these organizations
have in many Latin American countries, where they are active de facto
as informal organizations due to the lack of enabling legal frameworks.
According to recent studies carried out by ILO and ICA (Interna-
tional Cooperative Alliance), cooperative enterprises in Latin America
have been reinforced by the economic crisis, and the number of cooper-
atives is constantly increasing. However, a great heterogeneity charac-
terizes Latin American countries, for what concerns origins, dimensions,
legal recognition, economic impact, and number of organizations (e.g.
13,000 cooperatives in Argentina in 2008; 6,500 in Brasil in 2010; 2000
in Chile in 2004; 10,000 in Mexico in 2010). Cooperatives, and more in
general the social and solidarity economy sector, have recently started
to capture the attention of policy makers and scholars, but existing spe-
cialized research institutions are still recent and policies still inadequate
to support the potential of cooperatives as fundamental actors of socio-
economic development.
In Mexico, the social and solidarity economy sector comprises around
The social and solidarity economy in Mexico 57
50,000 organizations with around 8 millions members (Rojas, 2011a),

even though also in this case complete and structural studies are still
lacking. Some data estimate that workers employed in the sector repre-
sent 18 percent of active population and that the social and solidarity
economy sector contributes to the 5 percent of the Mexican GDP (Rojas,
2011b). The sector comprises also associations that do not necessarily
have a productive nature, and informal organizations, which make diffi-
cult the realization of a complete picture of the sector.
An overview of the legal provisions for the social and solidarity econ-
omy sector implemented in Mexico can help in better understanding the
context. The political Constitution of the United States of Mexico, ap-
proved in 1917 and reformed several times successively, states:
The law will establish those mechanisms that favor the or-
ganization and expansion of the social sector’s economic ac-
tivity: ejidos , workers organizations, cooperatives, commu-
nities, enterprises belonging in part or completely to their
workers, and, in general, of all typologies of social organiza-
tion devoted to the production, distribution and consumption
of goods and services that are socially necessary (art. 25,
ı̈¿ 21 7).
In spite of this constitutional provision, Mexican institutions at var-

ious levels have been favoring the expansion of the private national and
foreign for profit sector, even in those sectors of activities that the Con-
stitution declares fields of activity of the public sector. The support of
the government has been directed in general towards small and medium
enterprises, without distinguishing for profit and social and solidarity
economy sector (Rojas, 2011a). Accordingly, a real institutional sup-
port to the sector has been lacking and this shortage of specific policies
has produced a scarce access to funding opportunities and a poor en-
trepreneurial training and empowerment, with a consequent high infor-
mality of productive activities in the sector (Rojas, 2011a).
In order to face this issue, a new law on social and solidarity economy
was approved by the Mexican government and published on 23 of May
20125 , after a process that started in 1998, and that was intensified during
recent years. This law follows similar experiences occurred both in Spain,
where the law on social economy was approved in 2011, and in other
Latin American countries. Overall the sector has a weak legal framework
in Latin America, and only in some countries there are specific laws:
Honduras approved a law on Social Sector of Economy in 1984; Colombia
approved the law n. 454 on Solidarity Economy in 1998; Ecuador in
2011 approved the law on Popular Economy; there are projects of law in
Venezuela, in Dominican Republic and Brazil. In many Latin American
countries there are specific laws on cooperatives and only in Paraguay,
Argentina, Colombia, and Nicaragua, there are specific laws on mutual
societies.
The new Mexican law on social and solidarity economy is the imple-
mentation of the already cited art. 25 of the Constitution. The law,
even though it does not provide a definition of the social and solidarity
economy, defines the objectives of social and solidarity economy sectors,
which are: i) to promote the integral development of human beings; ii)
to contribute to the socio-economic development of the country, partic-
ipating in production, distribution, and consumption of goods and ser-
vices that are socially necessary; iii) to support education and training
through practices which strengthen a culture of solidarity, creativity, and
entrepreneurship; iv) to contribute to the exercise and betterment of par-
ticipative democracy; v) to participate in designing plans, programs and
projects of socio-economic development within the existing legislation; vi)
to facilitate sector’s members participation and access to training, work,
property, information, management, and equal distribution of benefits
without any discrimination (art. 8).
5
The full text, in Spanish, is available at
http://www.economiasolidaria.org/documentos/ ley de economia social y solidaria de mexico
(accessed 16 November 2012).
Enterprises with a social aim and local development 59
The main objectives of the law are to establish mechanisms able to

support the organization and expansion of the social and solidarity econ-
omy sector, where the responsibility of this support is taken by the state;
and to define rules for the organization and empowerment of the sec-
tor as a mechanism that can contribute to socio-economic development
through employment generation, strengthening of democracy, redistribu-
tion of resources, and generation of social patrimony (art. 2).
The law also creates a National Institute of Social Economy, an au-
tonomous institute that will be part of the Secretariat of Economy with
the aim of defining and implementing public policies to support the so-
cial economy sector. This institute will substitute the previous National
Fund of Support to Solidarity Enterprises (FONAES - Fondo Nacional
de Apoyo para las Empresas en Solidaridad). At present (November
2012) the institute has not yet been created, and some senators have
asked for an extension of the period provided for by law (180 days) for
its establishment.
Overall it is too early to judge the impact that this law can have on
the sector, even though some critiques have been moved, especially for
the changes that have been made with respect to the law proposal of 2007,
that was believed more complete and potentially effective (Conde, 2013).
Further studies are expected to prove the efficiency of this measures and
the results that they will be able to provide in the coming years.
2.5 Enterprises with a social aim and local

development
The predominance of a mainstream model of development leads to
the consideration that cooperatives and social enterprises are just niche
economies doomed to disappear. However, against the failures of the
mainstream development model, the assumption of the existence of a
plurality of entrepreneurial forms gives room to different types of enter-
prises directed to the satisfaction of different types of needs (Borzaga et

al. 2009).
The experience registered during last decades in developed economies,
as well as in developing countries, corroborates the thesis that cooper-
atives and enterprises with a social aim have not disappeared and they
are facing and resisting the crisis better than for profits and the state.
In this respect, Europe represents an interesting case, especially for what
concerns social enterprises providing social services. In Europe, after
World War II and until the 70s, the bipolar model based on the state
and for profits produced prosperity and a generalized well-being. After
the crisis of the 70s that caused an increase in the inflation and grow-
ing unemployment rates, market fundamentalism started to rule, and it
was further sustained by the collapse of the communist regimes. Market
fundamentalism implied the reduction of the government intervention in
the economy, together with the promotion of free trade. Consequently,
the number of privatizations raised, especially in the Anglo-Saxon, post-
communist, and emerging countries. In continental Europe this phe-
nomenon was less accentuated, at least until the sovereign debt crisis in
2009, when the state provision of general interest services has started to
become less efficient and less satisfactory. The main issue has been the
incapacity of addressing the new needs that were emerging from society
and the differentiation of existing needs, to which privatizations were
not able to respond, especially in the key areas of health, social services,
and education (Becchetti and Borzaga, 2011). As a consequence of this
phase of privatizations, in Europe the number and the importance of
social enterprises has grown.
The European experience is paramount in understanding how social
enterprises constitute a real alternative to the dual model based on solely
the state and for profit enterprises, given their capacity of developing
different organizational forms and activities. Consequently, the contri-
bution of enterprises with a social aim to local development is a growing
field of research. Several studies have witnessed the key positive impact
Enterprises with a social aim and local development 61
of these enterprises on socio-economic conditions of local communities in

different parts of the world, even though empirical studies are still few
in number (see for instance Sabatini et al, 2012). Since their origins,
these enterprises have been explicitly created to address local commu-
nities’ needs through the delivery of goods and general-interest services,
and they have a role in integrating disadvantaged sectors of society.
In developing countries, where welfare systems are weak and unlikely
to develop as in western countries, there is a great potential for social
enterprises in the provision of welfare, such as social services, health,
and educational services. Also in the field of management of water re-
sources, waste disposal, and recycling, public transportation, and re-
newable energy sources, there is room for social enterprises, as several
interesting experiences in Europe, US, and Latin America, testify. In de-
veloping countries, where market and state failures are significant, social
enterprises can contribute to overcoming these failures, redistributing re-
sources to socially marginalized groups and producing merit goods that
can strengthen social cohesion and favor the accumulation of social cap-
ital (Borzaga and Tortia, 2007).
Even though there are still not many empirical studies, the litera-
ture, mainly in its European version, highlights the vocational role of
social enterprises in driving endogenous processes of development. This
capacity is due to some specific characteristics of social enterprises, as
the collective governance, that includes and promotes the interests of the
weakest stakeholders; the explicit social aim, that addresses specific com-
munity’s needs; and the asset-lock, that contributes to a long-term view
of the development process. These factors are key in sustaining a bottom-
up, pluralistic, and locally specific process of development (Borzaga and
Tortia, 2007; Greffe, 2007). In Europe and in transition countries the
positive impact of social enterprises on local development is also due to
their support to employment creation and institutionalization of informal
activities (Galera, 2009).
In the indigenous context, the main contribution of community enter-
prises to processes of local development derives from three main abilities:

i) the social foundations of these enterprises lie in the indigenous com-
munities in which they are embedded, and their activities contribute to
the well-being not only of their members, but also of the broader indige-
nous communities (Peredo and McLean, 2006; Somerville and McElwee,
2011); ii) these organizations are capable to address a plurality of dif-
ferentiated needs, that are not only constituted by material necessities,
but also include social, political and environmental goals (Peredo and
Chrisman, 2006; Somerville and McElwee, 2011); iii) the contribution
of reciprocity and non-monetary exchanges that derive from indigenous
culture is significant when building community enterprises, and some au-
thors argue that cultural aspects of certain communities can give a com-
petitive advantage to community-based enterprises embedded in such so-
cietal groups (Lindsay, 2005; Berkes and Adhikari, 2006; Peredo, 2010).
As a consequence, culture becomes a crucial component around which
community members gather to develop entrepreneurial activities. In this
sense, the approach of modernization theory that considers indigenous
traditions as an obstacle to development is challenged.
Moreover, the endogenous type of development pursued by enterprises
with a social aim implies that the local demand for services emerging from
the civil society is addressed through a mix of resources able to drive the
organizational objectives of social enterprises towards social objectives,
that are embedded at the local level. As a consequence it can be as-
sumed that enterprises with a social aim pursue development objectives
that are defined by the same actors that will benefit from the results
of the development process (Borzaga and Tortia, 2009). The complex
mixture of goals that these enterprises pursue turns them into agents
of mobilization of social capital, and consequently they show a capacity
of attracting volunteers and donations (Laville and Nyssens, 2001; Ev-
ers, 2001; Evans and Syrett, 2007). However, this aspect can be seen
as controversial, given the general lack of a shared definition of social
capital, the difficulty to operationalize it, and the scarcity of empirical
Conclusions 63
studies supporting this argument (Evans and Syrett, 2007; Sabatini et

al., 2012). Indeed, the understanding of the specific context in which
social capital and social enterprises are situated appears of crucial im-
portance when approaching the social capital issue (Evans and Syrett,
2007). In addition, enterprises with a social aim can have a role in pro-
moting democratization in an innovative and practical way through the
direct engagement of the concerned stakeholders, thus supporting a par-
ticipatory democracy where citizens act for the general well-being of their
own community (Pestoff, 1998).
2.6 Conclusions
The contribution that entrepreneurial activities created by indigenous
communities can offer to ensuring the well-being alternatives to develop-
ment inspired by and oriented towards buen vivir, is an issue that requires
a multidisciplinary approach able to shed light on the multiple factors at
stake. Each point of view can contribute to add useful insights on the
topic: for this reason different approaches to indigenous entrepreneurship
have been analyzed, in order to seek to highlight the suitability of social
enterprise for an alternative to the mainstream development conception
that indigenous peoples can pursue. In this context, the concept of buen
vivir, as discussed in the previous chapter, appears as an innovative and
interesting contribution to the debate.
In addition, the analysis of different approaches to enterprises with a
social aim is useful in order to highlight several characteristics that this
type of organization show and its potential for sustaining bottom-up and
self-managed processes of development.
The next chapter will analyze the social, political, economic and his-
torical context in which indigenous peoples of Chiapas are living, as well
as the main development programs implemented by the Mexican govern-
ment in favor of indigenous peoples.
Chapter 3
Research context: indigenous

peoples in Chiapas
3.1 Introduction
The main objective of this chapter is the analysis of the historical and
socio-economic factors that characterize the context where indigenous
peoples live in Chiapas, and to confront this context with the analysis
conducted in the previous chapters. Moreover, this chapter will focus on
the analysis of public authorities’ role, both in addressing indigenous peo-
ples’ needs and in creating an adequate legal framework for the assertion
of their rights.
Chiapas is an interesting context for studying the autonomous ini-
tiatives of indigenous peoples, due to their strong identity and claim for
autonomy that inspired and followed the Zapatista insurrection of 1994.
The counter-insurgence action of the Mexican government has had am-
bivalent results on the indigenous population: on the one hand it has
reinforced the identity and social cohesion of its most committed and
aware groups, while on the other hand it has been threatening the social
cohesion of other indigenous groups.
The chapter starts with a brief description of the Mexican legal frame-
65
66 Research context: indigenous peoples in Chiapas
work for the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights; it then reports some
data on the natural resources of Chiapas and on the socio-economic con-
ditions of indigenous peoples living there; it then describes some histori-
cal facts about the issue of land and the Zapatista insurrection of 1994,
followed by the analysis of the present state of low-intensity war; the
main development programs implemented at the government level are
then analyzed; finally, some concluding considerations close the chapter.
3.2 Indigenous peoples in the Mexican le-

gal framework
The Mexican constitution nowadays formally recognizes indigenous
peoples’ right to self-determination, that has to be exercised “in a con-
stitutional way that assures national unity.” It also defines the nation
itself as multicultural. More specifically, art. 2, after a constitutional re-
form that took place in 2001 (the current Mexican constitution followed
the revolution of 1910 and was promulgated in 1917), states in paragraph
A:
The nation has a multicultural composition, originating in its

indigenous people, who are descended from people who lived
in the current territory of the country, who live in it now, and
who keep their own social, economic, cultural, and political
institutions or parts of these. The awareness of their indige-
nous identity shall be the fundamental criterion to determine
to whom applies the disposition on indigenous people.
Self-determination rights are detailed and include for indigenous peoples:

the right to establish their own social, political, economic institutions;
the right to apply their own standards in conflict resolution; the right to
preserve their culture, identity and language; the right to preserve their
lands and habitat.
Indigenous peoples in the Mexican legal framework 67
Paragraph B states:
The Federation, states, and municipalities, to promote equal

opportunity for indigenous people and eliminate any discrim-
inatory practice, will establish the institutions and determine
the necessary policies to guarantee the rights of indigenous
peoples and the complete development of their people and
communities. These will be designed and operated together
with them.
This statement should be made effective through different forms of sup-

port, operated by the three levels of public authorities with the partic-
ipation of the communities involved: support to indigenous local devel-
opment; support to bilingual and bicultural education and to the access
of indigenous peoples to education; support to effective access to health
services, decent housing, infrastructures, and communications.
The government action directed to the support of indigenous peoples
officially started in 1948 with the foundation of the National Indigenist
Institute (INI). In 2003 the institute was transformed into the National
Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples (CDI, Comisión
Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indı́genas). This commission
has the objective of coordinating and supporting development programs
directed towards indigenous peoples in conformity with the already cited
art. 2 of the national constitution.
Moreover, the two most important international treaties for the rights
of indigenous peoples were ratified by the Mexican government: in 1990,
just one year after its implementation, Mexican government ratified the
ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention n.169 (see chapter 1),
which is legally binding; and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indige-
nous Peoples (2007), even though not legally binding, was also approved
by the Mexican government. However, as this chapter will demonstrate,
the actual policies and actions of Mexican government in actively sup-
porting indigenous peoples’ rights still remain on paper, and are com-
pletely unsatisfactory.
3.3 Chiapas: basic facts and data1

Chiapas is located in the Southeastern part of Mexico, at the border
with Guatemala. It is one of the richest states of Mexico in terms of
natural resources, such as timber, hydropower, minerals, and oil, and
it has a high degree of biodiversity. These elements have all attracted
the economic interests of the government and multinational corporations.
Some specific data can give a better picture of this wealth. Chiapas has
30 percent of superficial water of all Mexico and it produces 7.5 percent
of electric power and 44.5 percent of hydropower. It also produces a
small proportion (1.8 percent) of Mexican oil, with 116 active oil wells;
3.1 percent of natural gas; 25.6 percent of timber; and a considerable
percentage of the national production of some important agricultural
products like coffee (41 percent), bananas (35.3 percent), and papaya
(18.7 percent).
Chiapas is also the main producer in Mexico of African oil palm (78.1
percent of the national production) that is employed to produce biodiesel
in a local plant. This type of production is quite problematic: the use of
land for growing African palm has raised many questions and critiques.
Many argue that those lands could be used to produce food, preserving
food sovereignty, and that monocultures impoverish the land and bring
about contamination due to the intensive use of water, fertilizers and
chemicals. This fears are confirmed by studies demonstrating that the
cultivation of this and other plants for biofuel causes emissions due to
carbon losses in soils and biomass: such emissions do not compensate
1
Except where indicated otherwise, data in this chapter are from INEGI, 2010 -
Instituto Nacional de Estadı́stica y Geografı́a (Mexican National Institute of Statis-
tics and Geography) and CONAPO, 2010 Consejo Nacional de Población (Na-
tional Council of Population). Part of the data are reported on www.sipaz.org and
www.desmi.org.
Chiapas: basic facts and data 69
the use of biofuels and frustrate any greenhouse gas reduction benefit
(Achten and Verchot, 2011). A case-study in Ghana demonstrates that
biofuel feedstock plantations has increased the level of poverty of rural
communities, depriving them from the access to vital livelihood resources
(Schoneveld et al, 2011).
Chiapas also conserves around 8000 different species of plants, and
80 percent of the country tropical trees species are found in the state.
Moreover, around 55 percent of existing mammals in Mexico live in Chia-
pas. This rich biodiversity is gathered mainly in natural protected areas:
one of them, the Biósfera de Montes Azules, is located in the selva La-
candona, one of the last tropical rain forests remaining in the Northern
hemisphere. Due to the intense exploitation, the forest dimension is in-
creasingly reducing, and many living species are in danger.
This wealth and variety of territory, the high degree of biodiversity,
and the presence of natural uncontaminated areas, together with the ex-
istence of Mayan archaeological areas and colonial cities, as well as the
ethnographic richness given the high presence of indigenous populations,
make Chiapas an attractive touristic destination. The federal and na-
tional government are very interested in supporting touristic flows, often
in contrast with the local population, that in most of the cases is not
involved in the benefits deriving from the tourism industry.
In spite of the presence of such natural and historical resources, Chi-
apas is the poorest state of Mexico, with a poverty rate of 78.4 percent,
and extreme poverty rate of 32.8 percent. Most of the people in state
of poverty belong to indigenous ethnic groups. In absolute terms, Mex-
ico has the largest indigenous population in Latin America, accounting
for around 10 million people belonging to one of the many indigenous
ethnic groups (Hall and Patrinos, 2005). In Chiapas 27 percent of the
population belongs to an indigenous group, according to the last national
census issued in 2010, and the major indigenous ethnic groups in Chi-
apas are: Tseltal, Tsotsil, Chol, Zoque, Tojolabal, Mame, Kakchiquel,
Lacandón, and Mochó. The two most representative groups, as concerns
number and cultural manifestations, are Tseltales and Tsotsiles. The

36.5 percent of the indigenous population of Chiapas speak only their
native language, representing the highest rate of monolingual people in
Mexican states, while the rest also speak Spanish.
However, some observers argue that data coming from the census
are controversial and that the percentage of indigenous peoples is much
higher. This is important because the Mexican government seems to
want to minimize the importance of indigenous peoples and the specific
character of the issues they face. Starting from the 90s, two major criteria
have been used in Mexico in order to identify somebody as belonging to
an indigenous ethnic group: the first criterium is the speaking of an
indigenous language (for children below 5 years the head of the family’s
language is considered) and the self-identification as indigenous, while
the second is the esteem of the total indigenous population based on the
households census register (Serrano et al., 2002). However, this system
seems to exclude part of the indigenous population, like displaced groups
and Zapatistas, who are reluctant to give any type of information to the
government.
Beyond forced displacement, migration is also an issue, even though it
is quite a recent phenomenon. Many people migrate to urban centers in-
side the state, some on a daily basis, others permanently. Others migrate
to neighboring states, to be employed in tourism structures or construc-
tions, or they try to reach the United States. The change of environment
they experience when migrating implies a threaten to their culture and
way of living, especially for what concerns younger generations, who in
many cases lose the knowledge of their native language and reject their
culture of origin (Del Popolo, 2006; UN Habitat, 2011). Being men the
majority of migrants, the number of women who become head of the fam-
ily is growing (from 16.56 percent in 2000 to 20.18 percent in 2010): some
of them receive remittances, others are just abandoned, having the man
established a new family in the new country. It is important to pinpoint
that the migration corridor between Mexico and the US is the largest in
Chiapas: basic facts and data 71
the world, with 9.3 millions migrants who come from Mexico and other
central and south-American countries. Migrants face a very dangerous
trip, and many cases of discrimination, kidnapping, extortion, rape, and
homicide, have been reported. Data from Mexican National Bank es-
teem that migration to the US has diminished during last years due to
the economic crisis and to the restrictive migration policies adopted in
the US. This fact has had a negative impact on the remittances in US
dollars to Chiapas, that has made the situation even more precarious for
many people who were living thanks to this flow of money.
Further data are useful to draw a general picture of socio-economic
conditions in Chiapas. Concerning employment, 16 percent of the active
population do not have any income, while 45.78 percent earn only the
minimum wage. Average incomes are lower in rural and indigenous areas:
it is worth mentioning that 48 percent of Chiapas population live in
urban areas, while 52 percent in rural areas, against 76 percent and 24
percent respectively, at the national level. Moreover, 42.76 percent of
the population is employed in the primary sector, against 14.3 percent
at the national level.
Data on education report that 16.5 percent of people over 15 years
have not completed a course of schooling; 37.13 percent did not complete
primary education and 10.6 percent of kids between 5 and 14 years do
not attend any school. Chiapas is the state with less years of schooling
in Mexico, with an average of 6.7 years of school. It is also the state
with the highest illiteracy rate: 17.8 percent of the population over 15
years cannot read nor write, and this data is much higher for indigenous
population, where illiteracy reaches 39.2 percent.
Concerning housing, a great percentage of people living in Chiapas
do not have access to a decent house: 26.5 percent do not have run-
ning water; 4.1 percent do not have electricity; 16.6 percent do not have
drainage system; only 39.9 percent of houses have all these three services
together; 15,2 percent of the houses have floor made of soil; and 53.65
percent of the houses are overcrowded. Chiapas is also the Mexican state
that is less advanced concerning households that own a telephone (16.35

percent); a computer (12.6 percent); an internet connexion (7.2 percent);
and a car (19.2 percent).
Health services are still not guaranteed for 43 percent of the popu-
lation, due to the unavailability of hospitals in the surrounding areas,
scarcity of medicines and doctors. There is only one doctor per 1000
inhabitants. Infant mortality rate is 18.8 per 1000 live births, while
national average is 13.7. Malnutrition rates, even though slightly di-
minishing during last years, are still high, affecting one quarter of the
population: severe malnutrition is 5.4 percent, while moderate malnutri-
tion affects 20.2 percent of the population.
These data are striking if compared to the wealth of Chiapas in terms
of natural resources.
3.4 The issue of land

As mentioned in chapter 1, the relation that indigenous peoples hold
with land is imbued with spiritual meanings: they consider the earth as
a mother, sacred and collective, and it is something that defines their
identity as a society. Land was also one of the main causes and objec-
tives of the Mexican revolution that started in 1910. The revolutionary
army fought to establish communal land rights for Mexican indigenous
peoples, who had lost their lands in favor of few wealthy descendants
of European conquerors. Land distribution was eventually one of the
major accomplishments of the revolution, and the article 27 of the Mex-
ican constitution of 1917 legally recognized communal lands and ejidos,
stating the prohibition to sell them. The main difference between these
two types of land tenure is that communal lands belong to the total-
ity of members of a community and benefits deriving from land use are
distributed among all members; on the other hand, ejido land titles are
legally held by the community, not by the individual ejidatarios: each
ejidatario receives a piece of land and all decisions regarding every piece
The issue of land 73
of land are taken in the general assembly of ejidatarios. Most ejidos also
include plots of land destined to communal use.
In 1992 a constitutional reform promoted by President Salinas amended
the article 27, and the sale of communal lands and ejidos was admitted,
causing social mobilizations all over the country that were anticipating
somehow the Zapatista insurrection. This constitutional reform came to-
gether with two programs by the federal government: PROCEDE (Pro-
grama de Certificación de Derechos Ejidales y Titulación de Solares) and
PROCECOM (Programa de Certificación de Bienes Comunales). PRO-
CEDE was designed to survey and certify parcels and to title urban plots
for individuals. Every farmer who voluntarily applies, receives a certifi-
cate that does not imply actual ownership until the land is transferred
after the farmer dies, when the new holder can apply for an actual ti-
tle. From that time on, the parcel can be sold or used as collateral on a
loan. The same procedure and logic applies to PROCECOM concerning
communal lands. These programs have been criticized because of the di-
visions they caused inside communities and because they fostered the sale
and cornering of collective lands. Consequently, they caused a weaken-
ing of communitarian structures. It is also worth mentioning that several
conflicts around the issue of land have been reported, and the most fre-
quent causes are lack of land, due to increased population and increased
urban settlements; legal voids and ambiguity concerning propriety titles;
disagreement on territorial borders; and inadequate authorities’ attempts
of conflict resolution.
These programs were initially proposed as voluntary-based, but sev-
eral cases of pressure and blackmailing on communities to make them
subscribe the programs have been reported. PROCEDE and PROCE-
COM ended in 2006: in Chiapas more than 2 millions 880 hectares of
land had been registered by the federal government. Nowadays in Chia-
pas 59.5 percent of the total surface of lands are hold as collective lands,
divided between ejidos (54.9 percent) and communal land (4.6 percent),
but these programs caused a tendency towards an increase of land hold
as individual property.
3.5 Development programs for regional in-

tegration
These programs for the privatization of collective lands paved the
way for larger scale privatizations brought by the Mesoamerica Project
(Proyecto Mesoamérica), that followed the Puebla-Panama Plan (PPP).
The PPP was launched by Mexican government in 2001 with the objec-
tive of relaunching the cooperation between south-southeast Mexico and
the other Central American countries, through commercial agreements
and management of resources for large common interest infrastructures.
As a consequence, this project encouraged multinational corporations’ in-
vestments through the creation of maquiladoras 2 and extraction plants,
in the name of socio-economic sustainable development. The privatiza-
tion and commodification of natural resources through extractive projects
was hardly criticized and contested by many organizations all over Cen-
tral America and due to this reason several projects were suspended3 .
2
Maquiladoras is the Mexican name for factories located in the Mexican territory
that are property of foreign companies (mainly from US) and export their products
to the countries where their proprietors are based. This happens in a context of
free trade: materials and equipment are imported on a duty-free and tariff-free basis.
Most of the workforce is composed by women: they are paid very low wages, have
low job security, and experience poor working conditions.
3
Some examples are:
“CECOP (Council of Ejidos and Communities Opposed to the La Parota Dam) in
the state of Guerrero, Mexico;
COPINH (Civic Council of Grassroots and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras),
struggling against the El Tigre dam on the border between Honduras and El Salvador;
ACAP (Association of Communities Affected by the Ring-road and Bypass), strug-
gling against high-speed roads in the urban area of San Salvador, El Salvador;
The Mayan people of Sipacapa, San Marcos, Guatemala, struggling against the Mon-
tana mining corporation;
UCIZONI (Union of Indigenous Communities in the Northern Zone of the Isthmus)
Development programs for regional integration 75
Several communities also denounced biopiracy, namely the commodifica-

tion and commercialization of biodiversity, mainly to the advantage of
pharmaceutical corporations(Stahler-Sholk, 2007).
Conceived as an evolution of the Puebla-Panama Plan, the Mesoamer-
ica Project was implemented in 2008 and it is still ongoing, geographically
including also Colombia and Dominican Republic. Its objective is again
to promote integration between Mexico and Central America through
infrastructures and social projects in order to foster sustainable devel-
opment. The Mesoamerica Project has been promoted by all Central
American states, and supported, among others, by the Inter- Ameri-
can Development Bank (IABD) and the Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). This project, if compared to the
Puebla-Panama Plan, seems to have a more specific social focus, dealing
with health, housing, environment, and natural disasters, even though
its main focus is still on the improvement and enlargement of infrastruc-
tures, with projects focusing on transport, energy, telecommunications,
enhancement of trade and competitiveness. More specifically, the con-
struction of transport infrastructures and the enhancement of regional
trade have always been the main aims in the history of this integra-
tion project. The promotion of road system integration, from southern
Mexico to Colombia, remains a central challenge that, according to the
project promoters, would support trade exchanges and could also have a
beneficial impact on economic and social development. In this sense the
plan foresees the construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of around
13,000 kilometers of roads crossing the different countries.
in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico, struggling against several megaprojects of the PPP
and PEMEX (the state oil company) in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec;
The La Venta Solidarity Group struggling against the wind-driven electricity genera-
tors in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec;
The Association of Rural Communities of Chalatenango, struggling against several
mining companies in El Salvador”
(reported from Pickard, 2006).
The neoliberal logic that inspires these programs, that is often hid-
den behind the sustainable development label, deliberately threatens in-
digenous communities’ social cohesion, and their right to control their
territories and natural resources (Stahler-Sholk, 2001, 2007). Further-
more, these plans are imposed top-down, with no attention for the local
contexts, cultural specificities and specific needs of the communities who
live in the territories involved in these interventions.
3.6 The Zapatista insurrection

Chiapas is also the State where the Zapatista insurrection took place:
it is important to analyze the reasons and consequences of this event, that
was essentially an indigenous insurrection, in order to better understand
the context and the influence that this movement still has on the social
and political situation in Chiapas. Moreover, as it will be better detailed
in the following chapter, this movement has had an impact on the upsurge
of many indigenous grassroots initiatives.
The signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
instigated the beginning of the Zapatista insurrection, on the 1 of Jan-
uary of 1994. The NAFTA was signed by Canada, US and Mexico gov-
ernments, and its goal was the elimination of barriers to trade and invest-
ments between the three countries. Consequences of this free trade agree-
ment were reasonably believed unfavorable to Mexican small farmers and
indigenous peasants who did not have any chance to compete with US
and Canadian industry and agribusiness. Indeed, this agreement opened
the Mexican market to cheaper US agricultural products, that are mass-
produced, chemically fertilized, mechanically harvested and genetically
modified. This also worsened the already low living standards of Mexican
farmers, unable to compete with such products.
The armed insurrection on this symbolic date claimed, from an anti-
capitalist radical position, the end to socio-economic marginalization and
the recognition of identity and specificity of indigenous peoples, who had
The Zapatista insurrection 77
been always marginalized and have been victims of racism and discrim-
ination. The main demands were “work, land, housing, food, health,
education, independence, liberty, democracy, justice, and peace” (First
Declaration of the Selva Lacandona). The rebellion was not aimed at
taking state power, and it is best understood as a social movement that
wanted to resist a dominant top-down model of development and global-
ization, where the needs of subaltern groups are not taken into account.
In contrast to this model, the Zapatista movement proposes a “global-
ization from below:” the movement is strongly locally situated (Escobar,
2001), being based on the defense of a “place,” intended as territory, but
also as culture and identity that in the indigenous conception cannot be
detached from territory. However, at the same time it involves complex
global dynamics and has attracted the attention of people coming from
all over the world, willing to support the claim for social justice and for
an alternative model of inclusive society, in which different people and
instances can find a place. To borrow the words of Castells, “the Zap-
atistas’ opposition to the new global order is twofold: they fight against
the exclusionary consequences of economic modernization, but they also
challenge the inevitability of a new geopolitical order under which capi-
talism becomes universally accepted” (2010, p.81).
Following twelve days of armed conflict, a first round of negotiations
between the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) and the fed-
eral government started. These negotiations were mediated by Samuel
Ruiz, the bishop of San Cristóbal close to the theology of liberation, who
was very committed to improve the living conditions and denounce the
marginalization of indigenous communities. The proposals made by the
government were initially refused by the EZLN, and the EZLN and the
federal government then accepted the National Commission for Media-
tion (CONAI), led by Bishop Samuel Ruiz again in the role of mediator.
In March 1995 the Peace and Reconciliation Committee (COCOPA) was
created to facilitate a new dialogue: its members were legislators from
all political parties represented in the Congress. This round of negotia-
tions between EZLN, CONAI and the government delegation lasted for
several months and ended in the town of San Andrés Larráinzar with
the signature of the “San Andrés Accords on Indigenous Rights and Cul-
ture”4 in February 1996. This treaty specified that the government would
undertake to change the Mexican constitution to embody the Accords,
but these provisions were completely ignored by President Zedillo, who
instead increased the military presence in Chiapas. Zedillo was sup-
ported by his party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), and
other important political parties: the National Action Party (PAN) and
the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), a centre-left party that was
initially believed favorable to the instances brought by the Zapatista
movement.
The main goal of the San Andrés Accords was to put an end to the
state of discrimination, marginalization and inequality experienced by
indigenous peoples, through the recognition in the national constitution
not only of their individual rights, but also of their collective rights as
peoples. The main rights to be recognized were: i) political, i.e. their
own forms of government and election of their community authorities; ii)
legal, i.e. their own normative systems, and their own system of conflict
reconciliation;. iii) social, i.e their own systems of social organization; iv)
economic, i.e. their own labor organization and rights on their resources,
the support to employment generation and satisfaction of their needs;
and v) cultural, i.e. the safeguard of their specific cultural traits.
To make this recognition effective and not only formal, a consti-
tutional reform should have been undertook, inspired by the following
principles: i) free determination and autonomy: the state had to respect
the willingness of indigenous communities; ii) participation: indigenous
peoples and communities had to be active subjects together with the
government in the implementation of projects and policies; iii) plural-
ism: the diversity of indigenous peoples all over the country had to be
4
For an integral version of the accords (in Spanish), see
http://komanilel.org/biblioteca/ (accessed 15 November 2012).
The Zapatista insurrection 79
respected; iv) integrality: government actions had to face indigenous is-

sues maintaining a holistic view; v) sustainability: attention and respect
for the natural environment and natural resources had to be maintained.
One of the main demands and specific traits of the Zapatista move-
ment is autonomy, which finds its expression in a parallel political or-
ganization that does not recognize Mexican official institutions. The
territory of Chiapas with Zapatista presence was organized in 5 caracoles
(literally “conch shells,” a Mayan symbol that recalls the circularity of
time) in 2003, following the previous organization that since 1994 divided
the territory into 38 autonomous municipalities called Rebel Zapatista
Autonomous Municipalities (MAREZ), that were considered as a natu-
ral prosecution and development of ancestral organizational practices of
self-government.
The five caracoles (La Realidad, La Garrucha, Roberto Barrios, Oven-
tic, Morelia) host the so-called “Good Government Committees” (Juntas
de Buen Gobierno), which members are elected on a rotating basis. Their
task is to coordinate the activities of the municipalities that fall under
their region and to manage relationships with external actors like NGOs,
media, foreign individuals and groups who are interested in their ac-
tivities, and so on. An interesting aspect is that different ethnic groups
(tseltal, tsotsil, tojolabal, mam, ch’ol and zoque) coexist within the same
autonomous municipality.
The main activities around which Zapatistas self-organize themselves
are education, health, production projects, and justice. One of the cru-
cial demands of the Zapatista struggle was education, and it has become
one of the most important components of their project of autonomy. Au-
tonomous Zapatista education is based on indigenous world-view, in con-
trast to official education that has always been distant from indigenous
cultures and values, in the attempt of assimilating indigenous peoples
into the dominant culture. Moreover, several indigenous communities
did not have any access to public education.
Health is another crucial demand, given the exclusion of several in-
digenous communities from the Mexican health system, due to lack of

resources or remoteness of some indigenous communities. Zapatistas de-
veloped their own system of health clinics. These projects are completely
autonomous in the sense that they do not accept any support by the gov-
ernment, declaring the fact of being “in resistance.”
Some lands were recuperated from big landowners by Zapatistas af-
ter the 1994 insurrection: these lands are now considered as Zapatista
territory. These collective lands cannot be sold and the EZLN has been
promoting the repopulation of these territories through the construction
of new settlements. Obviously these “recuperated lands” have caused
several conflicts, with many attempts by other non-Zapatista indigenous
and peasants groups to establish their control on these lands, taking them
away from Zapatistas. They are usually supported by local and national
groups of power, often connected to national political parties.
3.7 A low-intensity conflict

After 1994 the Mexican army has intensified its presence in Chiapas,
under the National Defense Plan which justified the army intervention
against the “internal enemy.” At present 70 military camps in ejidos,
rural communities and urban settlements are registered in Chiapas.
What happened and is still happening in Chiapas goes under the
name of “low-intensity war,” and the “divide and rule” principle is still
inspiring the action of the state which operates through both the regular
army and paramilitary groups. This action has been following various
strategies, as the direct repression or intimidation of dissident groups and
associations from the civil society, or exemplar actions directed towards
support bases of EZLN in order to frighten and discourage people who
were willing to support them.
What happened in Acteal, municipality of Chenalhó, in 1997 under
the presidency of Ernesto Zedillo, is a paramount example: 45 indige-
nous tsotsil people, mainly women and children, belonging to a religious
Government Development programs 81
nonviolent organization called “Sociedad Civil Las Abejas” (“The bees

civil society”) who sympathized with Zapatistas were massacred by a
paramilitary group named “Mascara Roja” (Red mask) while praying
and fasting in a church. This crime is still unpunished5 .
During last years, the presence of the army has been justified by
reasons that are not related to EZLN, like illegal migration issues, orga-
nized crime, arms or precious wood trafficking. Since 1994, the Mexican
army has been reported and denounced for violations of human rights in
Chiapas6 .
3.8 Government Development programs

Development programs financed by the government (both at the fed-
eral and at the state level) seem to be ineffective in tackling indigenous
peoples’ needs, mainly because they do not take indigenous world-view
into account and they do not involve indigenous people in the decision-
making process affecting their social, economic and environmental re-
sources. In this respect the “right to free, prior and informed consent,”
stated by the ILO convention No. 169 and by the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, seems completely neglected.
A case in point is the “Ciudades rurales sustentables” (Rural sus-
tainable cities), a poverty reduction project implemented by the state
of Chiapas, based on the construction of small cities in rural areas that
gather indigenous peoples living in the surrounding communities.
5
An Amnesty International’s report of 1999 states: “As details emerged of the
circumstances surrounding the massacre, it became clear that state agents had facili-
tated the arming of those thought to be responsible and that the state authorities had
failed to intervene promptly once the massacre had started.” The report is available at
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,AMNESTY,,MEX,3ae6aa0228,0.html (ac-
cessed 18 November 2012).
6
See for instance the Amnesty International’s report of 1999 cited above; or Frayba
(Human Rights Center Fray Bartolomé de las Casas), 1998. La legalidad de la injus-
ticia. Other bulletins and reports by Frayba are available at www.frayba.org.mx.
This program is part of the “Plan de Desarrollo Chiapas 2006- 2012”

(Development Program for Chiapas). The two main official objectives of
the program are: first, to accomplish with the UN Millennium Develop-
ment Goals, delivering services to populations that are marginalized or
located in risky areas; second, to create productive projects that support
employment creation (decent and remunerated work) mainly through
productive infrastructures located out of the rural areas.
This approach follows the consideration that one of the main difficul-
ties in the fight against poverty has been the dispersion of the population,
that prevents the provision of services like water or electricity, and the
access to health and education. For this reason the program is aimed at
gathering people in order to make easier the provision of basic services.
This project has attracted many critiques7 : it seems to break com-
munity ties and to alter the traditional way of living in the indigenous
communities, by imposing living conditions and models of socio-economic
organization that are very distant from the indigenous conception. Local
communities were not consulted in the decision-making, and in the rural
cities they are not able to live according to their traditions and culture:
houses are too small and indigenous families are usually numerous, there
is no space for cooking tortillas that are at the base of indigenous diet,
and no space for small animals or for children to play. In some cases fields
cultivated by the indigenous families are located too far from the “rural
city,” causing the loss of benefits deriving from subsistence agriculture.
At the same time people in the rural city do not earn enough money to
7
See for example: I. Mandujano, 25 September 2012, ”Ciudades rurales sustenta-
bles, el fracaso de Sabines,” available at: http://www.proceso.com.mx/?p=318070,
or A. Rivera, 15 September 2012, ”Ciudades rurales y reordinamiento territorial: el
camino del despojo”, available at: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/09/15/cam-
rurales.html,
or Colectivo Koman Ilel, 21 April 2011, ”Ciudades rurales sustentables: una pesadilla
hecha realidad” http://komanilel.org/2011/04/21/ciudades-rurales-sustentables-una-
pesadilla-hecha-realidad/ (English translation available),
or the documentary film ”Hasta ahı́ te mueves” by Colectivo CAIK, 2012.
Government Development programs 83
buy food, because the way jobs are created is insufficient and lacks ade-
quate training; moreover, clients of the new productive activities in the
rural cities (mainly small stores) are not sufficient to guarantee a stable
income supporting families’ lives. Up to now, just two of the projected
eight rural cities have been at least partially inhabited: Nuevo Juan de
Grijalva and Santiago el Pinar. The latter is almost abandoned, and
houses do not have running water nor electricity.
Other poverty-reduction programs at the federal level are the “Pro-
gram of Food Support (PAL),” that is based on cash transfers and pro-
vision of food complements to poor indigenous and non-indigenous fami-
lies with school-age children, and the “Program for Human Development
Oportunidades.” This intervention follows a previous program, called
“Progresa” (Program for Education, Health and Nutrition), that started
in 1997 and was renamed “Oportunidades” in March 20028 . The general
objective of the project is to break the intergenerational cycles of poverty
through the enhancement of human capital in younger generations. This
happens through cash transfers conditional on specific behaviors in nutri-
tion, health, and schooling. The aspect related to schooling was the most
developed, and the regular attendance at school of families’ children was
awarded with cash transfers given directly to their mothers.
Some international institutions evaluate “Oportunidades” as “one of
the most innovative and successful programs for those who live in extreme
poverty” (OECD, 2010, p.23)9 . Studies conducted using governmental
data to assess the impact of these policies qualify these programs as
somehow successful, at least in extending years of schooling and number
of children attending school (Attanasio et al., 2012). What these studies
8
See: http://www.oportunidades.gob.mx/
9
Also Patrinos and Skoufias (2007), World Bank’s staff, expressed appreciation for
the effectiveness of this program, stating that the it ”is well targeted and effective. In
fact, it disproportionately benefits indigenous peoples. The program is instrumental
in reducing the schooling gap between indigenous and non-indigenous children and
short-term poverty, and for improving health and nutrition status. The program also
positively affects household saving and productive investments” (pp. vi-vii).
fail to analyze is the quality of the education received, intended also

in colonialist terms, as whether the education model is coherent with
the indigenous world-view, or whether the increased schooling period is
translated also in an increased capacity of finding a decent job.
However, a more holistic approach permits to question the validity of
these policies and other analysis conclude that this model is rather pater-
nalistic, because it generates dependence, and it seems not sustainable,
provided that it is not accompanied by employment generation and the
improvement of infrastructures and public services, above all education
and health (UNDP, 2010).
According to the neoliberal logic that inspires these programs, rights
are conceived of as individual instead of collective, and this conception
often creates divisions and tensions inside the communities. The real
objective of this type of poverty reduction programs is to socialize the
poor to a different behavior, making them “co-responsible” of the project
(Mora, 2007). This is especially true concerning women, to whom cash
transfers are specifically directed. Women become individually responsi-
ble of their own (and their families’) well-being, as they are considered
as active actors who can take decisions, i.e. what to buy with the cash
transfer they get. In this way they experience a shift from being clients
(i.e. passive receivers of welfare services) to being consumers, according
to a neoliberal logic (Luccisano, 2004). This approach shifts the respon-
sibility of well-being from the state to the low-income individual, and
structural causes of poverty and inequalities are not addressed: on the
contrary they remain hidden behind these efforts of the state, which re-
sults are considered as successful by most international institutions and
mainstream scholars.
Interestingly, as chapter 4 will illustrate, none of the people inter-
viewed during the empirical research judged these programs as effective
or successful. Obviously from a certain point of view this data can be re-
puted as not significant, due to the small size and non-representativeness
of the sample. However, it can have its value as an important voice of dis-
Conclusions 85
sent of people who live the effects of these programs directly, and whose
opinions are usually not taken into account in official studies or official
data gathered by government agencies. The perception that these people
have can be biased or based on prejudices towards the government, but
the reason why and the way how they get to such perception should be
understood and taken into consideration.
It is also worth mentioning that in recent years Mexico has seen a re-
duction of external aid opportunities by international development agen-
cies and NGOs due to the economic crisis and to the fact that Mexico is
no longer considered as a priority area of intervention in terms of macroe-
conomic indicators.
3.9 Conclusions
This chapter has attempted to give a holistic picture of the research
context, in the belief of the importance of the understanding of the dif-
ferent components that have a role in determining the context. It seems
important to analyze the socio-economic conditions of marginalization
that indigenous peoples experience in Chiapas, and some historical fac-
tors like the issue of land, that has been characterizing Mexican history
since the revolution of 1910. Indigenous peoples’ marginalization led to
the Zapatista insurrection in 1994, that did not aim at taking power,
but at asserting basic rights for indigenous peoples. To the alternative
political and social system implemented by the Zapatista movement, the
Mexican government responded with an increased militarization, in what
has been called low-intensity war. Parallel to this action, the federal and
state government have been implementing a series of development pro-
grams directed to increase the well-being of indigenous peoples, but the
delivered results appear still insufficient.
The analysis of the main legal arrangements and public institutions
directed to indigenous development in Mexico, highlight the discrepancy
between the principles declared by the Mexican State and the effective
measures taken in order to address indigenous peoples’ rights and neces-

sities.
With the context depicted in this chapter in mind, the next chapter
will focus on the empirical investigation carried out in Chiapas.
Chapter 4
Empirical research:
indigenous community
enterprises in Chiapas
4.1 Introduction
After having analyzed the theoretical implications and the research

context, this chapter focuses on the fieldwork carried out in Chiapas in
the first half of 2012. The observation of the context of Chiapas has
highlighted the existence of an endogenous model of development based
on grassroots entrepreneurial activities that have been founded and self-
managed by local indigenous communities. These enterprises aim to
address a plurality of needs utilizing the local resources. Coherently
with buen vivir, these self-managed enterprises stress the importance of
social context, culture, and local knowledge, and are in fact indigenous
solutions directed towards processes of change (Eversole et al., 2013).
An ethnographic study was conducted in order to analyze the history,
organizational practices, and challenges faced by these grassroots enter-
prises and to understand the impact that these organizations have had
on the level of socio-economic development and community well-being.
87
88 Empirical research: indigenous community enterprises in Chiapas
Two research questions underpin the analysis: what enabling factors have
facilitated the emergence and spread of these enterprises in the indige-
nous communities of Chiapas? Under what conditions have indigenous
enterprises contributed to the pursuit of buen vivir ? These issues can be
further elaborated and broken down into some specific research questions:
• Why do indigenous enterprises originate? (necessity/opportunity-

intrinsic motivation/driven by external agents?)
• What idea of development do indigenous communities have? What

are the main needs of indigenous communities that indigenous en-
terprise can pursue?
• What actors are crucial in the emergence and survival of indigenous

enterprises?
• Are indigenous enterprises economically sustainable?
• Do indigenous cultural traditions/institutions survive inside indige-

nous enterprises?
Indigenous entrepreneurship has been investigated as an alternative

agent of socioeconomic development, thus this research is not the first
one on this topic. Some attempts by managements scholars have been
made to analyze indigenous enterprises as small businesses, focusing on
their profitability and success only in financial terms (Fuller et al., 2005).
However, this approach neglects the importance of other factors, such as
culture and indigenous organizational practices that are often translated
into participatory models of governance, and the impacts that these en-
terprises have on the community well-being.
Other studies have emphasized that indigenous enterprises are of-
ten collective, and this aspect is considered as crucial to improving the
well-being of their communities (Berkes and Adhikari, 2006; Dana and
Anderson, 2007; Tapsell and Woods, 2010; Davidson-Hunt and Turner,
Introduction 89
2012). Even though buen vivir suggests that both these aspects are
crucial for enterprises that aim to address the needs of communities suf-
fering extreme deprivation, indigenous enterprises are not necessarily col-
lective (Peredo et al., 2004), nor do they necessarily have explicit social
goals. Consequently, identifying indigenous enterprises as community en-
terprises provides insights into the plurality of their goals, which are not
solely economic, and the collective character of their governance. More-
over, this approach helps in taking into account all the impacts that these
enterprises have, that are not only financial and economic. As the so-
cial foundations of these enterprises lie in the indigenous communities in
which they are embedded, their activities contribute to the well-being not
only of their members, but also of the broader indigenous communities
(Peredo and McLean, 2006; Somerville and McElwee, 2011).
All the organizations investigated in this paper share some charac-
teristics of social enterprises as theorized by researchers linked to the
Emes network, that were analyzed in chapter 2: they have a civic ori-
gin (Nyssens, 2006); they are characterized by the pursuit of an explicit
social goal; they have an entrepreneurial dimension that involves the con-
tinuous production of goods or services; they adopt participatory gov-
ernance models; (Borzaga and Defourny, 2001; Defourny and Nyssens,
2012). However, in Latin America there has been a certain resistance
to employing the term social enterprise, due to the ideological connota-
tion that followed the diffusion of the US definition, that is based on the
interpretation of the social entrepreneur as an extraordinary individual
who triggers societal transformation and innovation (Dees, 1998; Roberts
and Woods, 2005; Santos, 2012). This conception of social entrepreneur-
ship, mainly promoted by business schools and quite widespread in the
North American context, tends to neglect the collective character that
these socioeconomic activities assume in several contexts outside the US.
Moreover, it tends to put more emphasis on economic profits more than
on social benefits.
More used in Latin America to define indigenous community enter-
prises and their capacity of sustaining buen vivir, is the concept of social
and solidarity economy. As the analysis conducted in chapter 2 has
shown, the term social and solidarity economy identifies economic orga-
nizations created by people who freely join to develop economic activities
and create jobs on the basis of solidarity, reciprocity, and cooperative re-
lations (Gaiger, 1999). Following the idea that economic pluralism can
lead to economic democratization, the social and solidarity economy in
which community enterprises are situated is often seen as the driver of an
alternative view of development leading to buen vivir (Coraggio, 2011;
Acosta, 2013). This approach implies direct participation by civic society
in the decision-making that affects the common good in order to imple-
ment concrete economic alternatives. As a consequence, the primary aim
of the social and solidarity economy is to build new social and labor rela-
tions that do not reproduce the existing inequalities; thus, they represent
a concrete and viable alternative to the capitalist economic system and
imply political change (Coraggio, 2011). This last consideration high-
lights even more the incompatibility with the North American approach,
where social entrepreneurship is considered as part of the capitalist sys-
tem.
As anticipated in chapter 3, Chiapas offers fertile ground for re-
search on indigenous self-managed initiatives, due to collective actions
and grassroots mobilization that followed the 1994 Zapatista insurrec-
tion.
The chapter is organized as follows: it first describes the design of
the empirical analysis; it then reports the activities preformed by the
organizations interviewed, their size and location, and the characteristics
of members and volunteers; then it analyzes the relationships with social
movements, external actors, and capacity of networking; the indigenous
view of development and the problematic relations with public authori-
ties are provided next; the analysis of some main features of community
enterprises is then proposed: cultural aspects, governance structures, and
entrepreneurial aspects are described; an analysis of the competitiveness
Design of the empirical analysis 91
and prospects of development is then provided; some challenges that

community enterprises are facing are then analyzed. The last section
illustrates the commonalities between indigenous community enterprises
and buen vivir, arguing that these organizations are vehicles for the con-
crete realization of buen vivir on the ground. Finally, some concluding
remarks close the chapter.
4.2 Design of the empirical analysis
4.2.1 Choice of the ethnographic approach
Several factors have determined the choice of an ethnographic ap-

proach. Some authors pinpoint the crucial role of cultural factors when
analyzing indigenous enterprises (Lindsay, 2005, Berkes and Adhikari,
2006). This approach supports the idea that a merely quantitative anal-
ysis is unable to grasp the cultural element. Also the lack of specific
theories applied to this particular phenomenon, which can be considered
still in an exploratory phase, supports the suitability of a qualitative
approach. In addition, time and financial constraints did not allow the
gathering of a large amount of data, and general reliable data on the so-
cial and solidarity economy in Chiapas are not available, also considering
that a high number of organizations belonging to the social and solidar-
ity economy are still informal, and consequently they are neglected by
official statistics.
Due to the very nature of qualitative research and the small number of
organizations investigated, the findings do not claim to be representative
of indigenous community enterprises in general, but they provide an in-
depth description of the phenomenon in this specific context.
4.2.2 Type of interviews
This ethnographic study relied mainly on in-depth interviews, that

were chosen because they partially allow the interpretation of the events
through the eyes of the interviewee and give an authentic account of
an individual’s view of reality (Silverman, 2001). More specifically, a
semi-structured interview permitted to partially fill the cultural gap be-
tween the interviewer and the interviewee, that was increased by the fact
that indigenous peoples speak their native languages and in some cases
hardly speak Spanish. In several cases it was necessary to explain some
of the questions that were not immediately understood. Furthermore,
the cultural gap and the low level of education of some of the inter-
viewees supported the utilization of semi-structured interviews. Indeed,
the semi-structured interview favored the process of social interaction
between the interviewer and the interviewee, because of its flexibility,
and it supported a deeper comprehension of the ”other”’s perspective
(i.e. the indigenous individual or group who brings his or her cultural
background).
The utilization of semi-structured interviews, based on a sketch of

the topics to be covered during the interview, allowed an ample freedom
of speech during the conversation, given that only the content of the
questions was partially predetermined, whereas the form was not. This
entailed the possibility of asking for clarification and left space to unpre-
dicted issues. At the same time this tool ensured that all the relevant
information was collected. Few questions were organized using a Lik-
ert scale, but in any case they were open to further considerations and
comments1 .
1
An outline of the semi-structured interview is reported in the appendix (English
and Spanish versions)
4.2.3 Sampling
The sample was created during the three-months fieldwork that was
carried out in the spring of 2012. The organizations were chosen on the
basis of some shared characteristics: i) they pursued a social aim; ii)
they had an open, participatory and collective governance; iii) they were
composed by and directed to indigenous people (if not exclusively, at
least in majority); iv) they had an entrepreneurial character devoted to
the production of goods or services.
Chiapas was also chosen due to my previous knowledge of the area
and to a direct long-lasting relationship I have with members of an Italian
organization of responsible tourism, called Colectivo Laj Kin, who have
been living in San Cristóbal for years. They initially provided direct
contacts with several organizations, to which others were successively
added, following a snowball sampling technique.
4.2.4 Interviewees
Interviews were conducted with individuals or small groups of people,
for a total of 30 informants, belonging to 16 organizations. Furthermore,
interviews were conducted with two key-informants: the director of an
organization that promotes the activities of coffee cooperatives, and the
president of an important local NGO that has been working on indigenous
issues and the solidarity economy in Chiapas since the 1970s.
All the interviews were conducted in Spanish by the author, and
they took place where the organizations had their headquarters or in
locations where they were developing their activities. Concerning the
interviewees, the only requirement was based on the knowledge of the
history and present situation of the organization, implying that it was
not explicitly directed to the organizations’ managers. Consequently, in-
terviewees included not only directors, presidents, and members of the
board of directors, but also active members of the organizations, who in
some cases held specific position in sales or administration. In most of
the cases the interview took place just with one interviewee, but in some
cases there were more people (up to eight, in one case). All interviews
were tape-recorded, allowing the conversation to flow without being in-
terrupted by note-taking, and successively fully transcribed within 24
hours in order to reduce data loss. Only one organization did not accept
to have the interview recorded and answers were directly transcribed.
The translations of parts of the interviews here reported were all done
by me. Moreover, impressions and ideas have been written on a diary
after each interview, in order to record also nonverbal communication
and aspects related to the organizations’ environment.
In some cases, especially when the organizations were located in re-
mote areas, only one visit to the organization was possible. In other
cases repeated visits were done, also together with groups of tourists of
the responsible tourism network. This permitted to observe and to listen
to the storytelling of the history and the activities carried out by the
organizations, and to analyze the way in which people working in the
organizations were presenting their daily work and their organizational
dynamics. This type of observation helped in the understanding of the
history and of the present organizational structure. Moreover, the in-
formal interaction that was established was useful in order to achieve
a better understanding of the cultural and institutional environment in
which the organizations were settled.
4.2.5 Secondary sources

In addition, several secondary sources were consulted: they included
local newspaper and magazine articles, documentary films, reports by the
government, by international agencies, and by independent local organi-
zations and social movements. Both print and web-based information
were accessed, and they were mainly dealing with indigenous issues in
Chiapas and in the rest of Mexico, on social and solidarity economy,
on political issues at the federal and local levels (the campaigns for the
general elections were going on at the time of the fieldwork), on govern-

ment development programs, on local social and environmental issues:
all elements that were useful in order to better understand the research
context.
4.2.6 Further considerations

Given the state of conflict in the region it was important to be intro-
duced by mediators trusted by the organizations. Most of the informants
agreed to be interviewed under the condition of anonymity: several is-
sues are sensitive, especially when interviewees openly criticized public
authorities and government development programs. As a consequence
data are treated in a general way, and pieces of interviews are transcribed
without mentioning exactly to which organizations the interviewees be-
long.
The initial idea was to include a number of organizations that worked
directly inside the Zapatista caracoles (see chapter 3) in the production
of handicrafts and coffee. In March 2012 I was officially received by the
Junta de Buen Gobierno of the caracol of Morelia to whom I explained
the objectives of my research. They denied the permission to carry out
interviews due to a period of closure towards the external environment
they were keeping at that time2 . However, several organizations investi-
gated are influenced, sympathize with or have direct contacts with the
Zapatista movement: two handicrafts organizations gathered products
directly from Zapatistas communities, and one of them was running a
store in town where they were selling handicrafts made in the Zapatistas
communities.
2
The situation changed after a massive Zapatista silent march on 21 December
2012, when around 40,000 indigenous people took the streets in five cities of Chiapas
on the occasion of the beginning of the new cycle according to the Mayan calendar.
After this date, the Zapatistas launched several communicates where they express
their willingness to open their communities towards collaborations with national and
international organizations willing to support them.
4.3 Activities performed by the organiza-

tions
The organizations investigated were 16 and they were grouped accord-
ing to four sectors of activity: a) handicrafts (seven organizations); b)
agriculture (mainly coffee) (four); c) services and support to disadvan-
taged people (children and women) (three); d) ecotourism (two). The
category to which most organizations belonged (handicrafts) showed a
very high female participation: out of seven organizations, five were com-
posed exclusively by women. All the organizations belonging to the other
three categories had a mixed composition (both women and men).
More specifically concerning their activities, five handicrafts organi-
zations produced textiles based on traditional designs and one produced
pottery with traditional methods. The remaining organization produced
recycled paper and printed books that seek to recover and promote in-
digenous oral traditions. The main product of agricultural organizations
was coffee. One support organization was providing educational services
to children and youngsters, including street kids; one provided support
to pregnant women who had suffered violence or were abandoned, and to
their babies in their first months of life; one provided psycho-emotional
support to socially marginalized women, such as women who had been
victims of violence, widows or abandoned by their partners. Ecotourism
organizations operated facilities in the selva, where they provided services
for tourists, including food and accommodation. All of the organizations
also performed additional activities, as it will be further detailed.
The legal forms adopted by the organizations interviewed were vari-
ous: most of them were cooperatives (seven), but there were also three
civil associations (AC, Asociación Civil according to Mexican law), two
societies of social solidarity (SSS, another legal form provided by the
Mexican law), two informal organizations, one unión de ejidos 3 , and one
3
For a definition of ejido see chapter 3.
Organizations’ size and location 97
limited responsibility micro-enterprise. Two organizations declared they

were “in resistance,” that is to say they refuse any aid or relationship with
public authorities: for this reason they were not formally constituted. In-
terestingly, almost all interviewees referred to their organization as the
”cooperative,” even though this was not always the legal form adopted.
4.4 Organizations’ size and location

Most of the organizations investigated did not operate solely in one
community, on the contrary they gathered people living in different com-
munities. Only one handicrafts organization, one agricultural organiza-
tion, and both ecotourism organizations had all members belonging to
the same community where they were located, as shown in table 4.2. For
the sake of clarity, the territory of each state in Mexico is administratively
organized in municipalities, which are in turn divided into communities.
One of the organizations, being direct expression of the Zapatista move-
ment, did not refer to the official administrative organization, but to
the Zapatista parallel division of the territory into caracoles, that has
been illustrated in chapter 3. Where the table reports only one commu-
nity, it may refer both to a head town of a municipality or to a smaller
community.
Organizations were located both in urban and rural areas, but the
rural context prevailed: five were located and operated only in rural ar-
eas, three only in urban areas (the three of them in San Cristóbal, two of
them were working in support of disadvantaged people, one is a handi-
crafts organization); and eight worked both in rural and urban areas (for
instance two coffee cooperatives run a coffee shop in town, two have their
storehouse in town, but they obviously work mainly in rural contexts).
Nine organizations carried out their activities in more than one commu-
nity or urban centre: five of them were handicrafts organizations; three
were coffee organizations; two were support organizations. Both orga-
nizations that run ecotourism projects operated just in one community,
Table 4.1: Classification of the organizations investigated.

activity product/services legal form
1 handicrafts textiles cooperative
4 handicrafts textiles informal
5 handicrafts textiles informal
6 handicrafts pottery cooperative
7 handicrafts books/recycled paper limited responsibility

micro-entreprise
8 agriculture coffee unión de ejidos
9 agriculture coffee cooperative
10 agriculture coffee cooperative
11 agriculture coffee society of social solidar-

ity (SSS)
12 support to people in education for children civil association (AC)

need/education and teenagers; activi-
ties for street children
13 support to people in support to disadvan- civil association (AC)

need/education taged pregnant women
and their babies
14 support to people in psycho-emotional sup- civil association (AC)

need/education port to disadvantaged
women
15 ecotourism accommodation and society of social solidar-

food services ity (SSS)
16 ecotourism accommodation and cooperative

food services
due to the nature of their activity.

Concerning the size, eight of the organizations were small, with less
than 25 members; two had between 70 and 150 members; and six or-
ganizations were quite large, with more than 200 members, up to the
largest organization that had 946 members. Three of the largest entities
were agricultural organizations, and only one agricultural organization
was small-only seven members-due also to its recent foundation (2010).
It must be specified that behind a member of an agricultural organization
there is usually an entire family: all family members work in the cultiva-
tion, harvesting, cleaning and drying process of coffee beans. However,
the official membership is given to the heads of families, and for this
reason in most of the cases members of these organizations are men.
Concerning the three support organizations, as reported in table 4.2,
one had 16 members, one 11 members, and one 12 members. The number
of users of the first two organizations was highly variable, and sometimes
difficult to be determined: these organizations were also working with
street children, or directly in the houses of people in the communities, or
they were organizing workshops with a variable number of participants.
As anticipated, the third support organization had 12 members at the
time of the interview, and in this case the number includes both workers
and users (10 users plus two facilitators) who were constantly working
together.
Both ecotourism organizations were quite small, with a number of
members of 21 and 25, all of them who were living the same community
where the tourist structure was located.
Concerning the trends in the number of members, the majority of
handicrafts organizations (four out of seven) declared that the number
of their members had decreased during the last three years; two that the
number of members was stable; and one that it had increased. Among
the reasons that explain this behavior there was the lack of understanding
of the membership importance, beyond immediate economic returns, and
the intervention of government development programs that disrupt social
cohesion.
One interviewee explained:
The number of members is lowering because we don’t sell a

lot, but they [i.e. members who are leaving] don’t under-
stand the importance of cooperative. They leave the coop-
erative and they go to the market in San Cristóbal to sell
their handicrafts to tourists at a very low price, they don’t
even cover the expense they had for raw materials. Others of
our members say: even if we don’t sell a lot we stay in the
cooperative because we learn many new things.
Another one said: “there were more members three years ago, then
they left the organization because they were taking money from govern-
ment programs.” Interestingly, this last statement came from the orga-
nization that gathers products exclusively from Zapatista communities.
This assumption can be interpreted as a testimony of the government’s
counterinsurgent action, with the consequent result of weakening the so-
cial cohesion of indigenous communities, as it will be better analyzed in
this chapter.
Concerning the utility and advantage that members have in associ-
ating, a specific question was devoted to the main reason why members
decided to join the organization. Handicrafts organizations mentioned
several reasons, such as the fact that through the organization individ-
uals can get support and have more relations with other people and
they can improve their families’ situation. One interviewee said that
members were widows or abandoned women, and through the work they
made with the organization they were able to feed their children. Other
reasons mentioned were that they can sell their products at a fair price,
they can travel to other countries on the occasion of fairs and exhibitions,
they learn how to deposit and withdraw money from banks. Moreover,
members can get out of their houses and learn what is happening in
the community. An important factor that must be underlined and that
Table 4.2: Organizations’ size and location.

activity number of mem- number of com- urban/rural con-
bers munities text
1 handicrafts 70 women 7 rural/urban
3 handicrafts 238 (3 men) 5 municipalities rural/urban

(11 communi-
ties)
4 handicrafts 700 (mainly 5 caracoles zap- rural/urban

women) atistas
7 handicrafts 15 (mainly 1 (prevalent) + 5 urban

women)
8 agriculture 946 5 municipalities rural
9 agriculture 516 41 rural/urban

(cafeteria)
10 agriculture 7 1 rural
11 agriculture 550 6 municipalities rural

(48 communi-
ties)
12 support 16 (9 women) 1 (prevalent) urban
13 support 11 (1 man) 1 (prevalent) + 3 urban/rural
14 support 12 women 1 urban
15 ecotourism 21 (mainly men) 1 rural
16 ecotourism 25 (mainly men) 1 rural

helps in interpreting these statements, is that members of the handicrafts

organizations were almost all women.
All interviewees of agricultural organizations said that participating
in the organization was a way for members to defend themselves from
the so-called coyotes. Coyotes are people who work as intermediaries for
big companies with the aim of buying coffee from producers at the lowest
possible price: they take advantage of the situation of need and often low
education of peasants, buying their coffee at a very low price; coyotes also
take advantage when using the scale, paying less quantity than the right
weight. Agricultural organizations also said that the cooperative permits
to face the variability of coffee price, reaching a certain stability and being
less dependent on fluctuations on the stock market.
One interviewee of an ecotourism organizations said that becoming
members is a way to have a regular job and in some cases to get a job
also for their sons and daughters. The interviewee of the other ecotourism
organization observed:
When we started nobody knew what advantages or disadvan-

tages we could have. We were just seeing travelers coming
here and we thought about selling them something to eat.
The idea was to involve all the people living in the ejido, but
many thought we were fools and they preferred to remain in
their fields cultivating corn and beans.
In all the organizations investigated, members were also workers in

the organizations. Only in two support organizations there were external
founding members belonging to the board of directors.
Concerning volunteers, five organizations declared they did not have
any volunteers, and one had volunteers in the past and did not have any
volunteers when the interview took place. Interestingly, several people
interviewed did not understand the meaning of the term volunteer and
an explanation was necessary. After having explained the concept, an
agricultural organization said: “poverty is so huge here that it makes
Members’ ethnicity 103
no sense for us to ask for free work.” Also the two interviewees of the
ecotourism organizations were not immediately aware of the meaning of
the concept, and, after having understood it, they said that at the time
of the interview they did not have any volunteers. One interviewee said
that when the ecotourism organization started its activity, they built a
restaurant without being paid, but this case can be better qualified as
an example of collective work. The interviewee of the second ecotourism
organization said that in the past some students helped voluntarily at
the reception desk and in the restaurant.
Organizations that could count on volunteers had a number of them
comprised between one and five. In handicrafts organizations their tasks
were mainly related to workshops for the organizations’ members, ad-
ministrative support, and advice on new ideas and designs for textiles
and pottery. In one agricultural organizations volunteers worked in the
coffee shop, and they were all members’ sons or daughters, thus they are
better classified as non-remunerated workers. In another one there were
volunteers who worked in the office for administrative support, and some
of them were foreigners.
All three support organizations have volunteers who dedicate them-
selves to several different social activities together with the organizations’
users. All of them also have international volunteers who spend periods
of around six months supporting the organizations’ activities.
4.5 Members’ ethnicity

Concerning ethnicity, in most of the organizations more than one eth-
nic group was represented, testifying the general low level of bonding so-
cial capital. Only four organizations had members belonging to just one
ethnic group. This is ascribable to the fact that the feeling of being gen-
erally indigenous is stronger than the belonging to single ethnic groups,
and these organizations were supporting exchanges between communities
of different ethnic origin, aspect that includes the speaking of different-
Table 4.3: Ethnicity of the organizations’ members.

activity ethnic groups
1 handicrafts tsotsil (majority)
2 handicrafts tsotsil
3 handicrafts tsotsil, tseltal
4 handicrafts tsotsil, tseltal, ch’ol
5 handicrafts tsotsil (majority), tseltal
6 handicrafts tseltal
7 handicrafts tsotsil (majority), tseltal, ch’ol
8 agriculture tsotsil (majority), tseltal
9 agriculture tsotsil
10 agriculture tseltal
11 agriculture ch’ol (founders), tseltal (majority),

tsotsil
12 support tsotsil, tseltal, tojolabal (educators);

tsotsil (majority), tseltal (users)
13 support tsotsil, tseltal
14 support tseltal, tsotsil, mestizas
15 ecotourism mame (majority), ch’ol, tojolabal,

tsotsil
16 ecotourism ch’ol (majority), tseltal

Origins of the organizations 105
and in some cases very dissimilar-languages. The ethnic composition of

the organizations reflected the numerical proportion of indigenous ethnic
groups in Chiapas (see chapter 3). The most represented groups were
Tsotsiles and Tseltales: at least one of this ethnic groups was present
in all the organizations investigated, and in most of the cases they were
the majority of members. The two ecotourism projects had different pre-
dominant ethnicities: in one of them Choles prevailed, while in the other
the Mames were prevailing, due to the fact that these two organizations
were located in the selva, the region near the border with Guatemala,
where these two ethnic groups are most present. Furthermore, a number
of Tojolabales was present in three organizations.
4.6 Origins of the organizations

The first part of the interview focused on the origins and history of
the organization, as well as on the general data and the activities it was
carrying out. Concerning the date of foundation, as reported in table
4.4, two organizations were founded in the 70s, two in the 80s, seven in
the 90s, and five in the 2000s. All the organizations that were founded
in the Nineties emerged after 1994, year of the Zapatista insurrection. It
is worth mentioning that among the most recent organizations, two of
them developed from existing community organizations that decided to
commit themselves also to eco-tourism projects.
All the organizations originated from the self-organization of a group
of people, united by three main types of relationships: religious, politi-
cal, and friendship/kinship. More specifically, the previous relationship
between founders was based on religion in four cases, on religion and
politics in two cases; on friendship and politics in two cases; founders
were neighbors in three cases (and in two cases all founders belonged to
the same community); in four cases they were relatives, friends and/or
neighbors; in one case they were friends and colleagues because they were
separating from a previous cooperative.
Table 4.4: Origins of the organizations.

activity year of founda- founders founders’ links
tion
1 handicrafts 1995 indigenous friends-political

women
2 handicrafts 2001 indigenous neighbors

women
3 handicrafts 1996 indigenous + previous co-op

non-ind. women
4 handicrafts 1998 indigenous friends-political

women-men
5 handicrafts 1974 1 non-indigenous religious

nun
6 handicrafts 1994 indigenous relatives-friends

women
7 handicrafts 1975 1 non-ind. relatives-

women + indige- neighbors
nous women-men
8 agriculture 1983 indigenous religious-

women-men political
9 agriculture 1999 indigenous religious-

women-men political
10 agriculture 2010 indigenous friends

women-men
11 agriculture 1986 5 non-indigenous religious

nuns
12 support 1997 non-indigenous religious

women-men
13 support 1995 non-indigenous religious

women-men
14 support 2008 non-indigenous friends

women
15 ecotourism 2001 indigenous neighbors

women-men
16 ecotourism 2001 indigenous neighbors

women-men
Origins of the organizations 107
Half of the organizations were founded exclusively by women, while

the others had mixed-gendered groups as founders. In the cases where
founders were originally non-indigenous, they started to work together
with indigenous people from the beginning of their activities. In all the
organizations investigated, all founders or at least part of them were still
involved in the organizations when the interviews were carried out.
Three organizations derived from previously established entities: one
support organization was founded in 2008 inside a larger organization
established four years before, and its activities were considered as com-
plementary with respect to the activity of the original organization. In-
terestingly, two handicrafts cooperatives derived from previous coopera-
tives where small groups of women decided to separate and found a new
organization with the explicit aims of establishing a more direct control
of the organization, and of being more involved in the organization’s
management.
Several reasons explained the establishment of the organizations, and
some answers were the most recurring: first, and not surprisingly, the
foundation was consequent to the need of generating income, and second,
the need to affirm the cultural specificity of indigenous peoples.
All coffee organizations followed the typical reasons of foundation of
cooperatives, citing as the main reason of their foundation the necessity
to protect themselves from the already mentioned coyotes. In this respect
one interviewee said: “we chose to establish a cooperative because in this
way we have more advantages and we can defend ourselves from coyotes.
We can sell coffee at a higher price and gain more income.” Another
interviewee noted that “coyotes are mestizos 4 , they cheat with the scale,
and they take advantage of the ignorance of people. In the cooperative
we are not mestizos, we all speak the same language 5 .” Another typical
need for the foundation of cooperatives and connected to this one, was
4
Non-indigenous, originally a descendent of the offspring of a Spaniard and an
American Indian.
5
He means their indigenous Mayan language.
that of obtaining fair prices when trading goods, and this was explicitly
expressed both by handicrafts and coffee organizations.
Other reasons reported were differing according to the field of activity
in which organizations were engaged. Concerning handicrafts organiza-
tions those that were composed exclusively by women often cited the
simple “need of participation.” With this expression they meant their
need to participate to the social, economic and political sphere, in a
society that is traditionally highly male-oriented.
Support organizations mentioned the need to respond to the necessi-
ties of marginalized sectors of the population, such as street children and
women who are victims of violence, that were, and still are, completely
unattended by public and private institutions. Ecotourism structures
mentioned firstly the need of generating resources for the organization’s
members, and they also pinpointed that the organizations were a direct
response to the need of protecting the natural area where the tourist
structures were located.
4.7 Additional activities performed

Most of the organizations investigated were multitasking, indeed they
performed additional activities in addition to their main one. These ac-
tivities were both economic and non-economic. While ecotourism orga-
nizations did not perform any additional activity, handicrafts organiza-
tions were very active in developing non-economic activities, mainly in
the form of workshops for their members on a variety of themes, such
as women and human rights, leadership, cooperativism, organizational
issues, health and reproductive health, ecological issues.
Coffee organizations dedicated mainly to economic activities: for in-
stance they produced other agricultural products both for self-consumption
and for sale on the local market, often applying organic methods. One
organization, besides coffee was also producing honey, while two of them
were producing edible mushrooms. Following a participatory approach,
Activities in favor of the community 109
one organization was starting a project dedicated to women which was

still in an exploratory phase, as underlined by one interviewee: “we
are organizing some meetings with women in order to understand their
needs.” Another organization had started a project called microbanco
campesino in 2004, where the organization’s members could deposit their
savings and receive interest. This last activity is important because in-
digenous peasants usually do not have access to commercial banks.
Support organizations were engaged in various non-economic addi-
tional activities: one was committed in advocacy activities mainly for
children’s rights; one was carrying out several workshops dedicated to
women (handicrafts, gender issues, health, teaching of literacy skills);
one was organizing complementary activities involving women and their
family members through an exchange of free work.
4.8 Activities in favor of the community

Few organizations had the resources and the willingness to organize
specific activities in favor of the community. Two handicrafts organi-
zations that were active in the same community arranged activities for
children living in the community, including those of non-members. I par-
ticipated once in these activities, that were regularly carried out every
Saturday morning: around 25 kids were receiving help in their homework
and they were participating in various recreational activities, such as the
construction of small toys with recycled materials, and they received a
meal. These organizations were also organizing specific celebrations on
the occasion of children’s day or mother’s day that were open to all the
people living in the community.
A different rationale in the relationship with the communities stood
behind the activity of the organization that was more tightly linked to the
Zapatista movement. In this organization, there were obviously activities
directed to the community and not only to members, given that in the
Zapatista context the productive, social and political activities are not
detachable from each other. One interesting detail is that the interviewee
used the term organization, referring interchangeably to the productive
organization with social aim object of this research and to the Zapatista
socio-political organization at large.
An interviewee of an agricultural organization said that they were
about to open a place where it is possible for local people to have meals
at low prices, but at the time of the interview it was still not functioning.
Another one said they were giving technical advice about organic meth-
ods of cultivation to other people belonging to the community, because
“there is more demand if coffee’s quality is higher. We give technical
advice to several people: coffee is the most important resource we have
because it generates more income.”
4.9 Community orientation

All the organizations declared that the good reputation they enjoyed
in the communities was either important or very important, as well as
their local roots that allow them to grasp new needs. Concerning the
community orientation, eleven organizations said that their activity was
directed mainly to their own members. However, in some cases members
also coincide with a community, like for example in the case of a political-
religious community association inspired by the theology of liberation:
they founded an agricultural organization that operates in different com-
munities. All the members of this organization that are geographically
distributed in different communities, belong to the political-religious as-
sociation. Consequently, even the interviewee belonging to this orga-
nization said that their activities were directed to their members, its
members are all part of the same community, even though not spatially
concentrated, characterized by strong interpersonal links and high social
cohesion.
The two handicrafts organizations that were in resistance said that
their action was directed to the whole community in one case, and to
Community orientation 111
marginalized women in the other case. In the latter case marginalized

women were also members of the organization, but the answer focused
mainly on their condition of disadvantage, so it seems correct to talk
about a community orientation also in this case. As expected the three
support organizations said that their activities were directed to specific
sector of the local society: children and youngsters (until they are 17-
year-old); disadvantaged women and children; disadvantaged women.
These women were in many cases victims of violence, lonely mothers,
widows or abandoned women with scarce economic resources and weak
support networks.
A different question asked whether the community welfare was con-
ceived as a primary or secondary objective of the organization. Eight
organizations said explicitly that it was a secondary objective. Two
handicrafts organizations said that community welfare was their primary
objective, and the interviewee of the organization that was closer to the
Zapatista movement said: “we fight for all indigenous peoples, for the
people, not just for one person.” One interviewee of an agricultural
organization observed that community welfare “is important, but it’s
something that producers do in their own communities, not something
directly managed by the organization.” One interviewee of another agri-
cultural organization said that: “community welfare is important when
you earn enough money to live decently,” as the primary objective is to
satisfy primary needs of the members through the sale of coffee.
All of the three support organizations said that the welfare of the
whole community was their primary objective. One interviewee observed:
“it is a primary objective, even though we know that community welfare
is something we don’t reach in a short time and that the collaboration of
everybody is required”; another interviewee said that “women’s welfare is
the principal objective of our organization: we want them to know their
rights, to learn about gender issues, to know that they are valuable.”
Another interviewee noted that community welfare “is our primary ob-
jective, we want to trigger social change,” and that the attention towards
the community as a whole is part of their mission and daily work, that
includes also the improvement of life conditions of people living in poorer
areas.
One interviewee of an ecotourism organizations said that the com-
munity welfare is important and that the organization generated small
induced economic activities-for instance the sale of agricultural products-
also for non-members.
4.10 Relationships with social movements

Most of the organizations interviewed had or have had relationships
with social movements, mainly with the Zapatista movement, and with
the theology of liberation. Moreover, one organization explicitly men-
tioned its origins as linked to a movement of comuneros, people of the
community who were fighting to establish a direct control on their land.
A discourse on women’s equality also emerged strongly, even though it
was not related to a specific structured feminist movement.
As reported in table 4.5, most of the organizations reported the direct
influence of social movements in the act of their foundation (eleven orga-
nizations out of sixteen). Furthermore, seven organizations declared that
they had actively participated in political actions like strikes or protest
marches. This does not mean that the all organizations were still strictly
connected to social movements, in some cases they just sympathized with
them or they have had a specific linkage to them in the past.
The fact that seven organizations were founded immediately after
1994 testifies the importance that the Zapatista insurrection had on the
rise of consciousness of indigenous peoples who started to see themselves
entitled to human and social rights and capable to self-organize them-
selves. The Zapatista movement also had a role in raising conscious-
ness on women’s rights. Moreover, some of the organizations that were
founded before 1994 rearranged their structure reinforcing collateral so-
cial activities, both inside the organization and in the communities at
Relationships with social movements 113
Table 4.5: Influence of social movements on the organizations.

activity direct social move- type of movement
ments’ influence
1 handicrafts yes Zapatistas
2 handicrafts no -
5 handicrafts yes Theology of liberation
7 handicrafts no -
8 agriculture yes Theology of liberation
10 agriculture no -
12 support yes Theology of liberation
13 support yes Zapatistas
14 support no -
15 ecotourism no -
16 ecotourism yes comuneros

large. One of the main concerns brought to light by the movement and
gathered by the organizations was the participation of women, as one of
the interviewees explained:
The economic activity realized by producers associated with

our organization is the production of corn and beans for self-
consumption, and the production of coffee to generate income
that covers other needs. But, starting from 1996, some mem-
bers’ spouses and daughters, being fresh the influence of the
Zapatista movement, started to develop the cultivation of or-
ganic fruits and vegetables, that was formalized into a line
of work of our cooperative that is called organization and
participation of women.
More specifically, the Zapatista movement was strictly linked to two

organizations, while other three organizations declared that they had an
influence or they sympathized with it. In addition, five organizations de-
rived from groups of people (both cleric and lay people) committed to the
theology of liberation. It should be noted that this distinction is quite
subtle, given that Zapatistas and theology of liberation in Chiapas have
reciprocal influences and their social demands are essentially the same.
An analysis of the liberation theology is beyond the scope of this research,
but this commonality is well exemplified by Gallo (1989, p.131) who re-
ports that, according to the theology of liberation, “the Kingdom of God
will be constructed not through the charity of the elites, but through
the efforts of the organized poor”(cited by Gamson, 1991). Moreover, a
paramount example directly related to the context of Chiapas is person-
ified by Samuel Ruiz Garcı́a, former archbishop of San Cristóbal, who
was directly involved as mediator in the negotiations between the EZLN
and the federal government, as explained in chapter 3. Samuel Ruiz,
who died in 2011, had always been taking a stand in favor of indigenous
6
peoples. In his Pastoral letter En esta hora de gracia (1993), he antic-
6
Available at: http://komanilel.org/BIBLIOTECA VIRTUAL/En esta hora de gracia.pdf
Relationships with external private actors 115
ipated many of the indigenous issues brought to light by the Zapatista

insurrection that happened just few months later.
The connection that indigenous community enterprises hold with so-
cial movements is also effective in order to support processes of autonomy,
which are one of the most pressing demands coming from indigenous so-
cieties in Chiapas, as well as in the rest of Latin America. Indigenous
peoples possess a different conception of power, distant from the one en-
tailed in the concept of nation-state (Esteva, 2001). This conception of
power is translated into parallel social, juridical, and political systems.
An interesting view of autonomy comes from the Zapatistas, that strongly
assert this demand. The peculiarity of the Zapatista view of autonomy is
related to the fact that they do not want to simply transfer their model
of autonomy to other indigenous and non-indigenous communities. On
the contrary, they underline the importance of leaving freedom to com-
munities to self-organize themselves, to discuss what characteristics their
autonomy should possess, and to have recognized autonomous practices
that are already existing. This view of autonomy aims at the construction
of a plurinational state, that implies a re-conceptualization with respect
to the traditional notion of nation-state.
4.11 Relationships with external private ac-

tors
Some of the considerations emerged from the interviews and related to
the linkages that organizations held with external actors other than pub-
lic authorities were quite controversial. The network of knowledge and
trust relations with other organizations-public and private-were either
important or very important for eleven organizations, quite important
for three of them, and not important for two organizations that did not
have any access to networks with other organizations. The support re-
(accessed 15 July 2013).
Table 4.6: Relations with private external actors.

activity relation with external actors
1 handicrafts NGOs, responsible tourism
2 handicrafts NGOs, responsible tourism
3 handicrafts NGOs, fair trade
4 handicrafts no
5 handicrafts no
6 handicrafts responsible tourism
7 handicrafts responsible tourism
8 agriculture NGOs, fair trade
9 agriculture NGOs, fair trade, responsible tourism
10 agriculture responsible tourism
11 agriculture fair trade
12 support NGOs
13 support NGOs
14 support responsible tourism
15 ecotourism responsible tourism
16 ecotourism responsible tourism

Relationships with external private actors 117
ceived from other institutions (not from public institutions) was declared
as quite important, important or very important by nine organizations.
The other organizations, even though they received some form of sup-
port (except for two, as explained hereby), said this support was not
important, meaning that it did not heavily impact on the organizational
asset.
Three main categories of external actors were mentioned by intervie-
wees when asked about with whom their organizations were collaborat-
ing: local and/or international NGOs, fair trade networks, and responsi-
ble tourism networks. More specifically, as table 4.6 reports, seven orga-
nizations declared they have had or still had relationships with NGOs,
four with fair trade, and nine with responsible tourism (multiple choice
was allowed). Only two organizations, those that were in resistance, said
they did not have any formal collaborations with external partners.
NGOs had in some cases a supporting role, usually financing spe-
cific projects implemented by the organizations. The NGOs supporting
role was evident in some handicrafts organizations, in some agricultural
organization to a lesser extent, and to a slightly greater extent in the
case of support organizations. One handicrafts organization was highly
intertwined with a local NGO, with whom they implemented innovative
workshops on reforestation, waste sorting, and building of efficient fire-
wood stoves. At the time of the interview the relationship was over due
to some conflicts at the personal level experienced by members of the
two organizations.
As already mentioned, nine organizations had contacts and used to
receive visits of groups of responsible tourists. However, this data should
be taken carefully, due to the way the sample was constructed, that is
to say starting from contacts obtained by people working directly with
responsible tourism. However, some considerations may help in the un-
derstanding of this phenomenon. Responsible tourism in most of the
cases is not practiced in an official way, as there are relationships of
mutual knowledge between organizations and local operators of respon-
sible tourism, who go and visit organizations together with small groups
of tourists. Even though in many cases visits to these organizations
are specified and detailed in responsible tourism packages, there are no
signed contracts or regular flows of tourists, as touristic flows are variable
by their own nature. In many cases responsible tourists can also choose
which organization they prefer to visit, depending on their personal in-
terests or on what routes they decide to take in the area. Responsible
tourists usually leave a fixed monetary contribution to the organizations
they visit, in order to sustain the organizations’ projects and activities
due to their social value added. The remaining part of their income
comes from the sale of their products, and tourists often buy products
made by the organization, such as coffee or handicrafts.
As emerged from the interviews, the relationship with fair trade was
often controversial. On the one hand, interviewees said it was useful in
order to obtain a privileged channel to access international markets, on
the other hand there were some aspects of intolerance towards practices
that interviewees perceived as imposed on their organizations. As one in-
terviewee put it: “all economic activities have their own strong interests.
Fair trade looks for justice for consumers. But what about producers?
They never ask us what we need.” Another interviewee recognized that
the relationship with fair trade is useful to have a more direct

relationship with buyers and to reinforce some practices that
already existed-they didn’t create practices of transparency
and democracy, we already had them!-The pre-funding they
give us is 60 percent, in some cases even 70 percent and some
of them don’t ask any interests.
One handicrafts organization said they tried to collaborate with fair

trade, but they did not manage to carry on the collaboration due to the
low prices fair trade was paying them. On the contrary, three organiza-
tions said they would like to sell their products (handicrafts or coffee)
through fair trade networks.
Networking 119
4.12 Networking
Another important aspect is the capacity of organizations to build
networks among themselves. What emerged from the interviews under-
lines that this is less likely to happen in the case of handicrafts organi-
zations. Concerning agricultural organizations, two of them collaborated
with Uciri, a well-known coffee cooperative that operates in the neigh-
boring state of Oaxaca. Uciri trades coffee under a brand with the same
name at the international level through fair trade channels. According to
the interviewees, Uciri was for these two organizations an initial partner,
a model to look at, and a best practice to learn from. Two agricultural
organizations were also part of Mexican networks of coffee producers,
while another one said they had good relationships with other similar
organizations, because, as one interviewee put it “cooperation among us
is important.” Also support organizations were highly connected among
themselves: given that they were assisting different target groups, they
were supporting each other when facing specific cases of marginalization
and need.
Both ecotourism organizations said that they were cooperating with
other similar structures on the territory and that they were part of Mex-
ican tourist networks. Furthermore, they were directly supported by the
National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples (CDI),
that favors the exchange of experiences between indigenous community
ecotourism projects through recurring meetings.
4.13 More than material needs: the indige-

nous view of development
One of the sections of the interview was devoted to the understand-
ing of the major needs of the local community according to the subjec-
tive view of the interviewees. Interviewees were asked about the needs
of their communities and the capacity of their organizations to address

them. Due to the semi-structured character of the interviews, unex-
pected discourses and needs emerged. What emerged highlights a role
of indigenous community enterprises in contributing to define what the
main needs of indigenous communities are, and what poverty depends on.
This allows us to overcome the traditional view of poverty as exclusively
income-based (Bebbington et al., 2010).
The needs above mentioned are synthesized in table 4.7, where they
are grouped according to five main categories: cultural needs, that in-
clude the recognition of cultural specificities of indigenous peoples; social
needs, that include education and health services and the protection and
care of marginalized sectors of society, such as disadvantaged women and
children; economic needs, that include income and employment genera-
tion as well as basic infrastructures; political needs, including the active
participation to the public sphere, which is particularly important for
women, and indigenous self-determination and political autonomy; and
environmental needs, that include the safeguard of the natural environ-
ment and the utilization of organic methods in agriculture.
As suggested by the literature, these needs can also be read in terms
of goals: addressing these five categories of needs, community enterprises
pursue a plurality of goals, that are not only social and economic, but
also cultural, political and environmental (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006;
Somerville and McElwee, 2011).
Cultural needs were mainly referring to the recognition of indigenous
culture, that was proudly remarked, and one organization recalled that
“the main reason for founding the organization was to recover oral tra-
dition, an important culture that was about to disappear.”
Social needs included the access to health services and to education:
this was not just an economic issue in terms of lack of money to access
the services, but also a demand based on the actual scarcity of struc-
tures capable to offer these services. Moreover, some interviewees cited
the discrimination that indigenous peoples often suffer in the access to
More than material needs: the indigenous view of development 121
health services and the remoteness of health structures with respect to

the community where they live. As one interviewee put it:
I would like to see more spaces for a greater participation

of indigenous communities, given that there is discrimination
in terms of accessing services such as health, education, and
also commerce. This inequality and discrimination is a hur-
dle, make life harder, and impact on everything else (health
conditions, level of education,...).
As anticipated, the most cited needs were in general economic: ten

organizations mentioned economic needs explicitly as the most urgent
necessities to be addressed. One interviewee specified that money was
needed to “buy beans and corn for self-consumption, because they (i.e.
people in the indigenous communities) don’t have enough land and land
is not fertile anymore due to the use of chemicals.” Another interviewee
specified that “women need money to buy thread to make their handi-
crafts.” A third interviewee underlined that “people in the communities
don’t have a sufficient and balanced diet and this causes several diseases.”
The need for basic infrastructures was claimed especially by the two eco-
tourism organizations, that were located in remote areas quite difficult
to be reached. The road leading to one of them was especially in bad
conditions, and when the interview was conducted people belonging to
the community were giving free collective work in order to repair and
maintain the road. Another already cited economic need was to obtain
fair prices when trading goods, such as handicrafts and coffee.
A woman interviewed, referring to those families that were supporting
the Zapatistas in her community, simply synthesized their needs in this
way: “they need everything because they don’t have anything, they don’t
live well. This is the main need of people, and for this reason they are
fighting.”
Among the political needs, the gender perspective emerged clearly
in the demand for women’s participation, independence from men, and
women’s rights awareness, demands that some organizations addressed

also through specific workshops, as mentioned above. An important
need that emerged was autonomy, and one interviewee of an organization
which was in resistance observed:
people like us who are in resistance don’t expect anyone to

come and do anything. The damned work of the govern-
ment caused the Acteal massacre7 . People have to work au-
tonomously.
The environmental needs included environmental awareness and pro-

tection, and the consumption of healthy food derived from the utilization
of organic methods in agriculture. As already mentioned, one handicrafts
organization organized workshops specifically dedicated to ecological is-
sues, such as waste separation, reforestation, and construction of low
wood consumption cookers. Although with varying intensities, all of the
interviewees suggested that the activities of their organizations had to
be compatible with a sustainable use of natural resources and territory.
To the question as to whether the organization believed it was able to
tackle these community needs, answers generally converged on a partial
capacity of the organizations to provide satisfactory results. All of the
interviewees belonging to the handicrafts organizations said that, even
though the volume of sales was not very high and they were hoping for
an increase, there was a certain income for members and this helped in
facing at least part of their basic needs. Agricultural organizations agreed
on this view and they also remarked the utility of the organization in
tackling basic needs of members and their families. One interviewee of a
coffee organization said that they thought about opening a health clinic,
but they could not afford it due to the high cost that this would have
implied. However, this organization was offering support to its members
for treating minor diseases and childbirths utilizing the funding provided
7
See chapter 3.
Relationship with public authorities and government development programs123
by the fair trade social premium8 . One of the interviewees stressed the
lack of basic services and the fact that they should be provided by the
government:
our organization contributes for the part that belongs to us,

but there is a part that it should be the government’s busi-
ness: to make effective the rights that are written in the con-
stitution. The right to have a job, services, health assistance.
Basic services for people are lacking.
Interviewees belonging to support organizations said that their activ-

ities had a positive impact on the people they were supporting, meaning
that the capacity of the organizations to address these needs was good.
However, as well as other interviewees, they were invoking a stronger
government’s commitment in order to bring about a stronger change and
improvement of the well-being in the communities. Also interviewees be-
longing to the ecotourism organizations stated that they could partially
cover their members’ needs, but that in order to be more effective they
would need better basic infrastructures.
4.14 Relationship with public authorities

and government development programs
A very important and controversial issue was the support received
from public authorities: this was important for five organizations (among
them the two ecotourism structures), while it was not important for all
the others, because it did not exist. Only the two ecotourism organiza-
tions said they have had or still have collaborations with governmental
agencies, while one organization has been supported by a political party
8
The social premium is a sum of money paid by fair trade organizations on top
of the agreed price for investment in social, environmental or economic development
projects.
Table 4.7: Community’s needs.

Cultural needs recognition and respect of indigenous cultural specifici-
ties
Social needs education and health services; protection and care of

marginalized individuals (women and children)
Economic needs income and employment generation; basic infrastruc-

tures
Political needs active participation in the public sphere, especially for

women; self-determination and autonomy
Environmental needs safeguard of natural environment; organic agriculture
in the past. Comments to the relationships with public authorities were

very meaningful: it emerged that indigenous people were generally frus-
trated by a conflictive relationship with public authorities. In most of the
cases people interviewed looked at public authorities as an enemy rather
than a potential ally or at least a counterpart with whom they could
establish a dialogue, as witnessed by the answers of several interviewees.
The question about what would the organization expect from public
authorities raised many negative comments and reactions. In several
cases people interviewed could not even imagine how it would be to ask
for something to public authorities, due to the perception they had of
government as an entity completely detached from their reality. Most
of the interviewees said this was a very difficult question and they could
not answer until the question was reformulated as: “if you had an ideal
government, instead of this one, what would you expect from it?”.
One interviewee of a support organization said:
it is very hard for me to think about this, as we don’t have

a government that could give us support, but if an ideal gov-
ernment existed I would expect that it helped in providing
spaces for the organization’s activities, and that families in
the communities had basic resources and a decent housing.
Relationship with public authorities and government development programs125
An interviewee of an agricultural organization said they expected an

“honest government,” while another one underlined that: “it is so horri-
ble the government we have” and that the type of support government
was giving (such as for instance Oportunidades and other public pro-
grams mentioned in chapter 3) was not uninterested, as it was implicitly
given in exchange for electoral consensus. Another interviewee remarked
that “the government doesn’t want to see people organizing themselves.”
Some organizations would have just asked for a generic support from
public authorities, not even in economic terms, but just in facilitating or
promoting organizations’ activities, as stated for instance by one inter-
viewee of a handicrafts organization: “we would like that they support us
when we ask permission for organizing our activities. They don’t support
us because we sympathize with the Zapatistas.” Another interviewee of
a handicrafts organization said: “we would just ask some interest by the
government in what we do, in our activities. Public authorities just don’t
care about art, culture, tradition, environmental protection.” A similar
answer came from one interviewee of an agricultural organization:
we would like them to listen to us, to respect organizations’

proposals and support our initiatives, to support organic agri-
culture...they say they want to support organic agriculture,
but then in reality they are distributing chemicals to peasants
for free. For instance, in Brazil there is a national secretariat
for social economy, here there is nothing like that.
One interviewee of an ecotourism organization said: “we fear that

not all communities can have support when they have initiatives for en-
vironmental protection.” Other demands that interviewees would have
ideally directed to public authorities were health assistance, infrastruc-
tures, housing, drinking water: all the crucial issues that emerged during
the previous question on the main needs of the community, as mentioned
above. An emblematic answer by an interviewee underlined that “we
don’t expect anything from the government, only the people can pull us
through this situation.”

Interesting comments emerged, in many cases spontaneously, about
government development programs described in chapter 3, as Oportu-
nidades and Rural Sustainable Cities. There was not a specific question
regarding this topic in the semi-structured interview, comments simply
started to emerge during interviews. Consequently, after few initial inter-
views, this question was directly asked, if the topic did not raise sponta-
neously, in the form: “what do you think about Oportunidades or other
government development programs?”
These specific aid and development measures implemented by the
government were generally viewed negatively. A woman interviewed an-
swered:
to improve life conditions of the people there are governmen-

tal programs like Oportunidades, but I think they are very
paternalistic and they don’t allow people to improve their
condition. People in the communities prefer to have many
children because they will get more money from the gov-
ernment, and this is not good. Oportunidades many times
doesn’t get to the people who really need it, men are always
the ones who in the end get the money while their kids don’t
have decent food or clothes. Government should facilitate the
creation of job instead of giving away money.
The analysis was deepened by a woman who stressed the role of gov-
ernment programs in destroying community social cohesion:
Government programs don’t come to help people, but to de-

stroy communities. Now the women who receive Oportu-
nidades don’t work anymore and men do not want to culti-
vate their milpa 9 . It is a disorder, before communities were
united, and all the people used to work.
9
Milpa literally means “field” and it is a crop-growing system typical of Mesoamer-
ica, based on ancient pre-Columbian agricultural techniques.
Cultural aspects 127
Another woman interviewed had a slightly different position:
What do I think about Oportunidades? Well, that they (i.e.

political parties) want our votes, but now I think that if peo-
ple use this little money that they get from the government
is good, after all that’s some money, if you use it smartly.
But we must be conscious about the reason why this money
enters the household.
Concerning the Rural Sustainable Cities project one of the intervie-

wees said:
There is a lack of basic services for people. For this reason

they built the famous Rural Cities: I went to see them and
to me it seems like a joke, these cities are against people’s
dignity, these houses are made of cardboard [...]. Instead
of bringing services to the people, they bring people to the
services, but this breaks with culture and many other things.
Only 3-4 percent of the houses are occupied (where I have
been), kitchens are small, there is no fogón 10 , they wasted
millions of pesos for nothing.
4.15 Cultural aspects

When compared to conventional enterprises, community enterprises
seem to be better suited to exploit local resources-economic, natural,
human, cultural-and to redirect them to general-interest goals, pursu-
ing the community welfare. Indeed, all the organizations’ activities were
based on local resources, and the main resource mentioned by the inter-
viewees was traditional knowledge. This cultural element is still alive,
and sometimes even revitalized, in the activities, products and services
10
The fogón is the fireplace, that has a great importance in the indigenous culture,
present at the centre of every indigenous kitchen to cook and to warm the room.
that organizations deliver. Traditional knowledge was fundamental in

the work of handicrafts organizations: weaving, embroidery, and pottery
techniques and designs are transmitted from mother to daughter, and
women start learning these activities since they are very young. Textiles
show traditional patterns and symbols of ancient origin, and indigenous
women, and to a lesser extent also men, still wear traditional clothes
in their everyday life. One of the organizations was carrying on an in-
vestigation, that should be translated into a book, on the meaning of
traditional textiles’ patterns and symbols, interviewing elderly women
who have a deeper knowledge on these aspects. One interviewee of this
organization observed that ’it was crucial to understand and recover the
meaning of every symbol of our traditional textiles, and we started to
work together with elderly women who still have this knowledge.’ Also
the organization that produces books and recycled paper has been car-
rying out an important work of recuperation of traditions, in this case
related to storytelling, poems, and songs belonging to indigenous oral
tradition, through the publication of books that secured them from the
risk of being forgotten and lost.
Concerning support organizations, they also mentioned their activ-
ity as somehow based on cultural resources, even though this aspect is
less evident than in handicrafts organizations. However, the cultural
connotation is visible in several activities and characteristics of organiza-
tions, such as for instance some parallel activities they develop, such as
the cultivation of medical herbs that are part of indigenous traditional
knowledge, or the employment of traditional midwives in assisting women
giving birth. They also try to empower women through workshops where
indigenous women are encouraged to feel proud about their culture and
traditions.
Other cultural aspects are explicitly related to the environmental pro-
tection: in this respect, all of the agricultural organizations mentioned
the relationship they have with the earth, the traditional methods em-
ployed in agriculture, and the very same natural resources as the coffee
Cultural aspects 129
plant, all elements that belong to their ancestral culture. In this respect
ecotourism organizations emphasized environmental protection not only
in terms of their organizations, but also for the community as a whole.
This goal was also mentioned by others, and many references were made
to the spiritual relationship indigenous peoples hold with the earth . For
example one interviewee of a coffee organization observed: “we respect
our roots and mother-earth, we ask her forgiveness and we warn her when
we start working in the fields;” another said: “we don’t use chemicals,
we shouldn’t hurt the earth, we have to respect her.”
Nevertheless, there was an awareness that solutions cannot be found
solely in traditions, as one interviewee pinpointed:
there is a strong relation with the earth. When the harvest

starts the cooperative organizes a ceremony to thank for the
harvest. We are not against external (technical) knowledge,
but we have to blend it with traditional knowledge.
Ecotourism organizations, due to their own nature, were strongly

based on natural and cultural resources, like natural and archaeologi-
cal areas. They had a role not only in making these areas accessible to
local and international tourists, but also in protecting and safeguarding
them.
Some organizations incorporated traditional forms of collective work,
that are also part of the indigenous culture. This point raised interesting
observations linked to the role of government programs in threatening
the social cohesion of indigenous communities: “before, people from my
community used to employ collective work, now it is less employed. Due
to the government’s programs everything is destroyed,” said a woman
of an organization that was in resistance. The same consideration was
proposed by the interviewee of another handicrafts organization, that
stressed the loss of communitarian linkages and the increased individu-
alism due to the government’s intervention.
The way collective work was still practiced in some organizations var-
ied according to different organizations: for instance, two organizations

employed it for organizing celebrations; another organization utilized col-
lective work when the organization was founded in order to build the
warehouse; most of works carried out in the two ecotourism organizations
were managed on a collective basis (i.e. renewal of the cabañas, cleaning,
etc); the interviewees of two support organizations and one handicrafts
organization said more generally that they were always working in team,
on equalitarian basis and mutual support. One of the interviewees be-
longing to a coffee cooperative observed:
I think that all the work carried out by our organization is col-
lective, from the fact of employing consensus decision-making
instead of employing the majority rule, or the fact of giving
a lot of space to women.
This idea of horizontality and equality often genuinely emerged and

it appears as one of the most important assets of the organizations.
4.16 Governance structure

The crucial role played by indigenous culture is translated into or-
ganizational practices that are essentially collective and directed to the
well-being both of the organizations’ members and of the communities at
large. As analyzed in chapter 2, a number of aspects generally character-
ize the indigenous view of entrepreneurship: to them success is usually
not individual, but meant for the welfare of the whole community and
intended also to overcome racism and negative stereotypes (Foley, 2003).
This collective propensity finds an expression in the participatory gov-
ernance model of community enterprises that reinforces participation of
community members. Community enterprise, supporting trust and co-
operation among members and in the community at large, seems able to
contribute to the rebuilding of social cohesion, even though this appears
as a long process, characterized by many hurdles. In a context where
Entrepreneurial aspects 131
social cohesion is constantly threatened by religious and political divi-

sions, and by tourist flows that foster competition within communities,
this ability appears crucial.
Governance structures were in most of the cases organized in a board
of directors with a president, a secretary, an administrator, a control
committee, and members elected as representatives of each community
where the organizations work. Most organizations mentioned the general
assembly of members as the main authority to which decisional power
belonged, and some of them were using consensus decision making. Three
organizations, two handicrafts and one support organization, had a very
simple structure-two of them were the informal organizations-and their
decision making was based on recurrent assemblies of members. The two
handicrafts organizations had a single assembly in every community in
which their members worked, due to their larger dimension and to the
fact that they had members in different communities, in some cases quite
far from each other.
In two support organizations some founding members were included
in the board of directors, even though they did not work in the orga-
nization. General assemblies of all members took place in most of the
cases once or twice per year and showed a very high participation rate.
Two organizations (one handicrafts and one agricultural) had the general
assembly every three years, when they elect the board of directors. In-
terestingly, these are the two most structured organizations, with a large
number of members, a well established structure, and several local and
international linkages with other organizations and fair trade networks.
4.17 Entrepreneurial aspects

The entrepreneurial dimension of community enterprises is crucial for
leading to economic independence and sustainability of the organization
regardless of external funding interventions. Economic independence can
be also considered as a means to sustain self-determination, which can
be seen as the ultimate goal of indigenous entrepreneurial activity (Foley,

2003). The entrepreneurial dimension also shows the double advantage of
generating income and reinforcing indigenous identity and culture (Ev-
ersole, 2006).
Concerning the subjective perception of this dimension by the inter-
viewees belonging to the organizations investigated, the entrepreneurial
capabilities were judged as either important or quite important for half
of the interviewees, while the others said that their organizations were
trying to better develop this aspect.
While the viability of their activities was crucial for sustaining these
organizations, interviewees were reluctant to disclose precise financial
information, mainly because they were fearful of the state intervening.
However, they offered a general idea of their economic performance, that
in the case of handicrafts and ecotourism organizations, was quite de-
pendent on the intensity of the tourist flows.
Collected data highlighted different stages of development of the en-
trepreneurial dimension: in some of the informal organizations investi-
gated this dimension was still embryonic, with potential perspectives of
development. However, it became more and more important with the
consolidation of the enterprise, and it was well-implemented by those or-
ganizations that were more structured. Only three organizations offered
to share some data extracted from their balance sheet, but these data
were either incomplete, or eventually they were never sent after an initial
availability and some further requests by email.
The only handicrafts organization that had increased sales in the last
three years was the one more linked to the Zapatistas, which managed a
store in town. However, they also said that the sales volume was variable
according to tourists flows.
The situation was different concerning agricultural organizations: three
out of four organizations registered increasing sales during the last three
years. The fourth organization was very recent, founded in 2010, and
the number of its members and sales volume had been stable in its two
Competitiveness and prospects for development 133
years of life. One organization also registered an increase in the num-

ber of members, while the others were stable. In the agricultural sector
the advantages of an organization of small producers derives from the
increased capacity of facing certification expenses, that are usually quite
high and mainly related to organic certification and fair trade labels.
Some handicrafts and agricultural organizations said they received
few donations, partly from private citizens and partly from NGOs. How-
ever, the amount of donations they received was not very significant to
the organizations’ overall activity.
The situation of support organizations was completely different, due
to the nature of services delivered to people unable to pay. Consequently,
they could count exclusively on international cooperation funds, and in-
ternational public and private donations. However, in recent years Mex-
ico has seen a reduction of external aid opportunities by international
development agencies and NGOs, and this event has caused changes and
an increased effort of organizations in finding diversified funding oppor-
tunities.
Ecotourism organizations were economically healthy and both said
they registered an increase in the number of members during the last
three years. They declared that their income was composed exclusively
of revenues from sale of goods and services, and they also had some
surpluses that were partly reinvested in the organizations’ activity and
partly distributed among members.
4.18 Competitiveness and prospects for de-

velopment
Concerning the development phase that the organizations were expe-
riencing at the time of the interview, the majority of them-nine-defined
themselves as well-established organizations. More specifically, five hand-
icrafts organizations declared they were well-established; one was facing
a quite serious financial crisis; and one was in a phase of institutional

change due to the ceased partnership with a local NGO. Even though
most organizations were well-established from the organizational point
of view and they had been working for many years, their most press-
ing problem at the time of the interviews was the competition in selling
handicrafts mainly to tourists. Given the actual difficulty for some orga-
nizations to increase their sale volume, they were looking for new ideas,
designs and products, in order to differentiate the offer.
Out of four agricultural organizations, three declared they had good
infrastructures and machinery, and one of them was also managing a
coffee shop in the centre of San Cristóbal, as one interviewee reminded:
we are in an advanced phase of development: we have ma-
chines for processing coffee and honey, a machine for pack-
aging, an office in San Cristóbal and a coffee shop. There
are members’ sons and daughters working there, because we
want that the organization benefits indigenous people. You
know, mestizos say ’ah poor indigenous people, they are not
able to work!’ What? Aren’t we able to work? Here we are!
One of the coffee organizations was still recent, just at the beginning
of its activity, and it was trying to find contacts with larger and more
structured organizations. Also this organization was running a coffee
shop, that was located in the outskirts of San Cristóbal, in the house of
the president of the organization. One of the well-established organiza-
tions stated that:
our strength resides in the fact that the productive and or-
ganizational processes are in the hand of producers, but we
have to diversify products because the struggle on the inter-
national market is hard, and there are people who dominate
the market.
Out of three support organizations, one was well-established, while
two declared they were experiencing an institutional and organizational
Challenges 135
change, due to scarce financial resources or to a partial redefinition of the

organization’s mission. The two ecotourism centers declared they were
well established and they were trying to offer differentiated services to
local and international tourists, like walking trails and guided tours in
the selva.
4.19 Challenges
The analysis conducted so far has highlighted a plurality of activi-
ties that community enterprises realize in order to improve indigenous
peoples’ well-being. Since indigenous community enterprises pursue a
plurality of goals the main challenge facing them is the balancing of
these objectives. Table 4.8 summarizes the beneficial impact that each
aspect (cultural, social, economic, political, and environmental) produces
in terms of the improvement of indigenous peoples’ well-being, the risks
that the organization takes if one of these aspects prevails over the others,
and the protection mechanism that can keep such a risk under control.
More specifically, the beneficial impact of the cultural aspect is rep-
resented by the creation of bridging social capital, enhanced by the col-
laboration of community enterprises with other similar entities, or with
bigger and international organizations like fair trade networks or inter-
national NGOs; the promotion of democratization, produced by the in-
volvement and increased participation of indigenous people, and espe-
cially of women, to the public sphere; and the attraction of a plurality of
local resources (natural, cultural, and human resources). Moreover, the
cultural aspects impact on the promotion of indigenous identity and cul-
ture. Indigenous culture, through the activity of community enterprises,
is controlled by the indigenous community itself and it is not commodified
and exploited by external actors (e.g. to the only advantage of tourism
industry with any positive effect on local communities). If the cultural
aspect should prevail, the actual risk would be a very strong emphasis
on bonding social capital, that would imply an “exclusive” model of de-
velopment, where indigenous communities would be detached from the

rest of society, without an exchange of information, goods, and services
with the external environment. The protection mechanism is the opening
towards external stakeholders: as emerged from the empirical analysis,
the majority of the organizations do not have any contact with public
authorities (absence of linking social capital), but on the other hand they
do have relationship with national and international organizations (such
as other Mexican organizations, NGOs, networks of responsible tourism,
and fair trade) with whom they effectively collaborate.
The beneficial impact of the social aspect is the provision of goods
and general interest services that reproduce indigenous knowledge and
cultural specific features. The risk brought by the predominance of the
social aspect is economic inefficiency, and the protection mechanism is
the adoption of managerial tools that should be consistent with the social
aim pursued.
The beneficial impacts of the economic aspect are employment cre-
ation and income generation, that are among the most pressing neces-
sities of indigenous communities; and the production of goods and gen-
eral interest services according to efficiency criteria. The main risk if
this aspect should prevail is the emergence of profit-seeking behaviors
that challenge the beneficial impact that these organizations can have
on all their members and even on the community at large. The protec-
tion mechanism is the participatory governance model, that involves the
organizations’ members who participate in the decision-making process.
Efficiency criteria are still quite problematic for a number of organization,
due partly to organizational issues, but mainly to the high competition
and to the consequent difficulty of finding new market opportunities.
This is especially true concerning handicrafts production.
Concerning the political aspects, they allow for the entering of the
indigenous issue in the public discourse and in the political agenda, both
at the national and international level. Moreover, the creation of actual
grassroots economic alternatives by indigenous communities gives them
Indigenous community enterprises as vehicles for buen vivir 137
visibility and represents an actual implementation of self-management

and autonomy processes. The main risk if the political dimension should
prevail would be the predominance of an advocacy action, facilitated
by the connection with social movements. If this aspects prevail, they
can limit the community enterprises positive impact on a plurality of
other aspects. In order to limit such a risk, the protection mechanism
is the stable and continuous production of goods and/or general interest
services.
The risk of the predominance of an advocacy action is present also
in the case of the environmental aspects, that are strongly connected to
the cultural connotation of the indigenous community enterprises. As a
consequence, the protection mechanism derives also in this case from the
stable and continuous production of goods and services. The beneficial
impact of the environmental aspects is the indigenous control on terri-
tories and natural resources, that is particularly explicit in the case of
agricultural and ecotourism organizations.
4.20 Indigenous community enterprises as

vehicles for buen vivir
The analysis conducted so far permits to draw a parallel between the
aims of indigenous community enterprises and those of buen vivir, and
it highlights the concrete possibility of pursuing a different view of well-
being that can be interpreted according to the conception of buen vivir.
Table 4.9 summarizes buen vivir in terms of its pillars as extracted from
the literature, and community needs as they emerged from the interviews.
Following the analysis of the concept of buen vivir reported in chapter
1, its most important objectives can be summarized as decolonization,
community well-being, economic pluralism and economic democratiza-
tion, plurinational state, and rights of nature. The table also describes
indigenous community enterprises in terms of their impacts, or contri-
Table 4.8: Characteristics and challenges for indigenous community en-

terprises.
aspects beneficial im- risks protection
pacts mechanisms
cultural bridging social cap- exclusive develop- opening to external

ital; promotion of ment stakeholders
indigenous culture
social provision of goods inefficiency managerial tools

and services repro- consistent with the
ducing indigenous social goal pursued
culture and knowl-
edge
economic production of predominance participatory gov-

goods and ser- of profit-seeking ernance model
vices according to behaviors
efficiency criteria
political indigenous issues predominance of entrepreneurial

enter the public advocacy action character
discourse (national
and international
levels
environmental indigenous control predominance of entrepreneurial

on territories and advocacy action character
natural resources
Indigenous community enterprises as vehicles for buen vivir 139
Table 4.9: Buen vivir and indigenous community enterprises.

pillars of buen vivir community needs contribution of indige-
nous community en-
terprises
decolonization cultural: recognition and protection and promotion

respect of indigenous peo- of indigenous culture
ples’ cultural specificities
community well-being social: active participa- reinforcement of social co-

tion of the community in hesion; increased oppor-
the public sphere tunity for women
economic pluralism, eco- economic: income and improvement of economic

nomic democratization employment generation; conditions for members
fair prices for traded and of the community at
goods large
plurinational state political: self- actual processes of self-

determination and management; advocacy of
autonomy indigenous socio-political
claims
rights of nature environmental: respect environmental protec-

for the natural environ- tion; development of
ment; healthy food sustainable agriculture
bution to the communities’ well-being, as emerged from observation and

interpretation of the data collected. These organizations address com-
munity needs that can be understood in the framework of buen vivir, and
aim to trigger positive impacts on the communities.
First of all, in order to reinforce processes of decolonization, the recog-
nition and respect of indigenous peoples’ cultural specificities and identity
are essential. The five hundred-years-old colonial process in Latin Amer-
ica has been characterized by the attempt, that in many cases has been
successful, of eliminating all the differences and specificities that char-
acterize indigenous populations. In this sense the right to affirm their
diversity and the affirmation of indigenous culture and identity are seen in
a decolonizing perspective, and the action of the indigenous community

enterprises is able to support the protection and promotion of indige-
nous culture. This happens mainly through the recovering of traditional
patterns and methods in handicrafts, traditional methods employed in
agriculture, and through the incorporation of indigenous cultural insti-
tutions of collective work and collective decision-making.
Second, in order to promote the community well-being it is essential

that activities promoted by the organizations are directed in favor of the
community. This reinforces social cohesion and increases opportunities of
participation, especially for women. In this sense the collective dimension
of community enterprises is coherent with the pillar of buen vivir that
underlines the collective character of well-being.
Third, in order to promote economic pluralism and economic democ-

ratization the need of income and employment generation has to be ad-
dressed through the economic connotation of community enterprises, and
it is essential that fair prices are obtained for the goods they produce.
Community enterprises can contribute to improve the economic condi-
tions of their members, and in some cases also of the community at large.
Fourth, the buen vivir pillar of the construction of a plurinational

state can be pursued addressing the needs of active participation in the
public sphere, and of self-determination and autonomy, that are among
the most pressing demands of indigenous communities in Chiapas. The
positive impacts of community enterprises on the indigenous communities
are the reinforcement of processes of self-management, the advocacy of
indigenous socio-political claims.
Fifth, the pillar of the rights of nature is pursued addressing the needs
of respecting the natural environment and improving the quality of food.
Positive impacts are environmental protection and the development of
sustainable organic agriculture.
Conclusions 141
4.21 Conclusions
This chapter has reported on the empirical analysis and the findings
that emerged from observation, secondary sources, and semi-structured
interviews. The main research findings, in line with the literature, demon-
strate the strong relationship between community enterprises’ and buen
vivir : indeed, community enterprises are able to pursue the alternative
approach to development proposed by buen vivir. The social base of
community enterprises lies firmly in the indigenous communities, and
they pursue a plurality of goals, that are essentially the same objec-
tives pursued by buen vivir. In addition to income generation and job
creation, these goals include: the affirmation of indigenous identity and
safeguarding of indigenous culture, the reinforcement of processes of au-
tonomy through self-management, the broadening of participation in the
public sphere, and the protection and sustainable utilization of natural
resources.
In Chiapas the main enabling factor for the emergence of community
enterprises is their relationship with social movements, where alternatives
can be discussed and translated into political practices. Thanks to this
relationship the mainstream conception of need must be rethought and
adapted to the real necessities of communities (Escobar, 1992). Moreover,
the establishment of community enterprises can be seen as an attempt
to build an alternative model to the mainstream one, where indigenous
people can find their own response to challenges they come across in
an increasingly globalized world (Peredo and McLean, 2010). Indige-
nous community enterprises can thus assume also a political role, as it is
claimed by several Latin American scholars who look at the social and
solidarity economy sector as a means for the construction of an alterna-
tive political system (Coraggio, 2005; Arruda, 2003). This interpretation
is also coherent with the theoretical contribution brought by buen vivir,
that looks for different approaches to the present global economic sys-
tem (Acosta, 2013). In this respect social movements have a crucial
role in building a bridge between the indigenous view of buen vivir and
the attempt of its concrete realization through the vehicle of community
enterprises. Community enterprises appear very strong in promoting par-
ticipation, and this is evident with regard to women: in a traditionally
male-oriented society, community enterprises promote genuine forms of
participation that increase women control over their everyday lives, both
at the social and political levels.
In opposition to the neoliberal discourse of assimilation of indigenous
people into the dominant society, where traditions and culture are seen
as obstacles to development, indigenous social movements assert their
right to remain autonomous. These movements follow a “strategy of
localization” that is directed to the defense of their territory and culture
(Escobar, 2001). With firm roots in the local community, community
enterprises have become instruments for reinforcing the protection of
indigenous cultures and territories.
Chapter 5
Conclusions: community
enterprises and local
development
This study has analyzed the potential of community enterprises for

the development of indigenous communities in Chiapas. The main find-
ings highlight the existence of this particular form of enterprise in the
context analyzed. These enterprises with a social aim have some spe-
cific characteristics, that will be detailed hereby, with respect to similar
experiences emerged in the developed countries. Furthermore, these en-
trepreneurial initiatives appear capable of a significant contribution to
self-managed development processes. In contrast to the top-down ex-
tractivist logic of the development model that indigenous peoples have
suffered (Gudynas, 2009), community enterprises in the context analyzed
are an instrument for indigenous self-determination and self-controlled
development. This alternative approach to development is intended as
coherent with buen vivir, an indigenous conception of well-being that
highlights the collective and environmental dimensions of community de-
velopment objectives.
Without claiming the validity and transferability of these findings to
143
144 Conclusions: community enterprises and local development
the general category of community enterprises in different contexts and

given the qualitative nature of the research, the analysis of this specific
case allows for some further considerations and policy implications. More
specifically, these concluding remarks will focus on the main enabling
factors that allow for community enterprises’ emergence and diffusion,
on their main characteristics that are functional to pursue an alterna-
tive approach to development, on the different concepts that have been
employed to identify these grassroots economic initiatives, and on some
policy implications that the research findings have suggested.
5.1 Enabling factors for the emergence of

community enterprises
In the context analyzed, three main enabling factors for the emer-
gence of community enterprises have been highlighted: 1) the indigenous
cultural resources on which they are based, 2) the linkages they hold with
social movements, and 3) the situation of social and economic stress of
the context in which they are embedded (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006).
1. The cultural element can be interpreted in this context as the most
relevant asset among the plurality of endogenous resources on which com-
munity enterprises build. Indigenous traditional culture and institutions
are indeed an important basis on which grassroots entrepreneurial activ-
ities are constructed. The study has elucidated the processes undertaken
by the communities, which gather around traditional culture and institu-
tions in order to build local solutions to address their unsatisfied needs.
Culture includes traditional knowledge, for example in handicrafts or
agriculture, and traditional institutions include both formal institutions,
such as indigenous independent administrative and justice systems, and
informal institutions, such as reciprocity and non-monetary exchanges,
as well as rituals and collective work. The collective propensity of indige-
nous communities fosters collective action and finds an expression in the
Enabling factors for the emergence of community enterprises 145
participatory governance of community enterprises. Thus, this study has

confirmed that cultural aspects of certain communities can give a com-
petitive advantage to community enterprises embedded in those societal
groups (Lindsay, 2005; Berkes and Adhikari, 2006; Peredo and mcLean,
2010).
This entails important social and political consequences for indige-
nous peoples who assert their right to remain autonomous and to defend
their cultures and territories in opposition to the neoliberal discourse
of assimilation, where traditions and culture are seen as obstacles to
development. The collective and bottom-up nature of the community
enterprises allow members to decide the way in which they transfer their
culture to the products and services they deliver, avoiding the simple
commodification of their cultural resources.
2. Social movements’ contribution to the emergence of collective en-
terprises derive from the spaces that social movements provide for dis-
cussing alternative modes of collective action, that can be translated
into alternative political, social, and economic practices. Thanks to the
relationship of community enterprises with social movements, the main-
stream conception of needs as linked essentially to economic factors is
rethought and adapted to the real necessities of communities (Escobar,
1992). In this sense, community enterprises also assume a political role,
building alternative socio-economic systems based on reciprocity and co-
operation. Moreover, indigenous peoples’ attempt to improve their living
conditions through the implementation of community enterprises can be
considered as intrinsically linked to a demand of recognition of their rights
of citizenship (Laville, 2009).
This is also coherent with the view proposed by the social and soli-
darity economy, that claims the construction of an alternative political
system (Coraggio, 2005; Arruda, 2003), and with the buen vivir ap-
proach, that searches for different approaches to the existing neoliberal
economic system (Acosta, 2013).
3. Several analyses carried out in different contexts highlight that
community enterprises are triggered by situations of crisis: communities

under social and economic stress often organize themselves to find their
own local solutions to economic and social issues, to gain control over
development processes, and to make their voice heard also at the politi-
cal level (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006). The communities are motivated
by the situation of crisis, which fosters their trust in creating bottom-up
entrepreneurial initiatives. In Chiapas this situation of crisis is evident,
as demonstrated in chapters three and four, and several factors of stress
are overlapping: the situation of conflict between the government and an
important part of the indigenous population that belong to or sympa-
thize with the Zapatista movement; the threatens to the social cohesion
of indigenous peoples, who are divided into religious and political factions
fostered by the government; the structural conditions of marginalization
and socio-economic disadvantage that indigenous peoples have been suf-
fering for centuries.
5.2 Supporting alternatives to development:

what characteristics of community en-
terprises?
The indigenous grassroots economic activities analyzed in this study,

that have been defined community enterprises, derive from a combina-
tion of local knowledge and local resources with strong interpersonal ties
(Haugh, 2006). Thanks to the high level of trust that these interpersonal
ties entail, people involved in these socio-economic initiatives identify the
development trajectories they want to pursue, based on their unsatisfied
needs. Accordingly, they implement the strategies they believe appro-
priate in that specific context. Community enterprises are based on a
network of relations of trust that are supportive to collective action (Ben
Ner and Gui, 2003) and they can in turn enhance social capital (Evers,
Supporting alternatives to development: what characteristics of community enterprises?147
2001) or, as Peredo and Chrisman put it: “community-based enterprises

are built on social capital and create additional social capital for their
communities” (2006, pp. 322-3).
The research has highlighted that community enterprises can emerge
and spread, while maintaining some specific characteristics, which are: 1)
they have a civic origin, 2) they pursue a plurality of goals, 3) they have a
participatory governance, and 4) they have an entrepreneurial dimension.
These four characteristics explain the contribution that community en-
terprises can offer in supporting alternative approaches to development,
where local communities are actors of their own development processes.
1. A remarkable characteristic of community enterprises is their civic
origin (Nyssens, 2006), that is to say the fact that they derive entirely
from a voluntary action of the communities, and they are not necessarily
imposed or supported by public policies, nor by NGOs or philanthropic
institutions. Indeed, they are based on people who freely join to de-
velop economic activities and create employment opportunities on the
basis of solidarity, reciprocity, and cooperation (Gaiger, 1999). In Latin
America, the strong links that this type of enterprises historically hold
with the popular economy further highlight the collective mobilization at
their origin and the fact that they strongly build on cooperative relations.
An important consequence of the social foundations of community enter-
prises in the indigenous communities, is that their activities contribute
to the well-being not only of their members, but also of the broader
indigenous communities (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006; Somerville and
McElwee, 2011). This has been confirmed also by the fact that several
organizations investigated in this study implement collateral activities
in favor both of their members and the community at large, and this
element becomes crucial in reinforcing social cohesion.
2. Community enterprises pursue a plurality of goals, that are not
only economic as for conventional enterprises, but also social, cultural,
political, and environmental (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006; Somerville
and McElwee, 2011). This plurality of goals is reflected in a specific
conception of well-being, and consequently of development, that is de-

pendent on a plurality of factors, that are not only monetary and eco-
nomic. Indeed, in addition to income generation and job creation, com-
munity enterprises’ goals include: the affirmation of indigenous identity
and safeguarding of indigenous culture, the reinforcement of processes
of autonomy through self-management, the broadening of participation
in the public sphere, and the protection and sustainable utilization of
natural resources.
3. Another distinctive characteristic of community enterprises is the
adoption of a participatory governance, that is based on equality among
members and often on democratic principles. The collective governance
allows them also to include the weakest stakeholders, who are stimulated
to participate and express their preferences, and it enhances communica-
tion and coordination among them (Ben Ner and Gui, 2003). This is all
the more evident in some of the organizations investigated, where the de-
cision making process is based on consensus instead of the majority rule.
This aspect further testifies the importance of shared and collective forms
of management, that derive from the indigenous cultural background.
The participatory governance has also an impact on the community
as a whole, given that it facilitates both the identification of new needs
emerging from the community, and the implementation of strategies and
the exploitation of resources that are suitable to addressing these needs.
This process has also a role in promoting democratization in a practical
way through the direct engagement of the community members: they act
for the general well-being of their own community, thus contributing to
support a participatory democracy (Pestoff, 1998).
4. Another crucial feature of community enterprises is the entrepreneurial
dimension that is explicitly aimed at pursuing social objectives through
the continuous production of goods or services (Borzaga and Defourny,
2001; Defourny and Nyssens, 2012). The entrepreneurial character of
the community enterprises is crucial in guaranteeing the sustainability
of these initiatives and their continuity in pursuing social aims. In the
Different concepts for similar realities 149
indigenous contexts, the entrepreneurial dimension incorporates cultural

features and practices, that are based on a collective conception of well-
being (i.e. entrepreneurial success is meant for the welfare of the whole
community), and it is also intended as a means to overcome racism and
negative stereotypes (Foley, 2003). The cooperation with external actors,
such as fair trade networks or international NGOs, may in some cases
reinforce the entrepreneurial dimension. However, this support had some
downsides, such as the risk of creating economic dependence on institu-
tions that are not under the control of the members, the high costs that
organizations undergo to obtain fair trade labels or organic certification,
and the imposition of organizational models and practices that do not
take into account the needs of local communities.
5.3 Different concepts for similar realities

This research has focused on the role of community enterprises in con-
tributing to the well-being of people living in a peculiar context: indige-
nous communities suffering extreme deprivation and located in a country
where neoliberal policies have been producing a centralization of wealth,
together with the parallel exclusion and marginalization of large social
sectors. However, the concept of community enterprise has broader ap-
plications, and it has been employed to identify similar experiences oc-
curring in developed economies where neoliberal policies are producing
similar results, and the financial crisis and the decreasing public wel-
fare are leaving ample potential margins of action to civic initiatives in
addressing unsatisfied community needs (Peredo and Chrisman, 2006;
Haugh, 2006; Somerville and McElwee, 2011).
In the last decade there has been a great debate on the definitions
and conceptualizations of enterprises with a social aim, as some salient
features of the debate reported in chapter two have demonstrated. The
analysis conducted in this study permits to pinpoint the fact that the en-
terprises with a social aim are not rare and they do not have a marginal
status. On the contrary, they exist not only in specific isolated contexts:
the experiences analyzed in Chiapas have commonalities with respect to
organizations existing in other parts of the world. Although they differ
in the nature of the goods and services provided, all the organizations
investigated in this research share some characteristics of the European
EMES definition of social enterprise, as they have a civic origin (Nyssens,
2006), they are characterized by the pursuit of an explicit social goal, they
adopt participatory governance models, and they have an entrepreneurial
dimension that involves the continuous production of goods or services
(Borzaga and Defourny, 2001; Defourny and Nyssens, 2012). The litera-
ture tends to interpret community enterprises as specific types of social
enterprises, where ”the social foundation lies in a community of some
kind” (Somerville and McElwee, 2011, p. 317). As the context analyzed
refers to Latin America, the analysis of concepts elaborated in that area
has been of crucial importance in identifying further features that char-
acterize these organizations. More specifically, the concept of social and
solidarity economy (Razeto, 1986; Laville, 1998; Coraggio, 1999, 2004;
Gaiger, 1999; Singer, 2000; Guerra, 2003; Arruda, 2003) provides use-
ful insights on the political connotation that these organizations assume
in that context: the primary aim of the social and solidarity economy,
through the incorporation of solidarity into the economy at a variety of
levels (Razeto, 1999), is to build new social and labor relations that do
not reproduce the existing inequalities. Consequently, they represent a
concrete and viable alternative also to the capitalist economic system
and they imply political change (Coraggio, 2011).
To sum up, the three main concepts here analyzed are not in contrast
with each other: community enterprises are specific types of social enter-
prises, and both of them can be considered as belonging to the broader
social and solidarity economy sector, that comprises also social and eco-
nomic activities that do not have an entrepreneurial character. This
classification stands from the conceptual point of view, while issues raise
when considering the fact that in Latin America there is a certain resis-
Policy implications 151
tance in utilizing the term social enterprise. This is due to the possible
confusion with most North American interpretations that pinpoint the
leading role of the individual entrepreneur or big corporations in trig-
gering social change, and are thus seen as direct products of the same
neoliberal logics that the social and solidarity economy wants to contrast.
On the other hand, the European conception of social enterprise, while
lacking precise political connotations, provides useful insights due to its
richness and completeness.
5.4 Policy implications

As illustrated above, community enterprises are fundamental actors of
economic and social development. However, one of the main challenges
they face in the context analyzed is the lack of support from public
policies that do not perceive the importance if this specific model. On
the contrary, if they were taken into account by public policies, their
contribution to a bottom-up approach to local development that builds
on endogenous resources would be largely increased. In the case analyzed,
community enterprises have demonstrated to be autonomous and capable
to survive in spite of a total lack of support by the state. However, this
lack of support represents a potential limit to the further growth of the
social and solidarity economy sector in the country.
Nevertheless, despite the recent approval of the General Law on So-
cial and Solidarity Economy described in chapter 2, a mere legislative
intervention seems insufficient in a context where indigenous peoples’
trust in public authorities is almost nonexistent. More than reinforcing
legislative initiatives, the findings of this analysis show how indigenous
communities’ initiatives would be facilitated by some public policies that
should respect their autonomy, since in this context self-management ap-
pears as the most effective way to pursue self-determined development
objectives.
Consequently, it is important to begin thinking about how indigenous
community enterprises can be supported. One way to reinforce commu-

nity enterprises is through the promotion of processes of exchange and re-
ciprocal knowledge with analogous enterprises, both in Mexico and other
countries. Based on the concept of transmissibility of community enter-
prises, successful experiences of community enterprises can be replicated
thanks to the social and economic interconnection between communities,
especially when geographically close to each other (Peredo and Chrisman,
2006). A fruitful horizontal exchange based on solidarity and in conjunc-
tion with close participatory consultation with local organizations, would
be a good starting point.
In this sense, the role of public policies in this context could be trans-
lated in a number of support measures both to indigenous communi-
ties and to the socio-economic initiatives they implement. Consequently,
these measures would have to:
i) recognize and actively promote indigenous rights, as an important
prerequisite for development;
ii) involve indigenous communities in decision-making processes that
affect their territories and socio-economic practices, according to the
”right to free, prior and informed consent” (ILO Convention N.169);
iii) support indigenous local autonomy, one of the most persistent
demands of indigenous communities, in order to build a plurinational
state;
iv) promote the existence of community enterprises and in general of
the social and solidarity economy, thereby satisfying aspirations of indige-
nous peoples to implement autonomous development solutions for their
communities. Given the ability that these enterprises show of being ac-
tors of development, the support to social and solidarity economy should
be implemented mainly through active policies, in contrast to those char-
itable top-down interventions that have been characterizing development
programs in Mexico.
The interviewees in this study noted that their organizations have in-
vited external volunteers to implement marketing strategies or create new
Policy implications 153
designs for textiles, while others underlined that they have learned best
practices from the cited successful coffee cooperative in the neighboring
state of Oaxaca. Further opportunities for supporting these organizations
could focus on management and accounting practices as long as they ac-
knowledge the preferences and needs of the members and communities
involved.
In the present situation of complete absence of support by the state, in
Chiapas the cooperation among community enterprises at various levels
seems one of the most fruitful strategies in order to pursue alternative
approaches to development that appear more effective, more respectful
of the natural environment, and more coherent with the local knowledge
and culture.
Appendix A
Semi-structured interviews
(English version)
A. General questions
1. General data
• Name of the organization
• Person/s interviewed and role/position in the organization
• Main activity performed
• General data (Community, address, telephone, email (if any))
• Localities where the organization performs its activities
• Specify the accessible documents (statute; mission statement;

ethical code; quality certification; Social Balance; other rele-
vant documents) that can be enclosed
2. Activities performed
• What activities are currently carried out by this organization?

(prevalent/complementary activities, sector of activity)
3. Foundation
155
156 Semi-structured interviews (English version)
• When was the organization founded? Who were the founders?

Are they still involved?
• Why was it founded? (meet unsatisfied needs, employment

creation, grant opportunities offered by external donors, ...)
• Which stakeholders groups were involved in the promotion or

starting-up of the organization initiative? (volunteers, work-
ers, local donors, international non-governmental donors,...)
• What was the common bond shared by the founding or starting-

up group? (family ties, political experience, neighborhood,...)
4. Organization competitiveness and prospects for development
• Specify how relevant the following aspects of strength of this

organization are (not important, quite important, important,
fully important):
• good reputation enjoyed in the community
• local roots that allow for the grasping of new needs
• network of knowledge relations and trust relations with other

organizations (public and private)
• network relations with co-workers
• cooperative environment and trust relations among workers
• motivation of workers
• level of efficiency achieved
• support given by public authorities
• support given by other institutions (specify)
• entrepreneurial capabilities
• other (specify)
5. In which development phase is the organization?

157
B. Indigenous community
1. Data on the indigenous community
• Ethnic group - main language spoken
• Number of people belonging to the community (men/women,

average age, increasing/decreasing number of people belong-
ing to the community, migration processes)
• How far is the closest urban centre? How long does it take to
get there?
• How far is the closest school?
• How far is the closest doctor? hospital? pharmacy?
• Is the territory controlled by the community? How (ejido?

tierras recuperadas?)
• Does the community control any natural resource (water, forests,

...)?
• Have the community participated in concerted political ac-

tions directed to establish indigenous rights on territory, nat-
ural resources, or indigenous human/social/political rights?
2. Indigenous view of development
• What are, in your opinion, the main needs of your community?
• Do you think this organization is able to address (at least

partially) these needs?
• On what local resources does the organization’s activity build?

(natural resources, traditional knowledge,...)
• What do you expect from public authority (government, lo-

cal authorities,...) in order to improve your living condition
and/or to improve the organization’s activity?
3. Indigenous cultural traditions/institutions inside organization
• Have been forms of communal labor incorporated in the orga-

nization?
• Do traditional indigenous institutions have a role in determin-
ing the organization’s strategies and priorities?
• Are the goods/services provided characterized by specific cul-
tural features?
C. Collective dimension and local embeddedness
• How many people belonging to the community are involved in the

organization?
• How many women/men are there among members?
• Does the organization have relations with relevant external stake-

holders (NGOs, trade unions, local/national public authorities, indigenous/non-
indigenous social movements, fair trade/sustainable tourism net-
works,...)?
• Who are the most relevant partners and how frequent are meetings
with each of them?
• Are these partners the same as at the beginning of the organiza-

tion’s activity?
• Does the organization carry out educational activities aimed at pro-

moting cooperative and solidarity values at the community level?
• Does the organization participate in any activity dedicated to the

improvement of the community well-being?
D. Social dimension
1. General-interest goal of the organization

159
• Specify the target group addressed by the organization (mainly

its members, marginalized groups and individuals, whole com-
munity)
• Specify how is local community welfare conceived of by mem-

bers (principal, important, secondary goal)
• Does the organization provide general-interest services? if yes,

please describe the type of services provided and the benefi-
ciaries served.
2. Membership-governance
• What is the legal form of the organization? (cooperative, as-

sociation, other forms...)
• How many categories of stakeholders are represented among

members?
• How many general assemblies take place yearly and how many
members do participate on average?
• Why have members chosen to join?
• Does the organization currently involve volunteers (increase-

decrease with respect to the past)?
• How is the governance structured (specify the categories of

stakeholders that are members of the board)
E. Entrepreneurial dimension
1. Composition of internal income (data from year 2009). Specify

the incidence of the following items (Percent over internal income-
Absolute value):
• Revenues from sales of goods and services
• Grants from donors. Specify

• Grants from public authorities

• Monetary and in kind donations from individuals
• Other (specify)
2. Trends (stable, decreasing, increasing)
• Revenues from sales of goods

• Grants from donors. Specify
• Grants from public authorities
• Monetary and in kind donations from individuals
• Other (specify)
3. Employment generation capacity of the organization
• Specify the percentage of workers employed over total mem-

bers
• Specify the number of remunerated employees in the organi-
zation (on December 31, 2011) (age average, males/females)
4. Turnover (2009, 2010, 2011)
• No. of new employees

• No. of exits
• Overall variation
Appendix B
Semi-structured interviews
(Spanish version)
A. Preguntas generales
1. Datos generales
• Nombre de la organización
• Persona/s entrevistada/s y cargo en la organización
• Actividad principal
• Datos de identificación (ubicación, teléfono, correo electrónico)
• Localidades donde la organización desarrolla sus actividades
• Documentos accesibles que se pueden adjuntar (estatuto, cer-

tificado de calidad, balance social, otros documentos)
2. Actividades
• ¿Qué actividades son realizadas por la organización? (activi-

dades principales/complementarias, sector de actividad)
3. Fundación
161
162 Semi-structured interviews (Spanish version)
• ¿Cuándo fue fundada la organización? ¿Quiénes fueron los

fundadores? ¿Los fundadores siguen siendo involucrados?
• ¿Por qué fue fundada la organización? (satisfacer necesidades
insatisfechas, crear empleo, oportunidades de financiación ofre-
cidas por actores externos,...)
• ¿Cuáles grupos de interés estaban involucrados en la pro-
moción/empiezo de las actividades? (voluntarios, trabajadores,
donadores locales, donadores internacionales non-gubernamentales)
• ¿Qué vı́nculos tenı́an los fundadores entre ellos? (familiares,
polı́ticos, vecinales,...)
4. Competitividad y perspectivas futuras de la organización:
• Especificar la importancia de los siguientes puntos de fuerza

de la organización (no importante, bastante importante, im-
portante, muy importante):
• Buena reputación en la comunidad
• Raı́ces locales que permiten la individuación de nuevas necesi-
dades
• Red de relaciones de conocimiento y confianza con otras orga-
nizaciones (públicas y privadas)
• Ambiente cooperativo y relaciones de confianza entre los tra-
bajadores
• Motivación de los trabajadores
• Nivel de eficiencia alcanzado
• Soporte por las autoridades públicas
• Soporte por otras instituciones (especificar)
• Capacidades empresariales
• Otro (especificar)
163
5. ¿En qué fase de desarrollo se encuentra la organización?
B. Comunidad indı́gena
1. Datos sobre la comunidad indı́gena
• Grupo étnico-linguı́stico
• Número de personas que forman parte de la comunidad (hom-

bres/mujeres, edad promedio, aumento/disminución del número
de personas que pertenecen a la comunidad, procesos migra-
torios)
• ¿Dónde está el centro urbano más cercano? ¿Cuánto se tarda

en llegar allá?
• ¿Dónde está la escuela más cercana (¿bilingüe?)?
• ¿Dónde está el doctor más cercano? ¿El hospital? ¿La farma-

cia?
• ¿El territorio está controlado o pertenece a la comunidad?

¿Cómo? (¿Ejidos?)
• ¿La comunidad controla algún recurso natural (agua, selva,

mina,...)?
• ¿La comunidad ha participado en alguna acción polı́tica para

establecer el control sobre el territorio o los recursos natu-
rales o para la afirmación de los derechos indı́genas (mani-
festaciones, huelgas)?
2. Visión indı́gena del desarrollo
• ¿Cuáles son, en su opinión, las mayores necesidades de su

comunidad?
• ¿Piensa usted que esta organización es capaz de responder

(por lo menos parcialmente) a estas necesidades?
• ¿La actividad de la organización está basada en algún recurso

local (natural, conocimiento tradicional,..)?
• ¿Qué esperarı́an ustedes de las autoridades públicas (gobierno,

municipalidad) para fomentar las condiciones de vida de la
comunidad y/o mejorar la actividad de la organización?
3. Tradiciones/instituciones indı́genas en la organización
• ¿Hay formas tradicionales de trabajo comunitario en beneficio

colectivo que han sido incorporadas en la organización?
• ¿Hay instituciones tradicionales indı́genas que juegan un pa-

pel en la determinación de los objetivos y estrategias de la
organización?
• ¿Los productos/servicios provistos están caracterizados por

aspectos culturales especı́ficos?
C. Dimensión colectiva y fundación comunitaria
• ¿Cuántas personas de la comunidad están involucradas en la orga-

nización?
• ¿Cuántos hombres/mujeres?
• ¿La organización tiene relaciones con interlocutores externos? (como

ONGs, sindicatos, autoridades públicas-locales y nacionales, movimien-
tos sociales-indı́genas y no indı̈¿ 21 genas, comercio justo, redes de
turismo responsable)
• ¿Quiénes son los interlocutores externos más importantes y con qué

frecuencia les encuentran?
• ¿Estos interlocutores son los mismos que habı́an al principio de la

actividad o han cambiado?
165
• ¿La organización desarrolla actividades para promocionar los val-

ores de cooperación y solidaridad a nivel comunitario?
• ¿La organización participa en actividades para la mejora del bien-

estar de la comunidad?
D. Dimensión social
1. Objetivo de interés general de la organización
• Especificar el grupo al que la organización esta mayormente

dirigida (socios, grupos y/o individuales marginados, comu-
nidad entera)
• Especificar como el bienestar de la comunidad está concebido

por los miembros de la organización (objetivo principal, im-
portante, secundario)
• ¿La organización suministra servicios de interés general? Si

lo hace, por favor describa el tipo de servicio provisto y los
beneficiarios de este servicio.
2. Socios - gobierno de la organización
• ¿Cuál es la forma jurı́dica de la organización (cooperativa,

asociación, otras formas,..)?
• ¿Cuántas categorı́as de socios hay (voluntarios, trabajadores,...)?
• ¿Cuántas asambleas de socios hay durante un año y cuántas

personas participan promedio?
• ¿Por qué los socios han decidido asociarse? (¿Qué ventajas

tienen?)
• ¿Hay voluntarios en la organización en este momento? ¿Más

o menos con respeto al pasado?
• ¿Cómo es estructurado el gobierno de la organización? Por fa-

vor especifique las categorı́as de portadores de interés (traba-
jadores, voluntarios, donantes,...) involucrados en el gobierno
de la organización
E. Dimensión empresarial
1. Composición de los ingresos. Especificar la incidencia de los ingre-

sos siguientes (año 2011)(Porcentaje de los ingresos totales-valor
absoluto):
• Ingresos por venta de bienes y servicios
• Contratos con agencias públicas
• Donativos por organizaciones privadas (Especificar)
• Donativos por organizaciones públicas
• Donativos (monetarios y no) por individuales
• Otros (Especificar)
2. Tendencias (estable, creciente, decreciente. Desde el año 2009)
• Ingresos por venta de bienes y servicios
• Contratos con agencias públicas
• Donativos por organizaciones privadas (Especificar)
• Donativos por organizaciones públicas
• Donativos (monetarios y no) por individuales
• Otros (Especificar)
3. Capacidad de la organización de generar empleo
• Especificar el porcentaje de trabajadores empleados sobre el

número total de socios.
167
• Especificar el número de trabajadores remunerados (al dı́a 31

de Diciembre 2011) (edad promedio, hombres/mujeres)
4. Rotación de personal (2009, 2010, 2011)
• Número de nuevos trabajadores

• Número de trabajadores que han dejado la org
• Variación total
Bibliography
Achten, W. M. J., and L. V. Verchot (2011) Implications of biodiesel-

induced land-use changes for CO2 emissions: case studies in tropical
America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, Ecology and Society 16(4),
article 14.
Acosta, A. (2013) El Buen Vivir: Sumak Kawsay, una Oportunidad para

Imaginar Otros Mundos, Icaria Editorial, Barcelona.
Agosto, P. and Briones, C. (2007) Luchas y resistencias Mapuche por

los bienes de la naturaleza, OSAL, 8(22), 295-300, accessed at:
http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/ar/libros/osal/osal22/
CDH22AgostoBriones.pdf (12 February 2013).
Agrawal, A., and Gibson, C. C. (1999), Enchantment and disenchant-

ment: the role of community in natural resource conservation, World
development, 27(4), 629-649.
Albó, X. (2009) Suma Qamaña, el buen convivir, OBETS. Revista de

Ciencias Sociales, 4, 25-40.
Albó, X. (2011) Suma Qamaña=Convivir Bien. ¿Cómo medirlo? in Vas-

apollo, L., and Farah, I.H. (eds) Vivir bien: ¿Paradigma no capital-
ista?, CIDES - UMSA and Plural, La Paz, 133-144.
Amnesty International (1999) Amnesty International Report 1999 - Mex-

ico, accessed at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6aa0228.html
(18 November 2012)
169
170 Bibliography
Anaya Muñoz, A. (2004) Explaining the politics of recognition of ethnic

diversity and indigenous peoples’ rights in Oaxaca, Mexico, Bulletin
of Latin American Research, 23(4), 414-433.
Anderson, R. B., Dana, L. P., and Dana, T. E. (2006) Indige-

nous land rights, entrepreneurship, and economic development in
Canada:”Opting-in” to the global economy, Journal of World Busi-
ness, 41(1), 45-55.
Antinori, C. and Bray, D.B. (2005) Community Forest Enterprises as En-

trepreneurial Firms: Economic and Institutional Perspectives from
Mexico, World Development, 33(9), 1529-1543.
Arruda, M. (2003) What is a solidarity economy? in Fórum So-

cial Mundial, 23-28 January, Porto Alegre, Brazil, accessed at:
http://www.tni.org/es/archives/act/511 (16 November 2012).
Assies, W. (2003) David versus Goliath in Cochabamba: Water rights,

neoliberalism, and the revival of social protest in Bolivia, Latin-
American-Perspectives, 30(3), 14-36.
Attanasio, O. P., Meghir, C., and Santiago, A. (2012) Education choices

in Mexico: using a structural model and a randomized experiment
to evaluate Progresa, The Review of Economic Studies, 79(1), 37-66.
Báez, M. and Cortez, D. (2012) Buen Vivir, Sumak Kawsay, On-

line Dictionary Social and Political Key Terms of the Amer-
icas: Politics, Inequalities, and North-South Relations, Ver-
sion 1.0, accessed at: http://elearning.uni-bielefeld.de/wikifarm/
fields/ges cias/field.php/Main/Unterkapitel11 (22 May 2013).
Banerjee, S.B. (2008) Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the

Bad and the Ugly, Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51-79.
Banfield, E. C. (1967) The moral basis of a backward society, Free Press,

New York.
171
Bebbington, A., Humphreys Bebbington, D., Bury, J., Lingan, J.,

Muñoz, J. P., and Scurrah, M. (2008) Mining and social movements:
struggles over livelihood and rural territorial development in the An-
des, World Development, 36(12), 2888-2905.
Bebbington, A. J., Mitlin, D., Mogaladi, J., Scurrah, M., and Bielich, C.
(2010) Decentring poverty, reworking government: social movements
and states in the government of poverty, The Journal of Development
Studies, 46(7), 1304-1326.
Becattini, G. (1979) Dal settore industriale al distretto industriale. Al-

cune considerazioni sull’unità di indagine dell’economia industriale,
Rivista di economia e politica industriale, 1(1), 8.
Becattini, G. (1989) Riflessioni sul distretto industriale marshalliano

come concetto socioeconomico, Stato e mercato, 1(25).
Becchetti L. and Borzaga C. (2011) The Economics of Social Responsi-

bility: the World of Social Enterprises, Routledge, London.
Ben-Ner, A. and Gui, B. (2003) The Theory of Nonprofit Organizations

Revisited, in Anheier, H.K., Ben-Ner, A. (eds.), The Study of the
Nonprofit Enterprise. Theories and Approaches, Kluwer Academic,
Plenum Publishers, New York, 3-26.
Berkes, F., and Adhikari, T. (2006) Development and conservation: in-

digenous businesses and the UNDP Equator Initiative, International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Businesses, 3, 671-690.
Berkes, F., and Davidson-Hunt, I. J. (2007) Communities and social en-

terprises in the age of globalization, Journal of enterprising commu-
nities: people and places in the global economy, 1(3), 209-221.
Berkes, F., and Davidson-Hunt, I. J. (2010) Innovating through com-

mons use: community-based enterprises, InternationalJournal of the
Commons, 4(1), 1-7.
172 Bibliography
Berner, E., Phillips, B. (2005) Left to their own devices? Community

self-help between alternative development and neoliberalism, Com-
munity Development Journal, 40 (1), 17-29.
Bishop, C. G. (2010) Low-Profit LLC (L3C): Program Related Invest-

ment by Proxy or Perversion, The Arkansas Law Review, 63, 243.
Bonfil, G. B., and Aravena, F. R. (1982) América Latina, etnodesarrollo

y etnocidio, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales.
Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds.) (2001) The emergence of social en-

terprise, Routledge, London.
Borzaga, C. and Tortia, E. (2007), Social Economy Organizations in the

Theory of the Firm, in Noya, A. and Clearence. E (eds), The Social
Economy. Building Inclusive Economies, OECD Publications.
Borzaga C., Depedri S., and Tortia E. (2009) The role of cooperative and
social enterprises: a multifaceted approach for an economic plural-
ism, Euricse Working Papers, 000/09.
Borzaga, C., Galera, G., and Nogales, R. (Eds) (2008) Social enter-
prise: a new model for poverty reduction and employment gener-
ation, UNDP, EMES, Bratislava.
Borzaga, C., Depedri, S., and Tortia, E. (2010) The growth of organi-
zational variety in market economies: the case of social enterprises,
Euricse working papers, 003/10.
Bourdieu P. (1980) Le capital social. Notes provisoires, Actes de la

Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 31, 2-3.
Buultjens, J., Gale, D. and White N. E. (2010) Synergies between Aus-

tralian indigenous tourism and ecotourism: possibilities and prob-
lems for future development, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(4),
497-513.
173
Callison, J. W., and Vestal, A. (2010) The L3C Illusion: Why Low-Profit
Limited Liability Companies Will Not Stimulate Socially Optimal
Private Foundation Investment in Entrepreneurial Ventures, Drake
University Law School Research Paper, 11-07, 273.
Cape Town Declaration on Responsible Tourism in Destinations (2002),

accessed at: http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/tourism/Documents
(2 April 2013).
Castells, M. (2010) The Power of Identity: The Information Age: Econ-

omy, Society and Culture-Vol.2, second edition, Wiley-Blackwell,
Oxford.
Coffé, H., and Geys, B. (2007) Participation in bridging and bonding

associations and civic attitudes: Evidence from Flanders, Volun-
tas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organiza-
tions, 18(4), 385-406.
Coleman J. (1988) Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital,

American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, MA.
Conde, C.B. (2013) Social and Supportive Economic Law in Mexico:

Progress or Set back?, paper presented at the 4th Emes Conference
on Social Enterprise, Liege, Belgium, 1-4 July, 2013.
Coque M., J. (2002) Las cooperativas en América Latina: visión histórica

general y comentario de algunos paı́ses tipo, CIRIEC España, 43,
145-172.
Coraggio, J.L. (1999) Polı́tica social y economı́a del trabajo. Alternati-

vas a la polı́tica neoliberal para la ciudad, Miño y Dávila Editores,
Madrid.
174 Bibliography
Coraggio, J.L. (2004) La gente o el capital: Desarrollo local y economı́a

del trabajo, Editorial Abya Yala, Quito.
Coraggio, J.L. (2005) ¿Es posible otra economı́a sin (otra) polı́tica?, El
Pequeño Libro Socialista, Editora La Vanguardia, Buenos Aires.
Coraggio, J.L. (2011) La Economı́a social como vı́a para otro desarrollo
social, in Coraggio, J.L., Economı́a Social y Solidaria: El Trabajo
Antes que el Capital, Ediciones Abya-Yala, Quito, 43-68.
Dana, L., and Anderson, R., Eds. (2007) International Handbook of Re-
search on Indigenous Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,
UK.
Davidson-Hunt, I.J., and Turner, K.L. (2012) Indigenous communities,

the bioeconomy and natural resource development, Journal of En-
terprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy,
6(3).
Dees, J. G. (1998) The Meaning of ’Social Entrepreneurship’ (Revised

2001) Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, accessed
at: http://www.caseatduke.org/documents/dees sedef.pdf (8 July
2013).
Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. (2006) Defining Social Enterprise, in

Nyssens, M. (ed.), Social Enterprise at the crossroad of market, pub-
lic policies and civil society, Routledge, London.
Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. (2008) Social enterprise in Europe: recent

trends and developments, Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202 - 228.
Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. (2012) The EMES approach of social en-

terprise in a comparative perspective, EMES WP No. 12/03.
Del Popolo, F. (2006) Spatial distribution of indigenous peoples in Latin

America: a census-based interpretation, in Del Popolo, F., Oyarce,
175
A.M., Ribotta, B. and Rodrı́guez, J. (Eds), Indigenous Peoples and

Urban Settlements: Spatial Distribution, Internal Migration and
Living Conditions, Latin American and Caribbean Demographic
Centre (CELADE) Population Division, UN Publications, Santiago
de Chile.
de Soto, H. (1989) The Other Path, Taurus, London.
Doherty, B. and Huybrechts, B. (2013) Connecting producers and con-

sumers through fair and sustainable value chains, Social Enterprise
Journal, 9(1), 4-10.
Duffy, R. (2008) Neoliberalising Nature: Global Networks and Eco-

tourism Development in Madagascar, Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 16(3), 327-344.
Durston, J. (2000) ¿Qué es el capital social comuni-

tario? Serie Polı́ticas Sociales CEPAL, 38. Accessed at:
http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/5/4885/lcl1400.pdf
(10 August 2013).
Escobar, A. (1992) Imagining a Post-Development Era? Critical

Thought, Development and Social Movements, Social Text, 31-32,
20-56.
Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: the making and unmak-

ing of the third world, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey.
Escobar, A. (2001) Culture sits in places: reflections on globalism and

subaltern strategies of localization, Political Geography, 20, 139-174.
Escobar, A. (2009) Una minga para el postdesarrollo, América Latina en

Movimiento, 445, 26-30.
Esteva, G. (2001) The Meaning and Scope of the Struggle for Autonomy,
Latin American Perspectives, 28, 120-148.
176 Bibliography
Evans, M., and Syrett, S. (2007) Generating social capital? The social
economy and local economic development, European Urban and Re-
gional Studies, 14(1), 55-74.
Evers, A. (2001) Social capital: resource and aim of social enterprise,

in Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (Eds), The Emergence of Social
Enterprise, Routledge, London.
Eversole, R. (2006) Crafting development in Bolivia, Journal of Interna-

tional Development, 18, 945-55.
Eversole, R., Barraket, J. and Luke, B. (2013) Social enterprises in ru-

ral community development, Community Development Journal, Ad-
vanced access published on line 27 May 2013.
FINE (2001) Fair Trade definition and principles as agreed by

FINE in December 2001, accessed at http://www.fair-trade-
hub.com/support-files/fair-trade-definition.pdf (15 December 2012).
Foley, D. (2003) An examination of indigenous Australian entrepreneurs,

Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 8, 133-151.
Frayba, Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Bartolomé de Las

Casas (1998) La Legalidad de la Injusticia, accessed at:
www.frayba.org.mx (18 November 2012).
Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The social virtues and the creation of pros-
perity, Free Press, New York.
Fukuyama F. (2001) Social capital, civil society and development, Third

World Quarterly, 22(1), 7-20.
Fuller, D., Buultjens, J. and Cummings, E. (2005) Ecotourism and In-

digenous Micro-Enterprise Formation in Northern Australia: Op-
portunities and constraints, Tourism Management, 26(6), 891-904.
177
Gaiger, L.I. (1999) La solidaridad como una alternativa económica para

los pobres, CIRIEC España, Revista de Economı́a Pública, Social y
Cooperativa, 31, 187-205.
Gaiger, L.I. (2009) Workers’ economic solidarism in context: an overview

in a Latin-American perspective, in VV.AA. Social Enterprise, So-
cial Entrepreneurship, Social Economy, Solidarity Economy: An
Emes Reader on the ”SE Field” (1st Emes PhD reader distributed at
the Emes 2nd PhD Summer School, July 2010, Roskilde, Denmark).
Galera, G. (2009) The impact of social enterprises on socio-economic de-

velopment in transition countries: the cases of Poland and Ukraine,
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, School of International Studies,
University of Trento, Italy.
Galera, G. and Borzaga, C. (2009) Social enterprise: An international

overview of its conceptual evolution and legal implementation, Social
Enterprise Journal, 5(3), 210-228.
Gallo, J. (1989) Basic ecclesial communities: A new form of Christian or-

ganizational response to the world today, Ph.D. dissertation, Boston
University.
Gambetta, D. (1992) La mafia siciliana: Un’industria della protezione

privata, Einaudi, Torino.
Gamson W.A. (1991) Commitment and agency in social movements, So-

ciological Forum, 6(1), 27-50.
Gillette H., and Patrinos, H.A. (eds) (2006) Indigenous Peoples, Poverty
and Human Development in Latin America: 1994-2004, Palgrave
Macmillan, Houndmills, U.K.
Gittel, R. and Vidal, A. (1998) Community Organizing: Building So-

cial Capital as a Development Strategy, Sage Publications, Newbury
Park, CA.
178 Bibliography
Gobierno del Estado de Chiapas (2003), Los Acuerdos de San Andrés,

accessed at: http://komanilel.org/biblioteca/ (15 November 2012).
Gobierno Nacional de la República del Ecuador, Secretarı́a Nacional de

Planificación y Desarrollo, Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir 2009-
2013, accessed at: http://plan.senplades.gob.ec (21 June 2013).
Granovetter, M. S. (1973) The strength of weak ties, American Journal

of Sociology, 1360-1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1985) Economic Action and Social Structure: The

Problem of Embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 91(3),
481-510.
Greffe, X. (2007) The Role of the Social Economy in Local Development,

in Noya, A. and Clarence, E. (eds.), Social Economy: Building In-
clusive Economies, OECD Publications, Paris.
Gudynas, E. (2009) Diez tesis urgentes sobre el nuevo extractivismo:

contextos y demandas bajo el progresismo sudamericano actual, in
VV. AA., Extractivismo, Polı́tica y Sociedad, CAAP, CLAES, and
Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, Quito, 187-225.
Gudynas, E. (2011a) Buen Vivir: germinando alternativas al desarrollo,

América Latina en Movimiento, 462, 1-20.
Gudynas, E. (2011b) Buen Vivir: Today’s tomorrow, Development,

54(4), 441-447.
Guerra, P. (2002) Teorı́a y Prácticas de la Socioeconomı́a de la Solidari-

dad, Alternativas a la Globalización Capitalista, Nordan, Montev-
ideo.
Guerra, P. (2003) Economı́a de la Solidaridad: Construcción de un

camino a veinte años de las primeras elaboraciones, paper pre-
sented at III Jornadas en Historia Económica, 9-11 July, Montev-
179
ideo, accessed at: http://www.emes.net/index.php?id=477 (15 Oc-

tober 2012).
Hall, G., and Patrinos, H. A. (2005) Pueblos indı́genas, pobreza y de-

sarrollo humano en América Latina: 1994-2004, B. Mundial (Ed.),
Banco Mundial.
Hansmann, H. (1996) The Ownership of the Firm, Harvard University

Press, Cambridge, MA.
Haugh, H. (2006) Social Enterprise: Beyond Economic Outcomes and In-

dividual Returns, in Mair, J., Robinson, J., and Hockerts, K. (eds.),
Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 180-205.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., and O’Brien, J. (2005) Sustainable Develop-

ment: Mapping Different Approaches, Sustainable Development, 13,
38-52.
Huanacuni M., F. (2010) Buen Vivir / Vivir Bien: Filosofı́a, polı́ticas,

estrategias y experiencias regionales andinas, CAOI (Coordinadora
Andina de Organizaciones Indı́genas), Lima.
Huybrechts, B. and Defourny, J. (2008) Are fair trade organisations nec-

essarily social enterprises? Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 186-201.
ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal

Peoples in Independent Countries (1989) ac-
cessed at: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en
fp=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100 ILO CODE:C169 (13 May 2013).
INEGI Instituto Nacional de Estadı́stica y Geografı́a (2010) Censo de

Población y Vivienda, accessed at: http://www.censo2010.org.mx/
(12 November 2012).
Inter-American Development Bank (2006) Sustaining De-

velopment For All: Expanding Access to Eco-
nomic Activity and Social Services, accessed at:
180 Bibliography
http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=1481608
(27 July 2012).
Jackson, T. (2011) Prosperity without growth: Economics for a finite

planet, Routledge, London.
Jaiswal, A. K. (2007) Fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: An alternate

perspective. Indian Institute of Management, Working Paper 2007-
07-13.
Jenkins, R. (2005) Globalization, corporate social responsibility and

poverty, International affairs, 81(3), 525-540.
Johnson, A. G., and Whyte, W. F. (1977) The Mondragon System of

Worker Production Cooperatives, Industrial and Labor Relations
Review, 31, 18.
Karnani, A. (2007) Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Mirage

- How the Private Sector Can Help Alleviate Poverty, Working Pa-
per No. 1035, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of
Michigan.
Kleinberger, D. S. (2010) A Myth Deconstructed: The ’Emperor’s New

Clothes’ on the Low-Profit Limited Liability Company, Delaware
Journal of Corporate Law, 35(3), 2010.
Laville, J.L. (2009) The Solidarity Economy: An International

Movement, RCCS Annual Review 84 [Online], available at:
http://rccsar.revues.org/202 (accessed 27 April 2013).
Laville, J.L. and Nyssens, M. (2001) The social enterprise: towards a

theoretical socio-economic approach, in Borzaga, C. and Defourny,
J. (Eds.), The Emergence of Social Enterprise, Routledge, London.
Leonard, M. (2004) Bonding and bridging social capital: Reflections from

Belfast, Sociology, 38(5), 927-944.
181
Ley de Economı́a Social y Solidaria de México, accessed at:

http://www.economiasolidaria.org/documentos/ ley de economia
social y solidaria de mexico(16 November 2012).
Light, P. (2006) Searching for social entrepreneurs: who they might be,
where they might be found, what they do, Research on Social En-
trepreneurship: Understanding and Contributing to an Emerging
Field, ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series, 1(3).
Lindsay, N.J. (2005) Toward a cultural model of indigenous en-

trepreneurial attitude, Academy of Marketing Sciences Review, 5,
1-17.
Loomis, T.M. (2000) Indigenous Populations and Sustainable Devel-

opment: Building on Indigenous Approaches to Holistic, Self-
Determined Development, World Development, 28(5), 893-910.
Lu, F. et al. (2010) Contrasting colonists and indigenous impacts on

Amazonian forests, Conservation Biology, 24(3), 881-885.
Luccisano, L. (2004) Mexico’s Progresa program (1997-2000): An exam-

ple of neo-liberal poverty alleviation programs concerned with gen-
der, human capital development, responsibility and choice, Journal
of Poverty, 8(4), 31-57.
Malinowski, B. (1920) 51. Kula; the Circulating Exchange of Valuables

in the Archipelagoes of Eastern New Guinea, Man, 20, 97-105.
Marshall, A. (1920) Principles of Economics (8th ed.), Macmillan, Lon-

don.
Martin R. and Sunley P. (2006) Path dependence and regional economic

evolution, Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395-437.
Mauss, M. (1990)[1925] The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange
in Archaic Societies Trans. WD Halls, Routledge, London.
182 Bibliography
Medina, J. (2011) Acerca del Suma Qamaña, in Farah, I. and Vasapollo,

L. (eds.), Vivir Bien: paradigma no capitalista?, CIDES-UMSA and
Plural, La Paz, pp. 39-64.
Meyer-Stamer, J. (1998) Path Dependence in Regional Development:

Persistence and Change in Three Industrial Clusters in Santa Cata-
rina, Brazil, World Development, 26(8), 1495-1511.
Mohan, G., and Stokke, K. (2000) Participatory development and em-

powerment: The dangers of localism, Third World Quarterly, 21(2),
247-268.
Moore, G. (2004) The Fair Trade Movement: Parameters, Issues and

Future Research, Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1-2), 73-86.
Mora, M. (2007) Zapatista Anticapitalist Politics and the ”Other Cam-

paign” Learning from the Struggle for Indigenous Rights and Au-
tonomy, Latin American Perspectives, 34(2), 64-77.
Nyssens, M. ed. (2006) Social Enterprise at the Crossroads of Market,

Public Policies and Civil Society, Routledge, London.
OECD (2010) Perspectivas OCDE: México Polı́ticas

Clave para un Desarrollo Sostenible, accessed at:
www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/2/45391108.pdf (20 October 2012).
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions

for collective action, Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E., J. Burger, C. B. Field, R. B. Norgaard, and D. Polican-

sky (1999) Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges,
Science, 284, 278-282.
Paoli, A. (2003) Educación, Autonomı́a y Lekil Kuxlejal: aproximaciones

sociolingüı́sticas a la sabidurı́a de los Tseltales, Universidad Au-
tonoma Metropolitana, México DF.
183
Patrinos, H.A., and Skoufias, E. (2007) Economic Opportunities for In-

digenous Peoples in Latin America, conference edition, The World
Bank, Washington DC.
Peinado-Vara, E. (2006) Corporate social responsibility in Latin America,

Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2006(21), 61-69.
Peredo, A.M. and Chrisman, J.J. (2006) Toward a theory of community-

based enterprise, Academy of Management Review, 31, 309-328.
Peredo, A.M. and McLean, M. (2010) Indigenous develop-

ment and the cultural captivity of entrepreneurship, Busi-
ness Society published online 11 March, accessed at:
http://bas.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/03/04/
0007650309356201.abstract (1 November 2012).
Peredo, A.M., Anderson, R.B., Galbraith, C.S., Honig, B., Dana, L.-
P. (2004) Towards a theory of indigenous entrepreneurship, Inter-
national Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 1(1-2),
1-20.
Pestoff, V. (1998) Beyond the Market and State: Social Enterprise and
Civil Democracy in a Welfare Society, Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.
Pickard, M. (2006) The Plan Puebla Panama Continues as Meso-America

Responds to the Empire´s Plans, Bulletin of CIEPAC n.527, ac-
cessed at: http://www.ciepac.org/boletines/chiapas en.php?id=527
(3 November 2012).
Pike, A., Rodrı́guez-Pose, A., and Tomaney, J. (2006) Local and regional
development, Routledge, London.
Polanyi, K. (2001) [1944] The Great Transformation: The Political and

Economic Origins of Our Time, Beacon Press, Boston.
Polanyi, K., Arensberg, C.M., and Pearson H.W. (eds.)(1957) Trade and
market in the early empires, The Free Press, Glencoe.
184 Bibliography
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2011) Creating Shared Value, Harvard Busi-

ness Review, 89(1-2), 62-77.
Portes A. (1998) Social capital: its origins and applications in modern

sociology, Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1-24.
Portes, A. and Landolt, P. (1996) The Downside of Social Capital,The

American Prospect, 26, 18-21.
Portes, A., and Mooney, M. (2002) Social capital and Community De-
velopment, in Guillén, M. F., and England, P. (Eds.), The new eco-
nomic sociology: Developments in an emerging field, Russell Sage
Foundation, New York.
Prahalad, C. K. (2006) The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, Pear-

son Education India.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hammond, A. (2002) Serving the World’s Poor, Prof-
itably, Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48-58.
Prieto-Carrón, M. (2006) Corporate Social Responsibility in Latin Amer-

ica: Chiquita, women banana workers and structural inequalities,
Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 21, 85-94.
Putnam, R. D. (1995) Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital,

Journal of Democracy, 6, 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of Amer-

ican Community, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Putnam R.D., Leonardi R., Nanetti R.Y. (1993) Making Democracy

Work, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Putzel, J. (1997) Accounting for the ‘Dark side’ of Social Capital: Read-
ing Robert Putnam on Democracy, Journal of International Devel-
opment, 9(7), 939-949.
185
Razeto M., L. (1986) Economı́a Popular de Solidaridad, Edición Confer-

encia Episcopal de Chile, Santiago.
Razeto M., L. (1998) El factor C y la economı́a de la solidaridad, Serie

Cuadernos de Educación 1, Montevideo, Cofac.
Razeto M., L. (1999) La economı́a de solidaridad: concepto, realidad y

proyecto, Persona y Sociedad, 13(2), 97-110.
Razeto M., L. (2001) Cinco constataciones sobre la pobreza, catorce tesis

sobre el desarrollo social y una conclusión sobre la economı́a de sol-
idaridad, Polis, 2.
Roberts, D. and Woods, C. (2005) Changing the world on a shoestring:

the concept of social entrepreneurship, University of Auckland Busi-
ness Review, 7, 45-51.
Rodrik, D. (2000) How far will international economic integration go?

Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(1), 177-186.
Rodrik, D. (2001) Why is There So Much Economic Insecurity in Latin

America? CEPAL Review, 73, 7-31.
Rodrik, D. (2004) Rethinking growth policies in the developing world,

Luca d’Agliano Lecture in Development Economics, Torino, Italy.
Rojas H., J.J. (2011a) Análisis de la polı́tica pública denominada: centros

cooperativos de capacitación organizacional, in Radrigán Rubio, M.,
Lais Puzino, S., Pereira Morais, L., and Dávila, R. (eds.), Manual
de Buenas Prácticas de la Economı́a Social y el Empleo en América
Latina, Fundación Divina Pastora y Fundación Iberoamericana de
la Economı́a Social (FUNDIBES).
Rojas H., J.J. (2011b) Vicisitudes del proceso de regulación jurı́dica de la

economı́ı́a social y solidaria en México, in VV.AA. Reformas Legisla-
tivas en el Derecho Social y Solidario Iberoamericano, Fundacióón
186 Bibliography
Divina Pastora y Fundación Iberoamericana de la Economı́a Social

(FUNDIBES).
Ruiz, S.G. (2011) En esta hora de Gracia, Ediciones Mu-

jeres y Hombres de Buena Palabra, México, accessed at:
http://komanilel.org/BIBLIOTECA VIRTUAL/ (15 July 2013).
Sabatini, F. (2008) Social capital and the quality of economic develop-

ment, Kyklos, 61(3), 466-499.
Sabatini, F., Modena, F., Tortia E. (2012) Do cooperative enterprises

create social trust? Euricse Working Paper, N.043—12.
Santos, F. M. (2012) A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship, Jour-

nal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335-351.
Schellhorn, M. (2010) Development for whom? Social justice and the

business of ecotourism, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18:1, 115-
135.
Schoneveld , G. C., L. A. German, and E. Nutakor (2011) Land-based

investments for rural development? A grounded analysis of the lo-
cal impacts of biofuel feedstock plantations in Ghana, Ecology and
Society, 16(4).
Seanor, P. and Meaton, J. (2007) Making sense of social enterprise,Social

Enterprise Journal, 3(1), 90-100.
Seelos, C. and Mair, J. (2005) Sustainable development: how social en-

trepreneurs make it happen, working paper No 611, IESE Business
School, University of Navarra.
Serrano C., E., Embriz O., A. and Fernández, P. (Eds.) (2002) Indi-
cadores socioeconómicos de los pueblos indı́genas de México, México,
INI-PNUD-CONAPO.
Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting qualitative data, Sage, London.

187
Singer, P. I. (2002) Introdução à economia solidária, Fundação Perseu

Abramo, São Paulo.
Singer, P. and Souza, A. (2000) La economı́a solidaria en Brasil: la

autogestión como respuesta al desempleo, Ed. Contexto, São Paulo.
Somerville, P. and McElwee, G. (2011) Situating community enterprise:

a theoretical exploration, Entrepreneurship and Regional Develop-
ment: An International Journal, 23(5-6), 317-330.
Stahler-Sholk, R. (2001) Globalization and Social Movement Resistance:

The Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas, Mexico, New Political Science,
23(4), 493-516.
Stahler-Sholk, R. (2007) Resisting neoliberal homogenization. The Zap-

atista autonomy movement,Latin American Perspectives, 34(48).
Stavenhagen, R. (1986) Ethnodevelopment: a neglected dimension in

development thinking, in Apthorpe, R.J, Kráhl, A. (eds.), Develop-
ment studies: critique and renewal, E.J. Bril, Leiden, 71-94.
Stiglitz, J.E. (2002) Globalization and its Discontents, Norton, New York.
Stiglitz, J.E. (2009) GDP Fetishism, The Economists’ Voice, 6(8). Arti-
cle 5. Accessed at: http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol6/iss8/art5 (12
June 2012).
Stocks, A., McMahan, B. and Taber, P. (2007) Indigenous, Colonist and

Government Impacts on Nicaragua’s Bosawas Reserve, Conservation
Biology, 21(6),1495-1505.
Strong, C. (1997) The role of fair trade principles within sustainable

development, Sustainable Development, 5, 1-10.
Stronza, A.L. (2010) Commons management and ecotourism: ethno-

graphic evidence from the Amazon, International Journal of the
Commons, 4(1), 1-7.
188 Bibliography
Tapsell, P. and Woods, C. (2010) Social entrepreneurship and innova-

tion: self organisation in an indigenous context, Entrepreneurship
and Regional Development, 10(5), 1-22.
Tauli-Corpuz, V. (2008) The Concept of Indigenous Peoples’ self-

determined development or development with identity and cul-
ture: challenges and trajectories, CLT/CPD/CPO/IPS/02,2008,
UNESCO.
Tauli-Corpuz, V. (2012) I popoli indigeni alle soglie del terzo millennio:

quale modello di sviluppo? Eurilink Edizioni, Roma.
Teixeira, T. C., and Soler, A. D. (2002) La conformación del coopera-

tivismo en Brasil: tendencias y desafı́os en el Siglo XXI. CIRIEC-
España, 43, 205-226.
Thomson, J. L. (2008) Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship:

what have we reached? Social Enterprise Journal, 4(2), 149-161.
Trigilia, C. (2001) Social Capital and Local Development, European Jour-

nal of Social Theory, 4(4), 427-442.
UN (2009) State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, De-

partment of Economic and Social Affairs, accessed at:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP web.pdf
(5 June 2013).
UN Habitat (2011) Indigenous Peoples and Migrations: A Review of

Policies, Programmes and Practices, UNON, Publishing Services
Section, Nairobi.
UNDP (2010) Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano de los Pueblos indı́genas

en México: el reto de la desigualdad de oportunidades, PNUD,
México
189
UNPFII (2006) UN Economic and Social Council, Permanent Forum

on Indigenous Issues, Fifth Session, Action Programme for Second
Indigenous Decade Launched, 15 May 2006.
UNPFII, UN Economic and Social Council, Permanent Fo-

rum on Indigenous Issues, United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) accessed at:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS en.pdf
(13 May 2013).
Utting-Chamorro, K. (2005) Does fair trade make a difference? The case

of small coffee producers in Nicaragua, Development in Practice,
15(3-4).
Valkila, J. (2009) Fair Trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua:

Sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecological Economics,
68(12), 3018-3025.
van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. (2011) Environment versus growth: A criti-

cism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a-growth”, Ecological Economics,
70(5), 881-890.
Vanek, J. (1970) The General Theory of Labour-Managed Market

Economies, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Vázquez-Barquero, A. (2003) Endogenous Development: Networking, in-

novation, institutions and cities, Routlegde, London.
Vieta, M. (2010) The Social Innovations of Autogestión in Argentina’s

Worker-Recuperated Enterprises Cooperatively Reorganizing Pro-
ductive Life in Hard Times, Labor Studies Journal, 35(3), 295-321.
von der Weppen, J. and Cochrane, J. (2012) Social enterprises in tourism:

an exploratory study of operational models and success factors,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(3), 497-511.
190 Bibliography
Wade, R. (2004) Is globalization reducing poverty and inequality? World

Development, 32(4), 567-589.
Walsh, C. (2010) Development as Buen Vivir: institutional arrangements

and (de)colonial entanglements, Development, 53(1), 15-21.
Ward, B. (1958) The Firm in Illyria: market syndicalism, American Eco-

nomic Review, 48(4), 566-589.
WCED (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and

Development: Our Common Future, accessed at: http://www.un-
documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (23 June 2013).
Whiteman, G. (2009) All My Relations: Understanding Perceptions of

Justice and Conflict between Companies and Indigenous Peoples,
Organization Studies, 30(01), 101-120.
Whyte, W. F. (1982) Social inventions for solving human problems,

American Sociological Review, 47, 1-13.
Williamson, J. (1990) What Washington means by policy reform, Latin

American adjustment: how much has happened, 7, 7-20.
Woolcock, M. (2001) The place of social capital in understanding social

and economic outcomes, Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1),
11-17.
Woolcock, M., and Narayan, D. (2000) Social capital: Implications for

development theory, research, and policy, The World Bank Research
Observer, 15(2), 225-249.
World Bank (2004) Lessons of Indigenous Development in Latin America,

The Proceedings of a World Bank Workshop on Indigenous Peoples
Development.
World Bank (2005) Operational Manual OP 4.10, accessed at:

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/
191
EXTPOLICIES/EXTOPMANUAL/0,,print:Y isCURL:
Y contentMDK:20553653 menuPK:4564187 pagePK:64709096 piPK:
64709108 theSitePK:502184 isCURL:Y,00.html (13 May 2013)
Yampara, S. (2001) El viaje del Jaqi a la Qamaña. El hombre en el Vivir

Bien, in Medina, J. (ed.), La comprensión indı́gena de la Buena
Vida, GTZ y Federación Asociaciones Municipales de Bolivia, La
Paz, 45-50.

2014 Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determined Development The Case of Community Enterprises in Chiapas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determined Development The Case of Community Enterprises in Chiapas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determined Development The Case of Community Enterprises in Chiapas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctoral Thesis

Doctoral School in Local Development

Indigenous Peoples and

A dissertation submitted to the doctoral school of local development

Advisor: Prof. Carlo BORZAGA,

Doctoral Committee: Prof. Giancarlo ROVATI,

I am deeply indebted to my friend and colleague Giulia Galera, who

Most exogenous developmental models have not provided satisfac-

sixteen self-managed community enterprises that have been founded by

Keywords: ethnic groups, buen vivir, community enterprise, local

1 What model of development for indigenous peoples? 1

2 Indigenous enterprises with a social aim: a multidisciplinary

2.3 The emergence of non conventional enterprises . . . . . . 43

3 Research context: indigenous peoples in Chiapas 65

4 Empirical research: indigenous community enterprises in

4.7 Additional activities performed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

5 Conclusions: community enterprises and local develop-

A Semi-structured interviews (English version) 155

B Semi-structured interviews (Spanish version) 161

4.1 Classification of the organizations investigated. . . . . . . 98

The mainstream development model based essentially on market fun-

gas, as well as the construction of high-impact infrastructures, such as

rights (arts. 71-74, Constitution of Ecuador). Buen vivir describes a

this terminology allows to put an emphasis on the collective character

rights. The picture that emerges highlights the conditions of socioeco-

What model of development

ment of the community well-being, while it has caused the destruction

1.2 Exogenous and endogenous approaches

of local aspects, such as culture, social capital, and the importance of

One of the main reasons of the failure of these top-down approaches

The objectives of the endogenous development strategies are not only

1.3 Embeddedness, institutions, and social

Some theoretical and policy approaches to local and regional devel-

Even though the role of networks is crucial in the context of indige-

regardless of its social, cultural, economic and political specificities, some

The analogies with the Italian industrial districts have to be found

To conclude, the analysis of social capital appears useful given its

1.4 Sustainable development: theories and

As highlighted by the analyses and examples provided in the pre-

The concept of sustainable development emerged during the 1980s

of sustainability, without really challenging the existing economic system

1.4.1 The role of enterprises in sustainable

Corporate social responsibility is expected to contribute to sustain-

of projects for capacity-building to the advantage of producers. A shared

Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, trans-

economic development of the communities involved and of minimizing

1.5 The impact of neoliberal policies in

In spite of the more subtle meaning that the original conceptualization

countries with different economic, political and social backgrounds has

1.6 Indigenous peoples in the world:

higher rate of workers employed in the informal economy; lower access

Peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indige-

in Independent Countries, 1989).

A second approach is proposed by the World Bank, that identifies four

bottom-up strategy of development.

1.7 “Extractivism” and development

on the socio-economic conditions of indigenous peoples. This mainstream

1.8 Development with identity or

These perspectives support the idea of the mobilization of endogenous