The political economy of the ambiguity of recognition: collective rights of indigenous people under Peruvian-style neoliberalism (1990-2000)

• Autor: Salas, Fabio Manuel
• Formato: artículo
• Fecha de Publicación: 2022
• Institución: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
• Repositorio: PUCP-Institucional
• Lenguaje: español
• OAI Identifier: oai:repositorio.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.14657/194439
• Enlace del recurso: https://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/lacolmena/article/view/26698/25065; https://repositorio.pucp.edu.pe/index/handle/123456789/194439; https://doi.org/10.18800/lacolmena.202201.003
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: Political economy; Collective rights; Indigenous people; Neoliberalism in Peru; Economía política; Derechos colectivos; Pueblos indígenas; Eoliberalismo en el Perú; https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#5.04.01

The simultaneous appearance in 1989 of the term “Washington Consensus” and the adoption of ILO Convention 169 are not a historical curiosity, but rather a milestone in the ambiguity of the recognition of collective rights of indigenous people. Now, while the political economy of Peruvian development has been described as “heavily centralised and ethnically define exclusionary” (Orihuela, 2020, p. 146), can it be said that it only obeys the weight of history? What characterized the political economy of recognition during a markedly neoliberal period? The aim of this essay is to outline a proposal for analysis of the type of political economy that governed the recognition of indigenous people’s rights in Peru during the Fujimori decade (1990-2000). Although the historical determinants of the condition of exclusion of these people, the characteristics of the Peruvian neoliberal period and the underlying political economy have been studied, research focused on the relationship between these aspects at the end of the 20th century is scarce. The first section addresses the historical relationship between the people in question and the State; the second defines the concept of neoliberalism and its relationship with collective rights; the third section develops the analysis proposal. Finally, it is argued that the “recognition” of the right to land and territory under the Fujimori regime implied a lack of knowledge, constraint and violation of this and other collective rights of indigenous people.