Commodities Consensus: Neoextractivism and Enclosure of the Commons in Latin America

Over the past decade, a significant number of Latin American countries have questioned the Washington consensus and financial valorization. In doing so, they have moved into the paradigm of the commodities consensus and the large-scale exportation of raw materials. These processes have led to a seri...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The South Atlantic quarterly 2015-01, Vol.114 (1), p.65-82
Main Author: Svampa, Maristella
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Commodities
Cultural Studies
Economics
Labor
Literary Theory
Literature and Literary Studies
Natural resources
Politics
Raw materials
Sociology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Over the past decade, a significant number of Latin American countries have questioned the Washington consensus and financial valorization. In doing so, they have moved into the paradigm of the commodities consensus and the large-scale exportation of raw materials. These processes have led to a series of important political and economic changes, while also opening a new phase of conflict linked to the appropriation and dispossession of territories and natural resources. Starting from a regional scenario pierced with strong tensions and asymmetries, this article examines the current phase of capital accumulation in Latin America, focusing on critical concepts such as neoextractivism and bad development. It presents a particular reading of environmental conflict, linked to processes of dispossession, enclosure of the common, and the deepening of extractivism by Latin American progressive governments. The article also explores some prescriptive categories spanning contemporary Latin American thought and debate linked to the environmentalization of struggles. These concepts include (living well), the rights of nature, and the commons. To conclude, it briefly reviews the debate around transition and postextractivism.
ISSN:0038-2876
1527-8026
DOI:10.1215/00382876-2831290