New Institutions of Indigenous Self-Governance in Bolivia: Between Autonomy and Self-Discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the novel legal and policy framework for indigenous autonomy in Bolivia since the approval of the 2009 Constitution, with a focus on the specific contents of the country’s first five approved statutes of indigenous autonomy. The statutes not only appear to internalize Bolivia’s restrictive framework for indigenous autonomy, but also reveal internal tensions between liberal principles and the supposed norms of indigenous self-governance, thereby challenging common assumptions of indigenous attitudes toward autonomy and highlighting the practical objectives of many local actors. Moreover, they indicate an acceptance by many local actors of the national redistributive-developmentalist economic program pursued by the Morales Government. While acknowledging important variations among the statutes, we observe a distinctively Bolivian hybrid model of indigenous autonomy, and posit that within that model, the approved statutes can be located on a continuum between poles of more communitarian and more municipal. The article analyzes the statutes’ provisions for territorial control and prior informed consultation and consent in the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and explores how indigenous autonomy in Bolivia contributes to broader debates about post-liberalism and post-neoliberalism in Latin America.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".