Comparative mining governance in Latin America: problems of theory and methodology

Session Submission Type: Panel

Abstract

This panel explores the theoretical and methodological challenges involved in conducting national level comparisons to explain patterns of mining governance. A comparative approach guards against exceptionalist and wholly descriptive interpretations, instead highlighting structural and institutional drivers of change, both endogenous and exogenous. These may include commodity prices, market demands, and super-cycles, or the emergence of new political settlements and patterns of contestation. Conversely, comparative approaches can come at the context of empirical and ethnographic detail. Through studies of different substantive themes in mining governance (water management, mine closure, the relation between large-scale mining and small-scale mining, etc.) papers in this panel discuss problems of methodology and theory building within comparative analyses.

Sub Track

• Biodiversity, Climate Change, and Natural Resources

Session Organizers

• Gisselle Vila Benites, The University of Melbourne

• Anthony J Bebbington, Clark University

Chair

• Anthony J Bebbington, Clark University

Discussant

• Barbara Göbel, Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut

Individual Presentations

• Conflict, political settlements and the governance of extractivism: the pros and cons of a cross-border comparison, El Salvador and Honduras - Anthony J Bebbington, Clark University; Benjamin C Fash, Clark University

• Political settlements and artisanal and small-scale mining: the cases of Peru and Colombia - Gisselle Vila Benites, The University of Melbourne

• Comparative approaches to mine closure governance in Latin America - Gillian Gregory, University of Melbourne

• Comparative analyses of mine-related impacts using GIS - Tim T Werner