Cited by 14Politics and Society in Latin AmericaIndigenous Cultures and HistoryIndigenous Studies in Latin America

The territorialization of ethnopolitical reforms in Colombia: chocó as a case study

Jaramillo, Marcela Velasco·2014·Latin American Research Review

Abstract

This article looks at the Chocó Department, where black and indigenous ethnic movements demanded collective land rights and autonomy to safeguard local livelihoods from resource-intensive economies. However, after decentralization and state restructuring reforms granted constitutional protections of local ethnopolitical autonomy in the nineties, most indigenous and black communities failed to benefit from the new rights. This has been explained as the result of human rights violations, neoliberal development, and armed groups’ appropriation of regional economies, which created stressful conditions for self-governance. In such a scenario, autonomy was maintained only by communities that could resist violence and hold regional or national governments accountable. I build on these claims and add that the difference between the intent and the actual outcome of the reforms is explained by the way new institutions were territorialized or adapted by specific actors to local dynamics. In the Chocó Department, reforms were territorialized in a context of weak institutions, government corruption, and resource-intensive land-use changes that worked against ethnopolitical autonomy by enabling local intermediaries, who frequently made decisions that went against community rights.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/lar.2014.0046

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Jaramillo, M. V.
Venue
Latin American Research Review
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2014
Volume
49
Issue
3
Pages
126-152
ISSN
  • 0023-8791 (ISSN-L)
  • 1542-4278
OpenAlex
W2108307192
Cited by
14
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Latin American Research Review (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Politics and Society in Latin America
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Indigenous Studies in Latin America
Keywords
territorialization, Chocó, indigenous peoples, Afro-Colombian communities, collective land rights, decentralization, state restructuring, self-government, armed groups, neoliberal development, human rights violations, local intermediaries, political corruption, institutional weakness, land use change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review