Ruling by Record: The Meaning of Rights, Rules and Registration in an Andean Comunidad

Abstract

This contribution looks at land property relations in a peasant community in the central highlands of Peru. Rather than using a rights‐based approach, the authors propose a ‘practice force field approach’ for their analysis of property relations under communal land tenure regimes. Their study combines qualitative ethnographic case studies with quantitative analysis of data on land distribution. In contrast to rights‐based approaches, this perspective understands the legal discourses that people draw upon to explain property relations as ‘justifying rule talk’ rather than the reflection of a system of property rights. It is shown how property relations are shaped in mediated interactive processes, where official rules, moral principles, shared histories and strategic games come together. The authors use this practice force field approach to study Usibamba, an Andean community that has developed a true disciplinary regime of communal governance based on control over land. The role of ‘rule talk’ and the function of elaborate local systems of land registration are examined in the context of the annual reallocation of communal land. Particular attention is paid to the performance of the president of the comunidad during this delicate process and his reflections on the course of events.

Creating the State Locally through Welfare Provision: Two Mayors, Two Welfare Regimes in Rural Hungary

“…But on the other hand, being an effective elected local leader and reflecting on how the state is perceived among the local population (cf. Nuijten and Lorenzo 2009) is the only way for mayors to fulfill their administrative tasks and establish their own 'social regime'. According to the 'hidden' agenda of the central state (Gyulavári and Krémer 2006), the state itself provides the possibility for local bureaucrats to overwrite central ideas locally, although doing so does not affect the central idea of welfare.…”

“…Frödin 2012). Discretionary power, formally delegated by necessity to ease the strict regulation of official work, can be exercised according to different norms, principles, and interests (de Koning 1988;Heyman 2004;Lipsky 1980), sometimes in order to fulfill electoral considerations (Nuijten and Lorenzo 2009; see also Dorondel and Popa, this issue).…”

Rethinking Power and Authority: Symbolic Violence and Subjectivity in Nepal's Terai Forests

“…In the context of Nepal, a particular blurring between ‘the state’ and ‘civil society’ occurs in government sponsored forestry institutions such as District Forest Offices, as well as state/donor sponsored programmes that are predicated upon civic associations, like Community and Collaborative forestry. They are blurred because of the ways all parties engage in forestry management, but also because of the ideas they draw upon to claim the right to govern (see also Lund, 2009; Nightingale, 2005; Nuijten and Lorenzo, 2009; Ribot, 2009; Sivaramakrishnan, 2000). As we explore how key institutions engage in forestry governance in Nepal, we see more clearly how cultural codes of legitimacy produce authority and the ways they intersect with subjectivity to shape the emergence of (authoritative) institutions.…”

“…But this does not mean such authority remains uncontested. Even when widely considered legitimate, there will be some people and institutions who will question this authority (Nuijten and Lorenzo, 2009; Vandekerckhove and Suykens, 2008). Such situations raise three interesting questions: a) what are the processes of authorization?…”

Environment and Citizenship in Latin America: A New Paradigm for Theory and Practice

“…Researchers working with rural and indigenous peoples have probed relationships that link the politics of land, livelihood and identity, often in the context of struggles for politi-cal recognition and agency (see for example Latta 2007a, Nuijten and Lorenzo 2009, Postero 2007, Wittman 2009a, Yashar 2005. Others studying democratization and institutional reform in the environmental sector have looked to citizen participation processes as key facets in new modes of governance (Bachmann, Delgado, and Marín 2007;Menegat 2002;Palerm and Aceves 2004;Walker, Jones, Roberts, and Frohling 2007).…”