Sustaining the ‘Good Life’: Buen Vivir as an alternative to sustainable development

Abstract

This article analyses the ways the Latin American concept of Buen Vivir has been discussed by postdevelopment scholars as a possible alternative to development that goes beyond the traditional anthropocentric development model towards sustainability and wellbeing. Instituted as a reaction to the need for development to consider the biophysical limits of the environment, sustainable development (SD) critics argue that it has not achieved its aims of ensuring social wellbeing and protecting the world’s natural resources for future generations. There is now an impetus towards alternatives to the status quo. Rather than becoming a radically opposing ideology, Buen Vivir provides the opportunity to meet the core aims of SD through a plural, yet alternative approach. This conceptual article is a critical review of academic, policy and popular discourse on the concept of Buen Vivir as an alternative to development. It analyses its strengths and weaknesses as an alternative to SD discourse, examining its core principles and contested definitions, discussing its viability to translate from an emergent alternative discourse to a plural and practical resource for communities to achieve the common aims for sustainability and wellbeing.

A Conceptual Framework for Complex Systems at the Crossroads of Food, Environment, Health, and Innovation

“…Such transformative change seems increasingly possible if based on a societal common effort grounded in indigenous knowledge, not capitalist development. The ethics of living well/buen vivir (BV) [41][42][43][44] must be recognized and promoted, with an open invitation to civil society everywhere to protect and promote indigenous rights and worldviews, respecting natural law, indigenous spirituality, and the values of reciprocity, harmony with nature, solidarity, and collectivity. The values of caring and sharing must be recognized as crucial in bringing about a fair and inclusive world.…”

How can science support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Four tasks to tackle the normative dimension of sustainability

“…While the adoption of the 2030 Agenda can be considered a turning point in defining what sustainability means on a global scale, core elements of sustainability remain hotly contested-not only at the conceptual level (Spaiser et al 2017;Kothari et al 2014;Chassagne 2018), but particularly when it comes to agreeing on actions to achieve the desired transformations in specific global, national, or local contexts (Ziegler and Ott 2011;Schneider and Rist 2014). Both at the conceptual level and at the point when sustainability concepts are operationalized on the ground, differing values across society play a central role.…”

“…But it also needs critical exploration, particularly regarding the power dynamics involved in its development and the values and perspectives that were included or excluded in that process. For example, some countries criticize the Western character of the 2030 Agenda and propose alternative approaches to development altogether, such as the "buen vivir" concept in Bolivia (Chassagne 2018) and "swaraj" in India (Kothari et al 2014). Hence, there is a need for analysis of the various assumptions and normative commitments to procedural and distributive justice latent in the Agenda's formulation, and of their practical and material implications for global transformation towards sustainability.…”

Sumak Kawsay

“…De esta forma, desde la lectura "post" (todavía occidental) de la economía y la ecología, el SK representa un nuevo concepto para entender las relaciones entre el hombre, la naturaleza y la sociedad (Dávalos, 2008). De esta forma, el SK ha sido ampliamente interpretado como una alternativa al discurso del desarrollo (Hernández, 2009;Acosta, 2010;Houtart, 2011;Radcliffe, 2012;Caudillo, 2012;Pérez-Morón y Cardoso-Ruiz, 2014;Cubillo-Guevara y Hidal-go-Capitán, 2015a;Cuestas y Góngora, 2016;García-Macías, 2017;Chassagne, 2018) y también como una alternativa al capitalismo (Altmann, 2016;Sigüenza y Ponce, 2018).…”

“…Es decir, lo usual ha sido considerar al BV como una alternativa al desarrollo y al SK como sinónimo del BV. Varios han sido los autores que han manifestado que se trataría de una traducción reductora de la profundidad semántica del SK (Vanhulst, 2015), de una traducción áspera (Fitz-Henry, 2015) o una traducción floja (Chassagne, 2018). Para Llasag ( 2009) "la traducción literal es un error, pues el SK no necesariamente significa buen vivir" (p. 114).…”