What do you think?
Rate this book
Radical Américas
Resource Radicals: From Petro-Nationalism to Post-Extractivism in Ecuador
In 2007, the left came to power in Ecuador. In the years that followed, the “twenty-first-century socialist” government and a coalition of grassroots activists came to blows over the extraction of natural resources. Each side declared the other a perversion of leftism and the principles of socio-economic equality, popular empowerment, and anti-imperialism. In Resource Radicals, Thea Riofrancos unpacks the conflict between these two leftisms: on the one hand, the administration's resource nationalism and focus on economic development; and on the other, the anti-extractivism of grassroots activists who condemned the disregard for nature and indigenous communities. In this archival and ethnographic study, Riofrancos expands the study of resource politics by decentering state resource policy and locating it in a field of political struggle populated by actors with conflicting visions of resource extraction. She demonstrates how Ecuador's commodity-dependent economy and history of indigenous uprisings offer a unique opportunity to understand development, democracy, and the ecological foundations of global capitalism.
272 pages, Paperback
Published August 7, 2020
15 people are currently reading
505 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
March 26, 2025
Development vs. Environment?…
Preamble:
--Time flies… it’s now been a year since taking an intro Climate Emergency class co-taught by Naomi Klein (This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate), where I read Riofrancos’ academic book for some background on the challenging debates between 2 of my priority interests:
i) Anti-imperialism:
--In particular, sovereign development to counter imperialist “kicking away the ladder”.
ii) Environmentalism:
--I don’t mean elitist Malthusian conservationism (Too Many People?: Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis), but instead grassroots environmentalism led by local communities (esp. indigenous).
Highlights:
1) (Leftist) Resource Nationalism:
--Latin America’s history of colonization and legacy of foreign-owned extractivism led to critical analyses: “Dependency Theory”/“Unequal Exchange” (influencing World-Systems Analysis on core-periphery relations).
--1970s resource nationalist developmentalism (not Leftist) attempted to control oil wealth for national economic development. Neoliberalism countered from 1990-2006 (lost decade of cutbacks).
--A Left populist coalition won state power (Correa’s administration: 2006-2017, part of Latin America’s “Pink Tide”/“turn to the Left” governments) composed of:
i) public sector/labour movements/other anti-Neoliberalism
ii) indigenous/Campesino (peasants)/environmental
--Correa’s government had great success decreasing poverty by expanding the welfare state, relying on social spending esp. monthly cash transfer program.
…However, this was still reliant on resource nationalism (“Extractivismo”), i.e. extraction of natural resources and exporting to global commodity markets. Despite the related goal of anti-imperialism, foreign oil companies were not nationalized; Correa relied on new contracts (taxes/royalties). I might add that, from the geopolitical lens, the Pink Tide was very impressive given geopolitical options; Correa’s administration (including Minister of Foreign Affairs Guillaume Long) provided asylum for Julian Assange.
--Correa/Pink Tide rode the global commodity boom (2000-2014; China’s demand and Middle East/North Africa disruptions) to fund their resource nationalist development/welfare redistribution; however, they were unable to diversity their domestic economies from foreign raw materials demand/capital dependency. Further reliance led to expanding mining (gold/copper) and oil explorations.
…Thus, the author highlights the “dilemma” of equality:
a) redistributive (success in decreasing poverty with welfare state), vs.
b) dependency (on extraction/state/global commodity markets/foreign capital).
--This “modernization” developmentalism conflicted with anti-extractivism members of the coalition (see later), whose protests (esp. against expansions) led to Correa’s accusation of “green imperialism”, i.e. foreign imperialist NGOs meddling with Ecuador’s anti-Neoliberal development. Correa’s government criminalized protestors for sabotage/terror using state of emergency tactics.
…Correa’s framing here is that anti-imperialism/anti-Neoliberalism requires a strong, technocratic state. Indigenous/environmental protests against the Left state’s economic development became framed as folkloric (i.e. idealized precolonial past)/misinformed/minority rule (against urban centers), with no alternative to poverty/weakness against imperialism.
…Thus, the author highlights the dilemma of sovereignty:
a) participatory democracy (including anti-extractivism members of coalition), vs.
b) strong state against imperialism/domestic capitalists (let’s not forget that Pink Tide countries were social democratic, where the economy is still reliant on the private capitalist sector).
--The global commodity boom declined starting in 2012’s agricultural bust and ended with the 2014 oil bust. I would love to see more analysis on geopolitical economy, for example Ecuador’s lack of monetary sovereignty from using the US dollar as their domestic currency! The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy
--The author adds that the Correa state was not homogenous; the state is a site of contestation, and there were even critical bureaucrats with more incentives towards environmentalism/long-term planning.
2) Anti-Extractivism (Post-Extractivism?):
--Much of this book studies the dynamic relationship between the state and popular movements, the push-and-pull, the cooptation of slogans, the lag between (as adjustments are made to changing contexts), etc.
--The anti-extractivism members of the coalition is traced back to the National Indigenous Federation from 1930-1980s, culminating in CONAIE (1986) and mid-90s coalition whose direct action paralyzed the economy and forced presidents to resign. Their key synthesis:
i) Anti-Neoliberalism: widely popular, as shared by resource nationalism
ii) Territorial defense: framed land as the site of cultural reproduction rather than merely capital reproduction
iii) Plurinationalism: representing various nations rather than just a homogenous state
iv) Popular sovereignty
v) Communitarian economy: alas, I cannot find anything more on this from the book, but basically this is self-management outside state/market.
--Sumak kawsay/buen vivir (“Living Well”, focusing on the reproduction of life rather than capital) became enshrined in the Constitution in 2008 under Correa. However, given Correa’s resource nationalism, anti-extractivism protests shifted to protest the Left government from 2007-2017. Note: the end of Correa’s administration was also the end of the Left in power, bringing further challenges.
--The new Constitution made law into a protest tactic. Meanwhile, direct action protests disrupted extraction on the local level; urban-rural coalitions were built from re-framing those affected, making connections with shared water supply/public housing/transportation/green spaces.
…see comments below for rest of the review…
Preamble:
--Time flies… it’s now been a year since taking an intro Climate Emergency class co-taught by Naomi Klein (This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate), where I read Riofrancos’ academic book for some background on the challenging debates between 2 of my priority interests:
i) Anti-imperialism:
--In particular, sovereign development to counter imperialist “kicking away the ladder”.
ii) Environmentalism:
--I don’t mean elitist Malthusian conservationism (Too Many People?: Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis), but instead grassroots environmentalism led by local communities (esp. indigenous).
Highlights:
1) (Leftist) Resource Nationalism:
--Latin America’s history of colonization and legacy of foreign-owned extractivism led to critical analyses: “Dependency Theory”/“Unequal Exchange” (influencing World-Systems Analysis on core-periphery relations).
--1970s resource nationalist developmentalism (not Leftist) attempted to control oil wealth for national economic development. Neoliberalism countered from 1990-2006 (lost decade of cutbacks).
--A Left populist coalition won state power (Correa’s administration: 2006-2017, part of Latin America’s “Pink Tide”/“turn to the Left” governments) composed of:
i) public sector/labour movements/other anti-Neoliberalism
ii) indigenous/Campesino (peasants)/environmental
--Correa’s government had great success decreasing poverty by expanding the welfare state, relying on social spending esp. monthly cash transfer program.
…However, this was still reliant on resource nationalism (“Extractivismo”), i.e. extraction of natural resources and exporting to global commodity markets. Despite the related goal of anti-imperialism, foreign oil companies were not nationalized; Correa relied on new contracts (taxes/royalties). I might add that, from the geopolitical lens, the Pink Tide was very impressive given geopolitical options; Correa’s administration (including Minister of Foreign Affairs Guillaume Long) provided asylum for Julian Assange.
--Correa/Pink Tide rode the global commodity boom (2000-2014; China’s demand and Middle East/North Africa disruptions) to fund their resource nationalist development/welfare redistribution; however, they were unable to diversity their domestic economies from foreign raw materials demand/capital dependency. Further reliance led to expanding mining (gold/copper) and oil explorations.
…Thus, the author highlights the “dilemma” of equality:
a) redistributive (success in decreasing poverty with welfare state), vs.
b) dependency (on extraction/state/global commodity markets/foreign capital).
--This “modernization” developmentalism conflicted with anti-extractivism members of the coalition (see later), whose protests (esp. against expansions) led to Correa’s accusation of “green imperialism”, i.e. foreign imperialist NGOs meddling with Ecuador’s anti-Neoliberal development. Correa’s government criminalized protestors for sabotage/terror using state of emergency tactics.
…Correa’s framing here is that anti-imperialism/anti-Neoliberalism requires a strong, technocratic state. Indigenous/environmental protests against the Left state’s economic development became framed as folkloric (i.e. idealized precolonial past)/misinformed/minority rule (against urban centers), with no alternative to poverty/weakness against imperialism.
…Thus, the author highlights the dilemma of sovereignty:
a) participatory democracy (including anti-extractivism members of coalition), vs.
b) strong state against imperialism/domestic capitalists (let’s not forget that Pink Tide countries were social democratic, where the economy is still reliant on the private capitalist sector).
--The global commodity boom declined starting in 2012’s agricultural bust and ended with the 2014 oil bust. I would love to see more analysis on geopolitical economy, for example Ecuador’s lack of monetary sovereignty from using the US dollar as their domestic currency! The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy
--The author adds that the Correa state was not homogenous; the state is a site of contestation, and there were even critical bureaucrats with more incentives towards environmentalism/long-term planning.
2) Anti-Extractivism (Post-Extractivism?):
--Much of this book studies the dynamic relationship between the state and popular movements, the push-and-pull, the cooptation of slogans, the lag between (as adjustments are made to changing contexts), etc.
--The anti-extractivism members of the coalition is traced back to the National Indigenous Federation from 1930-1980s, culminating in CONAIE (1986) and mid-90s coalition whose direct action paralyzed the economy and forced presidents to resign. Their key synthesis:
i) Anti-Neoliberalism: widely popular, as shared by resource nationalism
ii) Territorial defense: framed land as the site of cultural reproduction rather than merely capital reproduction
iii) Plurinationalism: representing various nations rather than just a homogenous state
iv) Popular sovereignty
v) Communitarian economy: alas, I cannot find anything more on this from the book, but basically this is self-management outside state/market.
--Sumak kawsay/buen vivir (“Living Well”, focusing on the reproduction of life rather than capital) became enshrined in the Constitution in 2008 under Correa. However, given Correa’s resource nationalism, anti-extractivism protests shifted to protest the Left government from 2007-2017. Note: the end of Correa’s administration was also the end of the Left in power, bringing further challenges.
--The new Constitution made law into a protest tactic. Meanwhile, direct action protests disrupted extraction on the local level; urban-rural coalitions were built from re-framing those affected, making connections with shared water supply/public housing/transportation/green spaces.
…see comments below for rest of the review…
March 10, 2021
In 2007, Rafael Correa was elected to power on the back of a strong, anti-neoliberal social movement, and as part of the "pink tide" that swept Latin America during the time. But during the course of his presidency, Correa found himself in social and political conflict with a segment of the very constituency that had brought him to power. At the heart of the conflict lay the following tension: Correa and his government believed that the only way to mitigate poverty and inequality in Ecuador was through a policy of "resource nationalism": that is, the government would exploit Ecuador's mineral wealth, and use the proceeds for national redistribution and welfare programs. On the other hand, local and indigenous communities strongly resisted this policy, which often meant environmental degradation, pollution, and their own dispossession - as well as keeping Ecuador within the global commodities cycle. This was known as "anti-extractivism." Both resource nationalism and anti-extractivism claimed the mantle of the left, and accused their opponents of betraying or selling out.
Thea Riofrancos' Resource Radicals is a meticulous and sensitive exploration of this conflict, as it played out over a decade between 2007 - 2017. Riofrancos herself participated in some of the social movements against extractivism, and the book is written from the perspective of an engaged, sympathetic, and critical observer. The book covers both public protests against Correa's extractivist policies (and Correa's defence of them), but also engages in great detail with how the anti-extractivist movement used Ecuador's new Constitution to frame their arguments and claims: in particular, how the Ecuadorean Constitution became the terrain on which social movements demanded effective public consultation - and in some cases, public consent - before a mining project could go ahead, while government officials and bureaucrats (with some internal resistance at all times) attempted to narrow the scope of their obligations by simply providing "information" about mining projects to the citizenry, and nothing more.
Resource Radicals also chronicles the government's attempts to "depoliticise" extractivism and mining by turning it into a technocratic exercise of technocratic information dissemination, and how it was resisted by the communities involved: we are shown a truly fascinating account of how the boundaries of what is political - and subject to political debates and the constraints of justice - was constantly negotiated and re-negotiated in Ecuador.
The Conclusion of the book brings together its themes brilliantly, and raises some of the most important questions that face the world today, in the era of climate change. It asks whether nation-states that are dependant on extractivism (petro-States or otherwise) - and therefore dependant on boom-and-bust cycles will ever be able to break free from the global capitalist network; whether it is possible to shift from an extractivist from a non-extractivist economy without sacrificing the improvement in living standards that leftist governments need to maintain in order to stay in power; and who can bring this change about. One question that the Conclusion doesn't ask - but which I find myself wondering frequently - is whether Ecuador's experience reveals (yet again) that these shifts are almost impossible to achieve within the borders of a single, or even a small group of, nation-states.
The book reminded me of Mark Goodale's A Revolution in Fragments, which charts a similar history of Bolivia under the Morales years. Through both books we get a sympathetic - but critical - portrayal of left-wing governments facing genuine global constraints in their efforts to mitigate poverty and inequality - while facing sustained and legitimate pressure from the social movements that brought them to power. While we don't yet have the answers, both books set out the existential questions that we need to be thinking about with great clarity and urgency.
Perhaps my only small complaint about the book is that we didn't get enough of a sense of Riofrancos' own subject position, other than her account as a participant in the 2012 protests, and as an ethnographic researcher.
But that is indeed a small complaint. This is a very wonderful book that should be read by all.
Thea Riofrancos' Resource Radicals is a meticulous and sensitive exploration of this conflict, as it played out over a decade between 2007 - 2017. Riofrancos herself participated in some of the social movements against extractivism, and the book is written from the perspective of an engaged, sympathetic, and critical observer. The book covers both public protests against Correa's extractivist policies (and Correa's defence of them), but also engages in great detail with how the anti-extractivist movement used Ecuador's new Constitution to frame their arguments and claims: in particular, how the Ecuadorean Constitution became the terrain on which social movements demanded effective public consultation - and in some cases, public consent - before a mining project could go ahead, while government officials and bureaucrats (with some internal resistance at all times) attempted to narrow the scope of their obligations by simply providing "information" about mining projects to the citizenry, and nothing more.
Resource Radicals also chronicles the government's attempts to "depoliticise" extractivism and mining by turning it into a technocratic exercise of technocratic information dissemination, and how it was resisted by the communities involved: we are shown a truly fascinating account of how the boundaries of what is political - and subject to political debates and the constraints of justice - was constantly negotiated and re-negotiated in Ecuador.
The Conclusion of the book brings together its themes brilliantly, and raises some of the most important questions that face the world today, in the era of climate change. It asks whether nation-states that are dependant on extractivism (petro-States or otherwise) - and therefore dependant on boom-and-bust cycles will ever be able to break free from the global capitalist network; whether it is possible to shift from an extractivist from a non-extractivist economy without sacrificing the improvement in living standards that leftist governments need to maintain in order to stay in power; and who can bring this change about. One question that the Conclusion doesn't ask - but which I find myself wondering frequently - is whether Ecuador's experience reveals (yet again) that these shifts are almost impossible to achieve within the borders of a single, or even a small group of, nation-states.
The book reminded me of Mark Goodale's A Revolution in Fragments, which charts a similar history of Bolivia under the Morales years. Through both books we get a sympathetic - but critical - portrayal of left-wing governments facing genuine global constraints in their efforts to mitigate poverty and inequality - while facing sustained and legitimate pressure from the social movements that brought them to power. While we don't yet have the answers, both books set out the existential questions that we need to be thinking about with great clarity and urgency.
Perhaps my only small complaint about the book is that we didn't get enough of a sense of Riofrancos' own subject position, other than her account as a participant in the 2012 protests, and as an ethnographic researcher.
But that is indeed a small complaint. This is a very wonderful book that should be read by all.
April 12, 2021
I read this over several weeks as part of a book club through the DSA eco-socialism working group, which was a great experience. The book is both a compelling story about mining conflicts in Ecuador--with great material on the specific historical events, intellectual developments, and popular discourses that flowed within the pro-extraction state and the anti-extraction indigenous communities-- and implicitly a call to action for the global left and environmental movement to start paying more attention to all forms of extraction. There will be (and in many places already are) very thorny questions over where whether and how to pursue resource extraction (including, for instance, metal for solar panels) that we have to start confronting now. This case study of Ecuador is an invaluable tool to help think through some of these issues.
March 8, 2021
Although it’s clearly an academic text (no surprises there given the publisher), this account of the Left-in-power and the Left-in-Resistance, of Correa’s Pink Tide and CONAIE’s anti-extractive protest movement, is vital reading for everyone to be able to think alongside the author about thorny problems of how to build majorities, shift material conditions for the poor, and fight climate change which is NOT an easy task.
August 21, 2024
Important, necessary work, I had a friend try to read it with me and they stated about the first few pages, "It sounds like she input this into ChatGPT," (meaning it was very verbose). I do agree especially with the beginning but as a newer topic, new buzzwords are needed to articulate similarity. It was enjoyable even though it was dense.
October 13, 2020
In the early 2000s into the 2010s, Latin American politics were characterized by a "pink tide," left-wing governments coming into power in country after country; buoyed by a commodities boom that increased the revenue coming into state coffers, they were able to launch new programs to address high rates of poverty and inequality still lingering due to the region's history of colonialism.
But a tension always existed within these governments. How socialist/radical/left-wing can a government really be when it relies on the large drilling and mining projects that destroy the environment and cause harm to local, typically indigenous communities? And how stable of a left-wing project can that be?
Thea Riofrancos analyzes these and other questions in the context of Ecuador, looking at the past few decades through the lens of two competing "resource radicalisms." On one hand, there is a discourse and practice of "radical resource nationalism," which demands collective ownership of oil and minerals. On the other, there is an "anti-extractivism" that rejects extraction and envisions a post-extractive society. The latter discourse is much newer, and indeed, many of its proponents were once advocates of the former before they begun to see it as having fatal limitations.
Riofrancos interviews activists, locals, policymakers, and technocrats to analyze these two forms of "radicalism" in practice -- what actions and decisions they lead to and how they shape the political terrain. Among other things, she dives into how competing political actors define what the essence of "neoliberalism" is (e.g., can the Correa government be "neoliberal" as indigenous and environmentalist protests allege, or is neoliberalism only about a narrow form of state retrenchment?), what it means to have community approval (and who, in fact, the "community" to approve/consent/consult even is), and what its means to be "informed."
She concludes the ethnographic study with some insightful reflections on the dilemmas faced by the "left in power" and the "left in resistance" and the need for a political project that can most potently advance egalitarian and ecological ends.
But a tension always existed within these governments. How socialist/radical/left-wing can a government really be when it relies on the large drilling and mining projects that destroy the environment and cause harm to local, typically indigenous communities? And how stable of a left-wing project can that be?
Thea Riofrancos analyzes these and other questions in the context of Ecuador, looking at the past few decades through the lens of two competing "resource radicalisms." On one hand, there is a discourse and practice of "radical resource nationalism," which demands collective ownership of oil and minerals. On the other, there is an "anti-extractivism" that rejects extraction and envisions a post-extractive society. The latter discourse is much newer, and indeed, many of its proponents were once advocates of the former before they begun to see it as having fatal limitations.
Riofrancos interviews activists, locals, policymakers, and technocrats to analyze these two forms of "radicalism" in practice -- what actions and decisions they lead to and how they shape the political terrain. Among other things, she dives into how competing political actors define what the essence of "neoliberalism" is (e.g., can the Correa government be "neoliberal" as indigenous and environmentalist protests allege, or is neoliberalism only about a narrow form of state retrenchment?), what it means to have community approval (and who, in fact, the "community" to approve/consent/consult even is), and what its means to be "informed."
She concludes the ethnographic study with some insightful reflections on the dilemmas faced by the "left in power" and the "left in resistance" and the need for a political project that can most potently advance egalitarian and ecological ends.
Read
August 6, 2025En 2008, Ecuador elegí gobernarse bajo una nueva constitución, que le otorga derechos a la naturaleza, instaura la plurinacionalidad, obliga a que los pueblos sean consultados antes de actividades extractivas, entre otras cosas. Todo esto bajo un un presidente de izquierda (Rafael Correa). No obstante, todo cambia para que no cambie nada. El gobierno no solos mantiene sino que profundiza el sector extractivo, todo para financiar mayores gastos sociales – los cuáles fueron relevantes para reducir la pobreza y la desigualdad.
En este contexto, la autora describe muy bien la forma en que las alianzas y discursos de la izquierda se dividen. Un progresismo urbano y cercano al gobierno, apoya el uso de recursos naturales para financiar mayores niveles de gasto social; mientras que otro sector más rural y afectado por las actividades extractivas, busca frenar estos proyectos, apelando a la constitución, y articulando un discurso anti-extractivo.
Tengo algunos dudas, dejo estas: ¿cuál es la relación entre las ONGs y las comunidades locales? ¿Pueden estas ser un mecanismo para escalar y construir movimientos anti-extractivos?
En este contexto, la autora describe muy bien la forma en que las alianzas y discursos de la izquierda se dividen. Un progresismo urbano y cercano al gobierno, apoya el uso de recursos naturales para financiar mayores niveles de gasto social; mientras que otro sector más rural y afectado por las actividades extractivas, busca frenar estos proyectos, apelando a la constitución, y articulando un discurso anti-extractivo.
Tengo algunos dudas, dejo estas: ¿cuál es la relación entre las ONGs y las comunidades locales? ¿Pueden estas ser un mecanismo para escalar y construir movimientos anti-extractivos?
August 23, 2025
i know that thea riofrancos is political scientist and not a sociologist but i think this book could have been so much more if there was a harsher critique or more interesting analysis through the framework of neocolonialism and neoliberalism. this book is much more of a historical account rather than a think piece?
but i like the way that riofrancos frames her research and de-centers state and corporate actions by rejecting the idea that protests and counter-groups solely act in response to political/economic decisions. i do think it's important to understand the ways that these groups inform each other's messaging in a horizontal way rather than a vertical way (if that even makes sense)
but i like the way that riofrancos frames her research and de-centers state and corporate actions by rejecting the idea that protests and counter-groups solely act in response to political/economic decisions. i do think it's important to understand the ways that these groups inform each other's messaging in a horizontal way rather than a vertical way (if that even makes sense)
December 1, 2020
A very interesting look at how social and political conflicts over resource exploitation have evolved in Ecuador, in the context of indigenous organizing and the rise of a socialist/social-democratic government. A lot of good analysis about different currents in the Ecuadorean left about how to view the country's natural resources, the nature of economic development, indigenous autonomy, and ecological preservation, and how this leads to contradictions even within the socialist administration. The book can be a bit dry and academic at times, so best to have some general familiarity with Ecuadorean history and politics before reading it.
November 18, 2023
A very in depth analysis and discussion piece on the relationship of economic, social and political identities and how they relate to the state of natural resource dependence for Ecuador. This book highlights not only the institutional and large visible players but puts emphasis on the role of social movements and indigenous relationships with the plurinaitonal state. Overall a great read, however extremely dense with isms and political verbiage unique to the Ecuadorian climate, which takes a little extra reading.
January 19, 2021
Well researched and insightful, heavy on theory and ethnography, full of valuable stories and analyses. The writing is a bit esoteric and hard to read, though this it makes the book very quotable, as any excerpt has sufficient information to stand on its own. Riofrancos' discussion of the politics of consultation/consent (Chapters 3 and 4), how information transparency is weaponized in politics (Chapter 5), and how "affected communities" can be successful in anti-extractive protest (Conclusion) are particularly good.
February 6, 2021
Brilliant look at the internecine left conflict over extraction during the Correa years in Ecuador.
January 3, 2025
enjoyed the conclusion, preceding chapters occasionally descended into overly-detailed academic doldrums. notes are a wellspring.
September 13, 2021
But is ecotourism and organic agriculture the horizon of left thinking?
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews