Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Why do some indigenous groups achieve coethnic political representation while others do not? In this paper, I highlight the primary role of communal property in shaping indigenous representation. While scholars often laud the developmental benefits of communal land titling, I argue that formalizing collectively held land can inhibit indigenous coordination to achieve political representation. Where communal land is informally held, indigenous groups are more likely to invest in traditional institutions that facilitate collective action to elect coethnic candidates to political office. Conversely, titling communal property secures indigenous land access but in the process erodes traditional institutions that would otherwise promote collective action during elections. I test my argument using a multi-method approach that includes interviews and experiments with three-hundred Peruvian indigenous leaders, historical land-title data, and information scraped from mayoral candidate CVs. The findings suggest that the oft-cited economic benefits of collective property may generate negative political effects.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Christopher Carter
Comparative Political Studies
Harvard University Press
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Christopher Carter (Sun,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0f33b84994b59e77426e42 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414021997157
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: