Multilevel governance mechanisms for SHD: evidence from two Latin American countries

Having stressed theoretical arguments regarding how MLG affects the territorial evolution of SHD processes, it is worth briefly analysing the empirical experience of two Latin American countries: Ecuador and Bolivia (UNDP ART, 2012; Gallicchio and Portieles, 2013).

These experiences have been purposely selected as being instrumental for pushing forward the arguments for integrating the local development per­spective with the CA, as well as being strongly related to the case study analysed in the following chapter. In addition, both cases should be viewed in relation to the multicultural idea of Buen Vivir as the main “regime” for political and institutional arrangements in Ecuador and Bolivia. In fact, it appears to provide new policy insights and comprehensive strategies for fos­tering social change with a progressive, holistic and sustainable character.¹⁵ In particular, support to advance struggles for the common goods, a new relation with nature and a real rebuilding of citizenry are essential elements of Buen Vivir (Monni and Pallottino, 2013).

MLG and the enhancement of territorial enabling factors for

SHD in Ecuador

The relevance of the Ecuador case study lies in the increasing articulation and reliance on mechanisms and tools of MLG since the approval of the new Constitution in 2008, which incorporates Buen Vivir¹⁶ as the guiding philosophy for a new regime of development (Acosta, 2008; Walsh, 2010).

Firstly, the inclusion of MLG mechanisms within the SNDPP derives from the priority assigned to territorial processes by the National Secre­tary of Planning and Development (SENPLADES).¹⁸ According to Gallicchio and Portieles (2013), such priority results primarily in the enhancement of a territorial approach to operationalize the National Plan for Buen Vivir 2009-2013, advancing for the first time in the political history of the country a National Territorial Strategy intended to establish guidelines and criteria to tailor public policies to specific territorial conditions and fea­tures. The facilitation and institutionalization of the coordination of actions among government tiers¹⁹ has thus been implicitly derived from these mechanisms, resulting in shared guidelines for development planning and territorial ordering. Eight Agendas Zonales (territories that cross provincial administrative borders) have been established so far (UNDP ART, 2012), with the aim of consistently articulating and integrating development inter­ventions at all government levels within each territory and guiding public investment policies.

Secondly, the creation of Agendas of Territorial Priorities has been designed to allow multilevel alignment (or at least articulation) of the objectives pursued and projects implemented by different public and pri­vate actors involved in the planning processes, as well as to foster a wide participation of local civil society, communities and private stake­holders in the identification and prioritization of development strategies (SENPLADES, 2009). So far, the establishment of eight agendas has entailed greater efficiency in the territorial management of public investment by dif­ferent ministries and sub-national governments and a stronger alignment of international cooperation initiatives to development priorities estab­lished by local communities (Agostinucci and Biggeri, 2012a; Gallicchio and Portieles, 2013).

Following the STEHD framework presented in Figure 3.1, such initia­tives undoubtedly impact on the institutionalization of the relationships between national government institutions and territorial systems, in par­ticular concerning the activation of processes of dialogue, articulation and institutional change, together with a more aligned - and thus effi­cient - provision of resources. In addition, instruments like the Agendas Zonales and Agendas of Territorial Priorities nurture the internal dynamics of social mobilization and partnerships. Overall, therefore, these mech­anisms appear to enhance the territorial enabling factors sustaining the expansion of the vector of achievable functionings at the local level (e.g. the right to participate in decision-making processes for indigenous communities).

Enhancing MLG tools for productive development in Bolivia

As in the previous case, the mainstreaming of the idea of Buen Vivir in the new Constitution of Bolivia (approved in 2009) has paved the way for an increased multilevel and multi-actor articulation for territorial interventions. The establishment of the Councils for the Sectoral Coordination of Produc­tive Development²⁰ (henceforth, Councils) in 2010 in each department of the country represents an interesting explanatory example.

Having been designed to foster a stronger alignment of sectoral public policies by different government levels,²¹ these Councils strive to increase the operative capacities of ministries and autonomous territorial entities to debate, analyse, prioritize and execute plans for productive develop­ment, ensuring their consistency with concerted strategies. Problems of weak coordination, high dispersion of investments due to fragmentation and duplication, low assignment of public resources to productive sectors (about 2% of the budget) and weak capacity for implementation are more likely to be successfully tackled through these Councils (Gallicchio and Portieles, 2013).

Analysing these tools in more detail through an MLG perspective makes it possible to distinguish two levels of intervention. The first involves the national coordination and harmonization of actions from different levels to pursue priority axes of productive development (which involves the Coun­cils headed by the respective competent ministry supported by key technical units to operationalize concerted decisions). The second level of inter­vention entails the articulation, planning and management of productive investments at the territorial level, through the conformation of Instancias departamentales²² as multi-actor working groups. These groups include peo­ple drawn from the Ministry for Productive Development, the departmental governments, the association of local authorities and municipalities, as well as the private sector (e.g. associations of entrepreneurs), civil soci­ety and education/research centres (Law n. 031/2010), who play a crucial role in designing tailored projects for productive investments in the pri­ority sectors, adapting interventions to the socio-political and economic context of each territory. Thus, the Annual Operative Plans designed by these Councils should become the main reference for effectively allocat­ing public resources to each level of government and for the harmo­nization of existing or future international cooperation initiatives within territories.

In terms of the STEHD framework applied in this chapter, these Councils seem to act not only upon the multilevel and inter-institutional relation­ships along both vertical and horizontal dimensions but also on the norma­tive architecture of public investment and distribution of competencies, and on the capacities of LDS to function. These contributions may well enlarge the territorial opportunity set and pave the way (if supported by political willingness and conscious governance) for the achievement of functionings that spur feedback loops impacting on local resource endowments and the expansion of capabilities.

In sum, a preliminary analysis of the empirical experiences of MLG mech­anisms for HD in Ecuador and Bolivia emphasizes how the creation of spaces for multilevel dialogue and concertation - that valorize the specificity (i.e. in terms of development vision and needs) of each territory - facilitates enabling processes for SHD. In particular, the increase in local empowerment and the enhancement of local and national capacities to guide territorial development trajectories boosts the evolutionary dynamics between the achievement of functionings at the local level and the opportunity freedom of individuals and collective agents.

3.5