Troubling the idealised pageantry of extractive conflicts: Comparative insights on authority and claim-making from Papua New Guinea, Mongolia and El Salvador

Simple item page
dc.cclicenceCC-BY-NC-NDen
dc.contributor.authorLander, Jennifer
dc.contributor.authorHatcher, Pascale
dc.contributor.authorHumphreys Bebbington, Denise
dc.contributor.authorBebbington, Anthony
dc.contributor.authorBanks, Glenn
dc.date.acceptance2020-12-18
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-19T15:22:18Z
dc.date.available2021-01-19T15:22:18Z
dc.date.issued2021-01-13
dc.descriptionThe file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.en
dc.description.abstractThis article challenges simplified and idealised representation of conflicts between corporations, states and impacted populations in the context of extractive industries. Through comparative discussion of mineral extraction in Papua New Guinea, Mongolia and El Salvador, we argue that strategies of engagement over the terms of extraction vary significantly as a result of the interaction between relations of authority and recognition in the context of specific projects and the national political economy of mining. As mineral extraction impinges on their lands, livelihoods, territories and senses of the future, affected populations face the uncertain question of how to respond and to whom to direct these responses. Strategies vary widely, and can involve confrontation, litigation, negotiation, resignation, and patronage. These strategies are targeted at companies, investors, the national state, local government, multilateral institutions, and international arbitrators. We argue that the key to understanding how strategies emerge to target different types and scales of authority, lies ultimately with inherited geographies of state presence and strategic absence. This factor shapes the construction of “community” claim-making in relation to state and non-state authorities, and calculations regarding the relative utility of claiming rights or mobilizing relationships as a means of seeking redress, compensation or benefit sharing. In the context of plural opportunities for claim-making, we query whether plurality is more emancipatory or, ironically, more constricting for impacted populations. In response to this question, we argue that “community” strategies tend to be more effective where they remain linked in some way to the territorial and legislative structure of the national state.en
dc.funderNo external funderen
dc.identifier.citationLander, J. et al. (2021) Troubling the idealised pageantry of extractive conflicts: Comparative insights on authority and claim-making from Papua New Guinea, Mongolia and El Salvador. World Development, 140, 105372en
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105372
dc.identifier.issn0305-750X
dc.identifier.urihttps://dora.dmu.ac.uk/handle/2086/20584
dc.language.isoenen
dc.peerreviewedYesen
dc.publisherElsevieren
dc.titleTroubling the idealised pageantry of extractive conflicts: Comparative insights on authority and claim-making from Papua New Guinea, Mongolia and El Salvadoren
dc.typeArticleen

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Lander et al - World Development - AAM Version.pdf
Size:
508.85 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
4.2 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Department of Law