Buen Vivir (Living Well) in Ecuador: Community and environmental satisfaction without household material prosperity?

Full text

Methodological and Ideological Options
Buen Vivir (living well) in Ecuador: Community and environmental
satisfaction without household material prosperity?
Jorge Guardiola ⁎, Fernando García-Quero
Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Granada, la Cartuja Campus, 18071,Granada, Spain
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 15 April 2014
Received in revised form 23 July 2014
Accepted 31 July 2014
Available online 2 September 2014
JEL classification:
I31
I38
O13
Keywords:
Subjective wellbeing
Economic policies
Environmental protection
Community
Food sovereignty
Buen Vivir
This paper provides a quantitative approach to assessing whether thesubjectivewellbeing (SWB) of Ecuadorian
people is dependent on income and employment or on more distinctive featuresrelating to Buen Vivir ethos. The
latter are reflected in the indigenous Buen Vivir ideology, based mainly on relations with the community, the
environment and food sovereignty. The empirical analysis shows that both Buen Vivir features and factors such
as income and unemployment status are significant in the models explaining SWB. Accordingly, economic
policies should take into account the Buen Vivir ethos, that seems to be important for the SWB of the
Ecuadorianpeople. This supports the conservationist political position, which focuses on protecting the environ-
ment and people's traditional livelihoods, rather than the extractive view, which regards people's welfare as
merely dependent on income.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Buen Vivir (suma qamaña in Aymara,sumak kawsay in Quichua,
ñandareko in Guaraní,küme mongen in Mapuche,andliving well in
English) is a cultural concept of wellbeing that emerged in Latin
America in the early 2000s, when the indigenous movement became a
major social and political actor in Ecuador and Bolivia (Torrez, 2001;
Viteri Gualinga, 2002; Yampara, 2001). Related academic discussion
followed (late 2000s), and considerable research has since been carried
out on this issue. As a result, Buen Vivir has become an increasingly
international subject (Correa, 2012; Escobar, 2010; Farah and Vasapollo,
2011; Gudynas, 2011a; Mejido Costoya, 2013; Radcliffe, 2012; Vanhulst
and Beling, 2014; Walsh, 2010).
The philosophy of Buen Vivir is based on the indigenous conception
that nature, community and individuals all share the same material and
spiritual dimensions (Gudynas and Acosta, 2011; Guillén and Phélan,
2012; Tortosa, 2012). The community as a whole is more important
than the individuals within it, and community life enables individuals
to develop their abilities and enrich their knowledge without endanger-
ing human health and the environment. In addition, human beings
are considered part of nature and their quality of life depends on all
the living and non-living elements with which they share the planet.
Nature (Pachamama in the indigenous traditions) is seen as an integrat-
ed whole in which human beings are interrelated with the environ-
ment, and has intrinsic value, regardless of any benefits for humans
(Huanacuni, 2010; Pacari, 2008). Human beings belong to nature, not
vice-versa, and every environmental damage has a negative impact on
human life. Environmental protection is based on reciprocity between
nature, the community and its individuals (Medina, 2001; Temple,
2001), and active participation in community spaces and local institu-
tions is essential in order to achieve Buen Vivir (Macas, 2010).
1
Ecological Economics 107 (2014) 177–184
⁎Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 958244046.
E-mail addresses: jguardiola@ugr.es (J. Guardiola), fgquero@ugr.es (F. García-Quero).
1
In this paper, we use the expressions Buen Vivir ethos, Buen Vivir philosophy, Buen
Vivir ideology or Buen Vivirfeatures to refer tothis original Buen Vivir that has grown from
indigenous traditions: harmonious coexistence with nature, power-sharing relationships
and collective rights, sense of community, and local and primary production of food in a
community's own territory forself-consumption.A compilation of texts on Buen Vivirphi-
losophy in the indigenous tradition can be found in Hidalgo Capitán et al. (2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.032
0921-8009/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

In Ecuador, Buen Vivir appeared in the political debate at the Constit-
uent Assembly (2007–2008), and the concept was eventually included
in its Constitution (Ecuador Constitution, 2008).
2
In the process of
designing the Constitution, Buen Vivir was discussed by different actors
in the society, aiming to reflect the Ecuadorianpeople's ethos regarding
what defines a good life.There is no clear conceptualization of Buen Vivir
in the Ecuadorian Constitution, however a vague definition of the
concept can be drawn from it: ‘Buen Vivir as a way of life in harmony
with nature and community’(Ecuador Constitution,2008:15). Although
several academics and policymakers may be in agreement as to the
above definition (Hidalgo-Capitán and Cubillo-Guevara, 2013), Buen
Vivir is still a polysemous concept that is subject to different definitions
and interpretations, depending on its aims, uses or theoretical frame-
work, among others.
3
The analysis and study of Buen Vivir is very complex and can be
approached through two interrelated and complementary discussions:
firstly, the conceptual and theoretical approach, and secondly, the polit-
ical practice. This paper focuses on the second, that is, the open discus-
sion in the political arena on how to maintain people's Buen Vivir in
Ecuador (Acosta and Martínez, 2009; Correa, 2013a; Cuvi et al., 2013;
Gudynas, 2011a; Houtart, 2011). This discussion influences policies
and interpretations of ‘what people need to achieve Buen Vivir’. From
the various interpretations of this issue, two extremely different politi-
cal views can be observed. Firstly, the extractive position, which views
natural resources as tools for achieving Buen Vivir, and secondly,
the conservationist position, which emphasises respect for nature and
community relations as ways of maintaining Buen Vivir.
The extractive view is commonly known as ‘republican biosocialism’,
‘twenty-first-century socialism’or ‘Buen Vivir socialism’, and reflects
the government position (Coraggio, 2007; Falconí and Muñoz, 2012;
Páez, 2010; Ramírez Gallegos, 2010; SENPLADES, 2010, 2013).
4
The
conservationist view is prominent in the indigenous movements—
through platforms such as the Confederation of Indigenous Nations
from Ecuador, (CONAIE) and the Confederation of Kichua Nations of
Ecuador (ECUARUNARI)—some opposition political parties—such as the
People's Democratic Movement (MPD) and the Pachakutik political
party (MUPP)
5
—and some progressive and critical intellectual circles in
Ecuador and beyond (Acosta, 2012; Dávalos, 2008; Gudynas, 2013a;
Oviedo, 2011; Quijano, 2011; Tortosa, 2012; Vega, 2012).
According to the extractivists, the first step to take in order to achieve
Buen Vivir is eliminating income poverty and unemployment as soon as
possible. A progressive process of endogenous development is necessary
in order to improve the wellbeing of the people of Ecuador. This process
must achieve energy sovereignty, food sovereignty and financial sover-
eignty in the medium and long term (16–20 years) (SENPLADES,
2009). Extractivists argue that Ecuador is still at an early stage, a build-
up phase which requires the promotion and creation of jobs in the
production sector to guarantee basic needs, including food-related
needs. In this stage, income from the extraction of raw materials is im-
portant in order to substantially reduce the zones of poverty and social
exclusion affecting many areas of Ecuador (SENPLADES, 2007, 2009,
2013). The policy strategy involves exploiting natural resources in the
country, above all copper, gas and oil, and assigning the benefits to the
local community via employment generation and fiscal income distribu-
tion (Correa, 2013a,b; SENPLADES, 2013). Therefore, the extractivists
believe that material prosperity should be an ex ante requisite to guaran-
tee Buen Vivir. This political interpretation of Buen Vivir is based on a tra-
ditional conception of wellbeing linked to increased material prosperity
and employment creation.
The conservationist view takes a critical position towards the extrac-
tive vision. According to conservationists, the extractive position, which
they call ‘neo-progressive extractivism’,‘neo-extractivism’or ‘brown
socialism’,seeksBuen Vivir through a model of production and mass
consumption and goes against the essence of the Buen Vivir definition
(Acosta, 2012; Escobar, 2010; Gudynas, 2010, 2011b; Tortosa, 2009).
6
Extractivism maintains a conventional emphasis on economic growth,
fostering the massive extraction of natural resources as a primary
means to guarantee Buen Vivir and casting aside any respect for nature
and indigenous communities (Acosta, 2011; Cuvi et al., 2013; Gudynas,
2013b). The conservationist view argues that to achieve Buen Vivir, it is
necessary to transition smoothly from a growth economic model, based
largely on depletion of natural resources, to another model that ends
poverty while enhancing social inclusion, environmental protection
and community building.
7
According to the conservationist position,
the extractive strategy is illogical and directly contradicts the Buen
Vivir philosophy because it is guided by a productivist vision of
wellbeing (Gudynas, 2010). However, the extractivists believe that
there is no inconsistency in their position, their defence being that
income and employment are essential prerequisites to guarantee Buen
Vivir (Falconí and Muñoz, 2012; SENPLADES, 2010).
These two political interpretationshave been extensivelydiscussed,
and an empirical analysis that identifies the determinants of the
Ecuadorian people's quality of life could shed light on the current
discussion. Within this context, the aim of this paper is to implement
this analysis by taking a subjective wellbeing (SWB) approach that
may support either the extractivist or the conservationistpolitical posi-
tion as to how to maintain Buen Vivir.
8
To achieve this objective, we use
a representative sample of two Ecuadorian cantons comprising 1174
rural households. In order to scientifically support some of the argu-
ments of each view, we relate the life satisfaction of individuals to
domains and variables connected to the Buen Vivir ethos; particularly
community, environment, and food sovereignty, as well as variables
and domains related to material aspects such as income and unemploy-
ment status. In this vein, a significant influence of aspects such as
2
In Bolivia,the Buen Vivir concept (orVivir Bien as those in the region prefer to callit) is
also included in the debateat the Constituent Assembly (2006–2009) and in Bolivia's new
Constitution (2009). This paper focuses on Ecuador; for a specific analysis of the Bolivian
case see Farah and Vasapollo (2011) and Mejido Costoya (2013). For an illustration of
the differences in the treatment of Buen Vivir in both Constitutions see Gudynas (2011a).
3
Some authors have madean effort to analyse,summariseand classify the different the-
oretical interpretationsof and discussions about Buen Vivir.SeeGudynas (2012),Hidalgo-
Capitán (2012),Hidalgo-Capitán andCubillo-Guevara (2013),Houtart(2011) and Tortosa
(2012). Within this context, Vanhulst and Beling(2014) argue that taking into account the
open debate on the definition of Buen Vivir,itisdifficult to establish a precise definition
including all aspects and reflecting the complexity of the Buen Vivir ethos. There is also
criticism of the extent which the Buen Vivir term is subject to particular interpretations
from the political powers in order to achieve their particular objectives (Tortosa, 2012)
and even about the appropriation of this concept from the indigenous population,
transforming it into a different one from the government interpretation (Oviedo, 2011).
4
SENPLADES is the Spanish acronym for the National Secretariat for Development and
Planning in Ecuador (Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo).
5
These twoparties, jointlywith other partiesand some social movements (CONAIE and
ECUARUNARI among others) make up the Plurinational Unity Movement of the Lefts, a
political coalition founded in 2011.
6
For a more in-depth analysis of the distinction between ‘extractivism’and ‘neo-
extractivism’see Gudynas (2011b, 2012) and Vanhulst and Beling (2014).
7
Some of the proposals of the conservationist view are: to link specific actions to spe-
cific territories, to take better account of environmental and social costs when calculating
extraction costs, to reduce energy and materials consumption, to impose a severance tax
on extraction of natural sources, redefining the notion of social, economic and ecological
justice,and to put the emphasis on theuse of and access to goods and services, ratherthan
on ownership. For more information on these proposals see Acosta et al.(2013),Almeida
(2012) and Gudynas and Alayza (2012).
8
There are different interpretations and definitions of SWB used in the literature
(Dieneret al., 1999). In this paperwe put life satisfactionand satisfactionregarding several
other domainsunder the umbrella concept of SWB, taken to be synonymous with happi-
ness. Using life satisfactionas a proxy of the qualityof life of the Ecuadorian peopleallows
us to centre the discussion on the individuals themselves rather than impute or presume
what makes them satisfied (Rojas, in press), and to avoid the assumption that certain
drivers could either improve or impair their wellbeing. As Buen Vivir concepts are defined
by the people and are for the people, the use of SWB as a proxy of the quality of life
of Ecuadorians can serve as an empirical basis to orientate policies to guarantee the
Buen Vivir of the population. For further discussion on the usefulness of SWB measures
to avoid presumption and imputation of the drivers of people's quality of life see Rojas
(in press), and for the usefulness of those measures in order to proxy Buen Vivir see
Guardiola (2011).
178 J. Guardiola, F. García-Quero / Ecological Economics 107 (2014) 177–184

income and employment, and a non-significant influence of Buen Vivir
features on the life satisfaction of Ecuadorians would support the
extractive view, while the contrary would back a conservationist view.
In addition, the results allow us to assess the effect of Buen Vivir-
related factors on SWB.
9
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2
providesa theoretical framework of the SWB literature that establishes
a benchmark for interpreting the results. We were motivated by the lit-
erature on SWB to try to determine which political alternative could
more successfully improve the quality of life of the Ecuadorian people.
In Section 3 we explain the study area, the data and the variables used
in this study, while Section 4 includes the analysis of the data and inter-
prets the results. Finally, in Section 5 we discuss andmake policy recom-
mendations, and in Section 6 we conclude.
2. A SWB Theoretical Framework
An important branch of SWB studies interprets happiness as an ulti-
mate aim and has attempted to identify the drivers of happiness in
order to inform public policy. In this section we aim to draw on the
SWB literature to find theories that could support both Buen Vivir polit-
ical positions: the extractive and the conservationist. Firstly, we deal
with the extractivist positions. Secondly, wecentre on the conservation-
ist. These theories serve as a framework for the results in the empirical
analysis.
Concerning the extractivistposition, there is ample research, partic-
ularly in economics, that studies the effect of personal income and un-
employment on SWB. Empirical results suggest that the influence of
income on SWB follows a log scale. This has significant implications
for poor people, as an increase in income would increase their happiness
assessment much more than for wealthier people (Dolan et al., 2008;
Graham and Pettinato, 2001). It is assumed that people with higher
incomes have more opportunities to satisfy their needs and desires,
particularly through the markets. Greater status is accorded to having
a higher income, thus income has aneffect on SWB not only in absolute
terms but also in relation to other people's income. In this sense, there-
fore, people compare themselves with groups of their peers in order to
determine their SWB (Layard, 2005). Some research argues that there is
a threshold above which income brings greater SWB and beyond which
the additional gains of an increase in income are considerably lower
(Borghesi and Vercelli, 2011). When income is low, an increase can
permit people to buy essential commodities, such as food and shelter,
or collectively fund improved access to water and sanitation facilities.
Employment status itself is also related to SWB: being unemployed
can cause depression and stress, and can also result in social stigma,
lowering SWB (Dolan et al., 2008; Frey and Stutzer, 2002).
The usefulness of income and the ability to transform it into goods
and services that satisfy primary needs is consistent with Abraham
Maslow's (1943) basic needs approach, which argues that to have a
good life, a minimum material achievement is necessary as a prerequi-
site for higher aspirations. The greater the income, the higher the num-
ber of opportunities to satisfy the physiological and safety needs of a
person and the greater the possibility of satisfying higher-ranked
needs such as belonging and self-actualization. All this evidence
supports political initiatives that aim to generate income and create
employment for the people. This is in line with the Ecuadorian
Government's extractive view that natural resources should first be
used to eradicate hunger and poverty (Correa, 2012, 2013a,b). Accord-
ingly, people should take advantage of resources in order to guarantee
their material prosperity before any other consideration; such reason-
ing supports an extractive viewpoint.
However, some clarifications should be made in support of other
views such as the conservationist view. Firstly, the influence of income
on SWB is influenced by different outlooks on life. That is, individuals
differ in their notions of the definition of a good life, and according to
their particular Buen Vivir ethos, the influence of income on their SWB
can differ. In this vein, Rojas (2007) shows for a sample of Mexicans,
that depending on each person's personal attitude to life, income
can be an important explanatory variable for some people, while for
others it can be completely irrelevant. Secondly, there can be other
ways to satisfy needs apart from income and market interactions. For
instance, subsistence agriculture and goods exchange can also satisfy
material needs, substituting income. Subsistence agriculture and self-
sufficiency can be important livelihoods that permit the satisfaction of
several needs, not only in material terms, such as avoiding hunger, but
also in non-material terms as a sustainable way of life. They can also
be a source of self-employment. Thirdly, other variables unrelated to
income can also increase or decrease SWB. In fact, regression analysis
shows that the income–SWB relation is weak (Kingdon and Knight,
2006; Rojas, 2008), which leaves room for other explanations of happi-
ness such as leisure, health and free time. Similarly, in Latin America
there is evidence of several groups of people in rural areas having high
values of SWB even though they live in disadvantaged circumstances.
In the case of the Mexican Mayans, Guardiola et al. (2012) argues that
spirituality and religion may play a non-material part in increasing
SWB. In the Peruvian case, it has been shown that the lack of compari-
son with rich people results in a high level of SWB (Guillen-Royo and
Velazco, 2012).
Therefore, people's lives include other dimensions beyond income
and material aspects.
10
Aiming to take into account the many dimen-
sions of life, the domains of life approach holds that life satisfaction is
related to a general construct involving the satisfaction of specific life
domains.Domains of life have traditionally been viewed as the satisfac-
tion that anindividual experiences in a particular dimension of life, such
as health, working environment or leisure (Cummins, 1996). Domains
related to environment and community participation are particularly
relevant in our analysis because, as mentioned in the introduction,
nature and community are key aspects of the Buen Vivir philosophy.
Some evidence in Mexico suggests that achievement in several life
domains such as leisure time and family ties may explain some people's
life satisfaction in spite of living in income poverty (Rojas, 2008). This
situation could also be relevant to community participation and envi-
ronment domains. Community participation is commonly found to be
positively associated with SWB in most studies (Dolan et al., 2008).
Analyzing 49 countries, Helliwell (2003) found that people involved in
a community organisation were more satisfied than those that were
not affiliated. The involvement in church activities is also found by
Helliwell (2003) to be linked to life satisfaction, even when controlled
by religious convictions. Therefore it can be said that connections
between people and the interaction of people within the community
generally increase SWB.
In comparison to income-SWB research, the literature addressing
environment–SWB is relatively scarce but expanding. Environmental
degradation has been empirically associated with lower SWB in many
countries (Di Tella and MacCulloch, 2008; Welsch, 2002). Negative
implications were also found for a longitudinal study in Germany
regarding the influence of concern about pollution on SWB, while a
positive influence is found when individuals show concern about biodi-
versity or interaction with plants and wildlife (Ferrer-i-Carbonell and
9
Ramirez Gallegos (2011) used a happiness measure as a proxy of Buen Vivir in an
Ecuadoriannational survey. This paper uses a similar approach to put the results derived
from the empirical analysis into a political context.
10
There aremultiple theoretical frameworks that aimto deal with this multidimension-
ality. A useful recent one is provided by Costanza et al. (2007), which distinguishes four
different kinds of capital that permit people to satisfytheir many dimensionsof life: social
capital (networks and norms for cooperative action), human capital (knowledge), built
capital (manufactured goods) and natural capital (goods provided by ecosystems). They
argue thatmeasuring thesedimensions—theyrefer to them as human needs—requiresob-
jective andsubjective indicators. In this research we dealwith the subjective side via self-
reported satisfaction with life and with several life domains.
179J. Guardiola, F. García-Quero / Ecological Economics 107 (2014) 177–184

Gowdy, 2007). The evidence suggests that people's contact with nature
is related to a sense of biophilia, creating wellbeing that goes far beyond
the use of nature as a production resource. Welsch (2009) provides
an explanation of this in the case of pro-environmental consumption.
Consumption leads the actor toexperience hedonic adaptation associat-
ed with extrinsic motivations, while caring for the environment is asso-
ciated with intrinsic motivations. Intrinsic motivations are related to
internal rewards, while extrinsic motivations are more instrumental
and materialistic, linked to external material goals. A greater life satis-
faction is associated with personalities that are more influenced by
intrinsic motivations compared to personalities more focused on pursu-
ing extrinsic goals (Kasser and Ryan, 1996).
3. Study Area, Data and Variables
The field study in this research was carried out in Nabón and Pucará,
two cantons in the Jubones River Basin situated in the Azuay Province,
in southern Ecuador.
11
Nabón has 15,892 inhabitants (46.2% male,
53.8% female), of whom 7.7% live in urban areas and 92.3% in rural
areas (INEC, 2010). Pucará has 10,052 inhabitants (48.7% male, 51.3%
female), of whom 9.1% live in urban areas and 90.9% in rural areas
(INEC, 2010). Both cantons are mainly dedicated to agriculture, with
22.7% of employment in Nabón and 20.1% of employment in Pucará
being related to farming. They are two of the poorest cantons in
Ecuador; the population living in poverty due to unsatisfied basic
needs (UBN) is approximately 65% in both areas.
12
In this study, our empirical analysis is based on a representative
survey conducted in the rural areas of both cantons in November and
December 2012. The data were collected by the Public Committee of
the Jubones River Basin (Consorcio Público de la Cuenca del Río Jubones
or CCRJ) and by the Program for Population and Sustainable Local
Development (Programa de Población y Desarrollo Local Sustentable
or PYDLOS). All data were collected within the frameworks of the
‘Questionnaire Regarding Wellbeing in the Cantons of Nabón and
Pucará’(Encuesta Sobre el bienestar en los cantones de Nabón y Pucara)
and ‘Vital Signs of the CCRJ’(Signos Vitales del CCRJ) Projects.
13
The sur-
vey consisted of 1174 household interviews in the rural areasin the two
cantons (445 in the canton of Pucará and 729 in the canton of Nabón).
The sample is representative for the rural area of both cantons.
Before information was collected, a background overview was
implemented in order to explore the key issues to be included in the
questionnaire. Assemblies were held with rural people in order to
help design the questionnaire. A pilot study of 100 households was
also implemented. The survey includes information about individuals'
self-evaluation of their satisfaction with regards to diverse dimensions
of their life (health, security, food security, environmental practice,
community life, public investment and so on). The primary new feature
that has been implemented compared to other Ecuadorian surveys
on this subject such as the ‘Employment, Underemployment and
Unemployment Survey’(2007, 2008),the‘Annual Labor Survey’
(2010, 2011, 2012) or the ‘Health, Wellbeing and Ageing Survey’
(2009), is the increased level of detail regarding domain satisfaction
and the population SWB as well as the focus on rural areas.
The variables we use from the database are related to SWB, life
satisfaction and domain satisfaction, control variables normally used
in happiness research, as well as variables related to policy interpreta-
tions. We refer to income and employment as variables related to the
extractive political view on how to achieve Buen Vivir, and variables
relating to Buen Vivir ethos (environment, community participation
and food sovereignty) as more related to the conservationist view. Life
satisfaction and domain satisfaction variables were evaluated through
a series of questions, starting with the phrase: How satisfied are
you with…?,followedby‘your life’or a domain. The answer given was
a Likert-type, 1 being very dissatisfied, 5 very satisfied and 3 a mid-
point. The different domains were job,income,free time,family,health,
environment and community.Thejob and income domains are included
to evaluate the importance of the extractive view. In addition, we
asked about satisfaction with the environment and with community
participation, which we consider as domains relating to Buen Vivir
ethos, whose importance could support the conservationist view.
Other data include the employment status of the respondent (1 if
unemployed and 0 otherwise, from the answer to the question: ‘What
is your employment status?’) and the household per capita income in
log terms (log per capita income) as variables that are associated with
the extractive view. The income variable is calculated by adding up
household expenses, savings, debt repayments as well as a market
valuation of the self-produced agricultural goods that are consumed
by the household.
14
The variables relating to Buen Vivir ethos aim to proxy community
and environmental involvement. We constructed a community partici-
pation index by giving values to the different answers to the question:
‘To what degree do you participate in different local institutions?’The
interviewer read a list of seven possible options
15
in which people
could interact and the different possible answers for each were: ‘very
much’,‘alittle’and ‘no participation’. We gave the value of 1 to ‘very
much’,0.5to‘alittle’and 0 to ‘no participation’for each of the seven
variables. We then summed the total of the seven answers for each
individual and divided by seven. We used two proxy variables for envi-
ronmental involvement. Individuals were asked about three different
fields that concerned them in an open question.
16
The environmental
concern variable was equal to 1 if the individual mentioned environ-
ment or nature in one of the three replies, and 0 if not. Finally, we
proxied the importance of food sovereignty in the household by dividing
the market value of the food produced in the household by total
household expenses. In this variable, we expected to capture not only
food sovereignty, but also attachment to and dependence on land as a
livelihood. In the same vein, the Ecuadorian Constitution states that
people and collectivities should have safe and permanent access to
enough nutritive and healthy food, preferably locally-produced in
accordance with diverse identities and cultural traditions (Ecuadorian
Constitution, Art. 281).
Finally, the socioeconomic variables refer to age,gender (1 if the
respondent is female and 0 if male), marriage (1 if he/she is married
and 0 if not),if the respondent can read and write (1 if yes and 0 if not).
17
11
In Ecuador there are different levels of administrative division: regions(the coast, the
highlands, the Amazon Basin and island territories), provinces (24), cantons (221) and
parishes (1228). With 712,127 inhabitants (337,044 men and 375,083 women) Azuay is
one of Ecuador's five mostdensely populatedprovinces (INEC,2010). The illiteracy,unem-
ploymentand unsatisfiedbasic needs figures(6.7%, 2.9% and 20.1%respectively)are in line
with the national average (6.8%, 4.2% and 26.8%). Azuay and both cantons where the sur-
vey was conducted are a hotbed of mining debates. There were some protests last year
against prolonged mining activity in the area, although to the best of the author's knowl-
edge, the mining protest has not had an impact on the survey. To support this idea, we
observe thereply in our survey to the open question ‘whataspects are prioritizedfor your
life’. In the results, no answer mentioned issues connected with the mining debate.
12
A person is considered to have UBN when they are acutely disadvantaged in terms
of health, education, sanitation, nutrition, housing, urban services and job opportunities
(Social Indicators System of Ecuador, 2014).
13
These projects aim to build a systemof identification,systematisationand publication
of quality of life indicators.
14
The value of self consumption is calculated by multiplying the market prices of each
crop by the quantity of each crop produced by each household. The market price of each
crop was obtained each day during the fieldworkbyaskinginthelocalshoporby
checking the local market prices in each community.
15
The different spaces were defined by previous work in the assemblies that were part
of the pilot study. These are defined as parish and irrigation boards, cantonal councils,
farming organisations, drinking water boards, sports associations and the church.
16
Specifically, the individuals were asked thefollowing: ‘Can you namethree areas that
concern you?’
17
The questions included in the questionnaire were: ‘How old are you?’,‘Are you male
or female?’,‘What is your marital status?’and ‘Are you able to read and write?’.
180 J. Guardiola, F. García-Quero / Ecological Economics 107 (2014) 177–184

4. Estimation Strategy and Results
The descriptive statisticsof the data are found in Table 1.Itisworth
highlighting the high life satisfaction average. In fact, more than 60% of
people are very satisfied, while only 1.6% of people are verydissatisfied
or dissatisfied. Satisfaction in domains related to Buen Vivir ethosisalso
quite high.
18
This could lead to a preliminary conclusion that, despite
being disadvantaged, people are quite satisfied, supporting the conser-
vationist view on how to achieve Buen Vivir.However,theincomesatis-
faction domain has the lowest average and the highest standard
deviation, suggesting differences in the sample and possible reasons to
support the extractive solutions.
A more extensive analysis of the variations of life satisfaction is nec-
essary in order to assess the extent to which Buen Vivir related features
could influence life satisfaction. Concerning life domains, we estimate
the following model:
lif e¼α1job þα2income þα3freetime þα4family þα5health
þα6environment þα7community þε;
where εrefers to the error term and αto the estimated coefficients.
We estimate an alternative model (1b) that omits the domains related
to Buen Vivir ethos with the intention of checking for the robustness
of the αvariables and evaluating the gained explanatory power by
introducing these domains. In order to estimate this model we use the
ordered probit technique, which approximates the life* variable using
the satisfaction with life variable explained above.
Table 2 displays the results of model 1a and model 1b. All domains
are significant and have an estimated positive coefficient. Marginal
probabilities of the model 1a that includes the Buen Vivir domains
are showed in Table 3.Thecoefficient of the community domain is
the highest in the equation. The adjusted R squared is slightly higher
in model 1a (0.28) than in model 1b (0.23), which indicates that the
community and environment domains have a relevant but not outstand-
ing correlation with life satisfaction. Community satisfaction displays
the greatest coefficient in the estimations, but income and job satisfac-
tion also have a significant effect.
In the previous estimations we took a domain approach to life satis-
faction. We made further estimations in order to assess the influence of
the household material related variables and the Buen Vivir ethos-
related variables in life satisfaction. We again use ordered probit to esti-
mate the following model:
lif e¼β1age þβ2gender þβ3marriage þβ4readandwrite
þβ5unemployed þβ6logpercapitaincome þβ7communpaticindex
þβ8concernenvironment þβ9foodsovereignty þe:
The error term is represented by eand the coefficients by the βs.
Three alternative models are also estimated: model 2b includes only
socioeconomic variables (excluding income), model 2c adds income to
the previous model, and model 2d adds variables relating to Buen Vivir
ethos to model 2b. Again, alternative models permit the evaluation of
robustness and account for variations of explanatory power.
19
The estimations and the marginal probabilities for model 2a are
depicted in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. With regards to control vari-
ables, the married variable is significant in all models and positively
relates to the probability of being satisfied or very satisfied. These find-
ings are similar to those in other SWB studies (Dolan et al., 2008)andto
the evidence from Ecuador (Ramirez Gallegos, 2011). The variables age
and genderhave an unstable significativityand read and write is found to
be non-significant. The income and unemployment variables, as well as
the variables relating to Buen Vivir ethos, are significant in the two
models included. Income and being unemployed correlate with the
probability of being satisfied or very satisfied in the expected direction
Table 1
Descriptive statistics.
Variable Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
life 4.496 0.717 1 5
job 4.286 0.980 1 5
income 3.708 1.028 1 5
free time 4.409 0.947 1 5
family 4.474 0.854 1 5
health 4.089 0.948 1 5
environment 4.423 0.909 1 5
community 4.577 0.723 1 5
age 48.7 18.8 16.0 88.0
gender 0.669 0 1
marriage 0.596 0 1
unemployed 0.024 0 1
read and write 0.144 0 1
log income 4.387 0.588 2.015 6.368
community participation index 0.310 0.229 0 1
environmental concern (%) 0.255 0 1
food sovereignty 0.168 0.151 0 1
18
This is in line with the results found by Ramirez Gallegos (2011). He uses a national
sample to estimate that, although happiness is related to income, around 25% of people
in the lowest income quintile report that they are happy or very happy. In addition, the
domains related to marital status, environment and social relations are the highest-
ranked in his research, with the last two domains related to Buen Vivir ethos.
Table 2
The influence of Buen Vivir domains on life satisfaction.
Variable Model 1a Model 1b
job 0.209*** 0.254***
(0.000) (0.000)
income 0.220*** 0.219***
(0.000) (0.000)
free time 0.188*** 0.233***
(0.000) (0.000)
family 0.258*** 0.372***
(0.000) (0.000)
health 0.278*** 0.310***
(0.000) (0.000)
environment 0.216***
(0.000)
community 0.414***
(0.000)
Adj R
2
0.2775 0.2351
Chi
2
test (p-value) 392.27(0.000) 321.39(0.000)
p-values in brackets. ⁎Significant at 10%, ⁎⁎significant at 5% and ⁎⁎⁎significant at 1%.
Table 3
Marginal probabilities of model1a (from Table 2).
Variable Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neither sat.
nor dissat.
Satisfied Very
satisfied
job −0.012 0.068 0.080
income −0.012 0.071 0.084
free time −0.011 0.061 0.072
family −0.001 −0.014 0.084 0.099
health −0.001 −0.016 0.091 0.107
environment −0.001 −0.012 0.070 0.083
community −0.001 −0.023 0.135 0.158
Marginal probabilities for each outcome, computed at the mean. Empty fields indicate a
marginal probability not significant at 10%.
19
We implement a variance inflation factor (VIF) test to account for possible imperfect
collinearity. The test indicates that there are no collinearity problems, with a maximum
VIF value of 1.35. This disregards possible interactions of the explanatory variables that
could affect the results, suchas a possible overlapping of environmental concernwith eco-
nomic related variables.
181J. Guardiola, F. García-Quero / Ecological Economics 107 (2014) 177–184

(Dolan et al., 2008). Participation in the community positively relates
to being satisfied or very satisfied, and negatively relates to being dis-
satisfied or neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The probability of being
very dissatisfied, dissatisfied and neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
decreases—and the probability of the other outcomes increases—as self
production increases. Concern with the environment negatively relates
to the probability of being very satisfied or satisfied, in line with the
results found by Ferrer-i-Carbonell and Gowdy (2007).
It is worthhighlighting that the models explaining life satisfaction by
socioeconomic and environmental factors (models 2a and 2d)multiply
the value ofthe adjusted R-squared by more than 3 in comparison to the
models that do not include variables related to community andpartici-
pation (models 2b and 2c). Variables related to Buen Vivir ethos are
therefore important in explaining the SWB of Ecuadorians in the sam-
ple. Nevertheless, income still displays a positive and significant coeffi-
cient in the analysis, and unemployment a negative and significant
one, which suggests that Buen Vivir related variables are not sources of
SWB alone.
5. Policy Implications and Discussion
The results in the empirical part of this paper partially support both
policy orientations. Income and employment status influence the SWB
of the Ecuadorian rural people. However, the variables relating to Buen
Vivir ethos that aim to proxy the Buen Vivir concept are also significant
in explaining SWB; undermining these variables in policy action could
result in a human cost that is reflected in a lower SWB. As conservation-
ists claim, the use of nature as an economic resource contradicts the
Buen Vivir principles set out in the Constitution. Nature is a subject of
law (see the Ecuadorian Constitution, chapter 7) and it is necessary to
protect ‘the right of the people to live in a healthy and ecologically bal-
anced environment, warranting sustainability and Buen Vivir (Art. 14)’.
Transforming nature as a means of economic growth could also erode
community relations and be detrimental to the community vision of a
good life (Acosta, 2012). This reasoning raises important criticisms of
the extractive Buen Vivir political position that could reduce people's
positive interactions with nature, and jeopardize nature itself as well
as community relations. Exploitation of nature could therefore increase
economic growth and reduce poverty, but at a high cost.
Contrary to this, President Correa has repeatedly publically stated
that his government's environmental policy was necessary ‘for the
country to emerge from underdevelopment and to attend to the
poorest. We cannot live as beggars sitting on a sack of gold’(Correa,
2013a). The results in this research also suggest that conservationist
perspectives should be complemented with strategies that improve
the economic potential of the Ecuadorian people, as a conservationist
approach alone cannot guarantee life satisfaction. Buen Vivir policies
in the Government require a continuous process of reflective action
which ensures it respects the commitments adopted in the Ecuadorian
Constitution. Continuous effort in the areas of feedback, research and
analysis is necessary to make both views compatible and cover any
knowledge gaps.
20
The challenge for the political and social actors in
the forthcoming agenda should be to find policies that aim to take into
account the material and nonmaterial dimensions. The two political
views and the two paradigms should be debated in order to find and
to follow paths that donot jeopardize environmentand community ties.
6. Concluding Remarks
In this paper we aim to quantitatively evaluate the influence of Buen
Vivir features in the SWB of a sample of rural Ecuadorians households.
The results suggest that policy interventions focusing on raising income
or Buen Vivir dimensions alone will be insufficient. Policies that foster
Buen Vivir ethos while raising income and employment would succeed;
aiming at improving economic potential while preserving people's
ties to the community and the land. The importance of Buen Vivir
ethos variables and domains in explaining life satisfaction contradicts
the extractive position, but the significativity of variables and domains
related to income and employment status does not exclusively support
the conservationist political interpretation on how to achieve Buen Vivir.
In other words, income, employment and increase in income satisfac-
tion are necessary for the Ecuadorian people to be satisfied with their
lives. This result is in contrast with the fact that descriptive statistics
indicate that people are quite satisfied on average despite living in dis-
advantaged circumstances. This apparently puzzling conclusion may
be explained by the following reasoning: people in the sample are in
general highly satisfied, probably due to issues relating to the Buen
Vivir ethos,
21
but material achievements play a role in the differences
between individuals. Those conclusions are based on the analysis of a
representative sample from two cantons in southern Ecuador, but are
not representative of the whole country.
With regards to Buen Vivir ethos variables, environmental concern
and community participation, as well as environment and community
20
To this end,new indicatorsare needed in order to capturethe complexityof Buen Vivir.
A discussion on the metrics of Buen Vivir can be found in Alaminos (2012),Albó (2010),
Phelan (2011) and Phelan and Guillén (2012, 2014).
21
Indigenous leaders have suggested that what looks like poverty to the industrialized
world may not be regarded as poverty by indigenous people (Viteri Gualinga, 2002). This
may reinforce the role of Buen Vivir in high self-reported satisfaction.
Table 4
The influence of Buen Vivir variables onlife satisfaction.
Variable Model 2a Model 2b Model 2c Model 2d
age −0.006** −0.002 −0.003 −0.004*
(0.018) (0.365) (0.189) (0.052)
gender 0.199** 0.108 0.124 0.168**
(0.019) (0.155) (0.105) (0.043)
marriage 0.253*** 0.242*** 0.257*** 0.232***
(0.002) (0.001) (0.000) (0.004)
unemployed −0.603*** −0.557*** −0.553*** −0.620***
(0.007) (0.005) (0.004) (0.008)
read and write −0.013 −0.039 0.016 −0.076
(0.914) (0.727) (0.884) (0.540)
log income 0.254*** 0.227***
(0.000) (0.000)
commun particip index 0.725*** 0.826***
(0.000) (0.000)
environmental concern −0.176* −0.163*
(0.064) (0.085)
food sovereignty 2.313*** 2.196***
(0.000) (0.000)
Adj R
2
0.0761 0.0111 0.0182 0.0685
Chi
2
test (p-value) 121.84
(0.000)
25.91
(0.000)
39.07
(0.000)
99.54
(0.000)
p-values in brackets. ⁎Significant at 10%, ⁎⁎significant at 5% and ⁎⁎⁎significant at 1%.
Table 5
Marginal probabilities of model 2a (from Table 4).
Variable Very
dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neithersat.
nor dissat.
Satisfied Very
satisfied
age 0.000 0.001 −0.001 −0.002
gender −0.004 −0.023 0.049 0.077
marriage −0.005 −0.029 0.062 0.098
unemployed 0.023 0.090 −0.117 −0.237
read and write
log income −0.005 −0.028 0.064 0.098
community
participation index
−0.015 −0.080 0.182 0.280
concern of
environment
0.021 −0.043 −0.069
self production −0.011 −0.046 −0.254 0.581 0.893
Marginal probabilities for each outcome, computed at the mean. Empty fields indicate a
marginal probability not significant at 10%.
182 J. Guardiola, F. García-Quero / Ecological Economics 107 (2014) 177–184

domains, positively influence life satisfaction. Food sovereignty raises
life satisfaction, which supports the conservationist view on attachment
to land. The influence of these variables supports the claim that features
of certain population groups should be taken into account in economic
policies as well as in studies aiming to evaluate the success of such
policies in terms of people's lives. Failure to take into account various
dimensions of life could misinform policy recommendations that entail
human costs.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Institute of Population and Local
Sustainable Development (PYDLOS by the Spanish acronym) at
Universidad de Cuenca, Ecuador, for assistance and access to the data-
base. A particular thanks to Alejandro Guillén, head director of PYDLOS
for his hospitality during the stay of the authors of this research, his
guidance and his support for making this research possible within the
framework of the project “Construcción conceptual y medición del
Buen Vivir en los cantones de Cuenca y Nabón”, that he directs in
Universidad de Cuenca. This research has also benefitted by useful com-
ments from Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Teresa García Muñoz, Miguel García
Rubio, Francisco González Gómez, Mònica Guillén Royo and Jorge Ollero
Perán. José María Tortosa’s advice and comments are highly acknowl-
edged. The comments made by two anonymous referees and the editor
of the Journal are also appreciated. This paper was presented at the II In-
ternational Congress of Development Studies organizedbythe Spanish
Network of Development Studies (June 2014, Huelva, Spain). We are
grateful to the attendees at the conference for their suggestions. Of
course, all errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. Financial
support from the Spanish Ministry of Economics and Competitiveness
(Project ECO2012-32189) and the Government of Andalucía (Project
P11-SEJ-7039) is also acknowledged. In addition, the second author
would like to thank the Spanish Publish Employment System for its
funding support during the review process.
References
Acosta, A., 2011. Extractivismo y neoextractivismo. Dos caras de la misma maldición. In:
Lang, M., Monkrani, D. (Eds.), Más allá del desarrollo. Abya Yala, Quito, pp. 83–118.
Acosta, A., 2012. Buen Vivir/Sumak Kawsay. Una oportunidad para imaginar otros
mundos. Abya Yala, Quito.
Acosta, A. and Martínez E. (comp.) (2009). El Buen Vivir: una vía para el desarrollo. Abya
Yala: Quito.
Acosta, A., Gudynas, E., Houtart, F., Macas, L., Martínez Alier, J., Ramírez Soler, H.,
Siliprandi, E., 2013. Colonialismo del siglo XXI: negocios extractivos y defensa del
territorio en América Latina, Icaria, Barcelona.
Alaminos, A. (2012). La medición del Buen vivir. En Guillén, A. and Phélan, M. (comp.)
(2012). Construyendo el Buen Vivir. PYDLOS: Cuenca (Ecuador). Pp. 163–178.
Albó, X., 2010. Suma Qamaña, Convivir Bien, ¿Cómo medirlo?’. En Diálogos, Año 1, No 0:
54–64, (file:///C:/Users/Asus%20PC/Downloads/Art%C3%ADculo%20Xavier%20Alb%
C3%B3.pdf).
Almeida, A., 2012. Postextractivismo y transiciones a otros desarrollos. Perspectivas y
desafíos para la región andina. In: Velardi, Nicoletta, Polatsik, Marco Zeisser (Eds.),
Anales Seminario Internacional Desarrollo territorial y extractivismo: Luchas y
alternativas en la Región Andina. Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas, Cuzco.
Bolivian Constitution, 2009. http://bit.ly/1nuhqhW.
Borghesi, S., Vercelli,A., 2011. Happiness and health: two paradoxes. J. Econ. Surv. 26 (2),
203–233.
Coraggio, J.L., 2007. La economía social y la búsqueda de un programa socialista para el
siglo XXI. Foro 62, 37–54.
Correa, R., 2012. Ecuador's Path. New Left Rev. 77, 89–104.
Correa, R., 2013a. Intervención XII Cumbre ALBA, Guayaquil, Ecuador - 30 de julio de
2013. http://bit.ly/1kHGEcL.
Correa, R., 2013b. Quito. 15 August http://bit.ly/1eRhLGH.
Costanza, R., Fisher,B., Ali, S., Beer, C.,Bond, L., Boumans, R.,Snapp, R., 2007. Quality of life:
an approachintegrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective well-being.Ecol.
Econ. 61 (2–3), 267–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.023.
Cummins, R.A., 1996. The domains of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos. Soc.
Indic. Res. 38, 303–332.
Cuvi, J.; Machado, D.; Atawallpa, A. and Sierra, N. (coord.) (2013). El correismo al
desnudo. Montecristi Vive: Quito.
Dávalos, P., 2008. Reflexiones sobre el Sumak Kawsay (el Buen Vivir) y las teorías del
desarrollo. Bol. ICCI 113 (English version; http://bit.ly/OB6LXh).
Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, J.R., 2008. Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin
Paradox? J. Dev. Econ. 86 (1), 22–42.
Diener, E., Suh, E.M., Lucas, R.E., Smith, H.L., 1999. Subjective well-being: three decades of
progress. Psychol. Bull. 125, 276–302.
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., White, M., 2008. Do we really know what makes us happy? A
review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-
being. J. Econ. Psychol. 29 (1), 94–122.
Ecuadorian Annual Labor Survey, 2010. http://bit.ly/1jxFxzg.
Ecuadorian Annual Labor Survey, 2011. http://bit.ly/1jxFxzg.
Ecuadorian Annual Labor Survey, 2012. http://bit.ly/1jxFxzg.
Ecuadorian Constitution, 2008. http://bit.ly/1mgUnKw.
Ecuadorian Employment, 2007. Underemployment and Unemployment Survey.
http://bit.ly/1tgphHs.
Ecuadorian Employment, 2008. Underemployment and Unemployment Survey.
http://bit.ly/TO5aQo.
Ecuadorian Health, 2009.Well-being and Ageing Survey. http://bit.ly/1pzzt6A.
Escobar, A., 2010. Latin America at the crossroads: alternative modernizations, post-
liberalism, or post-development? Cult. Stud. 24 (1), 1–65.
Falconí, F. and Muñoz, P. (2012). Ecuador: de la receta del consenso de Washington al
posneoliberalismo, in Mantilla, S. and Mejía, S. (Comp.), Rafael Correa. Balance de la
Revolución Ciudadana. Planeta: Quito, pp. 75–76.
Farah H., I. and Vasapollo, L. (coord.) (2011). Vivir bien: ¿Paradigma no capitalista?
Università di Roma Sapienza CIDES-UMSA: La Paz.
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., Gowdy, J.M., 2007.Environmental degradation and happiness.Ecol.
Econ. 60, 509–516.
Frey, B.S., Stutzer, A., 2002. What can economists learn from happiness research? J. Econ.
Lit. 40, 402–435.
Graham, C., Pettinato, S., 2001. Happiness, markets and democracy: Latin America in
comparativeperspective.J.HappinessStud.2,237–268.
Guardiola, J., 2011. ¿Qué aportan los estudios de felicidad al Buen Vivir, y viceversa?
Obets. Rev. Cienc. Soc. 6 (1), 97–109.
Guardiola, J., González-Gómez, F., García-Rubio, M.A., Lendechy-Grajales, A., 2012. Does
higher income equal higher happiness in every society? The case of the Mayan
People. Int. J. Soc. Welf. 22 (1), 35–44.
Gudynas, E., 2010. Si eres tan progresista ¿por qué destruyes la naturaleza? Neoextractivismo,
izquierda y alternativas’. Ecuador Debate 79, 61–82.
Gudynas, E., 2011a. Buen Vivir: today's tomorrow. Development 54 (4), 441–447.
Gudynas, E., 2011b. El nuevo extractivismo progresistas en América del Sur. Tesis sobre
un viejo problema bajo nuevas expresionesColonialismo del siglo XXI: negocios
extractivos y defensa del territorio en América Latina, pp. 75–92, (Icaria, Barcelona).
Gudynas, E., 2012. Buen Vivir y críticas al desarrollo: saliendo de la modernidad por la
izquierda. In: Hidalgo Flor, F., Márquez Fernández, A. (Eds.), Contra hegemonía y
Buen Vivir.Universidad de Zulia y Universidad Central del Ecuador,Quito, pp. 71–91.
Gudynas, E., 2013a. El malestar moderno con el Buen Vivir: reacciones y resistencias
frente a una alternativa al desarrollo. Ecuador Debate 88, 183–206.
Gudynas, E., 2013b. Extrahección: violación de derechos en la apropiación de la
naturaleza. Observatorio de Desarrollo. 18, (http://bit.ly/Ow0ext).
Gudynas,E., and Acosta, A. (2011). El buenvivir o la disolución de la ideadel progreso., in:
Rojas, M. (coord.), La medición del progreso y el bienestar. Propuestas desde América
Latina. Foro Consultivo y Tecnológico: México D.F, pp. 103–110.
Gudynas, E., Alayza, A., 2012. Postextractivismo: transiciones hacia las alternativas al
desarrollo. In: Velardi, Nicoletta, Polatsik, Marco Zeisser (Eds.), Anales Seminario
Internacional Desarrollo territorial y extractivismo: Luchas y alternativas en la Región
Andina. Centro Bartolomé de Las Casas, Cuzco.
Guillén, A. and Phélan, M. (comp.) (2012). Construyendo el Buen Vivir. PYDLOS: Cuenca
(Ecuador).
Guillen-Royo, M., Velazco, J., 2012. Happy villages and unhappy slums? Understanding
happiness determinants in Peru. In: Selin, H., Davey, G. (Eds.), Happiness Across
Cultures. Springer, New York, pp. 253–270.
Helliwell, J.F., 2003. How’s life? Combining individual and national variables to explain
subjective well-being. Econ. Model. 20, 331–360.
Hidalgo Capitán, A., Guillén-García, A., Deleg Guazha, Nacy (Eds.), 2014. Antología del
Pensamiento Indigenista Ecuatoriano sobre Sumak Kawsay. Universidad de Huelva
y Universidad de Cuenca, Ecuador y España.
Hidalgo-Capitán, A.L., 2012. El Buen Vivir. La (re)creación del pensamiento del
PYDLOSPYDLOS, Cuenca (Ecuador).
Hidalgo-Capitán, A.L., Cubillo-Guevara, A.P., 2013. Seis debates abiertos sobre el sumak
kawsay. ÍCONOS 48, 25–40.
Houtart, F., 2011. El concepto de Sumak kawsay (buen vivir) y su correspondencia con el
bien común de la humanidad. Rev. Filos. 69, 7–33.
Huanacuni, F., 2010. Paradigma Occidental y Paradigma Indígena Originario’. Am. Lat.
Mov. 452, 17–22.
INEC, 2010. Spanish acronym for Ecuadorian National Statistics Institute. VII Censo de
Población y VI de Vivienda 2010, (http://bit.ly/U3Fhfm).
Kasser, T., Ryan, R.M., 1996. Further examining the American dream: differential corre-
lates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22 (3), 280–287.
Kingdon, G., Knight, J., 2006. Subjective well-being poverty versus income poverty and
capabilities poverty? J. Dev. Stud. 42 (7), 1199–1224.
Layard, R., 2005. Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. Penguin Books, London.
Macas, L., 2010. Sumak Kawsay. La vida en plenitud. Am. Lat. Mov. 452, 14–16.
Maslow, A., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50, 370–396.
Medina, J. (Ed.), 2001. La comprensión indígena de la Buena Vida. GTZ y Federación
Asociaciones Municipales de Bolivia, La Paz.
Mejido Costoya, M., 2013. Latin American post-neoliberal development thinking: The
Bolivian ‘turn’toward Suma Qamaña. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 25, 213–229.
Oviedo, A., 2011. Qué es el Sumakawsay. Don Bosco, Quito.
183J. Guardiola, F. García-Quero / Ecological Economics 107 (2014) 177–184

Pacari, N. (2008). ‘Naturaleza y territorio desde la mirada de los pueblos indígenas’,en
Alberto Acosta y Esperanza Martínez (comps.), Derechos de la Naturaleza. El futuro
es ahora, Abya Yala, 2009, 31–7.
Páez, P., 2010. Crisis, nueva arquitectura financiera y Buen Vivir. In: SENPLADES (Ed.),
Socialismo y Sumak Kawsay. SENPLADES, Quito, pp. 189–198.
Phelan,M., 2011. Revisión de índices e indicadores de desarrollo.Aportes para la medición
del buen vivir (Sumak Kawsay)Obets Revista de Ciencia Sociales. 6, 1, pp. 69–95.
Phelan M. and Guillén, A. (2012). Aproximaciones metodológicas para la medición
subjetiva del Buen Vivir (Sumak Kawsay). En Guillén, A. and Phélan, M. (comp.)
(2012). Construyendo el Buen Vivir. PYDLOS: Cuenca (Ecuador). Pp. 181–194.
Phelan, M., Guillen, A., 2014. La medición del Buen vivir (Sumak Kawsay). Ideas para la
discusión, (Retrieved from http://saber.ucv.ve/xmlui/handle/123456789/5468).
Quijano, A., 2011. Bien Vivir: entre el desarrollo y la des/colonialidad del poder. Ecuador
Debate 84, 77–88.
Radcliffe, S.A., 2012. Development for a postneoliberal era? Sumak kawsay, living well
and the limits to decolonisation in Ecuador. Geoforum 43 (2), 240–249.
Ramírez Gallegos, R., 2010. Socialismo del sumak kawsayo biosocialismo republicano. In:
SENPLADES (Ed.), Socialismo y Sumak Kawsay. SENPLADES, Quito, pp. 55–74.
Ramirez Gallegos, R., 2011. La felicidad como medida del buen vivir en Ecuador.
SENPLADES.
Rojas, M., 2007. Heterogeneity in the relationship between income and happiness: a
conceptual-referent-theory explanation. J. Econ. Psychol. 28, 1–14.
Rojas, M., 2008. Experienced poverty and income poverty in mexico: a subjective well-
being approach. World Dev. 36 (6), 1078–1093.
Rojas, M., 2015. Poverty and people's well-being. In: Glatzer, W., Moller, V., Camfield, L.,
Rojas, M. (Eds.), Global Handbook of WellBeing and Quality of Life. Springer (in
press).
SENPLADES, 2007. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007–2010. SENPLADES, Quito, (http://bit.ly/
1oteGTt).
SENPLADES, 2009. Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir del Ecuador 2009–2013. SENPLADES,
Quito, (http://bit.ly/1jsXOwF).
SENPLADES, 2010. Los nuevos retos de América Latina: socialismo y Sumak Kawsay.
SENPLADES, Quito.
SENPLADES, 2013. PLANNacional para el BuenVivir del Ecuador 2013–2017. SENPLADES,
Quito, (http://bit.ly/1pauwkz).
Social Indicators System of Ecuador (SIISEby the Spanish acronym) www.siise.gob.ecLast
accessed on 05 March 2014.
Temple, D., 2001. La reciprocidad y el origen de los valores humanos. In: Medina, J. (Ed.),
La comprensión indígena de la Buena Vida. GTZ y Federación Asociaciones
Municipales de Bolivia, La Paz, pp. 157–170.
Torrez, M., 2001. Estructura y proceso de desarrollo del Qamaña. Espacio de bienestar.
Pacha 6, 45–67.
Tortosa, J.M., 2009. Sumak Kawsay, Suma Qamaña, Buen Vivir’.Fundación Carolina,
(http://bit.ly/NcrrUw).
Tortosa, J.M., 2012. Sumak Kawsay, Buen Vivir, ¿alternativa al desarrollo? http://bit.ly/
PzsUGK.
Vanhulst, J., Beling, A.E., 2014. Buen vivir: emergentdiscoursewithin or beyond sustainable
development? Ecol. Econ. 101, 54–63.
Vega, F., 2012. Teología de la Liberación y Buen Vivir. In: Guillén, A., Phélan, M. (Eds.),
Construyendo el Buen Vivir. PYDLOS, Cuenca (Ecuador), pp. 115–136.
Viteri Gualinga, C., 2002. Visión indígena del desarrollo en la Amazonía. Polis, (http://bit.ly/
1cZ2595).
Walsh, C., 2010. Development as Buen Vivir:institutional arrangements and(de) colonial
entanglements. Development 53 (1), 15–21.
Welsch, H., 2002. Preferences over prosperity and pollution: environment valuation
based on happiness surveys. Kyklos 55 (4), 473–494.
Welsch, H., 2009. Implications of happiness research for environmental economics. Ecol.
Econ. 68, 2735–2742.
Yampara, S., 2001. Viaje del Jaqi a la Qamaña, El hombreen el Vivir Bien. In: Javier Medina,
J. (Ed.), La comprensión indígena de la Buena Vida. GTZ y Federación Asociaciones
Municipales de Bolivia, La Paz, pp. 45–50.
184 J. Guardiola, F. García-Quero / Ecological Economics 107 (2014) 177–184