The books under consideration in this review are a study in contrasts. Although both studies are concerned with understanding resource conflicts in contemporary Ecuador, they do so using very different research methods and approaches. Todd Eisenstadt and Karleen Jones West’s study is based on a nationwide public opinion survey on environmental attitudes and relies on statistical analysis, whereas Thea Riofrancos’s work is an archival and ethnographic study of mining conflict that uses discourse analysis. Interestingly, the studies have similar findings with regard to the deep division within the country between those factions in favor and those opposed to the extractivist model of development. This rift divides political parties, government officials, civil society, communities, and even individual households. Yet, the two works provide distinct theoretical explanations for this dynamic. Whereas Eisenstadt and Jones West’s theory of resource conflict centers on environmental vulnerability, Riofrancos’s work highlights environmental epistemology.

Both books are welcome additions to the literature on Indigenous rights and resource governance in Latin America. Ecuador has become a global leader for Indigenous and environmental rights; its 2008 constitution was the first in the world to recognize the rights of Nature and the plurinational character of the state. Thus, this small but important country is worthy of the single case study treatment that these authors give it. This has not always been the case within the discipline. In the acknowledgments section of her book, Riofrancos recounts a conversation with her dissertation adviser (very similar to one that I had with mine) about the relevance of Ecuador as a case study (p. viii).

Ecuador is a prime example of how neoliberalism has produced distinctive waves of protest in Latin America. The first wave of austerity protests in the region, which occurred from the mid-1970s through the 1980s, was led by the urban working class, precisely the sector that bore the brunt of the effects of economic restructuring. The second wave of anti-neoliberal protests of the 1990s and 2000s was led by new social and political actors, such as Indigenous peoples, who filled a political void and helped elect Latin America’s “Left Turn” governments. The third and latest protest wave, which is the subject matter of the books reviewed here, arose in response to the social and environmental impacts of the expansion of extractive industry into new frontiers and is led by anti-extractive movements and environmentalists.

Eisenstadt and Jones West’s volume, provocatively titled Who Speaks for Nature? is sure to generate serious debate among environmental politics scholars over its central claim that environmentalism in the Global South is driven by self-interest rather than postmaterialist values (see chapter 1). The authors’ findings are supported by a nationwide public opinion survey of 1,781 Ecuadorians in 2014 that was designed by the authors and complemented by personal interviews to contextualize the results (detailed in chapter 2). The study outlines three potential groups who claim to “speak for Nature” in Ecuador: Indigenous and rural communities whose livelihoods depend on the land, the government of Rafael Correa (2007–17) whose “extractive populism” championed Indigenous and environmental rights while advancing extractive industry, and Indigenous leaders and public intellectuals who advocate for the rights of Nature as an alternative to development.

The study argues that Indigenous and rural communities, particularly those in the Amazon, are the most effective representatives of the environment but that their advocacy is driven by self-preservation owing to their geographic proximity to existing or proposed resource extraction sites. Based on a comparison of survey results from the north, central, and southern extractive frontiers in Ecuador (see chapter 4), the authors demonstrate that those individuals whose lands are already degraded tend to value extraction over the environment, whereas those opposed to extraction are individuals whose lands have not yet been contaminated but where extraction is being proposed or debated. The authors’ theory of vulnerability politics goes a long way toward explaining the variety of stances that Indigenous communities take on extractive industry.

A controversial aspect of the book is the authors’ suggestion that “indigenous identity has little to do with environmental mobilization” (p. 9), despite the fact that Ecuador’s Indigenous movement and its affiliated political party have led the country’s anti-mining efforts. Interestingly, even though the public opinion survey used by Eisenstadt and Jones West purposely targeted Indigenous peoples (40.2% of respondents self-identified as Indigenous), the Indigenous identity variable was not statistically significant in any of their models. The authors interpret this non-finding to mean that vulnerability matters more to environmental mobilization than does ethnic identity and that Indigenous groups should therefore abandon a multicultural strategy in favor of “polycentrism,” a pluralist form of interest representation in which multiple groups work to solve issues on different fronts (p. 216).

A curious omission in the study is any discussion of the gendered dimension of resource conflicts or even a survey variable on the sex of the respondents. There is a growing literature on resource conflicts in Latin America indicating that Indigenous women play a key role in anti-extractivist resistance efforts and do so at great personal cost. In addition to the risk of repression and criminalization of their activities, in some cases when women step out of their traditional roles to mobilize collectively against mining and other extractive operations, they may trigger deeply ingrained hostility toward them from the men in their communities. It is entirely possible that, if the Indigenous identity variable used in Eisenstadt and Jones West’s study were disaggregated by gender, Indigenous men, who are more likely to be employed either directly or indirectly by the extractive sector, might hold different opinions on the environment and extractive industry than do Indigenous women. At the very least, this is an important new avenue of research for public opinion survey research.

Resource Radicals by Thea Riofrancos offers a highly contextualized theory of the politicization of resource extraction in Ecuador under the Correa administration. Based on extensive fieldwork and archival research carried out by the author between 2010 and 2016, Riofrancos’s book documents the dramatic shift among the country’s popular sector organizations from a position of radical resource nationalism to anti-extractivism. Her study seeks to explain why Ecuadorian activists, who protested against neoliberalism for decades, turned against a leftist government that proclaimed the end of neoliberalism (p. 3). Riofrancos’s work brings into focus how grassroots activists were able to craft critiques of extraction and enact processes of resistance that became the primary source of discord between what she terms the “Left-in-power” and the “Left-in-resistance” (detailed in the book’s conclusion).

The author identifies two forms of resource radicalism at play in Ecuador: radical resource nationalism, which demands the collective ownership of nonrenewable resources and the equitable distribution of its proceeds, and anti-extractivism—which rejects the extractivist model of development in favor of a post-extractive future. In the space of less than a decade, the Correa administration’s top-down, technical approach to “sustainable mining” generated two opposing camps within state and society holding contrasting notions of development and democracy. In one of the most fascinating chapters of the book (chapter 5), Riofrancos describes the information war between state actors and community members that led each to claim epistemic authority over the other. From the point of view of the state, communities oppose mining because they are “misinformed” and lack sufficient technical information. From the point of view of the communities (and some bureaucrats), the state’s information is hopelessly deficient and biased, because it lacks expertise of its own and relies on corporate studies. Community activists directly contest the authority of and information from the state and corporations when they articulate alternative, nontechnical expertise grounded in their own local knowledge of their territories (p. 154).

Riofrancos notes in her conclusion that the fragmented and territorialized nature of extraction leaves directly affected communities isolated and vulnerable to repression. In stark contrast to Eisenstadt and Jones West’s theory of environmental vulnerability, Riofrancos argues that “geography, however, is not destiny” (p. 179). Instead, she advocates for strong alliances and organized solidarity across the country. She suggests that any explanation for the form of resistance to the uneven territoriality of extraction must also consider such factors as project type, scale, and ownership, in addition to legal norms and the extent of community-level political organization.

Riofrancos’s work is based on a unique historical moment in Ecuador, and its features are not found in other cases in the region. Nevertheless, the book does offer sobering lessons for Latin America’s leftist governments. At its heart, Resource Radicals is a story of how the Left cannibalized itself in Ecuador and, in so doing, inadvertently opened the door to a right-wing resurgence in the 2021 presidential elections. According to Riofrancos, in Ecuador, “two forms of leftism confronted one another in a dispute that became so polarized that each saw in the other a political enemy more dangerous than neoliberalism” (p. 182). She concludes the book with a call for the two projects of the Left to work together to bring to life their egalitarian and ecological visions. Important words indeed.

The two books reviewed here not only demonstrate the theoretical and empirical benefits of a single case study approach to a unique country such as Ecuador but also reveal the merits of methodological pluralism within political science. These are must-read books for scholars interested in issues of Indigenous rights, extractivist resistance, environmental justice, and the future of humanity.