neoliberal policy-driven '90s, through a process of structural reforms, including privatization, reduced public expenditure and promotion of private investment, has achieved significant economic development for the country. However, despite these achievements, this model is shown as not inclusive: one in two Peruvians is poor.
exclusive
addition, the model has few tools left to the state investment promotion (the assumption that otherwise the state will not be good, wins a lot). These processes have developed in part public services like electricity, telephone, some roads and airports, privatizations have boosted the market, are changes that have occurred in coastal urban areas. Poverty is accentuated inequality, and our growth has been uneven. This model has shown it takes to reach each and coupled with the failure of the State (with its pachydermal steps to correct the "failures" and waiting for the "trickle down") are part of the situation. It is in this context that rural areas are the poorest, their high rates of migration, poverty and malnutrition are proof of that.
The State has not strengthened, it is most evident in sectors like health, education, labor and agriculture, sectors where social policies have cut [1] . We recognize that MEF, Foreign Affairs and the Housing maybe as strong ministries, but the tasks and resources of others leave little state presence.
Recent initiatives
Executive bet promoting communal land titling, tend to be more of the same, to blindly follow what de Soto calls the Mystery of Capital, which has more of a skeptic; Richard Webb shows him as a complex, difficult if not impossible as inclusive development solution. It is therefore a more complex problem than the simplistic to assume García.
These standards aim to promote investment in rural areas where investment has been low, seeking to attract capital and social actors elsewhere. Power actors in areas where the state has minimal presence. Order private development is not wrong, but here is what is expected to be them, private, and not the state, in charge of overcoming poverty. These legislative initiatives have apparently not considered collaterals, as dismantling rural institutions: communities, areas recognized by the constitution, which, without their land without their acquired rights, lose power and the dismantling of their customs and traditions preserved through solidarity centuries. The figures speak for themselves does not work, so if one side is a buoyant growth, on the other hand, poverty affects one in two Peruvians, 7 of 10 in rural areas.
mining case gives the most eloquent evidence: Cajamarca remains -As the start of operations at Yanacocha, the fifth poorest department in the country. In Huancavelica there are several mining claims and the Santa Barbara mine does anyone believe that it will move only with the situation?. The foundation of our competitiveness, assumed by several-factors is to have low-wage production. Full employment of certain coastal areas from agricultural export boom should be contrasted with the purchasing power, labor rights and access to health of the people involved.
is worth mentioning that if the rule was agreed with stakeholders and will count with the necessary dissemination, would be legitimate, but the processes are to this flow from the creek or illegal way possible. The same source of a rule that can change the configuration of the census of agriculture (more than half of agricultural and forest lands are owned by communities) leaves a lot to say. Not bad that the government promotes standards, it is wrong that they do not leave those who are responsible for it, especially when its implications are political and transcend more than one million Peruvians.
And most importantly, what is the knowledge of the communities on which to promote this project?, Obviously those who promote the rule are not communal and what they see are the spaces and resources, no social networks or pockets are factors that can be measured. The State, in sort of banana republic, is seeking to concentrate resources in major large investors, with which their bargaining power is low. Do not forget that the state presence in rural areas and their development policies have shown little effect, it sounds like getting rid of weight and seek a profit economic rather than political.
These rules have been most praised a few years ago when models were begun to be implemented, today the results of the same model here and elsewhere, show that they are very short-term departures for rural areas. And most alarming is that no action the development of democratic institutions and the state's presence in these areas. Thus, if the first round of privatizations sold the family jewels, now the state wanting to follow the same pattern, without consulting community members try to finish due to their properties, and inaction of the state itself, they can not take advantage. Sell \u200b\u200bjewelry that do not belong but whose social cost is not charged Alan, but those who follow him, and rural poverty map will not be altered.
[1] Health and Education, along with Justice are the specifications with the highest number of strikes.
