Philippine Political Science Journal

ISSN: 0115-4451 (Print) 2165-025X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpsj20

Paths to recognition: explaining indigenous

peoples’ rights in Southeast Asia through
qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)

Isabel Inguanzo

To cite this article: Isabel Inguanzo (2018): Paths to recognition: explaining indigenous peoples’
rights in Southeast Asia through qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), Philippine Political
Science Journal, DOI: 10.1080/01154451.2018.1512256

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01154451.2018.1512256

Published online: 27 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpsj20
PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL
https://doi.org/10.1080/01154451.2018.1512256

ARTICLE

Paths to recognition: explaining indigenous peoples’ rights

in Southeast Asia through qualitative comparative
analysis (QCA)
Isabel Inguanzo
Department of International Studies, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Seville, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper attempts to find paths to the recognition of indigenous Received 2 February 2018
peoples’ rights (IPR) and to identify the conditions that are neces- Accepted 13 August 2018
sary and/or sufficient for the recognition of these rights. A long- KEYWORDS
itudinal comparative study of Southeast Asian minority rights Indigenous peoples’ rights;
regimes is carried out by means of a two-step fuzzy set analysis, fuzzy sets; remote and
combining structural conditions (e.g. the colonial legacy of legal proximate conditions; QCA;
pluralism and the percentage of the population that is indigen- Southeast Asia
ous), contextual conditions related to the political opportunity
structure (e.g. democracy, international context, state participation
in IPR, and related international regimes), and the presence of
resonant indigenous movements. This paper relies on secondary
data as well as in-depth interviews with indigenous peoples’ acti-
vists across Southeast Asia and finds three potential paths to the
recognition of IPR – one similar to the Latin American pattern and
two that are endogenous to Southeast Asia.

Introduction
This paper attempts to find paths to the recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights (IPR)
and to identify the conditions that are necessary and/or sufficient for IPR recognition.
The recognition of IPR has expanded since the 1980s as a result of an international
paradigm shift, moving from an assimilationist and paternalistic approach to a multi-
cultural perspective. However, the extent of this recognition is uneven, both between
regions and within particular regions. States in Latin and North America, Scandinavia
and the Pacific have been pioneers in this field, which is why the literature on these
cases is more abundant. This abundance of literature in these areas has led to geo-
graphic and/or cultural bias in theories about IPR; however, the regions mentioned
above share a set of conditions that alone explains a significant degree of the recogni-
tion of IPR.
Other regions have different historical and political patterns, for which there is scant
theory on the recognition of IPR. Given this theoretical gap, this paper tests existing
theories by applying them to Southeast Asia through qualitative comparative analysis
(QCA). More specifically, the research question is addressed with a longitudinal

CONTACT Isabel Inguanzo iinguanzo@uloyola.es

© 2018 Philippine Political Science Association (PPSA)
2 I. INGUANZO

comparative study of 11 Southeast Asian minority rights regimes, using a two-step fuzzy
sets-qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to test both structural conditions (related
to the history and social composition of these territories) and contextual conditions
(related to the political opportunity structure (POS) and the presence of resonant
indigenous movements).
Within Southeast Asia, the level of recognition of IPR is extremely uneven (Clarke
2001; He 2011). The Philippines, Sarawak, Cambodia, Sabah and, to a certain extent,
Indonesia can be considered as areas that recognize a significant variety and level of IPR
(Inguanzo 2014, 59–63). However, areas such as Thailand, Timor-Leste, Vietnam, Laos,
Myanmar and West Malaysia do not. Southeast Asia is a good region with which to test
previous theories on the causes of the recognition of IPR because the region also has a
wide variety of historical and sociopolitical contexts that make it possible to test the
structural and contextual conditions stated above, which remain fairly constant among
the Latin American cases.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to test theories that are taken for granted in
Latin American cases (Van Cott 2000; Martí i Puig 2009; Martí i Puig and Villalba 2012;
Stavenhagen 2006; Yashar 2005) but that could be incorrect or incomplete in other parts
of the world, such as Southeast Asia. In fact, it might be possible to recognize IPR in
socio-historical contexts different from those found in Latin American or in unfavorable
international contexts. In summary, this paper seeks to build upon previous attempts to
“consider the potential of Asia as an empirically rich laboratory for theorizing about
minority rights and citizenship, both in an intra-Asia context as well as in terms of the
region’s contribution to the ever-growing body of citizenship theory more broadly”
(Miller 2011, 801).

Theoretical background
Governments can manage diversity in a variety of ways (Kymlicka and Norman 2000). Asia
is characterized by very different state responses to ethnic conflict, “ranging from violent
military repression and coercion on the one hand, to various offers of autonomy and other
forms of self-rule aimed at granting ethnic minorities more equal citizenship on the other”
(Miller 2011, 799–800). The management of diversity in different territories constitutes
different types of minority rights regimes. A minority rights regime is a system of “policies
that accommodate diversity and grant members of minorities certain rights” (Rechel 2009).
Literature based on Latin and North American experiences has identified the follow-
ing conditions as enabling IPR: a favorable international context (Brysk 2009;
Stavenhagen 1989; Gómez Suárez 2003); the participation of states in international
regimes related to IPR, such as human rights or environmental protection international
regimes (Risse, Ropp, and Sikkink 1999; Keck and Sikkink 2000); the quality of the
democracy (Martí i Puig 2009) or a transition towards democracy that opens the door
to the recognition of not only civil and political rights but also economic, social and
cultural rights (Yashar 2005); and finally, the “resonance” of indigenous movements
(Brysk 2009; Yashar 2005; Van Cott 2000; Snow and Benford 1988; Benford and Snow
2000). The international context, the extent of or change in the quality of the democ-
racy, and state participation in international regimes that provide powerful allies con-
stitute the POS in which social movements can be successful (Tarrow 2011).
 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 3

Some of these conditions, such as democracy,1 the emergence of civil society, and the
development of an international community sensitive to IPR, have also been highlighted
as crucial to understanding the situation of indigenous peoples in Asia (He 2011) and
Southeast Asia (Clarke 2001), although this has not been systematically analyzed. All of
these conditions relate to political contexts that might vary over time.
Other structural conditions that, according to Southeast Asian literature, affect the
level of IPR recognition have not been analyzed in Latin American cases since in the
Americas, these conditions, such as colonial legacy, Asian political philosophies and the
size of the indigenous population, do not greatly vary (He 2011, 470–76). However, He
does not systematically analyze the necessity or sufficiency of these conditions.
Regarding colonial legacies, the type of colonization has a relevant impact on legal
pluralism and the recognition of land and cultural rights for ethnic minorities (Hooker
1975; Mommsen and De Moor 1992; Scott 2009; Gilbert 2006; He 2011), such that when
there is high recognition of legal pluralism during the colonial period and when the
transition to independence does not completely break with the colonial past, these
newly independent states might preserve legal pluralism as a principle in their national
laws (Inguanzo 2016, 148–156).
With regard to political philosophies, these are intimately related to the form of
citizenship they enhance (Yashar 2005, 39). These forms of citizenship include liberal,
communitarian or republican, depending on whether states recognize the citizenship
rights of individuals, of members of a certain ethnic or cultural community, or of those
sharing a political project or official ideology (Gilbert 2000, 171–182; Bellamy 2011;
589–590). In practice, states with liberal citizenship sometimes adopt multicultural
models of managing diversity; however, states with republican citizenship “are unlikely
to accord powers and resources to minorities that they view as potential collaborators
with neighboring enemies” (Kymlicka 2010, 106) or that simply belong to ethnic groups
considered to be nonloyal to the nation-state (Miller 2011, 806).
In addition to these historical conditions, at least two social conditions are relevant.
First, previous literature has highlighted the importance of the presence of a powerful
Christian church sympathetic to IPR demands (Stavenhagen 2006; Maiz 2004). However,
church power ultimately depends on the spread of the Christian faith in the territory
(Scott 2009; He 2011). Second, the size of indigenous population has been noted as an
important but definitely unnecessary condition for IPR recognition in Latin America (Van
Cott 2007; He 2011). It may be interesting to test this in Southeast Asia because
according to He, in Asia “the accommodation and better treatment of indigenous
minorities is shaped by a set of factors such as reasonable sized minority groups with
the backing of a strong religious tradition” (2011, 478). Table 1 summarizes the differ-
ences in conditions that enhance IPR recognition in Latin America and Southeast Asia.

A configurational approach to test and build a new theory

Most academic knowledge on IPR recognition is based on case studies or classic
comparative studies, such as Van Cott’s seminal work on Latin America (Van Cott
2000) or He’s essay on Asia (He 2011). However, there are no investigations using QCA
to test these theories. Other researchers have used QCA to explain the configurations
that led to successful indigenous parties in Latin America (Martí i Puig 2008) or ethnic
4 I. INGUANZO

Table 1. State of conditions enhancing IPR in Latin America and Southeast Asia.
Conditions Latin America Southeast Asia
Colonial legacy of legal pluralism Low Low in the Philippines, Thailand, Laos,
Cambodia and Vietnam
Medium in West Malaysia, Myanmar
High in Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Sabah and
Sarawak
Citizenship regime Liberal Liberal in the Philippines, Timor-Leste and
Cambodia
Communitarian in West Malaysia, Sabah,
Sarawak and Indonesia
Republican in the rest
Christianism extension High High in Philippines and Timor-Leste
Medium in Sabah and Sarawak (over 25%)
Low in the rest
Size of Indigenous population Uneven across territories High in Timor-Leste, Sabah and Sarawak
Medium in Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam,
Indonesia, the Philippines
Low in West Malaysia, Cambodia and
Thailand
Resonant indigenous movement Uneven across territories Uneven across territories
Quality of democracy From hybrid regimes to full From authoritarian regimes to democracies
democracies
Participation in international regimes High in human rights Uneven for human rights
sensitive to IPR Uneven for environmental Uneven for environmental issues
issues
Source: The author based on Inguanzo (2016).

mobilization in South Asia (Ganguly 1997), but these have always used crisp-sets QCA,
and they do not explain the recognition of IPR.
A two-step fsQCA was chosen to answer the following research questions: Are there
different paths to achieving IPR recognition? If so, which conditions are necessary and/or
sufficient for IPR recognition? The QCA methodology is useful for performing theoretical
refinements in cases not yet analyzed or in outlier cases (Berg-Schlosser et al. 2009,
15–16). It has also been used to conduct exploratory research and area studies (Ragin
and Rihoux 2004). Furthermore, QCA is specifically suited for conducting a comparative
study with a limited number of cases (from 2 to 30 cases). In summary, QCA is the
methodology that best suits the research questions compared to other quantitative and
qualitative methodologies since it specifically “allows systematic cross-case comparisons,
while at the same time giving justice to within-case complexity, particularly in small and
intermediate-N research designs” (Rihoux and Ragin 2009, xviii).
In addition, the QCA methodology specifically addresses equifinality, meaning there
are different possible ways to produce a particular outcome. In fact, QCA is particularly
suited for research on complex causality (Rihoux 2006). As opposed to probabilistic
methods, set theory focuses on interactions between different conditions to produce a
specific outcome. Therefore, instead of measuring the separate weight of each individual
variable in a particular outcome, set theory identifies configurations of conditions that
can be present or absent. In that sense, when using QCA the researcher assumes that
different conditions or combinations of conditions can be necessary and/or sufficient for
a specific outcome (Mahoney 2008, 417). If a condition is necessary, then all possible
configurations presenting the outcome must present the condition. If a condition is
sufficient, then it is present every time the outcome is present.
 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 5

Second, in set theory, cases can fit in crisp sets or fuzzy sets. If conditions are not
dichotomic (merely present or absent), then it is better to use fuzzy sets and then define
cases as mainly in or mainly out of a particular set. For example, most of our cases
(minority right regimes) are neither totally in nor totally out of the set of cases that
recognize all types of IPR (because all of them recognize some level of rights, and none
of them recognize all possible kinds of rights). Therefore, some cases are more in the set
than others. Thus, fuzzy sets allow the researcher to incorporate finer gradation in the
analysis (Ragin 2008).
In addition, the recognition of IPR has greatly varied over time, with gradually
increasing levels of IPR recognition in most cases, both in Southeast Asia and at the
international level (Kymlicka 2010, 104; Clarke 2001, 433). To address the possible
situation of endogeneity between IPR recognition and indigenous movements (Martí i
Puig 2008, 2009), or between IPR recognition and democracy (Kymlicka 2010, 104),
temporality is taken into consideration through the 2-step approach (Schneider and
Wagemann 2006). This approach allows the researcher to separate remote (socio-
historical) conditions from proximate conditions (political junctures). This technique is
especially suited for this topic, since “[t]he varied responses to indigenous rights in
Asia are due to this complexity and varied traditional and modern conditions” (He
2011, 463).
Data were collected from primary and secondary sources. Secondary sources
included legal texts, population census, human rights reports from Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch, United Nations publications on indigenous
issues, the United Nations Treaty Collection, Polity IV database and Special Rapporteur
on the rights of indigenous peoples’ regional and national reports. Primary sources
included 20 semi-structured interviews with activists from local, national and regional
indigenous movements. Interviews were conducted between October and December
2011 and in August 2012 and were key for the codification of conditions during the
QCA second step.
During the first step, remote conditions are tested to identify those necessary for IPR
recognition in 2010. This approach of segmenting cases through time has already been
used in QCA analysis and is defined as pooled QCA, a type of time series QCA (TsQCA)
(Hino 2009, 250–251).2 In this second step, the study covers more than 30 cases in
Southeast Asia over a period of 30 years, from 1980 to 2010. This enables the researcher
to increase the number of cases and therefore of possible configurations. During this
step, both remote and proximate conditions are tested to identify which configurations
(or combinations of conditions) are sufficient for IPR recognition.
This strategy enables the researcher to test different proximate conditions that
vary through time, such as the international context, the quality of the democracy,
state participation in international regimes, and the resonance of indigenous move-
ments, within different historical contexts. The aim is to evaluate the combined
impact of the international context (which is increasingly favorable to IPR), the quality
of the democracy, the state’s sensitivity to international human rights and environ-
mental protection regimes, and the resonance of local indigenous movements, on the
level of IPR recognition. During this step, both remote and proximate conditions are
tested to identify which configurations (or combinations of conditions) are sufficient
for IPR recognition.
6 I. INGUANZO

Cases, outcomes, and conditions

At the beginning of the analysis, the cases consist of 11 minority rights regimes
(Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, West Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Sabah, Sarawak,
Thailand, Timor-Leste and Vietnam) in 2010. The division among West Malaysia, Sabah
and Sarawak is for the following reason: Sabah and Sarawak were annexed to Peninsular
Malaysia many years after Malayan independence. As a result, Malaysia is the only
federal country in the region, and its federal structure is fully asymmetric, favoring the
states of Borneo (Sabah and Sarawak) over the remaining states in the Federation of
Malaysia.
Of further importance to this study, the constitution makes clear distinctions between
the rights of indigenous people in Sabah and Sarawak on the one hand and the
“natives” of West Malaysia on the other.3 Furthermore, in Malaysia, land rights (which
are crucial to IPR) are regulated by the state parliaments rather than the national
parliament. Moreover, as Inguanzo shows, the recognition of IPR in Sabah and
Sarawak is significantly higher than in West Malaysia, even when compared with other
states in Southeast Asia (2014, 59). In addition, West Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak differ
in most of the conditions analyzed in this paper, such as the colonial legacy of legal
pluralism,4 the percentage of the population that is Christian, the percentage of the
population that is indigenous, the quality of the democracy, and the resonance of
indigenous movements (Inguanzo and Wright 2016). Finally, most interviewees in both
Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah and Sarawak, and at the international level,5 strongly
recommended differentiating between the situations of orang asli in Peninsular Malaysia
and of native people in Sabah and Sarawak. Therefore, we have divided the Federation
of Malaysia into three regimes of IPR: West Malaysia (Malay Peninsular), Sabah and
Sarawak (Borneo: East Malaysia).6
The outcome of IPR recognition is measured through the IRELDI Index. This index
measures the level of IPR recognition based on a multicultural model of minority rights
recognition, and it was applied to Southeast Asian territories (Inguanzo 2014, 47–51).7
IRELDI examines these rights in both constitutions and secondary legislation, and it also
includes ratification by individual states of international agreements on minority rights.
IRELDI is a useful tool for measuring IPR recognition in different minority rights regimes
since it contains most of the indicators of multicultural constitutionalism and applies
them to secondary legislation and the ratification of international conventions relevant
for IPR. Moreover, since it is an index, it allows finer comparisons between cases and the
identification of increases or decreases in the level of IPR recognition. The differences
between cases in terms of the level of recognition of IPR can be observed in Figure 1.
IRELDI enables the researcher to distinguish between cases that do recognize IPR (the
Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, Sabah and Sarawak) and those that do not (Laos, West
Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, East Timor and Vietnam). Furthermore, it makes it possible
to establish finer gradations within the two sets, distinguishing between minority rights
regimes that recognize more rights and those that recognize fewer rights. Thus, IRELDI is
a perfect indicator for a fuzzy sets analysis since it is necessary to identify which cases
belong to the set and which cases remain outside the set of IPR recognition.
In the first stage of the analysis, four remote conditions are tested to choose which of
them are indeed necessary. By doing so, diverse favorable historical contexts for IPR
 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 7

Figure 1. Disaggregation of IRELDI scores in Southeast Asian cases. Source: Inguanzo (2014, 63).

recognition can be distinguished. The structural conditions taken into account at this
first stage are (a) the colonial legacy of legal pluralism, analyzing to what extent minority
rights were recognized during colonial times and how much of this legacy is maintained
today; (b) the republican form of citizenship8; (c) the percentage of the population that
is indigenous; and (d) the spread of Christianity, measured by the percentage of
Christians in each Southeast Asian case. The values for these conditions are available
in Table 2, and they are calibrated following theoretical considerations and values
distributions for Southeast Asia (Thiem and Dusa 2012, 54).9
However, as this paper discusses the paths to recognition, the emphasis will be on
the second step, where the time dimension is incorporated and four proximate condi-
tions related to the POS (international context, quality of democracy, state participation
in international regimes sensitive to IPR, and the resonance of indigenous movements)
are added to the analysis.10

Hypothesis
The main hypothesis is the following: In favorable sociohistorical contexts and/or open
POS scenarios, the presence of a resonant indigenous movement is sufficient for the

Table 2. Calibrated data matrix of remote conditions.

Territory IPR Colleg RepCit Christianext Indpop
Cambodia 0.70 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.08
Timor-Leste 0.05 0.53 0.05 0.97 1
Indonesia 0.53 0.57 0.05 0.13 0.70
Lao DPR 0.36 0.23 0.95 0.06 0.77
Myanmar 0.14 0.35 0.95 0.08 0.84
Sabah 0.68 097 0.05 0.53 0.94
Sarawak 0.72 0.97 0.05 0.69 0.95
Thailand 0.16 0.05 0.95 0.05 0.14
The Philippines 0.92 0.08 0.05 0.95 0.58
Viet Nam 0.43 0.35 0.95 0.11 0.63
West Malaysia 0.29 0.92 0.05 0.13 0.07
Source: The author based on Inguanzo (2016).
“IPR” means IPR recognition; “Colleg” means colonial legacy of legal pluralism; “repcit” means republican form
of citizenship; “christianext” means extension of Christian faith; and “indpop” means “size of indigenous
population”.
8 I. INGUANZO

recognition of IPR. According to a previous literature review, the sub-hypothesis is as

follows:

● H1: Remote conditions related to Latin American pathways, such as liberal citizen-
ship, a weak colonial tradition of legal pluralism and/or widespread Christianity,
might not be necessary for IPR recognition. However, a combination of these
remote conditions is a sufficient but not necessary combination for IPR recognition.
● H2: A combination of significant indigenous population (over 5% of the population-
11
) and widespread Christian faith is sufficient for IPR recognition.
● H3: The presence of a “resonant” indigenous movement might be a necessary but
not sufficient condition for IPR recognition.
● H4: A resonant movement within an open POS (favorable international context
within democratic regimes that participate in international human rights and
environmental protection regimes) might be a sufficient configuration for IPR
recognition.

This set of sub-hypotheses indicates that the author expects equifinality, meaning
that there are different paths to attain IPR recognition. One will be the Latin American
path, but there might be other paths endogenous to Southeast Asia.

Results
Historical settings for recognition of IPR: synchronic analysis of remote
conditions
Table 3 shows the two historical configurations allowing IPR recognition in 2010.
According to the table, it is possible to recognize IPR in both liberal citizenship regimes
(the Philippines and Cambodia) and communitarian citizenship regimes, such as Sabah,
Sarawak and, to some extent, Indonesia.
A main finding at this stage is that recognition of IPR is not possible in what, in this
paper, has been called a republican citizenship regime. Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam
allow some form of ethnic diversity recognition due to their socialist regimes, but they
do not permit substantial minority rights recognition that could jeopardize the common
political project (McCaskill and Rutherford 2006). Recognition is also not possible in
Thailand, which has been qualified as a republican citizenship regime, because indigen-
ous peoples there have been denied citizenship for years on the basis of a presumed

Table 3. Sufficiency analysis for IPR recognition (parsimonious solution).

Coverage
Row Unique Consistency
republican citizenship * colonial legacy of legal pluralism 0.510 0.199 0.833
republican citizenship * INDIGENOUS POPULATION 0.600 0.289 0.657
Solution consistency 0.707
Solution Coverage 0.799
Source: The author based on Inguanzo (2016).
Quine-McCluskey; Outcome: IPR; simplifying assumption for logical remainders.
Frequency cutoff: 1.000; consistency cutoff: 0.729.
 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 9

collaboration with communism, which is contrary to the national political project

(Gillogly 2004).
These four countries combine republican citizenship with securitization of relations
between the state and ethnic minorities. Therefore, the republican form of citizenship is
a sufficient condition for nonrecognition of IPR, and nonrepublican citizenship is a
necessary condition for recognition.12 In Southeast Asia, republican citizenship is a
historical and political condition capable of blocking the recognition of IPR.
Consequently, in the second step of the fuzzy set analysis, cases with republican citizen-
ship will be excluded since it has already been demonstrated that in such contexts IPR
recognition is not possible. Therefore, only territories with nonrepublican citizenship will
be analyzed in the next step.
In fact, among the different combinations of remote conditions, according to the
table, there are two scenarios that allow recognition, and both include nonrepublican
citizenship. This solution term has a consistency of 0.707 and a solution coverage of
0.799. The solution consistency is low, but this is because proximate conditions are not
yet included.
In summary, nonrepublican citizenship is a necessary but insufficient condition for recogni-
tion. Nonrepublican citizenship must be accompanied by either (a) a slight colonial tradition of
legal pluralism or (b) a context where there is a significant indigenous population. The first
scenario refers to the cases of Cambodia and the Philippines (this configuration has a
consistency of 0.833), and the second encompasses the cases of Sabah, Sarawak, Indonesia
and the Philippines (this configuration has a consistency of 0.657). Therefore, Vietnam, Laos,
Myanmar and Thailand will be excluded from the next step.

Paths to recognition of IPR: a diachronic analysis of proximate conditions

The previous analysis shows a static picture of the recognition of IPR in Southeast Asia in
2010. Therefore, the second step of the explanatory analysis of this study includes the
time dimension.
The conditions discussed at this point are related to the resonance of indigenous
movements in combination with a favorable POS (either remote or proximate).
Therefore, in this second step, six conditions are tested: two remote conditions identified
as relevant in the synchronic analysis (colonial tradition of legal pluralism and the
percentage of the population that is indigenous) and four proximate conditions (inter-
national context, quality of democracy, state participation in international regimes
sensitive to indigenous rights and the resonance of indigenous movements).
As stated above, no cases with republican citizenship are included since it has already
been established that this is a sufficient condition for nonrecognition of IPR, which is
why Cambodia during the 1980s is excluded. Furthermore, East Timor only counts for
the 2 periods since its independence. Table 4 shows the calibrated data matrix for the
result (recognition) and the six different conditions.

Analysis of necessary conditions

According to the necessity analysis in Table 5, there is asymmetry in causation, i.e.
potentially necessary conditions for recognition are not the denial of the necessary condi-
tions for nonrecognition. According to these results, a favorable international context and a
10 I. INGUANZO

Table 4. Calibrated data matrix for remote and proximate conditions.

Cases IPR colleg indpop intctxt partir democ mov
Cambodia 1990–1994 0.14 0.23 0.08 0.61 0.32 0.31 0.03
Cambodia 1995–1999 0.24 0.23 0.08 0.78 0.68 0.39 0.25
Cambodia 2000–2004 0.61 0.23 0.08 0.89 0.9 0.42 0.67
Cambodia 2005–2010 0.71 0.23 0.08 0.95 0.9 0.42 0.67
Timor-Leste 2000–2004 0.05 0.53 1 0.89 0.68 0.59 0.45
Timor-Leste 2005–2010 0.05 0.53 1 0.95 0.68 0.7 0.03
Indonesia 1980–1984 0.05 0.57 0.7 0.14 0.1 0.16 0.03
Indonesia 1985–1989 0.05 0.57 0.7 0.35 0.1 0.16 0.03
Indonesia 1990–1994 0.08 0.57 0.7 0.61 0.68 0.16 0.03
Indonesia 1995–1999 0.4 0.57 0.7 0.78 0.68 0.16 0.06
Indonesia 2000–2004 0.50 0.57 0.7 0.89 0.68 0.55 0.53
Indonesia 2005–2010 0.54 0.57 0.7 0.95 0.68 0.66 0.89
Philippines 1980–1984 0.14 0.08 0.58 0.14 0.32 0.16 0.67
Philippines 1985–1989 0.24 0.08 0.58 0.35 0.9 0.82 0.94
Philippines 1990–1994 0.50 0.08 0.58 0.61 0.9 0.73 0.96
Philippines 1995–1999 0.91 0.08 0.58 0.78 0.9 0.73 0.96
Philippines 2000–2004 0.92 0.08 0.58 0.89 0.9 0.73 0.92
Philippines 2005–2010 0.92 0.08 0.58 0.95 0.98 0.73 0.92
Sabah 1980–1984 0.56 0.97 0.94 0.14 0.02 0.4 0.03
Sabah 1985–1989 0.56 0.97 0.94 0.35 0.1 0.48 0.53
Sabah 1990–1994 0.56 0.97 0.94 0.61 0.68 0.48 0.89
Sabah 1995–1999 0.66 0.97 0.94 0.78 0.1 0.35 0.78
Sabah 2000–2004 0.69 0.97 0.94 0.89 0.68 0.35 0.83
Sabah 2005–2010 0.69 0.97 0.94 0.95 0.68 0.45 0.83
Sarawak 1980–1984 0.64 0.97 0.95 0.14 0.02 0.4 0.03
Sarawak 1985–1989 0.73 0.97 0.95 0.35 0.1 0.4 0.6
Sarawak 1990–1994 0.73 0.97 0.95 0.61 0.68 0.4 0.89
Sarawak 1995–1999 0.73 0.97 0.95 0.78 0.1 0.35 0.73
Sarawak 2000–2004 0.73 0.97 0.95 0.89 0.68 0.35 0.53
Sarawak 2005–2010 0.73 0.97 0.95 0.95 0.68 0.35 0.6
W. Malaysia 1980–1984 0.19 0.92 0.07 0.14 0.02 0.4 0.03
W. Malaysia 1985–1989 0.19 0.92 0.07 0.35 0.1 0.4 0.03
W. Malaysia 1990–1994 0.19 0.92 0.07 0.61 0.68 0.4 0.09
W. Malaysia 1995–1999 0.3 0.92 0.07 0.78 0.1 0.35 0.09
W. Malaysia 2000–2004 0.3 0.92 0.07 0.89 0.68 0.35 0.15
W. Malaysia 2005–2010 0.3 0.92 0.07 0.95 0.68 0.42 0.15
Source: The author based on Inguanzo (2016).
“IPR” means IPR recognition; “Colleg” means colonial legacy of legal pluralism; “indpop” means “indigenous
population”; “inctxt” mean favourable international context; “partir” means state participation in international
regimes related to IPR; “democ” means quality of democracy and “mov” means “resonant indigenous
movement”.

resonant indigenous movement are potentially necessary for IPR recognition. Moreover,
coverage for the presence of a resonant indigenous movement is quite high (almost 0.8), so
this could potentially be a necessary and nontrivial condition. In contrast, for nonrecogni-
tion, the potentially necessary conditions are absence of democracy and absence of a
resonant indigenous movement. For both conditions, the coverage is quite wide, so these
conditions may be relevant to explaining the nonrecognition of IPR.
After the necessity analysis, a sufficiency analysis is performed to assess the relevance
of the six conditions. In any case, it should be noted that there is at least some symmetry
in the causal relationship between resonant indigenous movements and the recognition
of IPR. The sufficiency analysis will examine the relevance of this condition in greater
detail. The truth table for the combination of remote and proximate conditions can be
found in Table 6.
 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 11

Table 5. Necessity analysis of remote and proximate conditions for IPR and absence of IPR.
IPR ipr
Consistency Coverage Consistency Coverage
COLLEG 0.752* 0.535 0.733* 0.624
college 0.471 n.r. 0454 n.r.
INDPOP 0.794* 0.597 0.627 n.r.
Indpop 0.423 n.r. 0.553 n.r.
INTCTXT 0.889** 0.616 0.739* 0.613
Intctxt 0.440 n.r. 0.536 n.r.
PARTIR 0.757* 0.661 0.608 n.r.
Partir 0.583 n.r. 0.676* 0.769
DEMOC 0.730* 0.764 0.626 n.r.
Democ 0.794* 0.640 0.811** 0.785
MOV 0.809** 0.793 0.438 n.r.
Mov 0.496 n.r. 0.821** 0.834
Source: The author based on Inguanzo (2016).
*Relatively significant since the barrier exceeds 0.65 Ragin (2000).
**Very significant since it crosses the barrier of 0.8.
n.r. = not relevant, because consistency is not significant.

Table 6. Truth table of remote and proximate conditions for IPR.

ColLeg IndPop IntCtxt PartIR Democ Mov N Cases Consistency
1 1 1 1 0 1 6 Sabah 1990–1994, 2000–2004, 2005–2010 0.943
Sarawak 1990–1994, 2000–2004, 2005–2010
1 1 0 0 0 0 4 Sabah 1980–1984, 0.772
Sarawak 1980–1984,
Indonesia 1980–1984, 1985–1989
0 1 1 1 1 1 4 Philippines 1990–1994, 1995–1999, 2000–2004, 0.887
2005–2010
1 0 1 1 0 0 3 W. Malaysia 1990–1994, 2000–2004, 2005–2010 0.718
1 1 1 1 0 0 2 Indonesia 1990–1994, 1995–1999 0.753
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Indonesia 2000–2004, 2005–2010 0.918
1 1 1 1 1 0 2 Timor-Leste 2000–2004, 2005–2010 0.769
1 1 1 0 0 1 2 Sabah 1995–1999, Sarawak 1995–1999 0.985
1 1 0 0 0 1 2 Sabah 1985–1989, Sarawak 1985–1989 0.985
1 0 0 0 0 0 2 W. Malaysia 1980–1984, 1985–1989 0.629
0 0 1 1 0 1 2 Cambodia 2000–2004, 2005–2010 0.998
1 0 1 0 0 0 1 W. Malaysia 1995–1999 0.744
0 1 0 1 1 1 1 Philippines 1985–1989 0.853
0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Philippines 1980–1984 0.789
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Cambodia 1995–1999 0.782
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Cambodia 1990–1994 0.708
Configurations 17–64
Source: The author based on Inguanzo (2016).

Analysis of sufficient conditions

At this point in the analysis, the intermediate solution will be taken into account. This
solution is halfway between a parsimonious solution (which codes all logical reminders
as if they were positive, thereby simplifying the result as much as possible) and a
complex solution (which codes all logical reminders as if they were negative, being
therefore a more conservative approach) (Schneider and Wagemann 2006, 32–33).
To obtain this solution, conditions that favor the recognition of IPR should be
introduced as simplifying assumptions. According to the discussion in the first section
of this paper, these assumptions are that the existence of a resonant indigenous move-
ment and state participation in international human rights and environmental
12 I. INGUANZO

protection regimes favor IPR recognition. Moreover, the symmetrical nature of the
relationship between IPR recognition and the presence of a resonant indigenous move-
ment, which was observed in the necessity analysis, supports this methodological
decision. Table 7 shows this intermediate solution for the recognition of IPR.
The above table shows that a resonant indigenous movement is indeed a very
important condition for recognition since it appears in all sufficient configurations of
the intermediate solution.13 However, the individual consistency of this condition
(0.809) is not higher than the consistency of the intermediate solution (0.939),
meaning there may be recognition of IPR without the previous existence of a
resonant indigenous movement. Such are the cases of Sabah and Sarawak in the
first half of the 1980s. As shown in Table 5, in these two cases, the recognition
comes from the 1960s, when these territories were annexed by the Federation of
Malaysia, and some IPR, such as previous land titles for native populations, were
recognized.14 In fact, the configuration of these two cases is the same as the
Indonesian example for the 1980s, and during this decade, there was no recognition
of IPR in Indonesia.15
Therefore, it is a contradictory configuration, and it has been considered as
negative in the truth table since it is understood that the cases of Sabah and
Sarawak are quite particular and that in any other place with the same conditions,
it is likely that no recognition would be found, as happened in periods I and II in
Indonesia. Regardless, in the cases of Sabah and Sarawak, the very intense colonial
legacy of legal pluralism maintained over time has been decisive. An indigenous
movement with significant national and international resonance allowed a small
increase in recognition later in the 1990s and, in the case of Sabah, greater partici-
pation of the indigenous movement in project management and state parks once
the political regime opened up slightly in the mid-1990s.16
Thus, excluding the cases of Sabah and Sarawak in the first half of the 1980s, the
other cases belonging to these two states fit in a sufficient configuration including the
following conditions: a strong colonial legacy of legal pluralism, a significant indigenous
population, a resonant indigenous movement and lack of democracy. Such a configura-
tion has a consistency of 0.957. This scenario implies that approximately 96% of the
cases that fall under this configuration present the result of the recognition of IPR.
The other two sufficient configurations will consist of different combinations of conditions,
but both will maintain a common core including a resonant indigenous movement, a favor-
able international context, and state sensitivity to human rights and/or environmental

Table 7. Sufficiency analysis for remote and proximate conditions (Intermediate solution).
Coverage Consistency
Row Unique
MOV * democ* INDPOP * COLLEG 0.486 0.189 0.957
MOV * DEMOC * PARTIR * INCTXT* INDPOP 0.442 0.089 0.908
MOV * democ * PARTIR * INCTXT * indpop * college 0.260 0.073 0.998
Solution consistency 0.939
Solution Coverage 0.704
Source: The author based on Inguanzo (2016).
Quine-McCluskey; Outcome: IPR; simplifying assumption: MOV and PARTIR.
Frequency cutoff: 1.000; consistency cutoff: 0.887.
 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 13

discourses. This common core, consisting of dynamic and political conditions, makes clear the
constructivist nature of recognition. A number of interesting conclusions can be drawn from
these sufficient configurations.
On the one hand, the second route to recognition appearing in the intermediate
solution is the one that best matches the theory built on Latin American cases; that is,
recognition is achieved in democratic regimes that participate in international human
rights and environmental protection regimes, in a favorable international context, where
the indigenous population is statistically significant and the indigenous movement has a
wide resonance. The consistency of this configuration is slightly lower (0.908) than the
previous one, but it is still high and covers many more cases. In fact, it fits all Filipino
cases since 1990 and Indonesian cases in the 2000s. Similar cases can be found in Latin
America, in countries such as Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Mexico after their respective
transitions to democracy. In fact, it can be said that this configuration has great
explanatory power since this path is able to explain cases with different colonial
traditions of legal pluralism, so that in contexts of significant indigenous populations,
a resonant indigenous movement operating in an open POS will result in recognition of
IPR in 90% of cases.
This scenario has been even more evident in Indonesia during the past 10 years,
when the indigenous movement has managed to reframe the colonial tradition of legal
pluralism in its discourse, restoring and enhancing concepts such as adat communities
claiming the rights that had been denied to indigenous peoples since Indonesian
independence.17 Building the movement and developing language and repertoire
with a wide resonance in Indonesian society has been a long process since the emer-
gence of the movement in 1999 (Inguanzo and Wright 2016, 14–15), but it was
eventually successful.18
However, it is noteworthy that in Southeast Asia, there is barely any recognition
without a significant indigenous population; the only exception has been Cambodia
since 2001, and in these Cambodian cases, the road to recognition was somewhat
different (corresponding with the third sufficient configuration). While including a
favorable international context, high state sensitivity to human rights discourse and a
resonant indigenous movement, the national context was not democratic, and the
legacy of legal pluralism from the French colonial period was weak. This configuration
has a very high consistency (0.998). However, the assessment of this consistency must be
viewed carefully, as it is based on very few cases (only two).19 In addition, this config-
uration does not reflect what happened in Latin America since in countries with
indigenous populations below 5% recognition usually occurred in democratic contexts,
generally when drafting new constitutions, as happened in Colombia and Venezuela, or
at least a few years after the democratic transition, as seen in the Argentinean and
Chilean cases (Van Cott 2007; Martí i Puig and Villalba 2012).
Finally, it is noteworthy that in cases with a strong colonial legacy of legal pluralism,
such as the Bornean and Indonesian cases, recognition of IPR (if it even exists) is limited.
These are also cases where minority rights regimes have some sensitivity to IPR dis-
course by means of environmental protection sensitivity but not through human rights
sensitivity, and this can be another limitation for some indigenous movement strategies.
Future research might explore to what extent these “Borneo” cases will find a glass
14 I. INGUANZO

ceiling in terms of recognition or if they actually allow incremental changes, such as

those found in the Philippines and Latin America.

Dead-end paths to recognition

In the previous section, conditions affecting the recognition of IPR in Southeast Asia
have been explained. Although the emphasis in this study is placed on recognition
rather than nonrecognition, the results for nonrecognition should be at least briefly
discussed. Therefore, by repeating the sufficiency analysis with the opposite simplifying
assumptions, as in the previous section but this time applied to nonrecognition, the
following solution term is obtained:
As shown in Table 8, the complete solution term is more complex than the one
obtained for the recognition of IPR. It is noteworthy, however, that the parsimonious
solution identified two sufficient conditions for nonrecognition: on the one hand, the
absence of a resonant indigenous movement, and on the other, the lack of a favorable
international context. The consistencies for these conditions are 0.835 and 0.851,
respectively. These two conditions seem to be important, yet the consistency of the
parsimonious solution is too low (0.823)20; therefore, it is necessary to analyze the
intermediate solution so as not to lose the richness of the explanation or oversimplify
the reasoning.
Thus, if the five configurations of non-recognition are analyzed, then it can be
observed that these routes are much more complex than those appearing in the
parsimonious solution. The first two configurations of the intermediate solution have
quite a high consistency and included large number of cases. The first configuration
includes cases where the indigenous population is not significant, and the indigenous
movement (where it exists) is not resonant in a national nondemocratic context, despite
the favorable international context. The cases of Cambodia during the 1990s and West
Malaysia from the 1990s to the present-day fall under this configuration.
The second sufficient configuration makes reference to a nondemocratic context with
a strong colonial legacy of legal pluralism, where there was no resonant indigenous
movement and where the state did not participate in international human rights or
environmental protection international regimes. This configuration includes West
Malaysian cases during the 1980s and in the second half of the 1990s and the
Indonesian cases during the 1990s.21 In this configuration, the cases of Sabah and

Table 8. Sufficiency analysis of remote and proximate conditions for non IPR recognition (inter-
mediate solution).
Coverage
Row Unique Consistency
mov * democ *INTCTXT * indpop 0.378 0.105 0.995
mov * democ *partir * COLLEG 0.499 0.365 0.936
mov * INTCXT* INDPOP * COLLEG 0.353 0.056 0.944
Democ * partir * intctxt * INDPOP 0.346 0.051 0.883
DEMOC * intctxt * INDPOP * colleg 0.173 0.040 0.955
Solution consistency 0.915
Solution Coverage 0.766
Source: The author based on Inguanzo (2016).
Quine-McCluskey; Outcome: IPR; Simplifying assumption: mov and partir.
Frequency cutoff: 1.000; consistency cutoff: 0.885.
 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 15

Sarawak in the first half of the 1980s also fit, but as mentioned above, this is due to a
contradictory configuration in the truth table. The recognition of indigenous rights in
the case of Sabah and Sarawak, especially in the 1980s, is explained by the intense
colonial tradition of legal pluralism and an indigenous population that is significantly
high.
The third sufficient configuration makes reference to minority rights regimes with a
strong colonial legacy of legal pluralism and a significant indigenous population in
favorable international contexts but without a resonant indigenous movement. These
settings include the cases of Indonesia during the 1990s and Timor-Leste from 2000. The
two remaining sufficient configurations refer to unfavorable international contexts in
minority rights regimes with a significant indigenous population and different combina-
tions of, on the one hand, a lack of democracy and a lack of sensitivity to IPR-related
discourse and, on the other hand, a weak colonial legacy of legal pluralism and
democracy. These settings apply to the cases of Indonesia and the Philippines during
the 1980s.
The most relevant point of this study is that the lack of a resonant indigenous
movement seems to be important in particular POS settings, meaning that cases such
as West Malaysia are certainly not doomed to failure in regard to recognizing IPR,
despite unfavorable sociohistorical conditions because if there are some changes in
the nature of the political regime or the resonance of the indigenous movement, then
some recognition could be achieved. Similarly, according to the results obtained in this
research, it could be expected that promoting the resonance of the indigenous move-
ment in Timor-Leste could produce substantial improvements in the level of recognition
of IPR, as witnessed previously in Indonesia, since the POS is favorable. Finally, the last
two sufficient configurations for nonrecognition highlight the importance of an unfavor-
able international context, especially in settings with a significant indigenous popula-
tion, although as already noted this does not constitute a sufficient condition per se.

Discussion
This paper proposes an innovative methodological approach to IPR. In political science,
this topic has been analyzed with classical qualitative approaches. However, FsQCA has
been very useful for avoiding problems of endogeneity and addressing the issue of
equifinality. With the analysis of causal configurations completed, it is necessary to point
out that the intermediate solution is far from what has been previously hypothesized. In
this sense, the obtained solution is shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Three pathways to IPR recognition in Southeast Asia.

Configuration Cases
Resonant indigenous movement * Favorable international context * State participation Philippines from late
in international regimes * quality of democracy* significant indigenous population eighties
Indonesia from 2000s
Resonant indigenous movement * Favorable International context * State participation Cambodia from 2000s
in international regimes * low quality of democracy * low indigenous population *
low colonial legacy of legal pluralism
Resonant indigenous movement * colonial legacy of legal pluralism * significant Sabah and Sarawak from
indigenous population * low quality of democracy mid-1980s
Source: The author based on Inguanzo (2016).
16 I. INGUANZO

This final equation, while certainly complex, offers three paths to recognition, and
they share a common condition: the presence of a resonant indigenous movement.
Therefore, this can be considered a necessary condition. However, it is essential to point
out that in the cases of Sabah and Sarawak, the recognition of indigenous rights dated
from British colonial times and has remained almost unchanged. The question that arises
is whether Sabah and Sarawak are deviant cases or whether similar experiences can be
found in other regions of the world, which would require further research.
These cases are unique, characterized by a very unusual process of decolonization-
annexation. Nevertheless, the study of resonant indigenous movements is relevant in
these two minority rights regimes since on the one hand, this reflects the endogenous
nature of the relationship between the indigenous movement and the recognition of
IPR, and on the other hand, they are good examples of how small increases in recogni-
tion, especially in Sabah in the 1990s, were preceded by extensive indigenous mobiliza-
tions whose message was resonant domestically and abroad (Inguanzo and Wright 2016,
9–11). Therefore, the relevance of resonant indigenous movements can be highlighted,
especially when recognition is understood as a process and not just an attribute.
However, the equation also shows that even when the resonance of the indigenous
movement is a determining factor, it is never a sufficient condition. Cases such as that of
the Philippines during the 1980s show as much. Thus, in all cases of resonant indigenous
mobilization, recognition took place within specific contextual conditions. First, IPR have
been recognized in very favorable sociohistorical contexts (intense colonial traditions of
legal pluralism and significant indigenous populations), while proximate conditions were
a priori not as favorable due to the absence of democracy, which is the path followed by
the two minority rights regimes of Borneo.
Another route is the Cambodian one, where there was no democracy, no significant
indigenous population and a weak colonial legacy of legal pluralism, but where a
significant level of IPR recognition was achieved thanks to the relatively high state
sensitivity to human rights discourse, in a moment in history when the international
context was very favorable to the recognition of indigenous rights. The third way is what
was previously referred to as the Latin American path, which combines a significant
indigenous population, democracy, and state sensitivity to human rights and/or envir-
onmental protection in a favorable international context.
These three paths indicate that hypothesis 3 (the presence of a “resonant” indigenous
movement is a necessary but not sufficient condition for IPR recognition) was correct;
however, after conducting the analysis, one of the conditions traditionally theorized as
necessary has proven not to be so. This condition is democracy. For Latin America,
democracy or a transition to democracy has been treated as a key element of the POS,
both for indigenous movement emergence and IPR recognition. This study proves the
opposite. It is not necessary for IPR recognition. In that sense, the absence of democracy
is a non-simplifiable condition of the Bornean and Cambodian configurations. This topic
would require further discussion and therefore a separate investigation, but at this point,
some possible explanations will be offered while waiting for further studies.
In the case of the minority rights regimes of Sabah and Sarawak, recognition is
granted by tradition, more specifically by an intense colonial tradition of legal pluralism
and communitarian citizenship. That is, it has nothing to do with the rights of individual
citizens, which is how the rights of indigenous peoples were incorporated in the
 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 17

Philippines and Cambodia. In fact, one would expect that in the case of democratization,
Bornean minority rights regimes would follow the route of Indonesia, i.e. the incorpora-
tion of new rights through protection of the environment rather than the empowerment
of human rights. There would be limited increases since these minority rights regimes
already have a certain level of recognition, and in that sense it is difficult to predict
pronounced increases. Another possibility is that the process of democratization in
Borneo would come with a greater acceptance of human rights and a change in the
conception of citizenship, but the latter is not easily deduced from a transition to
democracy, and Indonesia is evidence of that.
Regarding the Cambodian path, recognition came mostly from above, from the very
top: international and multilateral organizations supported by emerging grassroots
indigenous movements. Democratization in Cambodia could not produce a higher
level of recognition since the indigenous population in the country is very low (it
would be difficult to see their interests represented in parliament unless positive
discrimination measures were approved). In fact, the situation of IPR recognition in
Cambodia is somewhat vulnerable since it is highly dependent on international pressure
and economic aid received for projects involving indigenous peoples. Furthermore, the
indigenous movement has so far not established a broad social base. The regional
organization Asian Indigenous Peoples’ Pact has expressed its concern about the situa-
tion of Cambodian indigenous peoples in the future.22
In addition, with regard to obstacles or dead-end paths to recognition, it has been
observed that the absence of a resonant indigenous movement, especially in nondemo-
cratic regimes or unfavorable international contexts, limits recognition. This scenario is
in line with the findings obtained for Latin America. However, until now, the theory for
Latin America has not discussed what in this study appears to be a significant phenom-
enon due to the lack of heterogeneity among the Latin American cases: the possible
glass ceiling for recognition in cases with communitarian citizenship or strong colonial
legacies of legal pluralism. To fully explore this point, academia should pay attention to
future developments, particularly in East Timor and Indonesia.
Finally, in contexts of nonrepublican citizenship, there are no insurmountable socio-
historical conditions for recognition. The fact that no single configuration for nonrecog-
nition includes exclusively remote conditions gives a central role to agency, i.e. the
indigenous movements and their ability to build or reframe certain political and histor-
ical contexts. Therefore, it can be said that in Southeast Asia, there are different paths to
recognition; in this moment in history, the vehicles are the (indigenous) movements.
There are two important theoretical implications. First, democracy is not a necessary
condition for IPR recognition. Latin American literature has found transitions to be
opportunity windows for recognition, but this is only partly true for Southeast Asia
since recognition came years later. Second, while in Latin America, the size of the
indigenous population is not relevant for explaining the recognition of IPR, it is a
relevant condition in Southeast Asia when combined with communitarian citizenship.
However, it remains a trivial condition within liberal citizenship regimes. In fact, this
paper argues that the size of the indigenous population is still a relevant condition
outside Latin America.
These findings are relevant for other regions, both in Asia and Africa. Future research
should confirm whether the configurations found in Southeast Asia also lead to
18 I. INGUANZO

significant IPR recognition in other minority rights regimes. For example, future inves-
tigations should explore the conditions that led to recent changes in IPR recognition in
Nepal, Bangladesh, the Republic of Congo or the Central African Republic. Was the
presence of a resonant indigenous movement also necessary in these settings? Were the
indigenous movements successful because of the timing of a transition to democracy
within a favorable international context, because of the pressures of international
regimes in which these states participate or because their claims were resonant in a
setting with a strong legacy of legal pluralism?

Notes
1. See Keyes (1987) and McCaskill and Rutherford (2006) on the repression of indigenous
peoples in Southeast Asian communist regimes, and Endicott (1987, 48), Keyes (1987, 24),
Coronel (2005, 118) and Sukma (2005, 20–30) on the repression of indigenous peoples in
illiberal Southeast Asian non-communist regimes (e.g. Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines
and Indonesia).
2. Another way of approaching IPR recognition is through time differentiating QCA (TdQCA),
but almost all changes in the levels of recognition of IPR in Southeast Asia from 1980 to
2010 were increases, so there would be no variability. Furthermore, in this paper, the
research aim is not to analyse whether IPR recognition has increased but rather to identify
the conditions under which minority rights regimes recognize IPR in a substantive manner.
3. The constitution recognizes the existence of indigenous peoples only in Sabah and Sarawak
(Article 161.A), granting them the right to practice customary law (Article 76 Clause 9
Schedule III A), the right of indigenous people to territory (Article 95E and Article 161A
(5)), the right to indigenous languages (Article 161(5)) and the right to political autonomy
(Article 95 D).
4. Interview with PACOS chair (Lampang, 29-11-2011) and COAC representative (Kuala
Lumpur, 19-11-2011).
5. This methodological decision was supported by representatives from COAC (Orang Asli in
Peninsular Malaysia), PACOS (Sabah), SADIA HQ (Sarawak). At the international level, this
was supported by representatives from the Asian Indigenous Peoples Pact and IWGIA Asia.
6. The Philippines has not been broken into three cases (Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR),
Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and the rest of the Philippines) because
these two autonomous regions do not benefit from a political autonomy as do the states in
Borneo. In fact, the indigenous peoples from Cordillera do not recognize the terms of the
agreement for the CAR and rejected it on two occasions in referendums (Interview with
Cordillera Peoples Alliance chair (Baguio City, 16-08-2012).
7. The theoretical basis for the construction of the indicator is as follows: For the multicultural
recognition of indigenous rights, two dimensions must be present: recognition of the multi-
ethnic nature of society and recognition of special rights based on these ethnic differences
(López 2006; Manchanda 2009; He 2005). The selection of specific rights from all possible
rights of indigenous peoples is based on Van Cott’s definition of multicultural constitution-
alism (2000, 265). This index accounts for most of the nine critical indigenous peoples’ rights
found in the index of multicultural policies developed in Banting and Kymlicka (2006).
8. Citizenship rights are recognized if individuals share a political project or official ideology.
9. Codification of the colonial legacy of legal pluralism is based on Inguanzo (2016); republican
form of citizenship is coded as a binary condition where Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos and
Thailand are codified with 1 and the rest of the citizenship regimes with 0. The codification
of “extension of Christian faith” is based on national census; “the size of indigenous
population” is codified based on IWGIA (2012). Calibration is provided in Table A1 of the
Appendix.
 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 19

10. Conditions are codified along 5-year periods as follows: the international context is con-
sidered favorable from 1989 (ILO Convention on indigenous and tribal peoples) onwards;
state participation in international regimes related to IPR codification is based on the
percentage of ratification of human rights and environmental international treaties and
covenants; quality of democracy codification is based on Polity IV scores, and “resonant
indigenous movement” codification is based on secondary sources analysis and interviews
with members of indigenous peoples’ organizations conducted throughout Southeast Asia
between 2011 and 2013. Codification was based on the number of dimensions of a
resonant movement that were present at that moment: consistency, mobilizing capacity,
credibility, centrality, coherence and narrative fidelity (Inguanzo and Wright 2016).
Calibration is provided in Table A1 of the Appendix.
11. 5% is the threshold used for identifying significant indigenous populations in Latin America
(Martí i Puig and Villalba 2012; Van Cott 2007; Martí i Puig 2008).
12. The consistency of absence of republican citizenship as a necessary condition for IPR
recognition is 0.841, and its coverage is 0.601.
13. It also appears in the parsimonious and complex solutions where no simplifying assump-
tions were made.
14. In Sabah: Sabah Land Ordinance, 1930; Sabah Forest Enactment, 1968; Rural Administration
Ordinance, 1995. And in Sarawak: Sarawak Forest Ordinance, 1953; Sarawak Land Code, 1958;
Local Authority Ordinance, 1976.
15. In fact, while sharing the configuration, Indonesia did not recognize IPR until the transition
to democracy through the following secondary legislation: L 39/1999-Human Rights Act; L
22/1999, Law on Regional Governance, L 32/2004 Law on Decentralization-Revised; L 41/
1999, Revised Forest Law, L 32/2009, Law on Protection and Management of the
Environment; L22/2001, Law on Special Autonomy for Papua Province, L 27/2007, Law on
Management of Coastal Areas and Small Islands.
16. Interview with PACOS President (Lampang 29.11.2011) and members of SADIA (Kuching,
23.11.2011).
17. Interview with AMAN member (Pontianak, 02.12.2011).
18. Interviews with AMAN members (Geneva, 10.07.2012), AIPP President (Chiang Mai,
22.10.2011) and IWGIA-Asia Director (Chiang Mai, 23.10.2011).
19. Cambodia 2000–2004 and 2005–2010.
20. According to common practice, a “good enough” consistency is at the 0.9 threshold or
above (Schneider 2009, 78).
21. The cases of Sabah and Sarawak in the first half of the 1980s also fit in this configuration,
but as mentioned above, this is due to a contradictory configuration in the data matrix. The
recognition of indigenous rights in the case of Sabah and Sarawak, especially in the 1980s, is
explained by the intense colonial tradition of legal pluralism and an indigenous population
that is significantly high.
22. Interview with AIPP Chairwoman (Chiang Mai, 22.10.2011).

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank all interviewees in this paper and their organizations. This work
was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education under grant AP2008-02912 and the Spanish
Agency of Cooperation and Development under grant 11-CAP2-1516. The author also acknowl-
edges the comments and suggestions of three anonymous reviewers; however, all possible
shortcomings are solely the author’s.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
20 I. INGUANZO

Funding
This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education under grant AP2008-02912 and the
Spanish Agency of Cooperation and Development under grant 11-CAP2-1516.

Notes on contributor
Isabel Inguanzo is a sociologist. She earned her PhD in Political Science at the University of
Salamanca in 2013 and has worked at Universidad Loyola Andalucía since 2016. Prior to that, she
was a lecturer at the University of Salamanca (2015–2016) and worked at the UNESCO Office for
the Pacific States in Samoa (2014–2015). Her research focuses primarily on comparative politics,
social movements and minority studies.

References
Banting, K., & Kymlicka, W. (Eds.). (2006). Multiculturalism and The Welfare State: Recognition and
Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bellamy, R. 2011. “Citizenship.” In The Oxford Handbook of the History Political Theory, edited by G.
Klosko. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Benford, R. D., and D. A. Snow. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview
and Assessment.” Annual Review Sociologic 26 (1974): 611–639. doi:10.1146/annurev.
soc.26.1.611.
Berg-Schlosser, D., G. De Meur, B. Rihoux, and C. C. Ragin. 2009. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis
(QCA) as an Approach.” In Configurational Comparative Methods, edited by B. Rihoux and C. C.
Ragin, 1–18. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Brysk, A. 2009. De La Tribu a La Aldea Global: Derechos de Los Pueblos Indígenas, Redes
Transnacionales Y Relaciones Internacionales En América Latina. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
Clarke, G. 2001. “From Ethnocide to Ethnodevelopment? Ethnic Minorities and Indigenous Peoples
in Southeast Asia.” Third World Quarterly 22 (3): 413–436. doi:10.1080/01436590120061688.
Coronel, M. 2005. “The Moro and the Cordillera Conflicts in the Philippines and the Struggle for
Autonomy.” In Ethnic Conflicts in Southeast Asia, edited by W. S. Snitwongse and K. Thompson,
109–140. Singapore: ISEAS Publications.
Endicott, K. 1987. “The Effects of Government of Government Policies and Programs on the Orang
Asli of Malaysia.” In Southeast Asian Tribal Groups and Ethnic Minorities, edited by B. Anderson.
Cambridge: Cultural Survival.
Ganguly, R. 1997. “The Move Towards Disintegration: Explaining Ethnosecessionist Mobilization in
South Asia.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 3(2):101–130. Taylor & Francis Group. doi:10.1080/
13537119708428504.
Gilbert, J. 2006. Indigenous Peoples’ Land Rights under International Law: From Victims to Actors.
Ardsley: Transnational Publishers.
Gilbert, P. 2000. Peoples, Cultures, and Nations in Political Philosophy. Washington D. C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Gillogly, K. 2004. “Developing the “Hill Tribes” of Northern Thailand.” In Civilizing the Margins:
Southeast Asian Government Policies for the Development of Minorities, edited by C. R. Duncan,
116–149. New York: Cornell University Press.
Gómez Suárez, A. 2003. “Movilizaciones Étnicas Y Oportunidades Políticas En América Latina.”
Nueva Antropología. Revista de Ciencias Sociales 63: 71–90.
He, B. 2005. “Citizenship and Cultural Equality.” In Challenging Citizenship, edited by S.-H. Tan, 151–
168. Hapmpshire: Ashgate Publishing Company.
He, B. 2011. “The Contested Politics of Asian Responses to Indigenous Rights.” International Journal
on Minority and Group Rights 18: 461–478. doi:10.1163/157181111X598372.
 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 21

Hino, A. 2009. “Time-Series QCA.” 理論と方法 [Sociological Theory and Methods] 24 (2): 247–265.
doi:10.11218/ojjams.24.247.
Hooker, M. B. 1975. Legal Pluralism: An Introduction to Colonial and Neo-Colonial Laws. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Inguanzo, I. 2014. “Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Southeast Asia.” Asian Journal of Political Science
22 (1): 45–70. doi:10.1080/02185377.2014.895911.
Inguanzo, I. 2016. Reconocimiento de Los Derechos de Los Pueblos Indígenas En El Sudeste Asiático:
Un Análisis Comparado. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.
Inguanzo, I., and C. Wright. 2016. “Indigenous Movements in Souhteast Asia: An Analysis Based on
the Concept of Resonance.” Asia-Pacific Social Science Review 16: 1.
IWGIA. 2012. The Indigenous World 2012. Copenhagen: IWGIA.
Keck, M. E., and K. Sikkink. 2000. Activistas Sin Fronteras: Redes De Defensa En La Política
Internacinal. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
Keyes, C. 1987. “Tribal Peoples and the Nation-State in Mainland Southeast Asia.” In Southeast
Asian Tribal Groups and Ethnic Minorities: Prospects of the Eighties and Beyond., edited by B.
Anderson, 19–26. Cambridge: Cultural Survival.
Kymlicka, W. 2010. “The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism? New Debates on Inclusion and
Accommodation in Diverse Societies the Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism? New Debates on
Inclusion and Accommodation in Diverse Societies.” International Social Science Journal 97–112.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01750.x.
Kymlicka, W., and W. Norman. 2000. “Citizenship in Culturally Diverse Societies: Issues, Contexts,
Concepts.” In Citizenship in Diverse Societies, edited by W. Kymlicka and W. Norman, 1–42.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
López, J. L. 2006. Los Derechos de Los Pueblos Indígenas. Málaga: CEDMA.
Mahoney, J. 2008. “Toward a Unified Theory of Causality.” Jan Comparative Political Studies 31 (4):
412–436. doi:10.1177/0010414007313115.
Maiz, R. 2004. “El Indigenismo Político En América Latina.” Revista de Estudios Políticos 123: 129–
174.
Manchanda, R. 2009. The No Nonsense Guide to Minority Rights in South Asia. New Delhi: SAGE
Publications.
Martí i Puig, S. 2008. “Las Razones de Presencia Y Éxito de Los Partidos Étnicos En América Latina.
Los Casos de Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, México, Nicaragua Y Perú (1990–2005).” Revista
Mexicana de Sociología 70 (4): 675–724. Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales.
Martí i Puig, S. 2009. “Sobre La Emergencia E Impacto de Los Movimientos Indígenas En Las Arenas
Políticas de América Latina. Algunas Claves Interpretativas Desde Lo Local Y Lo Global.” Foro
Internacional 49 (3 (197)): 461–489.
Martí i Puig, S., and S. M. Villalba. 2012. “¿Pocos Pero Guerreros? Multiculturalismo Constitucional
En Cinco Países Con Población Indígena Minoritaria.” Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política
Instituto de Ciencia Política, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales-Universidad de la República 21:77–96.
McCaskill, D., and J. Rutherford. 2006. “Pueblos Indígenas Y Pobreza: Enfoques Multidisciplinarios.”
In Los Pueblos Indígenas Del Sudeste Asiático, edited by R. Cimadamore, A. D. McNeish, and J.-A.
Eversole, 257–291. Buenos Aires: CLACSO.
Miller, M. A. 2011. “Why Scholars of Minority Rights in Asia Should Recognize the Limits of Western
Models.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 34 (5): 799–813. doi:10.1080/01419870.2010.537356.
Mommsen, W. J., and D. M. Jean. 1992. European Expansion and Law: The Encounter of European
and Indigenous Law in 19th-And 20th-Century Africa and Asia. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Ragin, C. 2000. Fuzzy-set Social Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Ragin, C. C. 2008. Redesigning Social Inquiry : Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Ragin, C. C., and B. Rihoux. 2004. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): State of the Art and
Prospects.” Qualitative Methods 2 (2): 3–13.
Rechel, B. 2009. Minority Rights in Central and Eastern Europe. New York: Routledge.
22 I. INGUANZO

Rihoux, B. 2006. “Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Systematic Comparative
Methods Recent Advances and Remaining Challenges for Social Science Research.” International
Sociology 21 (5): 679–706. doi:10.1177/0268580906067836.
Rihoux, B., and C. C. Ragin 2009. Configurational Comparative Methods : Qualitative Comparative
Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, Edited by B. Rihoux and C. C. Ragin. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Risse, T., S. C. Ropp, and K. Sikkink. 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and
Domestic Change, Edited by T. Risse, S. C. Ropp, and K. Sikkink. Cambridge: Cambirdge
University Press.
Schneider, C. Q. 2009. The Consolidation of Democracy: Comparing Europe and Latin America. New
York: Routledge.
Schneider, C. Q., and C. Wagemann. 2006. “Reducing Complexity in Qualitative Comparative
Analysis (QCA): Remote and Proximate Factors and the Consolidation of Democracy.”
European Journal of Political Research 45 (5): 751–786. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi:10.1111/
j.1475-6765.2006.00635.x.
Scott, J. 2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Snow, D. A., and R. D. Benford. 1988. “Ideology, Frame Resonance and Participant Mobilization.”
International Social Movement Research 1 (1): 197–217.
Stavenhagen, R. 1989. “Los Derechos Indígenas. Nuevo Enfoque Del Sistema Internacional.” Revista
IIDH 10: 39–64.
Stavenhagen, R. 2006. “Los Derechos de Los Pueblos Indígenas: Esperanzas, Logros Y Reclamos.” In
Pueblos Indígenas Y Derechos Humanos, edited by M. Berraondo, 21–28. Bilbao: Universidad de
Deusto.
Sukma, R. 2005. “Ethnic Conflicts in Indonesia: Causes and the Quest for Solution.” In Ethnic
Conflicts in Southeast Asia, edited by K. Snitwongse and W. S. Thomson, 1–41. Singapore:
ISEAS Publications.
Tarrow, S. G. 2011. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Thiem, A., and A. Dusa. 2012. Qualitative Comparative Analysis with R: A User’s Guide. New York:
Springer.
Van Cott, D. E. 2000. The Friendly Liquidation of the past : The Politics of Diversity in Latin America.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Van Cott, D. E. 2007. From Movements to Parties in Latin America: The Evolution of Ethnic Politics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yashar, D. J. 2005. Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the
Postliberal Challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 PHILIPPINE POLITICAL SCIENCE JOURNAL 23

Appendix

Table A1. Calibration of outcomes and conditions.

Outcome and conditions Maximum Maximum uncertainty Minimum
IRELDI 12 4 0
Colonial legacy (based on 20 (strong colonial 10 (indigenous customs and 0 (no indigenous
Inguanzo 2016) legacy of recognizing courts recognized, but institutions or
indigenous courts, indigenous territories not territories
customs, and land) recognized during colonial recognized during
times) colonial times)
Republican citizenship 1 0.5 0
Percentage of Christians 90 25 0
according to National
Census
Size of indigenous 50.1 5 0
population (%)
International context 2010 1989 1980
Democracy (Polity IV based 1 0.7 0.3
on limitation to the
executive power,
participation and
competition)
Participation in international More than 70% of At least 50% of covenants ratified 0% of covenants
regimes of human rights covenants ratified in in one regime and 10% of ratified in either
and environmental issues both regimes covenants ratified in the other regime
Indigenous movements 4 dimensions present 3 dimensions present 0 dimension present
(based on dimensions of
resonant indigenous
movements)
Source: The author based on Inguanzo (2016).
Raw data and calibration details can be provided if requested.