Development Communication in Latin

America

José Luis Aguirre Alvis

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A Long Way to Reach the Utopia of a Democratic Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Communication for Development in Latin America: A Trend of the Past 20 Years . . . . . . . . 9
The Use of the Radio as a Central Promoter of Communication for Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
The Introduction of the Right to Communicate as a Central Goal of Communicational
Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Existence of Diverse Social Sectors Fighting for the Right to Communicate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Knowledge Production from Returning to C4D in Latin America, Emerging
Communication for Living Well, and a Decolonial Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
State of Training and Capacity Building in C4D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Abstract
Latin America has strong roots in the field of communication for development
(C4D) which started even before any kind of theory on this subject emerged in
western academic centers. The social and cultural context of this region sets
conditions for a natural existence of experiences related to C4D approaches.
A reason for this might be the oral tradition of most Latin American cultures
which has been based on their indigenous origins and forms of communication
until now. Another factor that makes communication practices be linked to efforts
to promote social change is the structural setting in several countries and the
persistence of poverty conditions and unequal distribution of opportunities

J. L. Aguirre Alvis (*)

Department of Social Communication, Universidad Católica Boliviana “San Pablo”,
La Paz, Bolivia
e-mail: aguirrealvisjl@gmail.com

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 1

J. Servaes (ed.), Handbook of Communication for Development and Social Change,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7035-8_135-1
2 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

among the diverse social sectors. Despite the course of at least three moments of the
presence of C4D in Latin America identified as development communication,
development support communication, and alternative communication for demo-
cratic development, this approach is permanently modified by the presence of new
social and collective actors, different resources, and means that allow this practice,
as well as new social demands of the community. These experiences are, however,
recovering the regional tradition of understanding the process of communication as
an ethical, aesthetical, and political practice based on dialogue and participation to
reach conditions for survival and social change. Contemporary Latin America
presents new visions which have an impact on C4D paradigms of Communication
for Living Well and the analysis of the decolonial approach in the field of
communication.

Keywords
Alternative communication · Horizontal communication · Latin American School
of Communication · New world information and communication order · Social
change · Communication for development

Introduction

This chapter’s scope of interest is communication for development (C4D) or com-

munication for social change in the Latin American region. This chapter aims to
provide a description of the theoretical and practical existence of C4D in this region
taking a closer look at its origin and analyzing its current state showing main actors,
proposals, and stages of tendency in a non-exhaustive descriptive manner. The
chapter also aims to inform about the existence of the communication for develop-
ment field regaining part of the thought of the Latin American School of Commu-
nication that set a critical perspective in all its comments as well as showing the
contextual scenario of the region considering that C4D operates under a social,
economic, and political framework. The literature review completed is partial
because a thorough picture of the whole field of C4D might require a more extensive
analysis. This chapter also offers a description of the current tendencies and practices
of C4D in Latin America organizing this review in five areas. A summary of the
intellectual production made in the past 20 years offering a glance of relevant
documents related to C4D is included too. More than a catalog-driven approach,
this chapter intends to introduce information about C4D or communication for social
change experience from the very deep roots which characterize this field from the
Latin American point of view, needs, and theoretical characteristics. The final aim of
this chapter is to find central points which, from the Latin American experience, will
allow the reader to understand and pinpoint the specific context, characteristics, and
theoretical conditions that provide a current and future perspective about the relation
between processes and means of communication and social change and better living
for the people in this region.
Development Communication in Latin America 3

A Long Way to Reach the Utopia of a Democratic Communication

Farewell to Aristotle: Horizontal Communication (1979), a representative paper

written by Luis Ramiro Beltran, Bolivian communicator, set the beginning of demo-
cratic communication. Because of communication for development studies, a radical
shift from the traditional perception of the process of social communication to its one-
way-oriented model started in Latin America. The linear structure – source, encoder,
message, channel, decoder, receiver, and effect and its main purpose of persuasion –
shifted to a relationship model or a reciprocal paradigm. The information structure
under discussion allowed the use of notions, such as bidirectional relation, dialogic
process, horizontal contact between equal parts through process and similar horizontal
new elements. Later on, Beltrán used other scholars’ previous work, such as Frank
Gerace and Juan Díaz Bordenave’s. These authors had previously attempted to look
into the human communication experience as a bilateral sharing dynamic. Beltrán,
therefore, devised a definition of the nature of the human communication process
based on three basic elements: access, dialogue, and participation (Beltrán 1979). Both
Bordenave, known historically and a pioneer of this kind of dynamic as the “returned
communication” concept (Bordenave 1962), and Gerace came out before using the
concept of “horizontal communication” for the first time (Gerace 1973), but Beltrán
used these perceptions structuring a concept about the nature of the human commu-
nication process as a democratic experience rooted in three basic elements: access,
dialogue, and participation (Beltrán 1979).
The concept of human communication process by Beltrán also recaptured the
regional political debate of the 1980s which stated deep criticism toward the social
field and its relation to power, in which practitioners and philosophers in the education
and communication fields, among others, Antonio Pasquali (1970) and Paulo Freire
(1970, 1973), took part. They brought back the notion of communication as a mental
cooperation process and a shared dialogue. This led to Beltrán’s core definition,
“Communication is the process of democratic social interaction based upon exchange
of symbols by which humans voluntarily share experiences under conditions of free
and egalitarian access, dialogue and participation. Everyone has the right to communi-
cate in order to satisfy communication needs by enjoying communication resources.
Humans communicate to carry out multiple purposes. Exerting influence on others’
behavior is not the main one” (Beltrán 1979: 16).
Beltrán introduced a horizontal or bidirectional approach challenging the unidi-
rectional perceptions of the human communication process and the persuasion
control-oriented models. However, loyally he considers as promoters of this notion
in Latin America intellectuals experienced in the reality of this region; he refers:
“Frank Gerace, an American living in Bolivia, was the first to suggest the notion of
horizontal communication. Paraguayan specialist in educational communication
Juan Diaz Bordenave (1962) soon engaged in creative reflection on the matter,
which made him a chief proponent of theoretical bases for the democratization of
communication for development” (Beltrán 2008: 253).
Until now Latin America and its local communication experiences have kept a
tradition that characterizes the core thought in communication that was used in the
4 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

1980s which expressed the idea of social communication as a human-centered

experience rather than an informative act. In this region, social communication
practice maintains a close relation to communal styles of living not only due to a
theoretical drive but also due to its particular social, cultural, and political context.
Cultural roots of indigenous societies, whether Andean or Amazonian, connected to
their sharing practices and community life and its relation to nature, which are all a
characteristic of precolonial and indigenous societies, are closely related to today’s
communication practices, for instance, the oral tradition, the connection among their
context, nature, and the spiritual aspect which provide people with content structure
and message direction as well as knowledge transmission and preservation very
different from sense diffusion oriented toward individualism or self-reference.
Beltrán explains Latin American scholars’ position and perception by stating, “Latin
Americans have been the earliest opponents of the traditional concept of communication
derived from unilinear Aristotelian thinking, which prevailed across the world
unchallenged until the late 1960s. It was them who, digging beyond the apparent
simplicity of the paradigm, discovered its undemocratic implications. And, as a conse-
quence, they were also among the first ones to propose new views on communication,
new models to reshape it according to genuine democracy. This intellectual innovation
not only had broad acceptance in the region, but it was also eventually acknowledged,
and even adopted by some of the most prestigious U.S. theoreticians in this field, such as
Schramm and Rogers, and even Lasswell himself ” (Beltrán 1993:32).
Everett M. Rogers recognized the impact of Beltran in his own perception and
new definition of development by saying, “The definition of development I proposed
was very much influenced by a Latin American communication scholar, Luis
Ramiro Beltran. If anyone ought to be given credit for this definition, he should be
the one. And this new definition dealt not just with economic development but also
with social development: Increases in literacy levels, more years of education, lower
infant death rates, greater life expectancy, fuller equality and more press freedom.
This is still the main definition of development” (Rogers 1994: 3).
The Latin American Critical Communication Approach named by the Latin Amer-
ican School of Communication, and historically proposed by José Marques de Melo
(Marques Ferrari and Antoniacci Tuzzo 2013) in the 1980s, combined the intellectual
production of social communication researchers and practitioners, concentrating their
critical approach on central factors, such as challenging the concept of development,
the concept of communication, the blindness of communication studies related to the
social structure, foreign theoretical and methodological influence into the practice of
communication research, and the need to put a human center approach into develop-
ment studies.
Despite criticism to the western-oriented theory in the field of communication,
Uranga acknowledges that “We will not fall, however, into the simplicity of
assigning the full weight of our ills to the decisions that came from abroad. None
of the above would have happened without the open and active complicity of many
political and military leaders and, most importantly, individuals and economic
groups within our countries. Many of them obtained, at least momentarily, huge
profits and profits that were supported by the misfortune of many of their
Development Communication in Latin America 5

compatriots. Today, without totally neglecting any of the previous items, pro-
blematizing the relationship between communication and development requires
putting the most relevant data of this social scenario on the table. This should also
be done in the democratic system, citizenship, modes of participation, and the public
space where all this is debated and introduced symbolically by communication. By
choosing this path, we are clear that we will leave other traditional reflections on the
contribution that communication has made to the development of other initiatives
which are also valuable and can be the subject of other considerations. We start off
with a concept of development that focuses on the human being, on his personal and
cultural best, and seeks to harmonize all material and symbolic resources based on a
social construction that contributes to a dignified life of all the citizens. Thus,
understanding development from all aspects is tied to culture and communication
processes. Communication and communicators are required to make fundamental
contributions to the construction of development, but they acquire very different
characteristics in each period” (Uranga 2005:77).

Theoretical Disagreement and Need for Social Change

Social communication in Latin America has been historically guided by its critical
nature. Peirano refers to this characteristic pointing out, “In order to understand and
study communication in Latin America it has always been said that we should
understand and analytically process all several theoretical traditions that came to
the region trying to explain communication advance worldwide” (Peirano 2017:11).
In addition, Peirano states that the ones interested in “thinking communication”
have worked processing and stating that the worldwide knowledge that was inherited
was not enough. It is a fact that the most important researchers in social sciences and
the ones concerned about communication issues in Latin America approached the
field demonstrating strong criticism toward social knowledge that was delivered
along the countries of this region in the midst of the twentieth century, period in
which the first communication programs arose showing a clear influence by US
theories (Peirano 2017).
According to Peirano, this regional quality shown in communication studies has
been a permanent proof of the close relation between communication and politics. In
Latin America, supporting social change was related to questioning the status quo
and confronting the establishment. This critical approach also influenced communi-
cation for development theories that started in this region. The first theory challenged
the spread of innovations articulated by Everett Rogers, considering that the con-
ception of development was oriented toward the modernization of the subcultures of
the Third World. The use of the means of communication was meant to deliver
information to promote the adoption of practices mainly in the fields of agriculture
and health. Latin American practitioners opposed to straightforward models of
communication linked their criticism to revealing ideological or non-contextual
foreign approaches.
A trend in communication for development, introduced and spread in Latin
America in the 1960s, was challenged by the recognition of practices in “alternative
communication” (Reyes Matta 1983; Atwood and McAnany 1986). The forms of
6 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

this alternative communication reached global goals in communication. Atwood and

McAnany state, “Hence, the goals of alternative communication endeavors include
the creation of a New International Information Order (NIIO) as well as democratic
and popular communication systems” (Atwood and McAnany 1986:19).

The Nature of This Utopia

According to Beltrán, communication for development was introduced as a theory in
Latin America by the end of the 1950s and early 1960s; however, this approach
started years earlier through some practice (Beltrán 1993). This took place a decade
before any kind of theory was developed, specifically by foreign universities mainly
in the USA. It is recognized that the communication for development approach
began thanks to two phenomena in Latin America. The first phenomenon has to do
with the existence, nature, and style of broadcasting events called worker’s radio that
belonged to a network of radio stations, named the Bolivian Miner’s radio. This
experience is the genesis of the practice of communication for development because
of its collective broadcasting style of property, use of local native languages, close
contact with and participation of local listeners, production of dramas based on
regional tales and daily life stories, and self-financed nature of their activities.
The second phenomenon, in Latin American history of communication for devel-
opment, took place in Colombia by the end of the 1940s simultaneously. This was an
experience of a radio for peasants called “Radio Sutatenza,” a Catholic Church radio
station located in the rural valley of Tenza in Colombia and directed by José Joaquín
Salcedo, a priest. The original approach that was introduced in 1948 meant to use
radiobroadcasting to promote educational content and even literacy for its large
indigenous and peasant listeners. Radio Sutatenza contributed to the origin of a
long-lasting tradition called educational radio experience in Latin America. Despite
the closing of ACPO (Acción Cultural Popular), the leading program that was
generated by Sutatenza’s experience, its original effort using radio to promote social
inclusion of rural population, as a model, was imitated in Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador.
In this region, there has been a widespread belief regarding leading an economic
expansion as a goal of progress since the 1950s. Then, a critique from the field of
economy gradually came out at the very center of the Economic Commission for
Latin America (ECLA), or CEPAL as it is known in Latin American countries, the
most relevant center in this field located in Chile. Doubts regarding the idea of
concentration of benefits from technological progress and development conditions
began. An intellectual movement located in Portuguese, Mexico, Buenos Aires, and
Caracas also expressed a need to understand development in light of wealth inequal-
ities and opportunities that derive from the capitalist expansion and later on from the
strengthening of imperialisms as it was mentioned by Fernando Henrique Cardoso
and Enzo Faletto in their classic analysis of Dependency and Development in Latin
America (1969).
A theory about understanding dependency conditions and its close relation to
development possibilities was presented as a counter-critique, so the nature of
unequal conditions for growing Latin American societies asked for another kind of
development. This is because the imbalance affected most of the rest of the Third
Development Communication in Latin America 7

World. Beltrán refers to the emergence of a proposal of another kind of development

that was presented in the United Nations General Assembly in 1975 by a group
sponsored by the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, in which Juan Somavía, a Latin
American economist, played an important role. This model proposed a development
based on the satisfaction of needs of the majorities, on endogenous and self-reliant
approaches, and on harmony with the environment (Beltrán 1993:13).
More importantly, Cardoso and Faletto’s ideas helped to change the linear models
of development introducing a dual approach. As they mentioned, “our approach is
both structural and historical. It not only emphasizes the structural conditioning of
social life, but also the historical transformations of structures due to conflict, social
movements, and class struggles. Thus, our methodology is historical-structural (. . .)
In other words, our approach should bring both aspects of social structures: a
mechanism of self-perpetuation and change prospect to the fore front” (Cardoso
and Faletto, 1979:10–11).
Cicilia Krohling states, “a theory of dependency is somehow a theory of participatory
development. A theory of modernization, as was delivered by Walt Rostow, considered
development as a linear process, a point reached through a modernization strategy. A
theory of dependency means to cut the vision of modernization. The pioneers of this
approach, such as, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, criticized the unequal relation between
central countries and peripheric countries, because the first ones looked for benefits and
commerce been benefited by the peripheric nations. The central countries did not have
the perception that development was further than economic growth and industrialization,
then a theory of a participatory development was growing based on an active commu-
nity participation, because development was a process built in common and directed to
solve real conditions and concrete needs of a nation. In this sense Jan Servaes says that
there is not only a universal model of development, furthermore, development is a
dialectic process, integral and multidimensional, because this might be different for one
nation in comparison to another” (Krohling 1997: 2).
Servaes and Malikhao in relation to the dependency theory that grew in Latin
America conclude, “As a result of a general intellectual ‘revolution’ that took place
in the mid-sixties, this Euro-or ethno-centric perspective on development was put
into discussion by social scientists in Latin America, and gave birth to the theory of
dependency and underdevelopment. The approach from the dependency was part
of a general structural re-orientation in the social sciences. The ‘dependentistas’ at
first, they concentrated on the effects of dependence in the countries peripheral, but
implicitly in their analyzes was the idea that development and underdevelopment
they should be understood in a global context (Chew and Denemark, 1996). The
paradigm of dependency played an important role in the movement the New World
Economic Order (NWEO) and the New World Order of Information and Commu-
nication (NOMIC) from the end of the 1960s to the first years of ninety. At that
time, new states in Africa, Asia and the success of the Socialist movements in
Cuba, China, Chile and other countries provided the objectives of political,
economic and cultural self-determination within the community of the nations.
These new countries shared the idea of becoming independent of the superpowers
8 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

and moved to form the Non-Aligned States. The movement Non-aligned defined
development as a political battle” (Servaes and Malikhao 2012:12).
The dependency approach helped to make a clear difference between develop-
ment and underdevelopment conditions. The analysis went further from the eco-
nomic dependency to the cultural dependency. In this field found a relation between
mass communication as a key tool for cultural domination. Some followers of the
dependency theory conclude “. . .in short, that underdevelopment is not due to the
survival of archaic institutions and the existence of capital shortage in regions that
have remained isolated from the stream of world history. On the contrary, underde-
velopment was and still is generated by the very same historical process which also
generated economic development: the development of capitalism itself ” (Cockcroft
et al. 1972:9).

Understanding C4D Path in Latin America Before Communication for

Social Change Started
Beltrán presented a three stage model of the communication for development
evolution in Latin America in 1993. This trend started by the end of the 1950s and
lasted until the end of the 1980s. This description includes three major conceptual-
izations that have prevailed in Latin America in reference to understanding the
relationship between social communication and social development: “development
communication,” “development support communication,” and “alternative commu-
nication for democratic development” (Beltrán 1993).
The latest period, alternative communication for democratic development, some-
how is still alive leading some specific practices of C4D. It was characterized by
“. . .expanding and balancing people’s access and participation in the communication
process, at both mass media and interpersonal grassroot levels. Development should
secure, in addition to material gains, social justice, freedom for all, and the majority
rule” (Beltrán 1993).
This perception was linked to Paulo Freire’s ideal of social change in Latin
America that started with the promotion of a radical shift in the institutional
educational practices considered oppressive by its authoritarian and instructional
style and which have impacted on the communication field claiming a change in
perceptions and practices from extension structures to dialogic and democratic
contacts among people. Freire’s democratic utopia in communication found close
relation to rejecting the sender/receiver schema that operates under a persuasive
paradigm changing it with an alternative communication, participatory, democratic,
popular, and horizontal experience bringing back the meaning of human communi-
cation process. Freire said, “What is utopian is not unattainable. It is not idealism. It
is a dialectic process of denouncing and announcing; dennouncing a dehumanizing
structure and announcing a humanizing structure” (Beltrán 1979:1).
In Latin America, there is still a debate between searching objectives for social
change through communication processes (utopia) and advocating technological use
of the mass media expecting to reach large numbers of people to influence their
Development Communication in Latin America 9

behavior and attitude (information). These views arose and clearly clashed in the
1980s although the grassroots practices outside the theoretical framework showed
their own perspectives and goals linked to producing social change.

Communication for Development in Latin America: A Trend

of the Past 20 Years

Beltrán’s three moments of the existence of communication for development in Latin

America identified the timeline of this experience starting in the end of the 1950s and
going along toward the 1980s (Beltrán 1993). Years later, Beltrán enlarged his
analysis that took 10 years through his study Communication for Development in
Latin America: An Account of Fifty Years (Beltrán 2005). This study extended the
scope until the 1990s presenting a review of some of the advances and failures of the
trend related to reaching the utopia of communication and development in Latin
America under the principles of access, dialogue, and participation.
An attempt to draw the scenario from that path to the following years might be an
almost impossible task due to its complexity and broadness. However, it might be
useful to keep using Beltrán’s three stages of communication for development to
organize an approximate review so that it is necessary to take a look into the Latin
American context in which the communication and development is located.

Political Context in Latin America and the Growth of C4D After

the 1990s
The political scenario of Latin America in the 1990s showed the consolidation of
democratic structures of government that came back to the region as a common
aspect by the end of the 1970s. Cayuela describes the political context of Latin
America stating, “Throughout 1978 and 1979, a series of political events occurred
that seemed a presage of the progressive democratization of Latin America, a
continent traditionally ruled by military dictatorships. Presidential elections were
held in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay, the
Dominican Republic, and Venezuela. Other forms of popular vote also took place:
parliamentary elections in Brazil, parliamentary and municipal elections in El
Salvador and Guatemala, and intended elections for the formation of a constituent
assembly in Peru” (Cayuela 1980: 29).
Despite the existence of democratic structures in this region, there were not only
differences among countries and their realities but also perceptions and practices
regarding the same democracy. Uranga expresses that democracies that came after
strong dictatorships in Latin America can be known as minimal democracies because
of factors such as election of authorities through voting, alternation in power,
constitutional legality, and the fact that rights such as association and information
might be far from a true democratic sense. This also turned into an obstacle for ideals
or proposals on national projects, political sovereignty, or economical independency
due to the inheritance of neoliberal governments that dominated the economy and
10 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

policies in the 1980s leaving an effect of a greater concentration of political and

economic power associated with the loss of prestige of political parties for new
governments (Uranga 2005).
An undermined democracy also leads to an increase in inequalities and avoids
equal opportunities for a good living among population, especially among histori-
cally neglected sectors of society. This context demanded communication for devel-
opment or communication for social change as a necessary means to defend human
rights and also to produce political structures that can represent the interest of the
powerless. One of the tasks of democracy, within this context, is to allow living in a
reality that is essentially diverse. Therefore, according to Uranga, communication for
development needs to promote democratic communication by working on otherness
and its complexity in order to avoid the traditional existence of unilateral powers
(Uranga 2005).
Under actions and persistence to pursue an alternative communication in Latin
America, debates on practice and concepts had been guided, since the 1990s, by civil
movements and their expectation for bringing back and expanding the notion of the
right to communicate that was proposed at UNESCO’s debates and the MacBride’s
report long ago (MacBride 1980).
Throughout the 1990s, this critical approach of communication has shown its
presence in the communication for development field in Latin America, mainly
oriented to discuss the neoliberal economy models. This is because the political
environment stated norms that affected people’s interest in their access to telecom-
munication, radio frequencies, and the concentration of means of communication
among private and even public networks.
Following up Beltrán’s third stage of development for communication in Latin
America, alternative communication for democratic development, three attempts to
describe a new scenario after the 1990s were made. The first one refers to
development-communication or communication for development coined by Adalid
Contreras Baspineiro (2000). Contreras refers to this new moment as, “Development
as a conscious process design built by people. It starts with a horizon that is
constructed, everyday, from a substantial, contradictory field with cultural conflicts
which is permanently reconstructed under continuous tension” (Contreras 2000:21).
This scenario shows new routes that link communication and development.
Contreras explains that communication is then enriched by studies on cultural
consumption, drawing a paradigm that puts value on mediation and meaning shift
regarding the appropriateness of messages due to cultural complexity.
The second one, within the evolution of communication for development, was
proposed by Alfonso Gumucio Dagron who called the period after the 1990s as
communication for social change (2007). Gumucio believes “The contribution of
Latin America that has pioneered communication for development” is significant,
both in generating concrete experiences and also critical thinking. We have developed
critical thinking on communication for social change as well as for development, from
a participatory perspective, which is one of our remarkable advantages. We have
developed important experiences at a local, national, and regional level, and “we
Development Communication in Latin America 11

have proved that citizen and community communication that is based on dialogue and
participation ensures sustainable and appropriate social development and social
change” (Gumucio 2007:1).
Gumucio explains, “From communication to development, communication for
social change has inherited a concern for culture and community traditions, respect
for local knowledge, horizontal dialogue between development experts, and devel-
opment subjects. While communication for development became an institutional
model, and to some extent vertical, applicable and replicable, as shown in experi-
ences supported by FAO, communication for social change does not intend to define
neither the means, the messages, nor the techniques before hand because it is
considered that it is from the process itself, inserted in the community universe,
that proposals for action must emerge” (Gumucio 2003:22).
The concept of communication for social chance has main premises to be
characterized. Gumucio takes into account seven aspects as strengths for CFSC:
“a. the sustainability of social change is safer when affected individuals and com-
munities embrace the process and the communication contents as theirs; b. the
CFSC, which is horizontal and empowers community feelings, should spread the
voice of the poorest, and have at its core local contents and the view of appropriation
of the communicational process; c. communities must be agents of their own change
and managers of their own communication; d. instead of the emphasis on persuasion
and the transmission of information and knowledge from outside; e. the CFSC
promotes dialogue, debate and negotiation from within the community; and. the
results of the CFSC process must go beyond individual behaviors, and take into
account social norms, current policies, culture and the context of development; f. the
CFSC means dialogue and participation, with the purpose of strengthening the
cultural identity, the trust, the commitment, the appropriation of the word and
community strengthening; g. the CFSC rejects the linear model of transmission of
information from a sender center to a receiver. It promotes a cyclic process of
interaction between community shared knowledge and its collective action”
(Gumucio 2003:23).
Gumucio says, “The central concept of communication for social change has
been presented as a dialogic process and debate which is based on tolerance, respect,
equity, social justice, and active participation of all” (Gumucio 2003:22).
The third one, view that came into Latin America after the 1990s, is Communi-
cation from Diversity coined by José Luis Aguirre Alvis, which might still be
current. It explains that today new constants converge which have to do with the
emergence of debates on decoloniality, complexity in the social sciences scenario,
inclusive citizenship, as well as the observation of the same technological environ-
ment of telecommunications that unlike the previous belief that discourses and
media would concentrate on a few hands can be seen as spaces of opportunity and
inclusion of greater diversity. At the moment, communication makes its intercultural
dimension visible, and perhaps because of this, it recovers its essential meaning:
communication is only given. It is possible a goal thanks to the encounter of one ego
with another one. They function in a constant discovery without ignoring the
existence of tension as well as the possibility of experiencing the same dialogue as
12 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

a transitory condition. This tension is also the product of being left or not occupied
by an alter ego or another. It can also be considered that the communicative space
itself is supposed to be given through the encounter between diverse communities
because only then this difference, which creates the experiential, existential, and
symbolic load, is capable of generating the construction of a space for dialogue in
which one willingly participates without a desire of invading the Other. Let’s
imagine that the Other takes part in the construction of the meaning dynamics,
contributing to the encounter and construction of this sense considering diversity
and divergence which gives the communicative experience the demand of being
willing to listen, being welcoming and generous, and accepting that communication
is the means to learn who one is as well as who the other one is as a result of the
interaction between them (Aguirre 2011:6).

Current Practice of Building Alternative Communication

for Development
Latin America has been the ground of experiences that nurtured practice of alterna-
tive communication for democratic development in the past 20 years. This trend can
be summarized on five lines of evidence that can describe part of the contemporary
C4D context in this region: (1) the use of radio as a central promoter of communi-
cation for development; (2) the introduction of the right to communicate as a central
part for a communication for social change; (3) the presence of diverse social sectors
using communication to fight for rights; (4) knowledge production from bringing
back the concept of C4D in Latin America, communication for Living Well, and a
decolonial approach; and (5) training context, building capacity in C4D, and knowl-
edge production.

The Use of the Radio as a Central Promoter of Communication

for Development

Radio in Latin America is strongly and historically related to experiences of

alternativity, ranging from alternative property, diverse actors and their needs,
diverse bands of broadcasting, diverse power, and technology to a direct presence
of listeners and community radio, which are part of a tradition which had been rooted
in almost 70 years. Community radio, as it is known today, has gone through a long
previous process using radio stations in the rural area and native speakers in urban
radio stations. This had been somehow similar to practices of popular communica-
tion. Radio is still the means that creates proximity with its listeners and has more
chances than others to establish participatory relations. Community radio, in several
countries and regions in Latin America, created varied and rich diversity of experi-
ences. This might have caused that many studies related to C4D in Latin America
have radio as a central point. A tradition of community radio, which started in the
1940s with the genesis of the Miner’s radio, is still going on with different conditions
regarding the legal framework. After a long fighting in some countries, community
radiobroadcasting is recognized legally. Radio in Latin America, especially in the
Development Communication in Latin America 13

rural and native areas, keeps the oral aspect of its local cultures which can fit
contextual communicative systems as its most important advantage. Due to an unfair
lack of acknowledgment of the existence and role of community radio in the 1990s,
this condition has changed in some countries, so that it has become a legal practice
that arouse in the middle of traditional commercial radiobroadcasting and govern-
ment radiobroadcasting. Community radiobroadcasting is a third path and no longer
an invisible experience of using a means of communication in order to reach social
change. Not only segments of rural population at international borders and isolated
regions but also cases of community radio within urban areas are a spread growing
experience. This is the case of school radio that was spread in Colombian projects
which is linking the use of radio and rebuilding a culture of peace.
However, despite the power it has as alternative media, community radio has
found opposition in some countries where these cases are rejected by government or
commercial interests. Regarding changes in relative regulations to allow the exis-
tence of community radiobroadcasting, Herrera explains, “Regarding secondary
bills, the Organic Bill of Communication of Ecuador passed in 2013 proposes the
democratization of the radio spectrum by allocating 34% of radio and television
frequencies for community media, 33% for public media and 33% for commercial
media. Allocating at least a third of the spectrum seeks that popular organizations,
indigenous peoples and social movements (youth, environmentalists, feminists, etc.)
could create means to freely and fully exercise their right to communication,
producing and transmitting their own content. Something similar happened to
audiovisual media bills of Argentina and Uruguay – passed in 2009 and 2014-
which were discussed by the entire population, approved by a large majority in
national congresses and endorsed by constitutional courts. However, the Argentine
bill was changed by executive decree in 2016 generating a strong rejection from
community media, social organizations, universities and even the office of the
Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (CIDH) which urged Mauricio Macri’s administration to pass a
new law in accordance with international standards of freedom of expression
(Busso 2016)” (Herrera 2017:7).
Regarding Bolivia, its constitution asserts that the “State shall support the crea-
tion of communitarian means of communication with equal conditions and oppor-
tunities in Art. 107” (Bolivia 2008). Telecommunications Bill 164 of 2011, also
acknowledges a new division of the spectrum allowing the existence of community
radiobroadcasting, Article 10. Distribution of frequencies for broadcasting.
I. Distribution of all frequency band channels for the service of modulated frequency
broadcasting and analog television nationally where there is availability will be
subject to the following:

1. “State, up to thirty-three percent.

2. Commercial, up to thirty-three percent.
3. Community social, up to seventeen percent.
4. Peasant indigenous peoples, intercultural and indigenous communities as well as
African-Bolivian communities, up to seventeen percent” (Bolivia 2011:15).
14 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

In contrast to both cases, this scenario is unequal and complex for the rest of Latin
American countries. Throughout the 162nd period of public hearings of the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) held in Buenos Aires, Argentina
(May 2017), Javier García a representative of Observacom stated, “Out of the
thirteen countries studied in Latin America, only four of them, Argentina, Uruguay,
Bolivia, and Colombia, have a regulation that is in agreement with Inter-American
standards developed by the Rapporteurship (Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of
Expression) and IACHR. Then, the other nine countries recognize community media
but with discriminatory rules of higher or lower severity.”
At the same IACHR hearings, it was concluded that “In Guatemala, Chile, Brazil
and Peru, communities that operate their radio stations and then arrange their
regulation with the government, are criminally penalized. In Peru and Guatemala,
advocates of these radios are punished with the crime of ‘aggravated theft’ or ‘theft
of frequency,’ which the AMARC representative explained has no relation to radio
broadcasting. Legally, you cannot steal a frequency because the theft is either of
energy or heat, and a radio frequency does not adhere to either situation. This has
been explained several times by the ITU (International Telecommunications Union,
of the United Nations), Loreti explained.” In addition, García from Observacom
said that “Legal recognition of community broadcasting is not enough. Rules of
recognition of this media contain discriminatory conditions that prevent their devel-
opment.” He added that “restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression
continue. Several Central American countries continue to deny this right to indige-
nous communities and indigenous peoples to have their own media outlets.” This is
the case of Guatemala. García said that another difficulty faced by community radio
stations in many cases, according to Loreti, is their definition as rural radios. “Radio
stations should be recognized with a community of interests that are not limited to a
specific geographic location.” Loreti explains that this is happening in Peru and
Paraguay, where the definition of “community” unequivocally mandates that they
should be rural or remote radios. One of the examples mentioned by this researcher
was Brazil “whose legislation only allows community radios to have a kilometer, a
little more than half a mile, of coverage in the radio spectrum.”
To the field of communication for development, community radiobroadcasting in
Latin America represents the ground in which the right to community is under fight.
New community sectors, innovative approaches for using radiobroadcasting poten-
tial, and even finding convergence with new technologies to offer opportunities to
deliver messages through online radio are arising in several countries of the region.
Another case is the recent opening of online radio that has also been more affordable
for social sectors that were neglected access to radiobroadcasting frequencies. This
digital shift is not totally present in Latin America, but it is expected to do so in the
upcoming years despite the fact that technology and access to this new system might
be slow and somehow costly for listeners and viewers. However, this expansion of
channels might be an opportunity to redistribute the access to sources that were
scarce in the analogical system.
Development Communication in Latin America 15

The Introduction of the Right to Communicate as a Central Goal

of Communicational Changes

There are evident changes in the legal framework for communication and informa-
tion of countries that consider the practice of communication as a human right.
Regarding this, Latin America is the only region in the world that can show cases in
which the right to communicate has scaled to reach the constitutional level. This
happens in two countries: Bolivia and Ecuador.
The right to communicate was initially established by Jean D’Arcy in 1969. It
expressed a dream in which one day, all states might recognize a new right, the right
to communicate (J. D’Arcy Revue de l’UER, November 1969), and this seems to be
the case of Latin America.
Herrera explains that Latin America reports important progress in the recognition
of the right to communicate in regulation frameworks and its implementation
through public policies aimed to building new media models that ensure content
diversity and plurality of voice plurality in the public debate. In Bolivia and Ecuador,
the right to communicate is recognized in their Constitutions. “In Argentina and
Uruguay, bills were passed to democratize the spectrum of audiovisual media, and in
El Salvador, there were legal reforms that at least recognize community media and
democratize access to media and radio electric spectrum” (Herrera 2017:5).
This new legal framework creates conditions in favor of a communication for
development and social change. According to Herrera, the Constitution of Ecuador,
approved in 2008, establishes a section on Communication and Information in the
Chapter of “Rights of Good Living.” Article 16 states that all individuals, indepen-
dently or collectively, have the right to:

• “Free, intercultural, inclusive, diverse and participatory communication, in all

areas of social interaction, by any means and form, in its own language and with
its own symbols.
• Universal access to information and communication technologies.
• The creation of social communication media, and equal access to radio frequen-
cies for management of public, private and community radio and television
stations, and free bands for wireless networks functioning.
• Access and use of all forms of visual, auditory, sensory and other communication
that allow the inclusion of people with disabilities.
• Incorporating participation spaces established in the Constitution in the field of
communication” (Herrera 2017: 5).

Regarding Bolivia’s case, the Constitution of the Plurinational State of 2008

introduces a specific chapter for social communication and in two articles
(106 and 107) states “I. The State ensures the right to communication and the right
to information (Article 106). II. The State ensures Bolivians the right to freedom of
expression, opinion and information, to amend and reply, and the right to freely
publish ideas by whatever means of publication, without prior censorship. Freedom
of expression III. The State ensures freedom of expression and the right to
16 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

communication and information to workers of the press. IV. The conscience clause
on workers’ information is recognized. Article 107. I. Public means of communica-
tion must contribute to the promotion of ethical, moral and civic-minded values of
different cultures of this country with the creation and publication of multi-lingual
educational programs and in an alternative language for the disabled. II. Information
and opinions issued by public means of communication must respect principles of
truth and responsibility. These principles shall be put into practice through rules on
ethics and self-regulation of journalists’ organizations and means of communication
and their law. III. Public means of communication shall not form, either directly or
indirectly, monopolies or oligopolies. IV. The State shall support the creation of
communitarian means of communication with equal conditions and opportunities”
(Bolivia 2008: 42–43).
The right to communicate is also promoted by the civil segment and academic
organizations in Latin America. This is the case of the CRIS (Communication Rights
in the Information Society) movement that was articulated to represent civil interest
into WSIS debates (2005 and 2006) even if the goals of this organization could not
greatly affect international WSIS (World Summit of Information Society) debates at
the local level and that experience was later focused to promote the introduction of
the article of right to communicate throughout the Constituency process (2005) in
Bolivia allowing its introduction. Besides this, the ecumenical movement of the
World Association for Christian Communication (WACC) in Latin America is also a
promoter of this debate and supports experiences on the ground regarding right to
communicate even expanding the concepts to protect alternative practices such as
the right to communicate of people with disabilities or traditional indigenous
practices of communication seen in several Latin American countries.

Existence of Diverse Social Sectors Fighting for the Right

to Communicate

Indigenous people, youth, children, women, rural women, people with disabilities,
and migrants can be seen as part of the promoters of this media and strategies of
communication that are spread in Latin America. These civil society movements
have a common goal which is to develop capacities in communication or using the
media to promote their visibility and to express their demands particularly in cultural
aspects, reach security and peace, and being acknowledged as citizens with equal
rights.
This kind of practice occurs in several countries of this region, and some of the
recent cases represent the struggles for preserving their security, cultural survival,
and use of native languages. As a short reference, a few cases of C4D in Argentina,
Guatemala, and Colombia can be mentioned. According to a comparison of expe-
riences presented by WACC (www.waccglobal.org), those cases are as follows.
In Argentina, MOCASE, an organization that belongs to the National Movement
of Indigenous Peasants, located in Santiago del Estero in northern Argentina works
to protect land rights of indigenous peasants and promote solidarity, healthy food,
Development Communication in Latin America 17

agroecology, development, justice, and social change. The indigenous peasant

people in the area are constantly threatened to be evicted from their land and have
limited access to means of communication. The mass media in the area replicates
discrimination and marginalization felt by the rural indigenous people. MOCASE
felt that it is essential to construct their own means of communication that can help
communities to generate and distribute their own information that reflects their life
and struggles and help to build consensus as they move forward. This project
established a community radio station and provided technical and academic training
in radio production to local youth. The radio station allows youth to articulate and
share views on the problems they face and protect their indigenous identity and
lifestyle. It also reinforces the links between rural people to advocacy of nature and
food sovereignty.
Another case of C4D in Argentina is oriented to recuperating indigenous lan-
guages. This experience has been developed by Fundación ASOCIANA that works
with a native organization called Lhaka Honhat located in Pilcomayo, Salta prov-
ince. This project works with four native communities, Wichí, Chorote, Chulupí, and
Toba, in the Pilcomayo area in order to defend their territory by developing training
in communication within the communities so that they can make their voice be heard
toward the whole Argentine society by demanding respect for their culture and
practices.
In Guatemala, Central America, there is a set of C4D cases, and some of them are
taking advantage of radiobroadcasting. One of these ones is the experience of The
Voice of the Hills supported by Asociación Estoreña para el Desarrollo Integral
(AEPDI). El Estor is a municipality where 80 percent of its population speaks
Q’eqchi and considers itself to be part of the Mayan nation. The area receives little
attention from the state in terms of development, and there is a marked lack of media
content that reflects the community’s priorities. Over the past several years, AEPDI,
one of the most active community organizations in the area, has used commercial
media – and paid high fees – to promote indigenous rights and demand the right to
land and territory for their communities. In light of this, AEPDI has been attempting
to establish a community-owned radio station for years hoping that the station would
become a means to inform, educate, and entertain the community. This project
consists of establishing a community radio station in El Estor. This entails the
purchase and equipment installation and training for community reporters and
editors. The establishment of the station will be the first step toward enabling people
in El Estor to fully exercise their communication rights. This radio station also seeks
to become a vehicle to strengthen indigenous governance systems and community
organizing efforts.
“Freedom of Expression for the Q’eqchi’ People,” a project that aims to
strengthen Radio Nimlajacoc in Guatemala, is another example. Nimlajacoc is a
geographically isolated community in Guatemala. Nimlajacoc was impacted by civil
war during the 1980s as many families were murdered, kidnapped, or displaced.
After the conflict, local indigenous authorities established a community radio station
18 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

as a way to facilitate communication among survivors, as well as to help local

communities to get organized. Today, the Nimlajacoc community is facing uncer-
tainty over a possible approval of a local hydroelectric project that would threaten
natural resources and violate their right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent. The
community radio station plays a critical role in spreading information and
reinforcing bonds of solidarity and collaboration.
A third case, in Guatemala, is Radio Ixchel, a community radio station serving the
community of Sumpango Sacatepéquez located far away from Guatemala City. The
station works to meet the communication needs of community members including
the need for locally relevant information, availability of culturally relevant and
sensitive content, and preservation of the Kaqchikel language. In recent years, the
Sumpango Sacatepéquez community has seen a decline of the use of indigenous
languages and a diminished appreciation and understanding of indigenous world
views, especially among youth. This is the result of, among other things, close
proximity to the capital city. Through volunteers and community reporters’ training,
Radio Ixchel helps to reinvigorate social change objectives. This project focuses on
creating new participation spaces for children and youth within Radio Ixchel.
A fourth case is a Training Building Project for community communicators at
Radio Xilotepek, a Maya Poqomam community radio that serves in San Luis
Jilotepeque community, department of Jalapa, in southeastern Guatemala. This
community faces issues brought by the growth of the mining industry in this region.
Most community members disagreed with the growth of extractive industry. This
project seeks to strengthen Radio Xilotepek’s ability to educate community members
about their rights, especially in relation to the preservation of natural resources.
A fifth case in Guatemala is Radio Sinakan, a Kaqchikel community radio located
in Chimaltenango, Guatemala. It plays a key role in the preservation of the
Kaqchikel language as its use is declining due to the community’s proximity to
Guatemala City. This project trains volunteers so they get involved as community
reporters and media editors able to make significant contributions in terms of media
content that draws on rights frameworks. In the long-term, this project will help this
region in Guatemala to preserve and reinvigorate indigenous identity and culture.
The project entitled Youth Building Peace, located in Colombia, sponsored by
Comunicarte Group is our last example. This project seeks to engage youth and
adolescents, living in Arauquita village, department of Arauca, in the Colombian
Orinoco region, in media-based initiatives to build peace for their communities.
Building on the momentum of peace agreements between the state and the FARC
reached in Colombia in 2016, this project seeks to enable youth in Arauquita to use
media to protect themselves from other armed actors in their communities that might
fill the void left by the FARC, as well as to promote their participation and
engagement in local peace initiatives. Special attention is given to providing youth
with the opportunity to use media to tell their own stories, share their dreams and
aspirations, and advocate for peaceful conflict resolution in their schools and neigh-
borhoods. Project activities seek to foster active citizenship expressed through media
and communication.
Development Communication in Latin America 19

Knowledge Production from Returning to C4D in Latin America,

Emerging Communication for Living Well, and a Decolonial
Approach

Knowledge production in the field of C4D in Latin America has been showing
reference materials in planning, theoretical proposals, and a return to a critical
thinking tradition, systematizing experiences, and the alternative media approach.
From an extensive list of publications, articles, and documents, we have selected
some of them to give you a glance at this rich area of thought and action.
Regarding C4D’s planning stage, the following is a glance at literature written in
Spanish: Strategic Communication-Communication for Innovation by Sandra
Massoni (2011) and Towards a General Theory of Strategy-The Paradigm Shift in
Human Behavior, Society and Institutions by Rafael Alberto Pérez and Sandra
Massoni (2009). An updated reflection on the C4D field is also proposed in Grays
of Extension, Communication and Development by Ricardo Thornton and Gustavo
Cimadevilla (2008). An extended review of the C4D field rooted in new visions of
the South is discussed in tree volumes of Communication, Technology and Devel-
opment compiled by Gustavo Cimadevilla, Debates and perspectives from the South
(2002); Current debates (2004a), and Debates of a new century (2006). Gustavo
Aprea also compiled a set of documents about debates in communication for
development in Problems of Communication and Development (2004), and Gustavo
Cimadevilla presents deep critics toward the practice of communication and devel-
opment in Domains Criticism of Interventionist Reason, Communication and Sus-
tainable Development (2004b). And the Latin American Institute of Communication
for Development (ILCD) located in Paraguay designed an updated approach to C4D
through an inclusive perspective in From Communication. Bet for Inclusive Devel-
opment (2011).
Thought development in the C4D field also has been innovated by the emergence
and new reflections connecting concepts of communication for Living Well and the
theoretical approach of communication under a decolonization model.
The relation between communication and the paradigm called Living Well, which
emerged in Latin America, came from the political arena and was related to the
discourse of Latin American governments aligned to radical social changes. The
concepts of Living Well are used depending on the country where the debate is set.
The representative of this new approach is Adalid Contreras with Sentipensamientos,
from Communication-Development to a Communication for Living Well (2014)
written in Spanish; The Limit is Infinity-Relations between Integration and Commu-
nication (2015) also in Spanish; The Word that Walks. Popular Communication for
Living Well (2016) in Spanish; and Jiwasa: Participatory Communication for
Coexistence (2017). Regarding radio and development practice, the Latin American
Association of Radiophonic Education (ALER) contributed by setting a framework
for a practice of right to communicate and living well with Sowings of Good living.
Between utopias and Possible Dilemmas (2016) written in Spanish.
Erick Torrico is a representative of communication from the paradigm of decol-
onization with Towards Decolonial Communication (2016a) and Communication
20 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

Thought from Latin America; 1960–2009 (2016b), both written in Spanish. Another
broad document in the same line is Communication and Decolonization. Horizon
under Construction by Erick Torrico and others (2018) written in Spanish.
In Latin America, the intellectual production in C4D has also been oriented to
bring back a tradition in critical thinking, systematizing experiences, and alternative
media approaches. This is a glance of noteworthy literature such as Another com-
pass. Innovations in communication and development by Rosa María Alfaro (2006).
Compilation made by the Latin American and Caribbean Catholic Organization of
Communication (OCLACC) and Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja Commu-
nication, citizenship and values. Reinventing concepts and strategies (2008). Addi-
tionally, Communication, education and social movements in Latin America by
César Bolaño and others (2010) is a compilation that links communication for
development and social movements in Latin America. Identifying experiences of
C4D in the Colombian Andes, we can find a large map of cases in Experiences of
communication and development on the environment. Case studies and life stories in
the Andean region of Colombia by Herrera Huérfano and Eliana del Rosario (2011).
A compilation written by José Miguel Pereira and Amparo Cadavid that presents a
broad range of topics related to C4D is Communication, development and social
change. Interrelations between communication, citizen movements and media
(2011). From a perspective of the right to communicate and indigenous movements,
we have Right to communication; reality and challenges in Latin America. Indige-
nous peoples and public broadcasting policies by Rosa Elena Sudario (2013).
Another extended compilation of documents of the current debate of C4D in Latin
America is Thinking from experience. Participatory communication in social change
by Amparo Cadavid and Alfonso Gumucio (2014). Another compilation of cases of
C4D and environment is Emergency of the territory and local communication.
Experiences of communication and development on the environment in Colombia
by Eliana Herrera Huérfano and others (2014).
In Brazil, we can also find work on C4D written by Cecilia M. Krohling from
Universidade Metodista de Portuguese. She is one of the most prolific writers in this
field. That is the case of her work Communication for Development, Communication
for Social Transformation (2014) written in Portuguese.
Communication, Citizenship and Democracy: for a Fulfilled and Plenty Life by
SIGNIS ALC (2018) written in Spanish is a document that recovers papers of the 5th
Latin American and Caribbean Congress of Communication (V COMLAC) that
took place in Paraguay and which brings back Juan Diaz Bordenave’s ideas. He was
the first theoretician of C4D and rural communication in that country.
Academic production on C4D reveals important additional sources in Latin
America. One of them is Asociación Latinoamericana de Investigadores de la
Comunicación (ALAIC), the largest organization of scholars of communication
research in the region which started in 1978. Events promoted by ALAIC encourage
the knowledge production under specific areas of interest. This is the case of Work
Groups (Grupos de Trabajo – GTs) introduced in its 2nd Congress that took place in
Guadalajara, México, in 1994. A GT of communication for social change is part of
Development Communication in Latin America 21

it. This GT is one of the most active groups among 20 others under ALAIC (www.
alaic.org) that submit advances in the theory and practice of C4D in this region.
Additionally, Anthology of Communication for Social Change: Historical and
Contemporary Readings by Alfonso Gumucio and Thomas Tufte (2008), an exten-
sive and complete recompilation of main international documents that follow the
trend of C4D, printed in Bolivia, should be mentioned due to its relevance for the
study of C4D in Latin America. This anthology was originally written in English and
later on was expanded and published in Spanish thanks to the support of Commu-
nication for Social Change Consortium (CFSC).

State of Training and Capacity Building in C4D

The field of communication for development is nurtured by training projects as well

as university programs specifically oriented to this field in Latin America. Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Perú has provided a venue to study communication for
development which is offered as a concentration at Facultad de Ciencias y Artes de la
Comunicación. This program’s description is the following: “The concentration on
communication for development promotes the analysis and management of com-
munication strategies in order to generate or improve processes of interpersonal,
group, and mass communication for social development. It seeks to prepare students
to do research, design, manage and implement strategies, actions, and messages in
communication projects and organizations, emphasizing current issues for the
improvement of quality of life, such as health, education, citizenship and human
rights, gender, institutional development, productivity and environment.”
Gumucio (2002) states that, in Latin America, there are important academic
efforts that favor C4D and comments on experiences of Universidad Nacional de
Tucumán in Argentina, Universidade Metodista de Portuguese in Brazil,
Universidad de Lima in Peru and Universidad NUR in Santa Cruz, and the
Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar in La Paz, in Bolivia. All these cases are
mentioned due to the existence of graduate programs in C4D training.
One of the most visible projects of training to develop capacities in C4D is Onda
Rural “a regional initiative that was born to strengthen the exchange and collabora-
tion between stakeholders interested in the participatory use of community media
and ICT for family farming, resilience and sustainable rural development in Latin
America. Onda Rural starts a new stage, promoted by the International Center for
Advanced Communication Studies in Latin America (CIESPAL) and the United
Nations Organization for Food and Agriculture (FAO), with the collaboration of the
Specialized Meeting on Family Farming (REAF MERCOSUR), the World Associ-
ation of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC) and the Latin American Asso-
ciation of Radiophonic Education (ALER)” (Onda Rural, www.ondarural.org).
Onda Rural offers a distance training course in Communication for Rural Devel-
opment. According to its promoters, “This course provides a global view of the
Communication for Development (CpD) approach, which seeks to address the
information and knowledge needs of rural actors as well as to enable their
22 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

participation in development initiatives. This course aims to guide users in the design
and implementation of communication strategies for agricultural and rural develop-
ment initiatives by combining participatory methods with processes, means, and
communication tools, more appropriate to a specific context, which vary from
community media to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). This
course mainly targets facilitators and field agents, communicators and development
professionals who need to improve their skills to formulate and implement partici-
patory rural communication strategies” (Onda Rural, www.ondarural.org).
Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, UASB, created in 1985 as an academic mean
of Comunidad Andina de Naciones, opened its studies in communication and
journalism in 1996. After this, in 1998, the first Master’s degree in Communication
and Development was opened. Today this experience has changed its venue to
become a virtual program; therefore, it is the first case of this concentration in the
Andean region, and right now it’s offering this program for the tenth time under the
name of Strategic Communication (www.uasb.edu.bo).
Finally, an online tool which promotes debate and practice on C4D in this region
is the Communication Initiative. Its proposal reaches Latin America and Caribbean
regions in order to build communication for development practices and studies. This
online resource is activated and permanently active on www.comminit.org.

Conclusions

Communication for development in Latin America has a long tradition of practical

and theoretical history. This field was not a result of academic proposals, but it came
as a practical result of the specific conditions of social and technological inequality
and the need to protect the existence and cultural richness of local societies in the
region. This approach was historically characterized in the region by its criticism and
opposing concepts or models of unidirectional and persuasive structure. The theo-
retical introduction of C4D to Latin America presents different stages, and each one
brought a specific view on communication as a human process and also a concep-
tualization of social development. Today, the ground of C4D has a close connection
to social demands and people’s movements like the right to communicate, language,
and local systems of communication preservation, land security, and also social and
cultural vindication. Several diverse community actors participate in these
movements.
The soul of this utopia set by the most distinguished specialist in communication
for development and C4D practices in Latin America, Luis Ramiro Beltrán, is
persistent. These concepts have been expanded with the incorporation of different
actors, means and resources, objectives, and demands showing that the practice of
communication for development in Latin American acquires sense and an ongoing
need supported by integral political, ethical, and aesthetic dimensions to envision
more democratic and inclusive societies.
The means able to keep a tradition in C4D in Latin America is still marked by
radiobroadcasting and community radio using native languages, new technological
Development Communication in Latin America 23

applications, and local innovations more widely. It’s also marked by the voices of
diverse social sectors which gradually recognize that communication is a skill on its
own that empowers their presence in order to reach conditions for equal participa-
tion. Analyzing practice and the utopia of a democratic and inclusive society goes
through empowering means to use communication processes which follow already
old elements based on access, dialogue, and participation. These can lead to self-
empowerment and to the possibility to reach social justice in societies structurally
diverse and culturally plural. Communication is a means rooted in self-expression
which might prompt effective social change.
A regional thought about communication and communication for development is
providing new opportunities for reflection because of an increase of university
programs so that the body of knowledge in this field can expand. Additionally,
new approaches that bring back a critical debate on communication and social
change are emerging. This is a new paradigm of Living Well. This also happens
thanks to an understanding of how conditions rearrange communication processes as
well as development under a decolonial approach. Latin America might have the
opportunity to offer new dimensions to the communication for development field in
the near future. They could avoid the use of the same view, but due to administrative
or technical tendencies, as development and interdevelopment is a result of structural
and historical forces within the construction of social systems, it could also be
neglected once again.

References
Aguirre Alvis JL (2011) Enfoques teóricos para una comunicación orientada al desarrollo y retos
actuales para una comunicación y desarrollo desde la diversidad. Simposio Internacional de
Interculturalidad y Educación Superior: Desafíos de la diversidad para un cambio educativo. La Paz
ALER (Asociación Latinoamericana de Educación Radiofónica) (2016) Siembras del buen vivir.
Entre utopías y dilemas posibles. Quito
Alfaro Moreno RM (2006) Otra brújula. Innovaciones en comunicación y desarrollo, Lima,
Calandria
Aprea G (compilador) (2004) Problemas de comunicación y desarrollo. Prometeo libros. Buenos
Aires, Argentina: Universidad Nacional General Sarmiento
Atwood R, McAnany EG (1986) Communication and Latin American society. Trends in critical
research, 1960–1985. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison
LR Beltrán Salmón (1979) Farewell to Aristotle: horizontal communication. International Com-
mission for the Study of Communication Problems. UNESCO. No. 48. Paris
Beltrán Salmón LR (1993) Communication for development in Latin America: a forty years
appraisal. IV Roundtable on Development Communication, Lima
Beltrán Salmón LR (2005) La comunicación para el desarrollo en Latinoamérica: un recuento de
medio siglo. III Congreso Panamericano de la Comunicación, Buenos Aires
Beltrán Salmón LR (2008) Development communication: Latin America. The international ency-
clopedia of communication. Volume III, Oxford
Bolaños C. et al. (organizadores) (2010) Comunicación, educación y movimientos sociales en
América Latina. Brasilia, Brasil
Bolivia (2008) Nueva Constitución Política del Estado
Bolivia (2011) Law of telecommunications. Law No 164
24 J. L. Aguirre Alvis

Cadavid BA, Gumucio Dagron A (editores) (2014) Pensar desde la experiencia. Comunicación
participativa en el cambio social. Bogotá, Colombia: UNIMINUTO
Cardoso FH, Falletto E (1979) Dependencia y desarrollo en América Latina. Mexico D.F.:
Siglo XXI
Cayuela J (1980) El retorno a la democracia en América Latina. ¿Mito o realidad? Nueva Sociedad.
No. 46 enero-febrero, pp. 29-38
Cimadevilla G (compilador) (2002) Comunicación, tecnología y desarrollo. Discusiones y
perspectivas desde el sur. Río Cuarto, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto
Cimadevilla G (compilador) (2004a) Comunicación, tecnología y desarrollo. Debates actuales. Río
Cuarto, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto
Cimadevillla G (2004b) Dominios. Crítica a la razón intervencionista, la comunicación y el
desarrollo sustentable. Prometeo Libros. Buenos Aires
Cimadevilla G (compilador) (2006) Comunicación, tecnología y desarrollo. Discusiones del siglo
nuevo. Vol. 3. Río Cuarto, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto
Cockcroft JD, Gunder Frank A, Johnson DL (1972) Dependence and underdevelopment. Latin
America’s polityical economy, New York
Contreras Baspineiro A (2000) Imágenes e imaginarios de la comunicación-desarrollo. CIESPAL,
Quito
Contreras Baspineiro A (2014) Sentipensamientos. De la comunicación-desarrollo a la
comunicación para vivir bien. Ediciones La Tierra. Quito, Ecuador: Universidad Andina
Simón Bolívar
Contreras Baspineiro A (2015) El límite es el infinito. Relaciones entre integración y comunicación.
Ediciones CIESPAL, Quito
Contreras Baspineiro A (2016) La palabra que camina. Comunicación popular para el Vivir. Bien/
Buen Vivir. Ediciones CIESPAL, Quito
Contreras Baspineiro A (2017) Jiwasa. Comunicación participativa para la convivencia. FES
Comunicación, Bogotá
D’Arcy J (1969) Revue de l’UER, noviembre. France, Paris
Díaz Bordenave J (1962) Latinoamérica necesita revolucionar sus comunicaciones. Revista
Combate. Noviembre y diciembre. No. 25. San José, Costa Rica
Freire P (1970) Pedagogía del oprimido. Siglo Veintiuno Editores, México
Freire P (1973) Extensión o comunicación? La concientización en el medio rural. Siglo Veintiuno
Editores, México
García J (2017) Hearings of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) (https://
knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-18467-community-radio-stations-latin-america-discriminated-
against-law-and-its-advocates-fac)
Gerace F (1973) La comunicación horizontal: cambio de estructura y movilización social. Studium,
Lima
Gumucio Dagron A (2002) El cuarto mosquetero: La comunicación para el cambio social. IV
Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Investigadores de la Comunicación. ALAIC,
Santa Cruz
Gumucio Dagron A (2003) Comunicación para el cambio social: clave del desarrollo participativo
Gumucio Dagron A (2007) Three challanges of communication for social change
Gumucio Dagron A, Tufte T (compiladores) (2008) Antología de comunicación para el cambio
social. Lecturas históricas y contemporáneas. La Paz, CFSC
Herrera H, del Rosario E (2011) Experiencias de comunicación y desarrrollo sobre medio ambiente.
Estudios de caso e historias de vida en la región Andina de Colombia. UNIMINUTO, Bogotá
Herrera Lemus L (2017) Derecho a la comunicación y modelos de medios democráticos para el
Buen Vivir. https://www.alainet.org/es/articulo/182790
Herrera H, E del Rosario et al. (editores) (2014) Emergencia del territorio y comunicación local.
Experiencias de comunicación y desarrollo sobre medios ambiente en Colombia. Barranquilla,
Universidad del Norte
ILCD (Instituto Latinoamericano de Comunicación para el Desarrollo) (2011) Desde la
comunicación, apuesta por un desarrollo inclusivo. SICOM, Asunción
Development Communication in Latin America 25

Krohling PC (1997) Escola Latino-Americana de Comunicação: Contribucoes de Luis Ramiro

Beltrán. I Ciclo de Estudos sobre a Escola Latino-Americana de Ciencias da Comunicação. Sao
Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo
Krohling PC (2014) Comunicação para o desenvolvimento, comunicação para a transformação
social. In: Aristides Monteiro Neto. (Org.). Sociedade, política e desenvolvimento livro 2. 1ed.
Brasília: IPEA, 2014, v. 2, p. 161-195
MacBride S (1980) Un solo mundo voces múltiples. Comunicación e información en nuestro
tiempo. México: Fondo Cultura Económica
Marques Ferrari L, Antoniacci Tuzzo S (2013) José Marques de Melo and Latina American school
of communication: work, thought and history. Comun Inf 16(1):98–112
Massoni S (2011) Comunicación estratégica. Comunicación para la innovación. Homo Sapiens.
Santa Fe
OCLACC (Organización Católica Latinoamericana y Caribeña de Comunicación) (2008)
Comunicación, ciudadanía y valores. Re-invetando conceptos y estrategias. Quito, Ecuador:
Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja
Pasquali A (1970) Comprender la comunicación. Venezuela: Monte Ávila Editores
Peirano FL (2017) Entrar y salir (por el espejo) de los estudios de la comunicación. Balance
temático de lo hecho y lo mucho por hacer. In. Comunicación y cambio. Carla Colona
Guadalupe, Juan Jorge Vergara (compilators). Lima: FCE, Maestría en comunicacicones de la
PUCP
Pereira JM, Contreras Baspineiro A (editores) (2011) Comunicación, desarrollo y cambio social.
Interrelaciones entre comunicación, movimientos ciudadanos y medios. Pontificia Universidad
Javeriana, Bogotá
Perez RA, Massoni S (2009) Hacia una teoría general de la estrategia. El cambio de paradigma en el
comportamiento humano, la sociedad y las instituciones. Ariel. Barcelona, España
Reyes Matta F (1983) Comunicación alternativa y búsquedas democráticas. Instituto
Latinoamericano de Estudios Transnacionales, México
Rogers EM (1994) The history of development communication. Comm Dev News, Newsletter of
Ohio University’s Communication and Development Studies Program. Vol. 5. No. 1
Servaes J, Malikhao P (2012) Communication and sustainable development. Selected papers from
the 9th UN roundtable on communication for development. FAO, Rome
Sudario Manrique RE (2013) derecho a la comunicación realidad y desafíos en América Latina.
Pueblos indígenas y políticas públicas de radiodifusión. Perú: SERVINDI
Thornton RD, Cimadevilla G (editores) (2008) Grises de la extensión, la comunicación y el
desarrollo. INTA
Torrico EV (2016a) Hacia la comunicación decolonial. Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Sucre
Torrico EV (2016b) La comunicación pensada desde América Latina (1960–2009). Salamanca,
España
Torrico EV et al. (organizadores) (2018) Comunicación y decolonialidad. Horizonte en
construcción. La Paz
Uranga W (2005) Desarrollo, ciudadanía, democracia: aportes desde la comunicación. Anuario
UNESCO/Metodista deComunicacaoRegional. Ano 9. n. 9.75–90, jan/dez. Brazil
WACC (World Association for Christian Communication). www.waccglobal.org

Additional References

ALAIC. Asociación Latinoamericana de Investigadores de la Comunicación. www.alaic.org

Onda Rural. www.ondarural.org
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú. Facultad de Ciencias y Artes de la Comunicación.
Program of Communication for Development http://facultad.pucp.edu.pe/comunicaciones/
carreras/comunicacion-para-el-desarrollo/