Despite many similarities, the gold rush that hit the Andean countries in 2004 elicited different state responses in Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru. Initially, there was a lack of enforcement of regulations towards informal mining, but eventually Colombia (2009) and later Peru (2011) enforced regulations with mixed results. Bolivia, on the other hand, has not enforced such regulations. At first, this may appear to be a matter of state capacity; however, a closer look uncovers different motivations behind these state actions (and inaction). We propose that the nature of social actors (or the lack of social actors) who profited from the gold boom, along with international and domestic pressures, are a crucial determinant of these different government responses. We explore this proposal through an analysis of the cases before and during the gold rush using a mix of archival research and interviews with key government actors. These findings allow us to distinguish empirically between forms of state inaction—standoff and forbearance—with distinct political consequences.

中文翻译：

---

国家对安第斯山脉淘金热的反应（2004-2018）：国家作为（和不作为）的政治

尽管有许多相似之处，但 2004 年席卷安第斯国家的淘金热在玻利维亚、哥伦比亚和秘鲁引发了不同的国家反应。最初，对非正规采矿缺乏执行法规，但最终哥伦比亚（2009 年）和后来的秘鲁（2011 年）执行了法规，结果喜忧参半。另一方面，玻利维亚并未执行此类法规。起初，这似乎是一个国家能力问题；然而，仔细观察会发现这些国家行为（和不作为）背后的不同动机。我们认为，从黄金繁荣中获利的社会行动者（或缺乏社会行动者）的性质，以及国际和国内压力，是这些不同政府反应的关键决定因素。我们结合档案研究和与主要政府行为者的访谈，通过对淘金热之前和期间的案例进行分析来探索该提案。这些发现使我们能够根据经验区分具有不同政治后果的国家不作为形式——僵持和宽容。