Mohan and Stokke

Third World Quarterly
Participatory Development and Empowerment: The Dangers of Localism Author(s): Giles Mohan and Kristian Stokke Source: Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 247-268 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993419 . Accessed: 17/04/2013 22:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Third World Quarterly are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Third World Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 136.152.131.231 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:30:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Third World Quarterly, Vol 21, No 2, pp 247-268, 2000
Participatory
development
dangers
and of
empowerment: the
localism
GILES MOHAN & KRISTIAN STOKKE
ABSTRACT Recent discussions in developmenthave moved away from holistic
theorisation towards more localised, empirical and inductive approaches. In developmentpractice there has been a parallel move towards local 'participation' and 'empowerment',which has produced, albeit with very different agendas, a high level of agreementbetween actors and institutionsof the 'new' Left and the 'new' Right. This paper examines the manifestationsof this move in four key political arenas: decentralised service delivery,participatorydevelopment, social capital formation and local development,and collective actions for 'radicaldemocracy'. Weargue that, byfocusing so heavily on 'the local', the see manifestationstend to underplayboth local inequalitiesand power relations as well as national and transnationaleconomic and political forces. Following from this, we advocate a stronger emphasis on the politics of the local, ie on the political use of 'the local' by hegemonic and counter-hegemonicinterests. It is precisely of anti-development thegroundswell discourses thinking, oppositional thathaveas theirstarting of development, of rationality, andthe pointthe rejection atthemoment Western modernist of a purported consensus and project, Washington free-market thatrepresent one of the striking of the 1990s. triumphalism, paradoxes bothof thesediscourses-whether Ironically, however, the WorldBankline or its radicalalternative-lookto civil society,participation, and ordinary people for theirdevelopment vision for the next millennium.' This article examines the links between developmenttheory and political action and the ways in which new political spaces are being imagined and constructed. Over the past decade researchon developmenthas generally moved away from holistic theorisation towards more empirically informed and inductive approaches, what Leys refers to as development studies ratherthan development theory.2 In development practice there has been a parallel move towards and 'empowerment'.This has produced,albeit with very different 'participation' agendas, a high level of agreementbetween actors and institutionsof the 'new' Left and those of the 'new' Right.3In particular,this has led to the emergence of 'the local' as the site of empowermentand hence as a locus of knowledge
Giles Mohan is at the Departmentof Geography,Universityof Portsmouth,Buckingham Building,Lion Terrace, PortsmouthPO 3HE, UK.KristianStokkeis in the Departmentof Sociology and HumanGeography,University of Oslo, PO Box 1096, Blindern,0137 Oslo, Norway. ISSN 0143-6597 print; 1360-2241 online/00/020247-22 ?C2000 ThirdWorldQuarterly
247
generation and development intervention.In terms of valorising the local over the general, two main strandsof development thinking and interventioncan be identified.These can be describedas 'revisionistneo-liberalism'and 'post-Marxism'. In early developmenteconomics, the interventioniststate was assigned a key role in correcting market failures and ensuring economic efficiency, growth, macroeconomic stability and social development. The neoliberal counter-revolution in development theory brought a dramaticshift, as the state came to be seen as a barrierratherthan a driving force in the developmentprocess.4In the 1980s neoliberals strongly criticised the dirigiste state and promoted market liberalism as the most efficient mechanism for delivering economic and social developmentwithin a global marketsystem. More recentlythere has been a shift within neoliberal development strategy from a singular emphasis on market deregulation to an additional emphasis on institutional reforms and social development.5In this context, civil society has emerged as the arenain which a host of development objectives are to be achieved. Civil society can, according to neoliberals, exert organised pressure on autocraticand unresponsivestates and thereby supportdemocraticstability and Civil society institutionscan also be vehicles for participation good governance.6 in development programmeand empowermentof target groups of poor people. This move has in partchallengedthe centralisation of the top-down state through planning couched in terms of 'stakeholders' and 'local governance'.7 For example, Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPAS) have become common practice in the World Bank and seek to identify local people's perceptionsof poverty and its causes.8 Similarly, the trust and co-operationengenderedthroughsocial capital has moved centre stage in poverty alleviation and NGO intervention,9 and forms the basis for the World Bank's Social Fund Programmes (See www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/index.htm). This emphasis within neoliberalismon communityparticipationand empowerment is paralleled by trends within more radical development studies. For post-Marxists, empowerment is a matter of collective mobilisation of marginalised groups against the disempoweringactivities of both the state and the market.'0Behind this lies a theoreticalcritique of the reductionisttreatmentof politics in more structuralistMarxist accounts. Most famously, Laclau and Mouffe question the centrality of class as the locus of political consciousness and argue that 'society' cannot be so easily or statically explained." The focus then shifts to local political actors and a celebration of their difference and diversity ratherthan their common relationshipto the means of production.This fluidity of identities produce a multitude of collective actions. Thus social movements become the primaryfocus for serious analytical engagements with political agency in society. At a more general level post-structuralistshave radically questioned all claims to authorityand truth.Throughvarious critiques we have seen universalist,Westernand male-biasedclaims to truthpulled apart to reveal their inherentlypower-laden and silencing effects.'2 The corollary is that only by listening to and revaluing alternativelocal knowledge can this be broken so that the focus is upon hybrid cultures revealed through radicalised ethnography. 248
PARTICIPATORYDEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT
There are critical differences between these positions'3 The revised neoliberal position represents a 'top-down' strategy for institutional reform in the sense that it is an effort by state agencies and collaboratingnon-governmental organisationsto make institutionsmore efficient and to include identified target groups in the development process. This conceptualisationof participationand empowerment is based on a harmony model of power. Power resides with individual members of a community and can increase with the successful pursuit of individual and collective goals. This implies that the empowerment of the powerless could be achieved within the existing social order without any significant negative effects upon the power of the powerful'.'4 Post-Marxism representsa reversion of this neoliberal view. The radical notion of empowerment focuses on 'bottom-up' social mobilisation in society as a challenge to hegemonic interests within the state and the market. Conscientisation and collective identity formation around common experiences with economic and political marginalisationare key elements in this process.'5 Power is conceptualised in relationaland conflictual terms. Hence, empowermentof marginalised groups requires a structuraltransformationof economic and political relations towards a radically democratisedsociety.'6 What revised neoliberalismand post-Marxismshare is a belief that states or marketscannot and should not be solely responsible for ensuring social equality and welfare growth. Local actors, knowledge and interventions are key features in both 'new' Right and 'new' Left conceptualisations of development.'7 In between these two positions there are various strands of populism which also emphasise local social movements and community organisations. For instance, the liberal populism of Chambers(1983) centres upon reversing the previous centralism such that all development agencies should promote grassroots development. More radical versions are rooted in attacks upon Westernisationand capitalism.18 In both cases the 'post-development'era is to be founded upon localised, non-capitalistpractices.'9 This paper examines the manifestations of this move in four key political arenas: decentralisedservice delivery, participatorydevelopment, social capital and social movements. All these themes and perspectives, which are overlapping ratherthan mutually exclusive, hold out the promise of bringing about more localised, relevant and, ultimately, sustainabledevelopment. Although we see this move towards the local as a promising tendency within contemporary development theory and practice, we would like to point out that it also contains a number of dangers. One obvious problem is the tendency to essentialise and romanticise 'the local'. This means that local social inequalities and power relations are downplayed. Another problem is the tendency to view 'the local' in isolation from broader economic and political structures. This means that the contextuality of place, eg national and translational economic and political forces, is underplayed. Following from these observations,we argue that studies of local development should pay more attention to the politics of the local, ie to the hegemonic production and representation of 'the local' and the use of 'the local' in counterhegemonic collective mobilisation. Since this politics of the local cannot be confined to the local level, it is crucial to pay attention to issues of scale, 249
GILESMOHAN& KRISTIAN STOKKE
ie to transgress analytically the boundaries between 'local', 'national' and 'global' scales. Decentralisation, the local state and rational choice
It is in this sense that under the sign of 'decentralisation',using the 'mystique', ambivalence and allure of the concept, the forming of consent for something quite different can be more effectively nurtured.The term 'decentralisation'can be articulatedinto a monetarist discourse, but alternativelyit can be linked into a discourse that combines ideas of collective empowerment,democracy and socialiM20 ism.
In a recent issue of this journalDesai and Imrie analyse the 'new manageralism' in local governanceand show how a common set of political and organisational principles is being circulated globally at the same time as these are being contested and modified in line with contingent local conditions.21 In this move towards the technocratic managerial state, decentralisation has become an importantunderlying principle.22 It holds up the promise of a re-orderingof political space and a revitalisationof 'the local' in terms of accountabilityand choice. Decentralisationconstitutes a fluid and flexible discourse that can be utilised by different ideological interests. In this section we examine the changing discourses on decentralisation,ratherthan examining the impacts of such processes.23 In particular the major lenders have promoteddecentralisation as a means of breaking the power of central ministries, increasing revenue generationand shifting the burdenof service delivery onto local stakeholders.24 This is a very differentinflection comparedwith liberal and radical approaches that see devolutionof power to local governmentas a means of promotinga new communitarian spiritand forming the seedbed of democraticpractice.Underpinning the lenders' vision of decentralisation is rationalchoice theory (RCT),which permits the more political readings of decentralisationto be transformedinto a narrativeof capital and 'efficiency'. The spread of RCT into development theory and policy has been a recent phenomenon, but is of growing importance as Leys observes,25despite there being relatively few empirical applications.26 The early neoliberal agenda revolved arounda profoundlycynical and pessimistic private interest view of the
state in which state actors are only in politics for personal gain and 'correct'
decision making will not prevail. The obvious corollary is that the unfettered market will deliver efficient and equitable results. Hence the underlying tendency is to create a 'narrative of capital' rather than a 'narrative of community'.27
In terms of decentralisationand RCT there has been a gradual change in approachover the past two decades. At the beginning of the 'AdjustmentEra' Cheema and Rondinelli defined decentralisationas:
transferof planning, decision-making,or administrativeauthorityfrom the central governmentto its field organisations,local administration units, semi-autonomous and parastatalorganisations,local governmentsor NGOS.28
Decentralisationis, in this sense, centered on the public and, to a lesser extent, 250
the voluntarysector. The process can, accordingto Cheema and Rondinelli, take four organisational forms-deconcentration of administration, delegation to semi-autonomousor parastatalorganisations,devolution, and transfer of functions from governmentto non-governmentinstitutions. Around the same time, Kochen and Deutsch were concerned with efficiency in policy formulationand more specifically in the output of organisations as 'service systems'. They consider that the 'core of decentralisationin a service system is its responsiveness, the shortnessof its communicationtime, and the directness of its channels between servers and clients'.29 They demonstratethis with respect to 'passive services', namely those that require a request from a client, marking a shift towards consumer-ledplanning. Almost a decade later Rondinelli et al aim to develop a 'new' political The need for economy frameworkfor analysing decentralisationprogrammes.30 consumer responsiveness in an environment of increased demand for public services calls for integrating public choice approaches with public policy analysis. They initially criticise public choice theory for its overly rationalistic tendencies yet see it as useful in cases where user charges are levied or where exclusion can be developed. In this model the state is viewed either as 'constraining' or 'enabling' and society is reduced to the characteristics of for decentralispeople as consumers. Crucially the organisationalarrangements ation include, in order, privatisation,deregulation, delegation, devolution and deconcentration.Here we see the move towards marketmechanisms and away from public services. Additionally,by reducingpeople to consumers, Rondinelli et al quietly ignore the other dimensions of decentralisation,namely the notion of participation in state decision making, although the implication is that 'participation'means market transactions. The World Bank's own policies towards decentralisationreflect these trends. The sixth World Development Report makes the links between marketreforms and administration explicit, whereby 'competitive marketspermit the necessary flexibility and responsivenessand, because they decentralizethe task of handling 31 In this light information,also economize on scarce administrativeresources'. decentralisation'should be seen as partof a broadermarket-surrogate strategy.32 These views divorce 'technical' questions of economics from the ideological concernsof 'politics' so that the logic of the marketis presentedas natural.More recently, the World Bank, in talking of 'local participation',states that, 'The participationof local businesses can also play a crucial role in decentralisation, shaping incentives at the local level ... Much of this began in local environments. Members of the business community often participatedin local legislatures'.3 Again, the discourse is of 'incentives' and a market-friendlyrole for civil society organisations. Decentralisation in its neoliberal guise treats the local as a functional, economic space with policies designed to increase the efficiency of service delivery. In this sense the market is seen as a universal principle without any 'geography',althoughthe implicationis that local political economies have their own coherence within this totaling logic. Decentralisationsimply facilitates the efficiency of these nested local economies. However, as Slater implies in the can be seen in other terms. quote at the beginningof this section, decentralisation 251
For example, Karim details the work of NGOS in Bangladesh which pressed for reform of the government's decentralisationprogrammeto make it genuinely devolved and responsive.34Having done this the structureswere in place for more integrated,co-operative and large-scale rural development. This example suggests that 'participation'at the local level can be broaderthan the marketdriven agenda of decentralisationand thereby produce a multiplicity of local developments which are determinedby the local people themselves.
Local knowledge and participatory development A more liberal and populist approachto local empowermentcentres on such an of participation,which its leading advocate describes open-endedinterpretation as a 'paradigmshift'.3 Such discourses present this as commonsensical given the failings of what has preceded it. They share a belief in relying less on 'outside' agents, whetherthat be the state or Westerndevelopmentagencies, for achieving changes to self and/or community. Critically, this adds up to the valorisationof local (or at least non-Western)knowledge which has important implicationsfor researchersand practitioners. The links between knowledge and action are obviously complex,36 but the startingpoint is to reject the assumption that 'experts' know best what creates the space for local knowledge to be accessed. They epistemological issues are part of the process of change and should not be separatedfrom concrete 'policy' actions.37 This approachis seen as being universally applicable since it permits, in theory at least, development to be locally determined and free from the normative biases of 'non-locals'. Debate surrounds the political natureof participation and what role knowledge generationplays. For some, it is taken to be a functionalnecessity for improving policy making so that participatory researchaids developmentmanagementand knowledge is viewed more as a product.38 For others,participatory research(and the new consciousness and knowledge it creates) is one element in an ongoing process of empowermentwhere local communitiestake over their own development. Freire's notion of 'conscientisation'is a prime source of inspirationfor this more political view of the role of knowledge.34Whichever point on the participatoryspectrum one takes, the common ground is that codifying local knowledge is a necessary first step towards beneficial social change. In this section we look at how these constructions of knowledge privilege certain of local 'needs' and how they often leave untouched the wider interpretations processes which create local underdevelopment. In contrast to the pseudo-scientist of quantitative research,40Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)has become an increasingly popular set of qualitative research tools for participatorydevelopment.4'The methodologies subsumed under participatoryresearch are broad,42and are continually evolving. The principles of PRArevolve around a reversal of learning, learning rapidly and progressively,offsetting biases, optimising trade-offs, triangulatingand seeking diversity. Tied to these principles are a basket of techniquesthat are combined, dependingupon aims and local circumstances.However, there is an emphasison expressing knowledge in ways that do not a priori assume that the writtenword 252
is the best means of communicatingideas: what the practitionerscall 'visualisation', which is supposedly more democratic and communal. Most common of the techniques are various mapping exercises whereby locals relate aspects usually on the ground, using local of their lives throughspatial representations, materials such as pebbles and sticks. While becoming popular over the past few years, PRAand the underlying approachto development that it embodies has a numberof problems relating to both its ontology and epistemology.43 In terms of its political imagination participatory development tends to treat 'the local' as a harmoniouscommunity which is reflected in the way in which PRA tends to promote a consensual view.44 In Chambers' work, as Brown points out,45 there is a tendency to essentialism the poor and the social systems by which they operate. The 'poor' are set against an unspecified 'elite' whose only defining feature is their 'non-poorness', with the former group operating through affective ties of kinship, ethnic group, etc and the latter utilising the 'modern' methods of state channels. Such binary ontologies undermine the stated intentions of PRAof seeking diversity. Nelson and Wright observe that 'Communityis a concept often used by state and other organizations, rather than the people themselves, and it carries connotations of consensus and "needs" determined within parameters set by 46 PRA outsiders'. has tended towards this consensual view that conceals powerful interests at the intra-communitylevel. The danger from a policy point of view is that the actions based on consensus may actually empower the powerful vested interests that manipulatedthe research in the first place. Pottier and Orone present a case where the chief purposefully failed to invite the very poor,47 so that as Richards notes 'decisions made generally favour village elites'. Recently such criticisms have been addressed, with conscious efforts made to disclose difference and heterogeneity. For example, Norton et al demonstratedthat gendered differences exist over the importance of water availability to poverty in Zambia, while Goebel successfully analysed gender differences over resource managementin Zimbabwe.49 the focus on the local as the site of empowermentand knowlFurthermore, edge circumscribes consciousness and action. Practitioners of participatory research and development assume that local knowledge will reverse the previously damaging interventionswhich treated locals as passive recipients. However, the reversal has been almost complete, so that the individual agent has become the key political site. For example, Chambersacknowledges the 'many levels' of causality within underdevelopment,but chooses to focus on 'the primacy of the personal'50whereby 'we are much of the problem,'51 which assumes that the insider/outsiderdivision is the most importantproblem blocking development. By revealing our self-conscious appreciationof this paradox, we place ourselves back at the centre of the (under)developmentprocess and therefore re-inscribe the authorial voice, because it is only us who can really change things. As Rahnemanotes, we 'express this superiorityby the very fact that we recognise and respect the validity of traditionalknowledge, whereas nobody else does'.52Development is not just about attitudesbut about materialities that such a discourse may do little to address. Chambers' invocation 253
of a 'benign virus' spreadingthroughorganisationsis too voluntaristicand he rarely puts forward any strategies for affecting wider structures.The corollary is that, by valorising the local in this way and being self-critical of our colonising knowledge, 'we' behave as if we do not have anything to offer. The populist line treats all knowledge from 'the West' as tainted,53and prevents genuine dialogue and learning. In this spatio-political schema the 'local' and the 'non-local' are treatedas 'discreteentities, entirely separablefrom each other 54 in space'. Another effect of 'going local' is that the state is downgradedin importance. The liberal assumption of much participatoryresearch is that the state has been too centralised, but better localised research will make bureaucratsmore aware and in touch with locals so that more appropriate development is achieved. 55 Such an assumption ignores the ways in which the state has used 'the local' politically through material and discursive practices that disempower. For example, colonial Indirect Rule and the apartheidsystem were at one level about celebrating and politicising local difference in order to govern, but their corollary was that they fragmented political opposition as well as fuelling divisions between 'ethnic' groups.56This means that, instead of romanticising the role of local civil society in development theory and practice, we need to examine the political use of 'the local' by various actors. In this politics of the local, state institutions,internationaldonor agencies and social movements are some key actors. In examining the politicisation of the local, many aid-receivinggovernmentswho have paid lip service to participation are now doing so because they are aware that, since it has become a discourse of Western donors, they ignore it at their financial peril. While unpacking the causality of such moves is difficult, it was striking that in Ghana the government which oversaw five years of highly centralised and authoritarian stringentliberalisationonly began to talk about participationwhen the donors moved towards 'good government' as a condition for furtherloans in the late 1980s.57 Similarly,it is assumedthat it is NGOSwho are 'closest' to those most in need, but Nyamugasirapoints out that the Northernfunding NGOS should not assume, are more responsive to the needs of as they do, that their Southerncounterparts politicised and staffed by indigenous locals,58since they too are bureaucratic, elites.59 Nyamugasira adds that NGOS 'have come to the sad realization that although they have achieved many micro-level successes, the systems and structuresthat determine power and resource allocations-locally, nationally, and globally-remain largely intact'. 60 More recent interventionshave begun to deal with these limitations by looking at strategies for 'scaling up' local interventions61 and linking participatory approachesto wider, and more difficult, processes of democratisation, anti-imperialismand feminism. For example, Whites argues that NGOS should 'also seek to build up the capacity of the state as an integral part of this localized, grassroots work',62 rather than creating parallel or alternativewelfare delivery systems outside the state. This opens up questionsof collaborationbetween networksof local 'partners'and it is here that social capitalhas become important as it promisesto explain why some localities are successful and collaboratewhile others pull apart.
254
Social capital and local development A relatively recent addition to the armory of concepts around which local developmentmight occur is that of social capital. Popularisedby RobertPutnam in his work on Italy and, latterly, the USA, social capital refers to 'features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit'.63 Such capital is localised at the regional or community level and thus explains different degrees of success in response to the same macro-policy environment. For Putnam social capital fosters reciprocity,facilitates informationflows for mutualbenefit and trust and, once it exists, tends to be self-generatingas successive generationsare socialised into the localised norms which create success. However, beyond this rather general definition few have elaboratedon the concept of social capital, which leaves it vague and amorphous.As Fine observes, social capital 'seems to be able to be anything ranging over public goods, networks, culture etc, The only proviso is that social capital should be attachedto the economy in a functionally positive way for economic performance,especially growth'.64 Putnam's original observationson Italy correlatedstrongsocial capital with 'civic engagement' and the performance of government. In this latter sense, social capital can also contributeto democratic and sustainablegovernance. It is not difficultto see why the concept of social capitalhas become so central to recent debatesin development.65 It is essentially the sociocultural'glue' which binds communities together and ensures both political and economic progress. This representsa highly reductionistapproachto political economy where local communities are presented in a non-threateninglanguage of trust, networks, 66 confitdnoinso owr class, cas reciprocity and associations. notions of power, More conflict-orientated and gender ethnicity are relatively unheardwithin the discourse on social capital. This allows a diverse range of intereststo communicate.67 The recent popularity of the concept of social capital must also be seen in the light of the retreatof fundamentalist neoliberalismto what we have referredto as 'revisionist neoliberalism'. In its earliest incarnationneoliberalismsought to remove the state from economic life and liberatemarketforces and the entrepreneurial spirit. After 15 years of largely unsuccessful adjustment and liberalisation, the architects of neoliberalismbegan to soften and conceded, first, a more positive role for the state68 and, second, an awareness that development is a social process whose culturalunderpinnings need to be understood.It is in this latter arenathat social capital (and much of the rationalchoice institutionalismdiscussed above) needs to be placed. The combined effect of these two changes has seen the move towards multiple stakeholderapproachesto development involving partnerships between state, private capital and civil society. Despite social capital being under-theorisedand poorly understood,69 it has become an importantanalytical concept and policy tool within development.70 First, from an analytical perspective several researchers have tested whether social capital does underpin successful economic development and/or poverty alleviation programmes.Leaving aside the obvious point that social capital also has a 'downside', in the sense that associations can work against the assumed common interests of society, these studies generally identify a positive corre255
spondence between social capital and local development.For instance, Narayan and Pritchettfound a link between, on the one hand, associationalactivities and people's trust towards institutions and individuals and, on the other hand, household income levels in ruralTanzania.7'Brown and Ashman examined 13 cases of multipartycooperation across Africa and Asia and found that 'The creationand strengthening of social capitalin the form of local organizationsand networks is an essential task in building intersectoralcooperationthat mobilizes and utilizes local resources and energies for problem solving'.72 Similarly, Bebbingtonet al argue that 'the natureof relationshipsamong pluralactors, and the consolidation of social capital in the form of local organizations and networks, constitute part of the explanation of these successes in sustainable forestry' .7 Crucially, these analysts see social capital as an essentially local endowment leading to local development. The second applicationof social capital theory follows from the first and is used in a more prescriptivesense. If one accepts that social capital is vital to developmentalsuccess and that lack of success points to the absence of social capital, then policies should attemptto 'build' it,74and 'thicken' civil society.75 Thus, Wilson urges plannersto focus on the 'intangiblegoal' of building social capital.76 She acknowledgesthe problemsinvolved in this, since it is difficult to evaluate the current levels of social capital in a given context and then to measure what is gained as a result of a concerted policy intervention.Despite these methodological issues, Wilson urges planners to be facilitatory and reflexive, in much the same way as the PRA-based approachesoutlined above. At the level of macro-policy,the World Bank sees social capital underpinning a wide range of developmental initiatives.77On their dedicated social capital website (www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/index.htm) the Bank defines social capital as 'the institutions,relationships,and norms that shape the quality and quantity of society's social interactions', which can be found in families, communities, firms, civil society, the public sector, ethnicity and gender relations. Crucially, social capital contributesto economic prosperityand sustainability and should ideally entail horizontal and vertical associations that both promote social cohesion and prevent divisive parochialism. The concept also applies to the wider political and social environmentin which communitiesexist such that, following Putnam, social capital can encourage democracy and vice versa. To realise the potential of social capital in development, World Bank policy aims to foster broad-basedparticipationand partnershipsbetween the private sector, the state and civil society.78 While still a relatively new organising concept in World Bank policy, social capital is used to justify the creationof Social Funds. Social Funds have become an established policy device for general poverty alleviation and for cushioning the harsh effects of StructuralAdjustmentProgrammes.79 Since their inception in Bolivia in 1986 they now cover 30 countries in Africa and Latin America. Initially they channelledfunds throughNGOS which acted simply as implementing agencies. Over time this involvementhas increased,with the NGOSbecoming involved in programme design and in monitoring their effectiveness. This ensures that the beneficiaries remain empowered and do not become marginalised by powerful political actors. At present Social Funds are administered 256
by a national agency which sets, throughconsultation, the criteria for funding. NGOSthen bid to this agency for funds. At this stage, as Fox acknowledges,80 few independent studies have actually analysed the impacts of these programmes, although he suggests that Bank staff have to date failed to appreciate the complexity of local-national-international political processes. Social capital, then, is a wide-rangingconcept which is being used to explain a diverse range of developmentalprocesses and/orjustify policies based around it. Most analysts see it as a local phenomenonsince it involves trust,reciprocity and a civic-minded community spirit. However, it has recently been dislocated from local communities to explain such things as the actions of corrupt state actors,8'or the failure of privatisationschemes.82 A sustained critique of social capital is beyond the scope of this paper,83 but it is worth mentioning some of the problems concerning its localism. First, in Putnam's work we see an internist view of culture and politics. Those regions which are successful are those which have possessed high stocks of social capital for a long time. In Putnam'swords 'The historicalroots of the civic community
are astonishingly deep ... Stocks of social capital ... tend to be self-reinforcing
and cumulative'.84In this way regions are locked into a 'path dependency' whereby their initial stocks of social capital, whereverthey come from, inculcate a self-fulfilling cycle of prosperity.The corollary is that unsuccessful regions simply lacked and lack the proper social capital to develop. While the concept of social capital promises to provide a more nuanced understandingof local development, it actually reduces causality to a rigid determinism. Following from this culturalinternalismcomes a tendencyto ignore the state's role in enabling or destroying social capital. Tarrow re-visits Italian political history and shows that the South of the country was held in a semi-colonial relation to the North so that economic development and associational life were This means that contemporaryeconomic weaknesses consciously suppressed.85 and the social capital deficit are not connected to initial endowments. Similarly, Putzel adds that, in areas identified by Putnam as having high social capital, other political organisations were heavily involved, but Putnam chooses to In particular in the North, the communisttradeunions were active ignore them.86 in promoting political activism and civic life in general. One can only assume that Putnam omitted them because these were not 'legitimate' forms of social capital, preferringinsteadthe more benign activities like sports leagues and choir groups. It is this lack of attentionto the state's role and other forms of political organisationthat promptedEvans to talk of state-society synergy.87 Focusing on this role of the state, Fox theories the ways in which civil society 'thickens' and explains the 'uneven emergence of social capital under authoritarian regimes' .88 He sees this unevenness resulting from the interplay of the state's willingness and capacity to encourage or dismantle social capital, the contextualstrategiesof local political actors, and the effect of other organisations in enabling or disabling collective action. Together these causal processes help explain the spatial disparities in the 'thickness' of civil society, the ability to 'scale up' activity beyond the local and, more broadly, they challenge the path dependency of Putnam's approach.Likewise, Heller demonstratesthat there are close links between social capital formationand the state in the case of Kerala.89 257
reforms that are found The high levels of social developmentand redistributive between a demorelations of the reinforcing mutually are in Kerala products movement. labour a well organised state and cratic of conceptualisation The culturalinternalismthat is found in the contemporary social capital also has an importanteconomic dimension.Whethertacit or overt, the thrustof social capital theory is to strengtheneconomic growth. In this sense it reflects the colonisation of the social sciences by neoclassical economics as it This attemptsto give an economic rationaleto all 'non-economic' behaviour.90 allows the major lenders to sidestep the state and its relation to the global economy since the economic basis is not rendered problematic, simply the shortcomingsof local society in insertingitself into economic life in a cohesive and co-ordinatedmanner. Like modernisationtheory of old, the problem lies with the 'victims' of poverty and underdevelopmentand not with the wider political economy. Finally, there is a striking selectivity involved in the identification of the social phenomena which constitute social capital. By conflating or mis-specifying the relations between social processes (eg by focusing on trustor its absence) analystslike Putnamfail to really analyse where and how local conflicts arise. The most glaring ommission is class relations, in which a lack of 'cohesion', 'reciprocity' and 'trust' have obviously been analysed in great detail by marxianpolitical economists. So as Fine observes, 'social capital allows the World Bank to broaden its agenda whilst retaining continuitywith most of its practicesand prejudiceswhich include benign neglect of macro-relationsof power, preference for favoured NGOS and grassroots movements, and decentralizedinitiatives'.91Social capital theory combines the initiatives since it is economand participation problemsof both decentralisation ist while ignoring the wider political economy and places emphasis on local the role of local political processes and culturaltraditionswhile under-theorising state power. Social movements and radical democracy of post-Marxism in Over the past decade we have witnessed the emergence i 92 variousbranchesof the social sciences. Events in EasternEuropeat the end of the 1980s added 'real' political legitimacy to these academic projects, as did the rise of various social movements in the 'ThirdWorld'. The academic attack on Marxismwas based on its class reductionismand economic determinism,which produced over-generalisationsand seemingly unworkablepractical politics. In place of this class-based and statist politics the progressive Left have moved into towardsa more culturalpolitics in which difference(s)become incorporated The question immediatelyarises as to a more open and heterogeneouspolitics.93 which differences are most importantfor a criticalpolitics.94Although no single theory or term has been developed to encompass these changes in Left politics, 'radicaldemocracy'has become increasinglypopularand has replacedsocialism as a referencepoint. This section explores the emergence of radical democracy and evaluates the influence of these ideas on development theory. The development of post-Marxism owes much to Laclau and Mouffe's tional Marxist political analyses.95Laclau and Mouffe use the existence of 258
diverse 'new' social movements to supporttheir argumentfor the multitude of culturally constructed identities and collective struggles that cannot be represented by 'old' class movements such as trade unions. In the Third World context these movements became increasingly visible with deepening economic crises and crises of governance in the 1970s and 1980s.96In general it was felt that formal political institutions(the state, political parties and tradeunions) had become indivisible from the needs of the market. Hence new movements emerged which were local and sought to regain autonomy over livelihood decisions.97 These movements were pluralistic in the sense of lying outside major political alignments and were sometimes linked horizontally. Cultural considerationswere not subordinated to economic motives especially in valorising local knowledge over 'expert' systems. Escobar has elaborated on this emphasis on culture in social movements. Focusing on representationand discourse, he argues that 'the development discourse has been the central and most ubiquitous operatorof the politics of representationand identity in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin-Americain the post-World War II period'.98 As the representationsembedded in the development discourse suppresses local cultures, women, identities and histories, they function as sites of violence. This producesacts of culturalresistancein the form of grassrootsmovements, local knowledge and popularpower. The new anti-development grassroots movements that emerged in the 1980s, and the analysts that are representingthem within academic literature,are not searching for new
development alternatives but rather for alternatives to development. Escobar
identifies the defence of the local, ie the defence of cultural difference and livelihoods, as the main principlebehind these new forms of collective struggles. In a different context, Shiva presents the Chipko movement in India as the outcome of a fundamentalcontradictionbetween, on the one hand. a Western, masculine and nature-destroying science, technology and developmentparadigm and, on the other hand, local women's sustainableuse of nature for everyday livelihood needs.99 This literatureon social movements has been marked by some of the same tendencies towards essentialising the local as have been identified for the three previous topics. The basic argumentwithin this literatureis that social movements develop as forms of resistanceagainst the state and the market.Local civil society is conceptualised as a relatively autonomous site of material and symbolic resistance and empowerment.This implies that broadermaterial and political processes are analytically marginalised. First, regardingthe question of materialityversus cultural identity, it seems that consumption-based identity-lifestyle politics tends to be more visible in the First World, whereas livelihood struggles still dominate in the Third World.1?? This implies, at one level, that, in analysing many Third World struggles, identity is a problematicstartingpoint given that not all local political struggles are primarily about identity, despite superficial similarities with First World struggles. Thus, Schuurman notes in contrast to Escobar that many social movements are not 'anti' or 'post'-development,seeking to reject the values of critique of the centrality of class relations and class consciousness in convenmodernity, but are in fact the product of an 'abortedmodernityproject'.101 To
259
GILESMOHAN& KRISTIAN STOKKE
characterise Third World countries as post-industrial and postmodern is to wholly misinterprettheir histories of imperialism and underdevelopment.This then opens up the issue of culture and the transferability of radical democracy. It is not clear how the radical democrats could prove that anti-universalist politics is the solution to the non-Westerndemocraticvoid, since the very act of defining and debunking 'universals' assumes partiality.'02What both these observationspoints to is the heterogeneityof social movements which probably cannot be capturedin a single explanation,no matterhow 'unfixed' it might be. At the very least this requiresa more complete analysis of the relationsbetween materialityand identity. Second, regarding state-society relations, much of the literature on social movements has tended to see civil society and the state as separateand opposed spheres. While Laclau and Mouffe do not deny the existence of the state, they 'deny states any positivity and de-privilege them as sites of political struggle'.103 This leads to downplayingthe importanceof state power and the struggles over it at a time when states in general have become less accountable.The state is perceived as a site of subordination-as part and parcel of the oppressive system of capitalist exploitation and bureaucraticdomination that social movements resist.'04Political integrationwill inevitably underminesocial movements and give oppressive regimes a degree of political legitimacy. Thus it is argued that social movements are and must remain autonomousin regardto the institutionalised political system. This helps explain the assumption that the new social movements are anti-state.'05 While this may be true in many cases, some social movements are anythingbut progressivein this regardand seek accommodation within the state apparatusratherthan creating new political spaces outside it. Indeed, this blurs the line between the 'old' corporatistsocial movements and their newer replacements.In addition, it has become increasingly clear that the state is fully capable of co-opting these movements. Hellman has pointed out that this autonomyview is a very crude understanding of the relations between states and social movements. Political participationcan and does take place in a numberof ways with quite differentoutcomes for the movements in question:
The first outcome is the partialor total fulfilmentof the demands of the movement by some agency of the state ... The second possibility is the incorporationof an urbanor ruralmovement into the personalfollowing of a populist figure ... A third outcome is the incorporation of a geographicallyor thematicallyisolated movement that is highly specific in its demands into a broader-based political struggle led by a party or coalition of parties.'06.
What can be learntfrom recent analyses of social movements is that most cases are characterizedby a growing complexity of alliances and conflicts between collective actors in civil society and actors within the state. The institutionalised political system constitutes a set of negative or positive political opportunity structuresthat can facilitate or hampercollective action ratherthan simply being a monolithic 'other' for collective actors.107It is importantin this new democratic imaginary to realise the power of the state and not demean it. This 260
is importantin applying radical democracy as a theory of Real Politik, which Laclau and Mouffe are less able to do. Third, this discussion of social movements and the state also opens up a fundamentalquestion about the nature of civil society and its relation to the economy. Civil society is implicitly defined as a space of freedom from the state. By insisting upon the openness of the social the radicaldemocracyliteratureruns the risk of downplaying the constrainingeffects of marketforces. The non-state arena may be in one sense a space of political freedom but not of economic freedom, despite countervailing ideology.108 Meiksins Wood's analysis of the origins of civil society is instructivein clarifying this position.109 She argues that civil society emerged alongside capitalismand the modem state and is intimately tied to the concept of private propertyrights. In pre-capitalistsocieties political and economic power was inseparablebut under capitalist modernitythe market became separatedfrom the state and incorporatedin the newly formed arena outside the state known as civil society. As the state distanced itself from the 'autonomous'economy, a numberof political functions formerly carriedout by the state we are performed within civil society. These centre on the commodification of social life, including most obviously, though not exclusively, labour.Hence, 'it marks the creationof a completely new form of coercion, the market-the marketnot simply as a sphere of opportunity,freedom and choice, but as a compulsion, a necessity, a social discipline'. o Thus the emergence of new social movements does not necessarily indicate that these are cultural phenomenadevoid of materiality.' This materiality of identities means that, while class may not be the only political referent,it is not possible to equate it with all other political identities, since the concept of class is rooted in capitalist exploitation. Some bases for identity, such as sexual orientation,are not inherentlyexploitative (though they have become so) and could exist in any political-economic system, whereas class is irreduciblylinked to capitalistexploitation.The pluralityof identities and the non-fixity of social relations mean that capitalismcould 'potentiallyendorse any-even exploitative-social relations',112 or, as Meiksins Wood ironically exclaims, 'In what sense could it be "democratic"to celebrate class difference?'.13 It seems that we need to move beyond a simplistic dualism of culture-materialismand its manifestation in an identity-class dichotomy. As Coole notes, 'diverse classes will need to be theoriseddifferentlyand complexly II4 In this and not only as differential positions vis-a-vis capitalist production'. way the political imaginary can accommodate both material struggles and identityunderan increasinglyglobalising capitalism,but be sensitive to differential causality attached to an identity position. Fourth and finally, much of the new literatureon social movements has a problematic interpretationof the local vs the non-local. This issue of scale (local/global) has been especially central within recent discussions about the ways in which globalisation has been or could be resisted. These discussions commonly reject the 'inevitabilism'of much globalisationdiscourse and seek 'to produce, or at least make a contributionto producing, concrete strategies of resistance'.115 As globalisationis multiple so too must be these resistances.Chin and Mittelmanargue that: 'Undeclaredforms of resistance conducted individu261
MOHAN & KRISTIAN GILES STOKKE
ally and collectively in submergednetworks parallel openly declared forms of resistance embodied in wars of movement and position, and counter-move*16 However, resistance is not always progressive, as can be seen in the ments'. rise of extreme right-wingmovementsacross Europeand the USA. Additionally, much resistance is largely reactive and should not be confused with a critical political conscience. The key then is to use resistance as a springboardinto imagining and creating altemative futures.Castells describes this as a transition from collective actions based on resistance identities to struggles based on project identities. 17 One line has been to emphasise resistancefrom 'below', 118 which has seen a retreatinto the localisms identified earlier and underpinnedby a philosophy of anti-development. Pietersecriticises these strategiesfor simply seeking 'enclaves that provide shelter from the storm' which then precludes the possibility of 9 For example, in the 1990s linking them togetherin a concertedglobal strategy." in SouthernNigeria the Ogoni people mounteda resistancecampaignagainstthe Nigerian governmentand the oil corporationShell.'20Although centred around environmentaldegradation,the resistancemovement was place- and ethnicallybased because the Ogoni people were being persecutedby the Nigerian state and, allegedly, indirectly by Shell itself. Much of the resistance was therefore reactive. The Movement for the Survivalof the Ogoni People (Mosop) called for greaterpolitical recognition within the Nigerian Federation,recompensefor the damage caused by years of oil productionand broaderprocesses of self-determination. Initially, MOSOPwas successful in campaigningwith international organisations such as Survival International. By the mid-1990s it was so vociferous that the governmentattemptedto silence it though repression.This reached its height in 1995 when the governmentimprisonedthe MOSOPleaders on trumpedup chargesof being behind local killings. In Novemberthese nine MOSOPleaders, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, were executed, which caused internationaloutcries but only limited official sanctions.It seems that the opposition has waned since then. What this example shows is that local resistance by itself cannot challenge global and, in this case, nationalforces. There is thereforea need to 'breakout of the local-primary or exclusive emphasis on the local can also lead groups to become colloquial and blinkeredto other acts of resistance aroundthe world or even their own regions, leaving them exposed to defeat or even destruction by not building sufficient social alliances'.'21 Resistance must be 'localised, regionalisedand globalised at the same time'.122 The linkages between scale and politics have become more complex, but more crucial, in these global times. As the driving forces behind local collective actions are becoming global and globalisationis causing a transformation and hollowing out of the state, 'scaling up' of multiple localisms is beginning to take place, albeit tentatively.What we are seeing are 'political spaces otherthanthose boundedby the parameters of the nation-state system-Global civil society has to recognise states but is not state-centric-while global civil society must interact with states, the code of global civil society denies the primacyof states or their sovereign rights'.123 So in the same way that economic globalisationworks outside and across states, this form of politics works underneathand beyond states. McGrew calls it 'radical 262
PARTICIPATORYDEVELOPMENTAND EMPOWERMENT
communitarianism'because it 'stresses the creation of alternative forms of global social, economic and political organization based generally upon the communitarianprinciples: that is principles which emerge from the life and conditions of particularcommunities,from local communitiesto communitiesof interestor affection'."24 Cruciallythis is often a 'virtual' meeting in hyperspace, so Benedict Anderson's notion of an 'imagined community' is furtherstretched across space.'25In cyberspace 'resistance finds its instantaneousaudience'.126 Although a long way off, we are seeing limited moves towards a world of computer democracy. The most noted and quoted example of this are the Zapatistas, who spread their message around the world via the Internet;this has been picked up by Western activists and academics, the so-called 'redjet set',127 as a 'postmodern' social movement.'28The immediate campaign called for a range of changes, but the includingethnic recognition,economic reformand political participation, Zapatistas message transcends the local. SubcomandanteMarcos is seen to embody the essence of global civil society as he promotes the multiple 'selves' which constitute us. In response to the question 'who is he?', the reply came 'Marcos is gay in San Francisco, a black person in South Africa, Asian in Europe, a Jew in Germany ... a feminist in a political party. In other words, Marcos is a human being in this world. Marcos is every untolerated,oppressed, exploited minority that is beginning to speak and every majoritythat must shut up and listen'.'29The rallying call is that people are exploited along different lines and it is this common experience that will form the basis of political change. This example suggests that there is a tension between territorial,place-based forms in which the state is a player but is no longer politics and deterritorialised the pivot which mediates the global and the local. However, if transformations of the global political economy are to happen, concerted efforts must be made to reshape global governance. As Pieterse comments, this 'involves a double movement, from local reform upwardand from global reform downward-each level of governance, from the local to the global, plays a contributingpart'.130 Although clearly on the agenda, the shape and substanceof such reforms are, as yet, unknown.Debates aroundreformingthe UN system have been most widely already exists. However, mooted, given that much of the political infrastructure as currentlyconstituted, these organisationsare undemocraticso that we need 'an open and democratic organisationwith the mandate and power to set and enforce rules holding these corporationsacross national borders democratically accountableto the people and priorities of the nations where they operate'.'31 Only by multiplying democratic spaces in such ways will more empowering forms of development take place. Conclusion This paper has argued that the paradoxical consensus over the role of 'local participation'in a globalising world is fraughtwith dangers. Local participation can be used for different purposes by very different ideological stakeholders.It can underplay the role of the state and transnationalpower holders and can, 263
overtly or inadvertently,cement Eurocentricsolutions to Third World development. There is a need for critical analyses of the political use of 'the local', but also a need to develop a political imaginary that does not repeat these weaknesses. Recent discourses about the local within development studies revolve around a binary opposition between the state and civil society. Civil society is understood as an alternativeto inefficient and unresponsivestate institutionsor as the primarysite of resistanceagainst the state and the market.This is in opposition to recent trendswithin studies of politics and development,which are characterised by a growing emphasison state-society relations ratherthan seeing the state According to the 'state-in-society' and civil society as separate spheres.132 perspectiveproposedby Migdal et al,133 there is a multiplicityof links between actors within the state and in society. These actors will have varying degrees of political autonomy and capacity to define and implement an agenda within a political arena.The relationshipbetween the state and society can be characterised by strategic engagementor disengagement,but the image of the state and society as discrete spheres cannot be sustained. In a similar way, the new localism in development studies has tended to essentialise the local as discrete places that host relatively homogeneous communities or, alternatively,constitute sites of grassroots mobilisation and resistance. This goes against recent understandingsof place, for example within humangeography.Among geographersit has become common sense that places are constitutedby economic, social, culturaland political relations and flows of commodities, informationand people that extend far beyond a given locality. Thus, what is requiredis 'a global sense of place' ratherthan conceptualisations of the local as discrete communities.134 This has become especially clear with contemporary globalisation processes. These observations do not imply an outrightrejection of the local as a basis for empowerment.The point is rather that this political project will have to overcome binary opposites such as locaVglobaland state/civil society in order to be relevant. Both authors would like to acknowledge and thank the British Council and Norwegian Research Council for their support of this collaborative research.
Notes
1R Peet & M Watts, 'Liberationecology: development,sustainability,and environmentin an age of market
triumphalism', in Peet & Watts (eds), Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development and Social Movements,London: Routledge, 1996, pp 1-45. 2 C Leys, The Rise and Fall of Development Theory, Oxford: James Currey, 1996; and F Schuurman(ed) Beyond the Impasse: New Directions in Development Theory, London: Zed, 1993. 3 Peet & Watts, 'Liberationecology'; and S Corbridge,'Development ethics: distance, difference, plausibility, Ethics, Place and Environment,1(1), 1998, pp 35-53. 4J Toye, Dilemmas of Development: Reflections on the Counter-Revolutionin Development Economics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. S World Bank, WorldDevelopmentReport 1997: The State in a Changing World,Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1997; World Bank, WorldDevelopmentReport 1990: Poverty, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990; and World Bank, StrengtheningLocal Governmentsin Sub-SaharanAfrica, EDI Policy Seminar Report Series 21, Washington,DC: World Bank, 1990. 6 G Hyden, 'Civil society, social capital, and development: dissection of a complex discourse', Studies in
264
AND EMPOWERMENT DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATORY

ComparativeInternational Development, 32(1), 1997, pp 3-30; and C Mcllwaine, 'Civil society and development geography', Progress in Human Geography, 22(3), 1998; pp 415-424. WorldBank, WorldDevelopmentReport: TheState in a Changing World,Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress, 1997; and V Desai & R Imrie, 'The new managerialismin local governance:North-South dimensions', Third World Quarterly, 19(4), 1998; pp 635-650. 8 A Norton & T Stephens,Participationin PovertyAssessments,Washington,DC: World Bank, Social Policy and Resettlement Division, 1995; and, J Holland & J Blackburn (eds), Whose Voice? Participatory Research and Policy Change, London: IntermediateTechnology Publications, 1998. 9 R Putnam, 'The prosperouscommunity:social capital and public life', The American Prospect, 13, 1993; and Putnam, 'Bowling alone: America's declining social capital', Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 1995; pp 65-78; and J Harriss& P De Renzio, 'Missing link' or analyticallymissing? The concept of social capital: an introductory bibliographicessay', Journal of InternationalDevelopment,9(7), 1997, pp 919-937. 10J Friedmann,Empowerment,The Politics of Alternative Development, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992; and M Castells, The Power of Identity, Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. 1 E Laclau & C Mouffe, Hegemonyand Socialist Strategy: Towardsa Radical Democratic Politics, London: Verso, 1985. 12 A Escobar, EncounteringDevelopment: The Making and Unmakingof the Third World, Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1995; W Sachs, The DevelopmentDictionary:A Guide to Knowledgeas Power, London:Zed, 1992; and V Shiva, Staying Alive: Women,Ecology and Development,London:Zed, 1989. 3 K Stokke, 'Globalization and the politics of poverty alleviation in the South', Norwegian Journal of Geography,52, 1998, pp 221-228. 14M Mayo & G Craig, 'Communityparticipation and empowerment:the humanface of structural adjustment or tools for democratictransformation?', in G Craig & M Mayo (eds), Community A Reader Empowerment: in Participationand Development,London: Zed, 1995. 5 P Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, London: Penguin, 1996. 16 Laclau & Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Mayo & Craig, 'Communityparticipationand empowerment'. 18 S Latouche,In the Wakeof AffluentSociety: An Exploration of Post-Development,London: Zed, 1994. 19J-K Gibson-Graham,'Identity and economic plurality:rethinkingcapitalism and "capitalisthegemony"', Environmentand Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 1995, pp 275-282. 20 D Slater, 'Territorial power and the peripheralstate: the issue of decentralization, Developmentand Change, 20, 1989, pp 501-531. 21 Desai & Imrie, 'The new managerialismin local governance'. 22 G Mohan, 'Adjustment and decentralization in Ghana: a case of diminished sovereignty', Political Geography, 15(1), 1996, pp 75-94; and M Mamdan, Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism, Oxford: James Currey, 1996. 23 Mohan, 'Adjustment and decentralization in Ghana';M Karim,Breakingboundariesto participation in local governance:empoweringthe People's Organizations(POs) in Bangladesh' unpublisheddraft, 1999; J Fox & Aradna, Decentralization and Rural Development in Mexico: CommunityParticipation in Oaxaca's Municipal Fund Program, La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego; and L Engberg-Pedersen, 'The limitations of political space in Burkina Faso: local organisations decentralisationsand poverty reduction', unpublisheddraft, nd. 24 World Bank, StrengtheningLocal Governmentsin Sub-SaharanAfrica. 25 Leys, The Rise and Fall of Development Theory. 26M Nabli & J Nugent. 'The new institutional economics and its applicability to development', World Development, 17(9), 1989, pp 1333-1347. 27 D Williams & T Young, 'Governance,the World Bank and liberal theory', Political Studies, 42, 1994, pp 84-100; and D Williams, 'Constructingthe economic space: the World Bank and the making of homo oeconomicus', Millennium:Journal of InternationalStudies, 28(1), 1999, pp 79-99. G Cheema & D Rondinelli, Decentralization and Development: Policy Implementationin Developing Countries,London: Sage, 1983. M Kochen & K Deutsch, Decentralization: Sketches Towards a Rational Theory, Cambridge, MA: 3Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain, 1980. 0 D Rondinelli,J McCullough & R Johnson, 'Analysing decentralization policies in developing countries:a political-economy framework',Developmentand Change, 20, 1989, pp 57-87. 3 World Bank, WorldDevelopmentReport, Washington,DC: World Bank, 1983. 321Ibid, p 123. 33 World Bank, WorldDevelopmentReport: The state in a changing world. 34 Karim, 'Breakingboundariesto participationin local governance'. 35 R Chambers,'The origins and practiceof participatory ruralappraisal,WorldDevelopment,22(7), 1994, pp 953-969. 36 A Inglis & S Guy, 'Scottish forestrypolicy U-turn:was PRA in Laggan behindit?'; in Holland& Blackburn, Whose Voice? ParticipatoryResearch and Policy Change, pp 80-84.
265

37 R Chambers,WhoseReality Counts?Putting the First Last, London:Intermediate Technology Publications,
1997. Brown, 'Seeking the consensus: populist tendencies at the interfacebetween researchand consultancy', paperpresentedat the workshopFrom Consultancyto Research',Universityof Wales, Swansea, 1994; and Holland & Blackburn,Whose Voice? 39 Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 40Chambers,Whose Reality Counts? 41 R Chambers, 'Participatoryrural appraisal (PRA): analysis and experience', World Development, 22(9), 1994, pp 1253-1268; and N Nelson & S Wright, 'Participationand power', in Nelson & Wright (eds) Technology PublicaPower and ParticipatoryDevelopment: Theory and Practice, London: Intermediate tions, 1995, pp 1-18. rural rural appraisal' and Chambers, 'Participatory 42 Chambers, 'The origins and practice of participatory researchand developappraisal(PRA)'; and Chambers, 'Paradigmshifts and the practice of participatory ment', in Nelson & Wright, Power and ParticipatoryDevelopment,pp 30-42. research'. Ethics, 4 G Mohan, 'Not so distant not so strange:the personal and the political in participatory Place and Environment,2(l), 1999, pp 41-54. 44 A Goebel, 'Process, perceptionand power: notes from participatory researchin a Zimbabweanresettlement area', Developmentand Change, 29, 1998, pp 277-305. 45 Brown, 'Seeking the consensus'; and T Brass, 'Old conservatismin "new"clothes', TheJournal of Peasant Studies, 22(3), 1995, pp 516-540. and power', pp 1-18. 46Nelson & Wright, 'Participation 47 J Pottier & P Orone, 'Consensus or cover-up? The limitations of group meetings', in IIED (International Institutefor Environmentand Development) (ed), Critical ReflectionsFrom Practice, PLA Notes, No 24, London: IIED. 48 P Richards,ParticipatoryRural Appraisal:A Quick and Dirty Critique,PLA Notes, No 24, London: IIED, 1995, pp 13-16. 49 Goebel, 'Process, perceptionand power'; J Milimo, A Norton & D Owen, 'The impact of PRA approaches and methods on policy and practice:the ZambiaPRA in Holland & Blackburn,Whose Voice? pp. 103-1 11; researchfor policy change', in Holland& Blackburn,WhoseVoice? and A Norton, 'Analysing participatory pp 179-191. Chambers,Whose Reality Counts? 51 Ibid, p 2. 52 M action research:the "Lasttemptationof saint"', DevelopmentAlternatives,XV, Rahnema,'Participatory 1990, pp 199-226. 53R Young, White Mythologies: Writing History and the West, London: Routledge, 1990; and Goebel, 'Process, perceptionand power'. 54 K Kenneh, African Indentities: Race, Nation and Culture in Ethnography,Pan-Africanismand Black Literatures,Routledge: London, 1999. 55 A Rew, 'The organizational theory', in R Grillo connection:multi-disciplinary practiceand anthropological No 23, London:Tavistock, & A Rew (eds), Social Anthropologyand DevelopmentPolicy, ASA monograph compromise:should the piper call 1985, pp 185-197; and, M Redclift, 'Policy researchand anthropological the tune?', in Grillo & Rew Social Anthropologyand DevelopmentPolicy, pp 198-202. 56 C Young, 'The African colonial state and its political legacy', in D Rothchild & N Chazan (eds), The Precarious Balance: State and Society in Africa, Boulder co: Westview, 1998; and M Mamdani,Citizens Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism, Oxford: James Currey, 1996. and Subject: Contemporary 57 G Mohan, 'Globalisation in Africa', in E Kofman& G Youngs and governance:the paradoxesof adjustment (eds), Globalisation: theory and practice, London: Pinter, 1996, pp 452-480; and C Baylies, '"Political conditionality"and democratisation',Review of African Political Economy, 65, 1995, pp 321-337. 58 W Nyamugasira,'NGOs and advocacy:how well are the poor represented?', Developmentin Practice, 8(3), 1998, pp 297-308. 59Karim, 'Breaking boundariesto participation,in local governance'. 60 Nyamugasira,'NGOs and advocacy'. 61 J Blackburn& J Holland, 'Generalintroduction',in Blackburn& Holland (eds) Who Changes? InstitutionTechnology Publications, 1998, pp 1-10; and alizing Participatingin Development,London: Intermediate Holland & Blackburn,Whose Voice? 62 A Whaites, 'NGOS, civil society and the state: avoiding theoretical extremes in real world issues', aDevelopmentin Practice, 8(3), 1998, pp 343-353. 63 Putnam, 'The prosperouscommunity'; and Putnam, 'Bowling alone'. 64 B Fine, 'The developmentalstate is dead-long live social capital?', Developmentand Change, 30, 1999, 1-19. 65 pp Harriss & De Renzio, '"Missing link" or analytically missing?' 66J Putzel, 'Accounting for the "darkside" of social capital: readingRobertPutnamon democracy',Journal of InternationalDevelopment,9(7), 1997, pp 939-949.
38 D
266

67M
Woolcock, 'Social capital and economic development: towards a theoretical synthesis and policy framework', Theory and Society, 27(2), 1998, pp 151-208. 68 World Bank, WorldDevelopmentReport: The State in a Changing World;and Fine, 'The developmental state is dead'. 69 M Levi, 'Social and unsocial capital:a review essay of RobertPutnam'smaking democracywork', Politics and Society, 24(1), 1996, pp 45-55. 70 A Bebbington,Social capital and ruralintensification: local organizationsand islands of sustainabilityin the rural Andes, The Geographical Journal, 163(2), 1997, 189-197; A Bebbington, A Kopp & D Rubinoff, 'From chaos to strength?social capital, rural people's organizationsand sustainable rural development', paper preparedfor the FAO for a workshop on pluralism, forestry and rural development, Rome, 1997; L Brown & D Ashman, 'Participation,social capital, and intersectoralproblem solving: African and Asian cases, World Development, 24(9), 1996, pp 1467-1479; P Evans, 'Introduction:development strategies across the public-private divide', in Evans (ed), State-Society Synergy: Governmentand Social Capital in Development, IAS Research Series No 94, Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1997, pp 1-10; and P Wilson, 'Building social capital: a learning agenda for the twenty-firstcentury, Urban Studies, 34(5-6), 1997, pp 745-760. 71D Narayan & L Pritchett, 'Cents and sociability: household income and social capital in ruralTanzania', Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(4), 1999, pp 871-897. 72 Brown & Ashman, 'Participation,social capital, and intersectoralproblem solving'. 74 Bebbington et al, 'From chaos to strength?'. 75 Wilson, 'Building social capital'. 7 J Fox, 'How does civil society thicken?' The political constructionof social capital in rural Mexico, in Evans, State-Society Synergy, pp 119-149. 76 Wilson, 'Building social capital'. 77J Fox, 'The World Bank and social capital: contesting the concept in practice', Journal of International Development, 9(7), 1997, pp 963-971. 78 J Wolfensohn, The Challenges of Inclusion, Address to the WorldBank Board of Governors,Washington, DC: World Bank, 1997. 79F Stewart & W van der Geest, 'Adjustment and social funds: political panacea or effective poverty and Poverty; Options and Choices, London:Routledge, 1995, pp reduction?',in F Stewart(ed), Adjustment 108-137. 80 Fox, 'The World Bank and social capital'. 81 J Bayart, S Ellis & B Hibou, The Criminilizationof the State in Africa, Oxford: James Currey, 1999. 82 www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/scwhyrell.htm. 83 Harris, De Renzio, ' "Missing link" or analytically missing?'. G Hyden, 'Civil society, social capital and development: dissection of a complex discourse', Studies in Comparative International Development', 32(1), 1997, pp 3-30; and Fine, 'The developmental state is dead'. 84 Putnam, 'The prosperouscommunity'. 85 S Tarrow, 'Making social science work across space and time: a critical reflection on Robert Putnam's "MakingDemocracy Work"', American Political Science Review, 90(2), 1996, pp 389-397. 86 Putzel, 'Accounting for the "darkside" of social capital'. 87 Evans, 'Introduction: development strategies across the public-private divide'. 88 Fox, 'How does civil society thicken?'. 89 P Heller, 'Social capital as a product of class mobilisation and state intervention:industrial workers in Kerala, India', WorldDevelopment, 24(6), 1996, pp 1055-1071. 90Fine, 'The developmental state is dead'. 9' Ibid, p 12. 92 D Booth, 'Marxismand developmentsociology: interpreting the impasse', WorldDevelopment, 13(7), 1985, pp 761-787; D Slater, 'The political meanings of development', in Schuurman,Beyond the Impasse, pp 93-112; S Makdisi, C Casarino& R Karl, 'Introduction: Marxism, communism, and history', in Makdisi, Casarino & Karl (eds), Marxism Beyond Marxism, New York: Routledge, 1996, pp 1-13; and N P Mouzelis, Post-MarxistAlternatives: The Constructionof Social Orders, London: Macmillan, 1990. 9 Escobar & S Alvarez, The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy and Democracy, Boulder, CO: Westview, 1992; and K Mercer, 'Welcome to the jungle: identity and diversity in postmodem politics', in J Rutherford(ed), Identity:Community,Culture,Difference, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1990, pp 43-71. 94D Harvey, 'Class relations, social justice and the politics of difference', in J Squires (ed), Principle Positions: Postmodernismand the Rediscoveryof Value, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1993, pp 5-120; and E Meiksins Wood, Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1995. 96 Laclau & Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. 96J Haynes, Democracy and Civil Society in the Third World, Politics and New Political Movements, Cambridge:Polity Press, 1997; and S Lindberg & A Sverrison, (eds), Social Movementsin Development, The Challenge of Globalizationand Democratization,Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997.
267
GILES MOHAN & KRISTIAN STOKKE 97A Escobar, 'Reflections on "Development".grassroots approaches and alternativepolitics in the Third World', Futures, 24(5), 1992, pp 411-436. 98 Escobar, EncounteringDevelopment,p 214. 99Shiva, Staying Alive. ' M Redclift, SustainableDevelopment:Exploringthe Contradictions,London:Routledge, 1987; G C Spivak & D Plotke, 'A dialogue on democracy', in D Trend (ed), Radical Democracy: Identity, Citizenshipand the State, New York: Routledge, 1996, pp 209-222. 101 Schuurman,Beyond the Impasse. 102 ', and Spivak & Plotke, 'A dialogue on democracy'. Escobar, 'Reflections on "Development" 103 B Jessop, State Theory:Putting Capitalist States in their Place, Cambridge:Polity Press, 1990. 104 The Politics of AlternativeDevelopEscobar,EncounteringDevelopment;and J Friedmann,Empowerment ment, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. 105 B Epstein, 'Radicaldemocracyand culturalpolitics: what aboutclass/whataboutpolitical power', in Trend, Radical Democracy, pp 127-139. 106J A Hellman, 'The study of new social movements in Latin America and the question of autonomy', in Escobar & Alvarez, The Making of Social Movementsin Latin America. 107 D McAdam, J D McCarthy & M N Zald, Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities,Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1996; and S Tarrow, Power in Movement. Social Movements and Contentious Politics, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1998. 108 C West, Keeping Faith: Philosophy and Race in America, New York: Routledge, 1993. 109MeiksinsWood, Democracy Against Capitalism. "?Ibid, p 252. 1 N Shanmugaratnam,'Encountering postdevelopment and the end of the Third World', Forum for DevelopmentStudies, 2, 1997, pp 329-339. 112 R Hennessy, 'Queer theory, left politics', in Makdisi, et al, Marxism Beyond Marxism, pp 214-242. 3 Meiksins Wood, Democracy Against Capitalism. 114 D Coole, 'Is class a difference that makes a difference?' Radical Philosophy, 77, 1996, pp 17-25. 115 B Gills, 'Editorial: and the "politics of resistance"', New Political Economy,2(1), 1997, pp "globalisation" 11-15. 116 CChin & J Mittelman,'Conceptualising resistanceto globalisation,New Political Economy, 2(1), 1997, pp 25-37. 117 Castells, The Power of Identity. 118 R Falk, 'Resisting "globalisation-from-above" ', New Political Econthrough "globalisation-from-below" omy, 2(1), 1997, pp 17-24. 1J Pieterse, 'Globalisation and emancipation:from local empowermentto global reform', New Political Economy, 2(1), 1997, pp 79-92. 120 C Obi, 'Globalisationand local resistance: the case of the Ogoni versus Shell', New Political Economy, 2(1), 1997, pp 137-148. 121 L Amore et al, 'Overturning resisting the teleological, reclaiming the "political"', New "globalisation": Political Economy, 2(1), 1997, pp 179-195. resistance to globalisation'. 122 Chin & Mittelman, 'Conceptualising 123 R Lipschutz, 'Reconstructingworld politics: the emergence of global civil society', Millennium, 21(3), 1992, pp 389-420; and Hyden 'Civil society, social capital, and development'. 124 A McGrew, 'Democracy beyond borders?Globalizationand the reconstruction of democratic theory and Polity Press, 1995, pp 231-266. of Democracy, Cambridge: practice', in Mcgrew (ed), The Transformation 125 B Anderson,Imagined Communities: Reflectionson the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London:Verso, 1983. 126 Chin & Mittelman, 'Conceptualisingresistance to globalisation'. 127 R Debray, 'A guerrilla with a difference', New Left Review, 218, 1996, pp 128-137. 128 R Burbach,'For a Zapatistastyle postmodernist perspective',MonthlyReview, 47(10), 1996, pp 34-41; and G Esteva & M Prakash,Grassroots Post-modernism:Remakingthe Soil of Cultures,London: Zed, 1998. 129 H Cleaver, 'Zapatistas'Documents of the New Mexican Revolution, Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 1994. 130 Pieterse, 'Globalisationand emancipation'. 131 D Korten, 'Your mortal enemy', GuardianSupplement,21 October 1998, pp 4-5. 132 Fox, 'How does civil society thicken?';and 0 Tornquist,Politics and Development.A Critical Introduction, London: Sage, 1999. 133 J S Migdal, A Kohli & V Shue, State Power and Social Forces, Domination and Transformation in the Third World, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1994. 34 D Massey, Space, Place and Gender, Cambridge:Polity Press, 1994.
268

Mohan and Stokke

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Mohan and Stokke

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Third World Quarterly

Third World Quarterly, Vol 21, No 2, pp 247-268, 2000

GILES MOHAN & KRISTIAN STOKKE

PARTICIPATORYDEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT

GILESMOHAN& KRISTIAN STOKKE

PARTICIPATORYDEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT

GILES MOHAN & KRISTIAN STOKKE

PARTICIPATORYDEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT

GILES MOHAN & KRISTIAN STOKKE

PARTICIPATORYDEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT

GILES MOHAN & KRISTIAN STOKKE

PARTICIPATORYDEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT

GILES MOHAN & KRISTIAN STOKKE

PARTICIPATORYDEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT

GILESMOHAN& KRISTIAN STOKKE

PARTICIPATORYDEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT

MOHAN & KRISTIAN GILES STOKKE

GILES MOHAN & KRISTIAN STOKKE

AND EMPOWERMENT DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPATORY

GILES MOHAN & KRISTIAN STOKKE

PARTICIPATORYDEVELOPMENT AND EMPOWERMENT

S-ar putea să vă placă și