Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Anthropology,DevelopmentandthePostModernChallenge
Pageii
Anthropology,CultureandSociety
SeriesEditors:
DrRichardA.Wilson,UniversityofSussex
ProfessorThomasHyllandEriksen,UniversityofOslo
IdentityandAffect:
ExperiencesofIdentityinaGlobalisingWorld
EditedbyJOHNR.CAMPBELLANDALANREW
WomenofaLesserCost:
FemaleLabour,ForeignExchangeandPhilippineDevelopment
SYLVIACHANTANDCATHYMCILWAINE
EthnicityandNationalism:
AnthropologicalPerspectives
THOMASHYLLANDERIKSEN
SmallPlaces,LargeIssues:
AnIntroductiontoSocialandCulturalAnthropology
THOMASHYLLANDERIKSEN
LifeontheOutside:
TheTamilDisporaandLongDistanceNationalism
IVINDFUGLERUD
PowerandItsDisguises:
AnthropologicalPerspectivesonPolitics
JOHNGLEDHILL
AnthropologicalPerspectivesonKinship
LADISLAVHOLY
AnthropologyoftheSelf:
TheIndividualinCulturalPerspective
BRIANMORRIS
NewDirectionsinEconomicAnthropology
SUSANANAROTZKY
AnthropologyandCulturalStudies
EditedbySTEPHENNUGENTANDCRISSHORE
BeingThere:
FieldworkinAnthropology
EditedbyC.W.WATSON
HumanRights,CultureandContext:
AnthropologicalPerspectives
EditedbyRICHARDA.WILSON
Pageiii
Anthropology,DevelopmentandthePostModernChallenge
KatyGardnerandDavidLewis
Pageiv
Firstpublished1996byPlutoPress
345ArchwayRoad,LondonN65AA
and22883QuicksilverDrive,
Sterling,VA201662012,USA
Copyright1996KatyGardnerandDavidLewis
TherightofKatyGardnerandDavidLewistobeidentifiedastheauthorsofthisworkhasbeenassertedbytheminaccordancewiththeCopyright,Designsand
PatentsAct1988.
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Acataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefrom
theBritishLibrary.
ISBN0745307469(hbk)
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationDataareavailable
Impression:999897543
DesignedandProducedforPlutoPressby
ChaseProductionServices,ChippingNorton,OX75QR.
Typesetfromdiskby
StanfordDTPServices,Northampton
PrintedinGreatBritain
Pagev
Contents
Preface viii
Acknowledgements xi
Glossary
DevelopmentJargon xii
AnthropologicalJargon xiv
Acronyms xvi
1.Anthropology,DevelopmentandtheCrisisofModernity 1
DevelopmentinRuins 1
Development:HistoryandMeanings 3
CapitalismandColonialism:17001949 3
ThePostColonialEra:1949Onwards 6
The'AidIndustry' 8
TheoriesofDevelopment 12
Modernisation 12
DependencyTheory 16
TheDemiseofDevelopmentTheory 20
The1990s:TheAgeofPostModernity? 20
PostModernismandAnthropology 22
AnthropologyandPostDevelopment:Movingon 24
2.ApplyingAnthropologyAnHistoricalBackground 26
Anthropologists,SocialChangeandCulturalRelativism 27
TheOriginsofAppliedAnthropologyintheUK 29
TheOriginsofAppliedAnthropologyintheUS 30
Anthropology,ColonialismandAsymmetricalPower 32
PostWarAppliedAnthropology 34
AppliedDevelopmentRolesforAnthropologists 41
AppliedAnthropologistsandDevelopmentProjects 44
AppliedAnthropologyandAdvocacy 46
Conclusion 48
Pagevi
3.TheAnthropologyofDevelopment 50
Anthropologists,ChangeandDevelopment 50
TheSocialandCulturalEffectsofEconomicChange 53
RuraltoUrbanMigrationand'Detribalisation' 53
AgriculturalChange:Polarisation 54
Capitalismandthe'WorldSystem' 57
TheGenderedEffectsofEconomicChange 60
TheSocialandCulturalEffectsofDevelopmentProjects(andWhythey 62
Fail)
TheInternalWorkingsandDiscoursesofthe'AidIndustry' 68
Conclusion 75
4.SubvertingtheDiscourseKnowledgeandPractice 77
Access 79
Case1.Albania:DifferentialAccesstoRuralResourcesinthePost 80
CommunistEra
Case2.MaliSudRuralDevelopmentProject:Inequalitybetween 81
Communities
Case3.LandRightsinCalcutta:InequalitybetweenHouseholds 83
Case4.Women'sCreditGroupsinBangladesh:InequalityWithin 84
Households
Effects 87
Case5.TheKaribaDam:TheEffectsofResettlement 88
Case6.TheMaasaiHousingProject:TechnologicalChange 90
Control 93
WorkingwithLocalGroupsandInstitutions 93
Case7.LabourWelfareinTeaPlantations:EnablingControl 95
AppropriateOrganisationalStructures 97
AppropriateCommunication 99
Conclusion 100
5.NewDirectionsPracticeandChange 103
PovertyFocusedAidand'IncomeGeneration' 104
'TargetGroups' 105
NonGovernmentalOrganisations(NGOs) 107
'Participation' 110
ParticipatoryResearchMethodologies 113
'Empowerment' 116
FarmingSystemsResearch 119
Pagevii
CommunityDevelopment 121
WomeninDevelopmentandGenderandDevelopment 121
Conclusion 125
6.AnthropologistswithinDevelopment 128
AnthropologistsasConsultants 128
WorkingwithinAgencies 130
TheCompromisebetweenPureandApplied 132
AchievingInfluence 133
TheQuestionofEthics 135
Case1.EvaluatingRuralCooperativeTraining 136
PointsforDiscussion 140
Case2.DisasterPreventionCycloneShelters,CommunityParticipation 141
andNGOs
Background 141
TheCycloneShelterCumPrimarySchoolProject 143
PointsforDiscussion 146
Case3.TheFishFarm'theTailWaggingtheDog'? 147
PointsforDiscussion 150
Conclusion 151
7.BeyondDevelopment? 153
UnpickingDevelopment 154
AnthropologyandDevelopment:Movingon 155
Workingfromwithin 158
HowshouldAnthropologistsBecomeInvolved? 160
TheEthicsofInvolvement 161
CooptionbyDevelopmentalDiscourse 162
BreakingoutoftheDiscourse 164
Beyond'AnthropologistsasExperts' 165
Conclusion 167
NotesandReferences 169
Bibliography 174
Index 186
Figures
Figure1.1 9
ResourceFlowsandPotentialPartnershipLinksbetweenDifferentTypesof
DevelopmentAgencies
Figure2.1 45
TheProjectCycle
Pageviii
Preface
Wehavechosentowritethisbookfortwomainreasons.Thefirstisthat,toourknowledgeatleast,thereisnosinglebookinexistencewhichattemptstobring
togetherthevarioushistories,opinionsanddebateswhichhaveemergedduringtherelationshipsbetweendevelopmentpeopleandanthropologistsinthe
contemporaryperiod.LucyMair'spathbreakingAnthropologyandDevelopment,publishedin1984,hascertainlymadeourtaskmucheasier,butMair'sbook
waswrittenwellbeforebothsubjectsembarkedupontheirrespectiveperiodsofintensiveselfreflection,asthedebatesaroundpostmodernismragedduringthelate
1980sandearly1990s.Itisthereforeourmodesthopethatthisbookfulfilsaneedamongstudents,teachers,researchersandpractitioners.
Oursecondreasonisamorepersonalone.Bothofushaveforsometimewishedforanopportunitytotrytomakesenseofdisparateexperiencesworking(overthe
pastdecadeorso)atdifferenttimesasanthropologists,researchersanddevelopmentpractitionersinthefield,atuniversitiesandresearchinstitutes,behinddesksin
developmentagenciesandwithininterdisciplinaryconsultancyteams.
Itmightbeusefultoprovidethereaderwithsomeshortbiographicalnotesbeforetheyembarkonreadingthetext,inorderthatheorsheknowssomethingofthe
personalcareertrajectoriesofbothauthors.KatyGardnerandDavidLewisbothstudiedsocialanthropologyasafirstdegreeintheearly1980s.KatyGardner'sPhD
researchinvolvedfieldworkinaBangladeshimigrantvillage.Aftercompletingherdissertation,shespentayearworkingfortheBritishOverseasDevelopment
Administration(ODA)asanassistantsocialadvisor.DuringthisperiodshewasinvolvedinshortvisitstovariousprojectsinSouthAsiaaswellasadministrativework
inLondon.SinceleavingtheODAKatyhasworkedasafulltimelecturerinanthropologyanddevelopmentattheUniversitiesofKentandSussex.Shehasalsobeen
involvedinarangeofconsul
Pageix
tancyworkforbothprivateandgovernmentalagencies.SheistheauthorofSongsattheRiver'sEdge:StoriesfromaBangladeshiVillage(Virago,1991)and
GlobalMigrants,LocalLives:TravelandTransformationinRuralBangladesh(OxfordUniversityPress,1995).
DavidLewismovedfromanthropologyintoamoreinterdisciplinarystudyofdevelopment.Afterapostgraduatecourseindevelopmentstudies,hecompletedaPhD
inruralsociology,inwhichhestudiedtheeffectsofruraltechnologicalchangeinaBangladeshivillage.Afiveyearperiodoffreelanceresearchandconsultancywork
followed,duringwhichheworkedasaResearchAssociateattheOverseasDevelopmentInstituteinLondonandasaVisitingFellowattheCentreforDevelopment
StudiesattheUniversityofBath.HeundertookresearchandconsultancyworkforanumberofgovernmentandnongovernmentalagenciesinBangladesh,India,
Nepal,SriLankaandAlbaniabeforebecomingafulltimelecturerattheCentreforVoluntaryOrganisation,DepartmentofSocialPolicyandAdministrationatthe
LondonSchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScience.HeistheauthorofTechnologiesandTransactions:AStudyoftheInteractionbetweenAgrarianStructure
andNewTechnologyinBangladesh(CentreforSocialStudies,Dhaka,1991)coeditorofNonGovernmentalOrganisationsandtheStateinAsia:
RethinkingRolesinSustainableAgriculturalDevelopmentandacoauthorofReluctantPartners?:NGOs,theStateandSustainableAgricultural
Development(bothRoutledge,1993),andofTradingtheSilverSeed:LocalKnowledgeandMarketMoralitiesinAquaculturalDevelopment(Intermediate
TechnologyPublications,1996).
Ofcourse,everyone'sexperienceofthisvariedfieldwillbedifferent,andnodoubttherearemanyperspectiveswhichothersmightequallyseektoreflectinabook
suchasthis.Wemakenoclaimstocomprehensiveness,thoughwehavetriedtoprovideatleastanindicationofthewideterrainwhichmightbecovered.Wehavefor
examplelargelyleftout(duetothelimitationsofourowntrainingandexpertise)adetaileddiscussionofareassuchasmedicalanthropology,ethnicity,macro
economicdevelopmentissues,populationstudies,theenvironmentalmovementandrefugeeresettlement.Norhavewereflected,atleastinanydirectsense,the
opinionsofthose'actedupon'inthenameofdevelopment.
Itmightbeusefultofinishwithafewwordsaboutouroverallintentions.Webelievethatmanyofthecurrentassumptionsaboutandapproachestodevelopmentare
flawedorbasicallywrongheaded,butwedonotseemuchvalueinsimplybeingcriticalwithouttryingtoofferanycreativealternatives.Instead,wefavourthecreation
ofoptionswhicharerootedinrealityratherthansimply
Pagex
inrhetoric,inbreakingdownthebarrierswhichexistbetweenthe'developers'andthe'developed'andintheneedforafullandcriticaldiscussionabout'development'
whichreflectsatruemultiplicityofvoices.
Webelievethatthereisapressingmoralandpoliticalresponsibilitytoworktowardsimprovingthequalityoflifeforthebulkoftheworld'spopulation,andthatin
generalapoorjobhassofarbeenmadeofthistask.Wearenotarguingherethatanthropologycansomehow'save'thedevelopmentindustry,ornecessarilymake
theprocessofplannedchangeamorebenignone.However,wedobelievethatanthropologistsanddevelopmentpractitionersmayhavesomethingtolearnfromeach
other,inorderthatbetterfuturesmaybeimaginedand,perhaps,broughtintobeing.
KATYGARDNER
DAVIDLEWIS
MAY1995
Note:Inwritingaboutsomeoftheseexperiencesasethnography(andthishasbeenattemptedinChapter6inparticular)wehave,forobviousreasons,disguisedthe
particularsoftheseaccountsintermsofplacesandorganisations,inkeepingwiththeanthropologicaltraditionofpreservingtheanonymityoftheirinformants.
Pagexi
Acknowledgements
DavidLewisandKatyGardnerwouldliketothankEricWorby,DinaSiddiqi,BenCrow,SushilaZeitlyn,B.K.Jahangir,S.M.NurulAlam,SuePhillipsandEmma
Crewefortheirstimulatingdiscussionsaboutmanyoftheseissuesandfortheirencouragementduringthelongperiodofwriting.
WewouldbothliketothankRichardWilsonforcommissioningthebookandforusefuleditorialcommentsandsupport.AndJamesFairburnforreadingtheoriginal
manuscriptandprovidingvaluableinsights.ThanksalsotoHamishArnottforhelpwithproofreading.
WewouldliketodedicatethisbooktothememoryofJonathanZeitlyn,whoseopenmind,personalwarmthandcommitmenttoworkingtowardsafairerworldwill
continuetoinspirebothofus.
Pagexii
Glossary
DevelopmentJargon
accountabilitymakingdevelopmentinterventionsmoreresponsivetothepeopletheyseektoassistalsousedbydonorstomeanmakingsurethatmoneyisused
forthepurposeforwhichitwasintended
appliedanthropologytheapplicationofanthropologicalresearchtosolvingpracticalproblemsindevelopment,publichealth,administration,industry,etc.
appropriatetechnologytheideaofviewingtechnologyinthecontextofpeople'sneeds,drawnoriginallyfromtheworkofE.F.Schumacherinthe1970s,in
reactiontoWestern'hitech'solutionstoproblemsofpoverty
basicneedsadevelopmentstrategydevisedinthe1970sbygovernmentsandUNagenciesinreactiontodisillusionmentwith!trickledown'
beneficiariesthosepeoplewhomadevelopmentprojectisintendedtoassist
bottomupinterventionswhichcomefromthegrassrootsasopposedtogovernmentplannersordevelopmentagencies
communitydevelopmenttheattempttostrengthentheinstitutionsoflocalcommunitiesinorderthattheywillsustainthegainsbroughtaboutbyadevelopment
project
conditionalitytheimpositionoftermsbyanaidgiveruponagovernmentoranorganisationreceivingtheassistance(e.g.abilateraldonorgivesaloantoanNGO
provideditisusedtosupportparticularactivities)
donorusuallyreferstogovernmentagenciessuchastheUKOverseasDevelopmentAdministration(ODA)orUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment
(USAID),ortomultilateralagenciessuchastheWorldBank,butalsoincludesNGOs
Pagexiii
suchasOxfamwhofundpartnerorganisationsinthecountrieswheretheywork
empowermentthetransformativepotentialofpeopletoachievepositivechangesintheirlivesbyassertingtheirrightsaswomen,citizens,etc.,usuallybygroup
action,andtherebygaininggreaterpowertosolveproblems
evaluationthetaskofassessingwhetherornotadevelopmentprojecthasbeensuccessfulinmeetingitsobjectives
nongovernmentalorganisationtherearemanytypes:international,nationalandlocallargeandsmallspecialised(e.g.health,agriculture)orgeneral(combining
manysectorsofactivity)membershipornonmembership.NGOsarenonprofitdevelopmentorganisations,manyofwhichdependondonationsfrommembers,the
publicordevelopmentagencies.IntheUS,NGOsareoftenknownasprivatevoluntaryorganisations(PVOs)
theNorthalongwith'theSouth',thetermoriginatedrecentlyaslesspejorativealternativesto'FirstWorld'and'ThirdWorld'.Butbothtermscontinuetocause
problemsbyinsistingthatpovertycanbegeographicallyspecified
participationusedtodescribegreaterinvolvementby'beneficiaries'indecidingthetypeofdevelopmentprojectstheyneed,andhowtheyarerun.Thedegreeof
thisinvolvementcan,however,varygreatly
projectaninterventionaimedatpromotingsocialchangeusuallyby,orwiththesupportof,anoutsideagencyforafiniteperiod(anythingfromafewyearsto
severaldecades)
socialdevelopmentanewtermusedintheUKtodescribethe'softer'elementsofthedevelopmentprocessasdistinctfromeconomicandtechnicalissues
education,healthcare,humanrights,etc.
socialmovementsgroupsaroundtheworldtakingissuebasedactioninavarietyofareas(humanrights,environment,accesstoland,genderrights,peace,etc.)
usuallylocal,withoutoutsideassistanceatleastinthefirstinstance
theSouthseeentryfor'theNorth'
structuraladjustmentpolicieswhichbecamecommonduringthe1980s,introducedbytheWorldBank,asconditionalityonloans,aimedatimprovingefficiency
byreducingpublicspending,cuttingstatesubsidiesandrationalisingbureaucracy
sustainabilitythedesirebyplannersandagenciestoavoidcreatingprojectswhichdependontheircontinuedsupportforsuccessalsousedinitsenvironmental
sensetoensurerenewalofnaturalresources
Pagexiv
targetingtheattempttoensurethatthebenefitsofaprojectreachaparticularsectionofthepopulationwomen,farmerswithnoland,squatters,etc.
ThirdWorldoriginallydesignatedthepoorestareasoftheworldaftertheSecondWorldWar(asdistinctfromthecapitalistFirstWorldandthecommunist
SecondWorld)
topdowninterventionsimposedonlocalpeoplebythoseinauthoritytheoppositeofbottomup
trickledowntheassumption,whichcomesfromneoclassicaleconomics,thatifeconomicgrowthisachievedthenbenefitswilleventually'trickledown'fromthe
'wealthproducers'tothepoorersectionsofthepopulation
AnthropologicalJargon
acculturationoriginallyusedtorefertochangesinculturesastheycameintocontactwtheachother,thetermlaterbecamesynonymousamongUSanthropologists
withtheideathatnonWesternor'indigenous'cultureswentintodeclineaftercontactwithindustrialisedones
appliedanthropologytheapplicationofanthropologicalknowledgeandresearchmethodologiestopracticalissues,bornoutofanthropologists'involvementin
colonialadministrationanddevelopmentpolicyinthe1930sand1940s
culturalrelativismderivedfromtheworkofFranzBoas(18581942),thisconceptencouragedanthropologiststounderstandeachcultureonitsownterms,
insteadofmakingevolutionaryorethnocentricgeneralisations
diffusionismatermassociatedwithE.B.Tylor(18321917),usedtoexplainthetransmissionofculturaltraitsacrossspace,throughculturecontactormigration
discoursebasedontheideasofMichelFoucault,discoursetheoryreferstotheideathatthetermsinwhichwespeak,writeandthinkabouttheworldarea
reflectionofwiderrelationsofpowerand,sincetheyarealsolinkedtopractice,arethemselvesimportantinmaintainingthatpowerstructure
ethnocentricitytheideathatatendencyexiststointerpretotherculturesaccordingtothevaluesofone'sown,atermfirstusedbyWilliamSumner(18401910)
ethnographyatermwhichmeansboththestudyofacommunityorethnicgroupatclosequartersandthetext(usuallyknownasamonograph)whichresults
Pagexv
evolutionismincontrasttodiffusionists(seeabove),evolutionistsbelievethatuniversalhumanpsychologicalcharacteristicseventuallyproducesimilarculturaltraits
allovertheworld,althoughtheseevolveatdifferentratesindifferentplaces
functionalismatheorywhichtriestoexplainsocialandculturalinstitutionsandrelationsintermsofthefunctionstheyperformwithinthesystemheavilycriticised
becauseitfailstotakeaccountofhistoricalfactorssuchaschange,conflictanddisintegration
indigenoususedinsteadofthemorepejorative'native'torefertotheoriginalinhabitantsofanareawhichhasbeenoccupiedbymigrantsbutstillbringsproblems
inmanysituationsbyimplyingthattherearesomehow'legitimate'inhabitantsoflandwithgreaterrightsthannewcomers
participantobservationthefoundationofanthropologicalfieldresearchsincethepioneeringworkofMalinowski(18841942),inwhichtheanthropologistseeks
toimmerseherselfasfullyandasunobtrusivelyaspossibleinthelifeofacommunityunderstudy
postmodernismthewiderculturalandepistimologicalrejectionofmodernityinfavourofabroaderpluriculturalrangeofstyles,techniquesandvoices,including
therejectionofunitarytheoriesofprogressandscientificrationality.Inanthropologyinparticular,postmodernismhasledtothequestioningoftheauthorityofthe
ethnographictextandinparttoacrisisofrepresentation
structuralfunctionalismatheoreticalperspectiveassociatedwiththeBritishanthropologistRadcliffeBrown(18811955),whichstressedtheimportanceof
socialrelationsandinstitutionsinformingtheframeworkofsociety,whileatthesametimefunctioningtopreservesocietyasastablewhole
structuralismfollowingfromtheworkinlinguisticsofSaussureandJakobson,theanthropologistLeviStrauss(1908)arguedthatthatcultureisasuperficial
manifestationofdeeperstructuralprinciples,basedontheuniversalhumanimperativetoclassifyexperienceandphenomena
Pagexvi
Acronyms
BRAC BangladeshRuralAdvancementCommittee
ECLA EconomicCommissionofLatinAmerica
FAO FoodandAgriculturalOrganisations
FSR farmingsystemsresearch
GAD genderanddevelopment
IBRD InternationalBankforReconstructionand
Development
IFAD InternationalFundforAgriculturalDevelopment
IMF InternationalMonetaryFund
ITDG IntermediateTechnologyandDevelopmentGroup
NGO nongovernmentalorganisation
ODA OverseasDevelopmentAdministration
OECD OrganisationforEconomicCooperationand
Development
PRA participatoryruralappraisal
SDA socialdevelopmentadvisor
SIDA SwedishInternationalDevelopmentAuthority
UNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme
UNICEF UnitedNationsChildren'sFund
USAID UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment
WID womenindevelopment
Page1
1
Anthropology,DevelopmentandtheCrisisofModernity
DevelopmentinRuins
Likeatoweringlighthouseguidingsailorstowardsthecoast,'development'stoodasTHEideawhichorientedemergingnationsintheirjourneythroughpostwarhistory...
Today,thelighthouseshowscracksandisstartingtocrumble.Theideaofdevelopmentstandslikearuinontheintellectuallandscape.Delusionanddisappointment,failuresand
crimeshavebeenthesteadycompanionsofdevelopmentandtheytellacommonstory:itdidnotwork.(Sachs,1992:1)
Withinsomeintellectualcircles,theconceptofdevelopmenthasbeendeclareddead.Ithasbecomeanonword,tobeusedonlywiththeinvertedcommasofthe
deconstructed1990s.'Development',theargumentgoes,representstheworldasinastateoflinearprogressionandchangeinwhichtheNorthis'advanced',andthe
Southlockedintostatictraditionalismwhichonlymoderntechnologyandcapitalistrelationsofproductioncantransform.Wenowknowthattheseunderstandingsof
theglobe'ssharedhistoryandsharedfuturearedeeplyflawed.Bythemid1990sithasbecomeclearthatthesupposedbenefitsofmodernisationarelargelyan
illusion:overmuchoftheglobetheprogressivebenefitsofeconomicgrowth,technologicalchangeandscientificrationalityhavefailedtomaterialise.Combinedwith
this,ithasbeensuggestedthattheconceptisembeddedinneocolonialconstructionsoftheworldandisakeyideologicaltoolinglobalpowerrelations(Escobar,
19881995).Sachs,forexample,talksofdevelopment's'ethnocentricandevenviolentnature'(1992:5).Inthisview,itisaconstructratherthananobjectivestate,a
dreamperhaps,butonewhichmanypeopleasserthasjustifiedastarklypoliticalprojectofcontinuedNortherndominanceovertheSouth.
Page2
Andyet,sopersuasiveisdevelopmentasaconceptthatmanypeoplediscussingglobalpovertycontinuetousethetermasaworkingtool,evenifderidingit
philosophically.Thisisnotsimplybecausenotionsofdevelopmentaredeeplyinterwovenwithourunderstandingsoftheworldalthoughinmanypostindustrial
societiesthisiscertainlytrue.Aswellasbeingaseriesofinterlinkedconceptsandideals,itisalsoasetofpracticesandrelationships.Developmentagenciesare
actualinstitutions,whichaffecttheworldaroundthemandspendbillionsofdollarsayear.Likewise,developmentplans,workersandpoliciesareallobjectiveentities.
Wecannotsimplywillthemintononexistencebyinsistingthattheyareconstructs,howeverquestionablethepremissesonwhichtheyrestmaybe.Inwhatfollows,
wethereforeassumethatdevelopmentisanenormouslypowerfulsetofideaswhichhasguidedthoughtandactionacrosstheworldoverthesecondpartofthe
twentiethcenturyitinvolvesdeliberatelyplannedchange,andcontinuestoaffectthelivesofmanymillionsofpeopleacrosstheworld.Inspeakingofdevelopmentwe
takeitshighlyproblematicnatureasagiven,usingthetermtodescribeasetofactivities,relationshipsandexchangesaswellasideas.
Thisbookisconcernedwithanthropology'srelationshipwiththeseinterconnectedandproblematicdomains.Inthechaptersthatfollowweshallarguethatboth
developmentandanthropologyhavebeenrecentlyfacingwhatareoftenreferredtoas'postmodern'crises.Ratherthanthrowingupourhandsinhorror,however,
wesuggestthatbothhavemuchtooffereachotherinovercomingtheproblemswhichtheyfaceandinmovingforward.Anthropologicalinsightscanprovidea
dynamiccritiqueofdevelopmentandhelppushthoughtandpracticeawayfromoversystemicmodelsanddualities(traditionalasopposedtomodernformalas
opposedtoinformaldevelopedversusundeveloped)andinmorecreativedirections.Likewise,criticalengagementwithprocessesofplannedandnonplanned
changeoffersconsiderablepotentialforanthropologistsinterestedinunderstandingtheworkingsofdiscourse,knowledgeandpower,andinsocialtransformation.Itis
adomainfor'studyingup'insteadofthediscipline'straditionalfocusonthelesspowerful.Lastly,itsuggestsonewayforwardforamorepoliticallyengaged
anthropology.Insum,asanthropologists,activistsandradicaldevelopmentworkersapproachtheeraof'postdevelopment'therearemanywaysinwhichtheycan
worktogethertotransformtheexistingstatusquo.Thedifferentrolesmayevenbeperformedbythesameindividual.
Page3
Intherestofthischapterweshallbrieflytracethetrajectoriesofthecontemporaryintellectualquagmiresfacingbothdevelopmentandanthropology.Weshalloutline
andcritiqueconventionaltheoriesofdevelopment,discussrecentchallengesfacinganthropologyandbegintosetthequestionswhichthroughouttherestofthebook
weshallbeattemptingtoanswer.
Development:HistoryandMeanings
ArturoEscobararguesthatasasetofideasandpractices'development'hashistoricallyfunctionedoverthetwentiethcenturyasamechanismforthecolonialand
neocolonialdominationoftheSouthbytheNorth1 .Itsemergencewascontingentuponparticularhistoricalconjunctions.Someofthemostimportantoftheseare
shiftingglobalrelationsaftertheSecondWorldWar,thedeclineofcolonialism,theColdWar,theneedforcapitalismtofindnewmarkets,andtheNorthernnations'
faithinscienceandtechnology(Escobar,1995:2639).Thoseusingthetermandworkingwithindevelopmentinstitutionsarethereforehelpingtoreproduceneo
colonialpowerrelationsevenwhilemanybelievethemselvestobeengagedinprocessesofempowermentortheredistributionoftheworld'sriches.Toappreciatethis
morefully,letusexaminetherootsoftheterm.
Invirtuallyallitsusages,developmentimpliespositivechangeorprogress.Italsoevokesnaturalmetaphorsoforganicgrowthandevolution.TheOxfordDictionary
ofCurrentEnglishdefinesitas'stageofgrowthoradvancement'(1988:200).Asaverbitreferstoactivitiesrequiredtobringthesechangesabout,whileasan
adjectiveitisinherentlyjudgemental,foritinvolvesastandardagainstwhichthingsarecompared.While'they'intheSouthareundeveloped,orintheprocessofbeing
developed,weintheNorth(itisimplied)havealreadyreachedthatcovetedstate.WhenthetermwasfirstofficiallyusedbyPresidentTrumanin1949,vastareasof
theworldwerethereforesuddenlylabelled'underdeveloped'(Esteva,1993:7).Anewproblemwascreated,andwithitthesolutionsallofwhichdependeduponthe
rationalscientificknowledgeofthesocalleddevelopedpowers(Hobart,1993:2).
CapitalismandColonialism:17001949
Thenotionofdevelopmentgoesbackfurtherthan1949,however.Larrainhasarguedthatwhiletherehasalwaysbeeneconomicandsocialchangethroughout
history,consciousnessof'progress',and
Page4
thebeliefthatthisshouldbepromoted,aroseonlywithinspecifichistoricalcircumstancesinnorthernEurope.Suchideaswerefirstgeneratedduringwhathetermsthe
'ageofcompetitivecapitalism'(17001860):aneraofradicalsocialandpoliticalstrugglesinwhichfeudalismwasincreasinglyundermined(Larrain,1989:1).
Concurrentwiththeprofoundeconomicandpoliticalchangeswhichcharacterisedtheseyearswastheemergenceofwhatisoftenreferredtoasthe'Enlightenment'.
Thissocialandculturalmovement,whichwasarguablytodominateWesternthought2 untilthelatetwentiethcentury,stressedtolerance,reasonandcommonsense.
Thesesentimentswereaccompaniedbytheriseoftechnologyandscience,whichwereheraldedasusheringinanewageofrationalityandenlightenmentfor
humankind,asopposedtowhatwerenowincreasinglyviewedasthesuperstitiousandignorant'DarkAges'.Rationalknowledge,basedonempiricalinformation,was
deemedtobethewayforward(Jordanova,1980:45).Duringthiserapolaritiesbetween'primitive'and'civilised','backward'and'advanced','superstitious'and
'scientific','nature'and'culture'becamecommonplace(BlochandBloch,1980:27).Suchdichotomieshavetheircontemporaryequivalentsinnotionsofundeveloped
anddeveloped.
Larrainlinksparticulartypesofdevelopmenttheorywithdifferentphasesincapitalism.Whiletheperiod17001860wascharacterisedbytheclassicalpolitical
economyofSmithandRicardoandthehistoricalmaterialismofMarxandEngels,theageofimperialism(18601945)spawnedneoclassicalpoliticaleconomyand
classicaltheoriesofimperialism.Meanwhile,thesubsequentexpansionaryageoflatecapitalism(194566)wasmarkedbytheoriesofmodernisation,andthecrisesof
196680byneoMarxisttheoriesofunequalexchangeanddependency(Larrain,1989:4).Weshallelaborateontheselatertheoriesfurtheroninthischapter.
Whilecapitalistexpansionandcrisisareclearlycrucialtothehistoryofdevelopmenttheory,thelatterisalsorelatedtorapidleapsinscientificknowledgeandsocial
theoryoverthenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.AkeymomentinthiswasthepublicationofDarwin'sOriginofSpeciesin1859.Thiswastohaveahuge
influenceonthesocialandpoliticalsciencesintheWest.InspiredbyDarwin'sargumentsabouttheevolutionofbiologicalspecies,manypoliticaleconomistsnow
theorisedsocialchangeinsimilarterms.InTheDivisionofLabour(originallypublishedin1893),forinstance,Durkheimwhoisnowwidelyconsideredoneofthe
foundingfathersofsociologycompared'primitive'and'modern'society,basinghismodelsonorganicanalogies.Theformer,hesuggested,is
Page5
characterisedby'mechanicalsolidarity',inwhichthereisalowdivisionoflabour,asegmentarystructureandstrongcollectiveconsciousness.Incontrast,modern
societiesexhibit'organicsolidarity'.Thisinvolvesagreaterinterdependencebetweencomponentpartsandahighlyspecialiseddivisionoflabour:productioninvolves
manydifferenttasks,performedbydifferentpeoplesocialstructureisdifferentiated,andthereisahighlevelofindividualconsciousness.
AlthoughtheirworkwasquitedifferentfromDurkheim's,MarxandEngelsalsoacknowledgedadebttoDarwin(Giddens,1971:66).Marxarguedthatsocieties
weretransformedthroughchangesinthemodeofproduction.Thiswasassumedtoevolveinaseriesofstages,ormodesofproduction,whichMarxbelievedall
societieswouldeventuallypassthrough.NineteenthcenturyBritain,forexample,hadalreadyexperiencedthetransformationfromafeudaltoacapitalistmodeof
production.Whencapitalismwassufficientlydeveloped,Marxargued,thesystemwouldbreakdownandthenextstageofsocialismwouldbereached.Weshall
discussbelowtheinfluenceofMarxismontheoriesofdevelopment.
Closelyassociatedwiththehistoryofcapitalismisofcoursethatofcolonialism.Particularlyoverlatercolonialperiods(say,18501950),notionsofprogressand
enlightenmentwerekeytocolonialdiscourses,wherethe'natives'wereconstructedasbackwardorchildlike,andthecolonisersasrationalagentsofprogress(Said,
1978:40).Thuswhileeconomicgainwasthemainmotivationforimperialconquest,colonialruleinthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturiesalsoinvolvedattemptsto
changelocalsocietywiththeintroductionofEuropeanstyleeducation,Christianityandnewpoliticalandbureaucraticsystems.Notionsofmoraldutywerecentralto
this,oftenexpressedintermsoftherelationshipbetweenatrusteeandaminor(Mair,1984:2).Whilerarelyphrasedinsuchracistterms,developmentdiscoursein
the1990softeninvolvessimilarthemes:'goodgovernment',institutionbuildingandgendertrainingarejustthreecurrentlyfashionableconcernswhichpromote
'desirable'socialandpoliticalchange.Fromthesedubiousbeginnings,itishardlysurprisingthatmanypeopletodayregardsuchconceptswithsuspicion.
Bytheearlytwentiethcenturytherelationshipbetweencolonialpractice,plannedchangeandwelfarismbecamemoredirect.In1939theBritishgovernmentchanged
itsLawofDevelopmentoftheColoniestotheLawofDevelopmentandWelfareoftheColonies,insistingthatthecolonialpowershouldmaintainaminimumlevelof
health,educationandnutritionforitssubjects.Colonialauthoritieswerenowtoberesponsiblefortheeconomicdevelopmentofa
Page6
conqueredterritory,aswellasthewellbeingofitsinhabitants(Esteva,1993:10).
ThePostColonialEra:1949Onwards
Notionsofdevelopmentareclearlylinkedtothehistoryofcapitalism,colonialismandtheemergenceofparticularEuropeanepistimologiesfromtheeighteenthcentury
onwards.Inthelatterpartofthetwentiethcentury,however,thetermhastakenonarangeofspecific,althoughoftencontested,meanings.Escobararguesthatithas
becomeadiscourse:aparticularmodeofthinking,andasourceofpracticedesignedtoinstilin'underdeveloped'countriesthedesiretostrivetowardsindustrialand
economicgrowth(19881995).Ithasalsobecomeprofessionalised,witharangeofconcepts,categoriesandtechniquesthroughwhichthegenerationanddiffusion
ofparticularformsofknowledgeareorganised,managedandcontrolled(ibid.).WeshallbereturningtoEscobar'sviewsofdevelopmentasaformofdiscourse,and
thusofpower,lateroninthisbook.Fornow,letusexaminewhatthesemorecontemporarypostSecondWorldWarmeaningsofdevelopmentinvolved.
WhenPresidentTrumanreferredin1949tohis'boldnewprogrammeformakingthebenefitsofourscientificadvancesandindustrialprogressavailableforthe
improvementandgrowthofunderdevelopedareas'(citedinEsteva,1993:6)hewaskeentodistancehisprojectfromoldstyleimperialism.Instead,thisnewproject
waslocatedintermsofeconomicgrowthandmodernity.DuringamissionofthenewlyformedInternationalBankforReconstructionandDevelopment(IBRD)to
Colombia,forexample,integratedstrategiestoimproveandreformtheeconomywerecalledfor,ratherthansocialorpoliticalchanges.
Definingdevelopmentaseconomicgrowthisstillcommontoday.Indeed,afterthedebtcrisesofthe1980sandsubsequentstructuraladjustmentprogrammes,3
economicreformandgrowthareverymuchatthetopofthe1990sagendafororganisationssuchastheWorldBank.Behindtheseaimsistheassumptionthatgrowth
involvestechnologicalsophistication,urbanisation,highlevelsofconsumptionandarangeofsocialandculturalchanges.Formanygovernmentsandexpertstheroute
tothisstatewas,andis,industrialisation.Asweshallshortlysee,thisiscloselylinkedtotheoriesofmodernisation.Successfuldevelopmentismeasuredbyeconomic
indicessuchastheGrossNationalProduct(GNP)orpercapitaincome.Itisusuallyassumedthatthiswillautomaticallyleadto
Page7
positivechangesinotherindices,suchasratesofinfantmortality,illiteracy,malnourishmentandsoon.Evenifnoteveryonebenefitsdirectlyfromgrowth,the'trickle
downeffect'willensurethattherichesofthoseatthetopoftheeconomicscalewilleventuallybenefittherestofsocietythroughincreasedproductionandthus
employment.Inthisunderstandingofdevelopment,ifpeoplebecomebetterfed,bettereducated,betterhousedandhealthier,thisistheindirectresultofpolicies
aimedatstimulatinghigherratesofproductivityandconsumption,ratherthanofpoliciesdirectlytacklingtheproblemsofpoverty.Developmentisquantifiable,and
reducibletoeconomics.4
Onemajordrawbacktodefiningdevelopmentaseconomicgrowthisthatinrealitythe'trickledowneffect'rarelytakesplacegrowthdoesnotnecessarilyleadto
enhancedstandardsofliving.AssocietiesintheaffluentNorthdemonstrate,theincreaseduseofhighlysophisticatedtechnologyorafastgrowingGNPdoesnot
necessarilyeradicatepoverty,illiteracyorhomelessness,althoughitmaywellalterthewaystheseillsareexperienced.Incontrast,neoMarxisttheory,whichwas
increasinglytodominateacademicdebatessurroundingdevelopmentinthe1970s,understandscapitalismasinherentlyinegalitarian.Economicgrowththusby
definitionmeansthatsomepartsoftheworld,andsomesocialgroups,areactivelyunderdeveloped.Viewedintheseterms,developmentisanessentiallypolitical
processwhenwetalkof'underdevelopment'wearereferringtounequalglobalpowerrelations.
Althoughthemodernisationparadigmcontinuedtodominatemainstreamthought,thisdefinitionofdevelopmentasresultingfrommacroandmicroinequalitywas
increasinglypromotedduringthe1970sand,withinsomequarters,throughoutthe1980s.Itcanbelinkedtowhatbecametermedthe'basicneeds'movement,which
stressedtheimportanceofcombatingpovertyratherthanpromotingindustrialisationandmodernisation.Developmentwork,itwasargued,shouldaimfirstand
foremostatsatisfyingpeople'sbasicneedsitshouldbepovertyfocused.Forsome,thisdidnotinvolvechallengingwidernotionsoftheultimateimportanceof
economicgrowth,butinsteadinvolvedanamendedagendainwhichvulnerablegroupssuchas'smallfarmers'or'womenheadedhouseholds'weretargetedforaid.5
Manyoftheseprojectswerestronglywelfareorientatedanddidnotchallengeexistingpoliticalstructures(Mosley,1987:2931).
Inthe1990s,thedesirabilityoftechnologicalprogressisbeingfurtherquestioned.Environmentaldestructionisanincreasingly
Page8
pressingissue.Caseswheretechnologicalchangehasbeenmatchedbygrowinginequalityandthebreakdownoftraditionalnetworksofsupportarenowsowell
documentedastobestandardreadingonmostundergraduatecoursesondevelopment.Itisbecomingclearthatmechanisationandindustrialisationaremixed
blessings,tosaytheleast.Combinedwiththis,theoptimismofthe1960sandearly1970s,whenmanynewlyindependentstateswerestrivingforrapideconomic
growth,wasreplacedbyincreasingpessimismduringthe1980s.Facedbydebt,theinequalityofinternationaltradingrelationsandinmanycasespoliticalinsecurity,
manygovernments,particularlythoseinAfricaandLatinAmerica,havebeenforcedtoaccepttherigorousstructuraladjustmentprogrammesinsisteduponbythe
WorldBankandInternationalMonetaryFund(IMF).
Developmentinthepostwarperiodhasofcourseinvolvedtheconstructionnotonlyofparticularideas,butalsoofasetofspecificpracticesandinstitutions.Before
turningtothevarioustheorieswhichhavebeenofferedsince1949toexplaindevelopmentandunderdevelopment,letusthereforebrieflyturntowhatisoftenreferred
toas'theaidindustry'.
The'AidIndustry'
Aswehavealreadyindicated,aidfromtheNorthtotheSouthwaswithoutdoubtacontinuationofcolonialrelations,ratherthanaradicalbreakfromthem(Mosley,
1987:21).Donorstodaytendtogivemostaidtocountrieswhichtheypreviouslycolonised:BritishaidisconcentratedmostlyuponSouthAsiaandAfrica,whilethe
DutchareheavilyinvolvedinSouthEastAsia,forexample.Althoughplanningisabasichumanactivity,therootsofplanneddevelopmentwereplantedduringcolonial
times,throughtheestablishmentofbodiessuchastheEmpireMarketingBoardin1926andthesettingupofDevelopmentBoardsincoloniessuchasUganda
(Robertson,1984:16).Theconceptofaidtransfersbeingmadeforthesakeofdevelopmentfirstappearedinthe1930s,however.Notionsofmutualbenefit,still
prevalenttoday,werekey,fortheaimwasprimarilytostimulatemarketsinthecolonies,thusboostingtheeconomyathome(Mosley,1987:21).
Despitetheseinitialbeginnings,therealstartofthemainprocessesofaidtransferisusuallytakentobetheendoftheSecondWorldWar,whenthemajormultilateral
agencieswereestablished.TheIMFandtheInternationalBankforReconstructionandDevelopment(latertobecometheWorldBank)weresetupduringthe
BrettonWoodsConferencein1944,whiletheFoodandAgricultural
Page9
Organisation(FAO)wascreatedasabranchoftheUnitedNationsin1945.Incontrasttowhatbecameknownas'bilateralaid',whichwasatransferfromone
governmenttoanother,'multilateralaid'cametoinvolveanumberofdifferentdonorsactingincombination,noneofwhom(supposedly)directlycontrolspolicy.
However,fromtheoutsetdonorssuchastheWorldBankwereheavilyinfluencedbytheUSandtendedtoencouragecentralised,democraticgovernmentswitha
strongbiastowardsthefreemarket(Robertson,1984:23).Meanwhile,variousbilateralagencieswerealsoestablishedbythewealthiernations.Thesearethe
governmentalorganisations,suchastheUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment(USAIDsetupin1961)ortheBritishOverseasDevelopment
Administration(theODAestablishedastheOverseasDevelopmentMinistryin1964),bothofwhichareinvolvedinprojectandprogrammeaidwithpartner
countries.Figure1.1showstheinterrelationshipsandresourceflowsbetweenthesedifferentactors.
Figure1.1
Resourceflowsandpotentialpartnershiplinks
betweendifferenttypesofdevelopmentagencies
Page10
ConsiderableamountsofaidwereinitiallydirectedatareasinEuropewhichweredevastatedaftertheSecondWorldWar.Bytheearly1950stheColdWarmade
aidpoliticallyattractiveforgovernmentsanxioustostemtheflowofcommunismintheSouth.DuringthisperiodtheWorldBankchangeditsfocusfromreconstruction
todevelopment.Bythelate1960s,aftermanypreviouslyFrenchandBritishcolonieshadgainedindependence,aidprogrammesexpandedrapidly.Indeed,rich
donorcountriesactuallybegantocomeintocompetitionwitheachotherintheireffortstoprovideassistancetopoorcountries,aclearsignoftheeconomicand
politicalbenefitswhichaccompaniedaid.Keentoimprovetheirproduct,manynowstresseddevelopment,instigatinggrandioseandprestigiousschemes.The1960s
alsosawthefirstUNDecadeforDevelopment,withastatedaimof5percentgrowthrates,and0.7percentofdonorcountries'GNPbeinggiveninaid.Todayfew
countriesgivethismuch:in19845theUSgave0.24percent,theUK0.34percent,andNorway1.04percent(Cassenetal.,1986:8).
Sincetheearliestdaysoftheaidindustry,therehavebeensignificantshiftsinthosecountriesgivingandreceivingthemostaid.Increasingly,forexample,subSaharan
Africaisreceivingthelargestproportionofaid,whereasearlierIndiawasthelargestrecipient.Likewise,somecountrieshavebeensosuccessfulthattheyarenow
becominginfluentialdonors:JapanandSaudiArabiaareexamples.Inthe1990s,newcountrieshavealsoenteredtheaidarena,especiallythosewhichwere
previouslyconsideredtobecommunist,suchasChinaandVietnam.
Whiletheindividualplayersmayhavechanged,aidcontinuestoplayamajorroleintheeconomiesofmanycountriesoftheSouth,accountingforonethirdofall
capitalinflowstotheThirdWorldin198083andworthapproximatelyUS$35billion(Mosley,1987).In1988the18Northernnationswhobelongtothe
DevelopmentAssistanceCommitteeoftheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)gaveUS$48.1billion(Madeley,1991:1).One
quarterofthisismultilateralaidtherestisdirect,governmenttogovernmentassistance.
Whetherornotaidisaformof'neoimperialism'hasbeenamootpointindevelopmentstudies.Somewritersarguethataidissimplyanotherwayinwhichthe
politicalandeconomicpoweroftheNorthcontinuestobeassertedovertheSouth,developingonlythedependencyofrecipientsontheirdonors(forexample,
Hayter,1971Sobhan,1989)butothersstressthatwhilethereareundoubtedbenefitstodonors(politicalinfluenceperhaps,orthecreationofmarketsfor
domesticallyproducedproducts),aidcannotsimplybe
Page11
understoodasexploitative.6 Mostaid,forexample,isaimedattheneediestcountries,ratherthanthebiggestpotentialmarketsandallies,andmanyprojectsand
programmesareplannedwithgoodintentionsandgenuineaimstopromotedesirablechange(Mosley,1987).Indeed,ratherthanthewhollynegativepicture
presentedbypolemicistssuchasHancockinhisattackontheaidindustry(1989),somewritershavearguedthatmostaidissuccessfulintermsofitsownobjectives
(Cassenetal.,1986).Othersmaintainamiddleline,pointingoutthecomplexreasonswhyaidprojectsfailandconstructivelysuggestinghowtheycouldhelp,rather
thanaccusingthemallofbeingneoimperialfaades,andthusall'bad'(Mosley,1987Madeley,1991).
AninterestingtwisttothesedebatesisgivenbyFerguson(1990)inhisaccountofthedevelopmentregimeinLesotho,partofwhichwediscussbelowinChapter3.
Fergusonarguesthat,ratherthandeliberatelysettingouttoperpetuateneocolonialrelationshipsbetweentheNorthandSouth(forexample,bybringingpeasantsinto
theglobalmarketunderunfavourabletermsofexchange,assomepoliticaleconomistshaveargued,orbysecuringmarketsforgoodsproducedinthedonorcountry),
theroleofaidprojectsisactuallyfarmoresubtle:
Whateverinterestsmaybeatwork,andwhatevertheymaythinktheyaredoing,theycanonlyoperatethroughacomplexsetofsocialandculturalstructuressodeeply
embeddedandsoillperceivedthattheoutcomemaybeonlyabaroqueandunrecognisabletranformationoftheoriginalintention.Theapproachadoptedheretreatssuchan
outcomeasneitheraninexplicablemistake,northetraceofayetundiscoveredintention,butasariddle,aproblemtobesolved,ananthropologicalpuzzle.(Ferguson,1990:17)
Ferguson'scontributionisthereforetodistinguishbetweentheintentionsofthoseworkingintheaidindustryandtheeffectsoftheirwork.Assuchitprovidesavery
usefulwayofmovingbeyondthesimplerhetoricofthe'aidasimperialism'schoolofthought.
FollowingonfromFerguson'sapproach,wedonotthinkitworthwhiletospendtoomuchtimeconsideringwhetheraidisorisnota'good'thing.7 Instead,weassume
thatitexistsandshallcontinuetoexistforsometime.Ratherthansimplycondemningaidanddevelopmentwork,whatweareconcernedwithishowanthropology
mightbeusedtocritique,improveandsuggestalternativestoit.Howthismightbedoneisacentralthemeofthisbook.Beforeexploringtheseissuesfurther,letus
turntoabriefsummaryofthedifferenttheoreticalperspectivesinformingdevelopmentalwork.
Page12
TheoriesofDevelopment
Conventionally,developmenttheoryisdescribedintermsoftwooppositionalparadigms,bothofwhichinvolvearangeofdifferentmeasures.Thesehavebeen
discussedindetailelsewhere.8 Likemost'grandtheories',neitherhasstoodupwelltotheonslaughtof1990spostmodernism.Today,thereisnosingletheoretical
modelwhichiscommonlyusedtoexplaindevelopment,noristhereanyone'solution'totheproblemsofunderdevelopment.Indeed,contemporaryunderstandings
tendtodrawfromavarietyoftheoreticalsourcesandsuggestavarietyofstrategies.
Modernisation
Whatcanbelabelled'modernisationtheory'isacollectionofperspectiveswhich,whileattheirmostintellectuallyinfluentialinthe1950sand1960s,continuesto
dominatedevelopmentpracticetoday.Manyofthetechniciansandadministratorsinvolvedinprojectplanningarestillessentiallymodernisers,eveniftheirjargonis
moresophisticatedthanthatoftheirpredecessorsinthe1960s.Likewise,manydevelopmenteconomiststodaystillpintheirhopestothepromisesofmodernisation.
AsNormanLongputsit,modernisation'visualisesdevelopmentintermsofaprogressivemovementtowardstechnologicallymorecomplexandintegratedformsof
''modern"society'(LongandLong,1992:18).
Industrialisation,thetransitionfromsubsistenceagriculturetocashcropping,andurbanisationareallkeystothisprocess.Modernisationisessentiallyevolutionary
countriesareenvisagedasbeingatdifferentstagesofalinearpathwhichleadsultimatelytoanindustrialised,urbanandorderedsociety.Muchemphasisisputupon
rationality,inbothitseconomicandmoralsenses.Whilemodern,developedsocietiesareseenassecular,universalisticandprofitmotivated,undevelopedsocieties
areunderstoodassteepedintradition,particularisticandunmotivatedtoprofit,aviewexemplifiedbyG.Foster'sworkonthe'peasant'simageofthelimited
good'(1962).
Aswehavealreadyseen,theseideashaverootsinnineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturypoliticaleconomy,muchofwhichsoughttotheorisethesweepingsocialand
economicchangesassociatedwithindustrialisation.Durkheim'smodelofanindustrialised'organic'society,Simmel'sthoughtsonthemoneyeconomyandWeber's
discussionoftherelationshipbetweenProtestantismandindustrialcapitalismareallexamples.Morerecently,thework
Page13
ofeconomistW.W.Rostowillustratestheconceptofmodernisationparexcellence.Inhisworksoneconomicgrowth(Rostow,1960a1960b),theformsofgrowth
alreadyexperiencedintheNortharetakenasamodelfortherestoftheworld.Whileeconomiesaresituatedatdifferentstagesofdevelopment,allareassumedtobe
movinginthesamedirection.Traditionalsocietyispoor,irrationalandrural.The'takeoff'stagerequiresaleapforward,basedontechnologyandhighlevelsof
investmentpreconditionsforthisarethedevelopmentofinfrastructure,manufacturingandeffectivegovernment.Afterthissocietiesreachastageof'selfsustaining'
growthinits'mature'stage,technologypervadesthewholeeconomy,leadingto'theageofhighmassconsumption',highproductivityandhighlevelsofurbanisation
(Robertson,1984:25).
Somewritershaveattachedparticularsocialcharacteristicstothedifferentstages,oftenwithevolutionaryovertones.Forexample,TalcottParsonshasarguedthat
nuclearfamiliesarebestsuitedtothehighlymobile,industrialisedworld(Parsons,1949).Othersassociateindustrialsocietywith(again)rationalpoliticalsystems,
realismandthedeathofideology(Kerretal.,1973citedinRobertson,1984:33).Interestingly,earlyfeministworkontherelationshipbetweencapitalistgrowthand
gender,whileusuallycriticalofdevelopment,alsosometimesimpliedthatstagesinthedevelopmentprocesswereassociatedwithparticularformsofgenderrelations,
mostnotablytodowithchangesinthedivisionoflabour(forexample,Boserup,1970Sacks,1975).
IfonebelievesthatlifeisgenerallybetterintheNortherncountriesthanintheirpoorerneighboursintheSouth(whichintermsofmaterialstandardsoflivingcannot
easilybedenied),modernisationisaninherentlyoptimisticconcept,foritassumesthatallcountrieswilleventuallyexperienceeconomicgrowth.Thisoptimismmustbe
understoodinthehistoricalcontextofpostwarprosperityandgrowthintheNorth,andindependenceformanySoutherncoloniesinthe1950sand1960s.The
governmentsofmanynewlyindependentcountries,liketheirexcolonisers,oftenbelievedthatwithalittlehelpdevelopmentwouldcomeswiftly,andmany
launchedambitiousfiveyearplanstothiseffect(forexample,India'sFirstFiveYearPlanin1951,andTanzania'sFirstFiveYearPlanin1964).Truman'sspeech
embodiesthisinitialoptimism.
Anotherreasonwhymodernisationcanbedescribedasoptimisticisthatitpresentsdevelopmentasarelativelyeasyprocess.Enduringunderdevelopmentisexplained
intermsof'obstacles'.Theseareinternaltothecountriesconcerned,ideologicallyneutral,andcangenerallybedealtwithpragmatically.
Page14
Inadequateinfrastructureisagoodexample.Factorsconventionallyusedtoexplainthisarelackofcapital,weakorcorruptmanagementandlackoflocalexpertise
(bothofwhichmightcauseroadsandbridgesnottogetbuilt,ortobebadlymaintained)and,perhaps,difficultenvironmentalconditions(mountainousterrain,
continuousflooding).Thesolutionstotheseproblemsarestraightforward:roadsandbridgescanbebuiltwithexternalcapitalandexpertiseintheformofaiddonated
bythedevelopedNorthlocaltechniciansandbureaucratscanbetrained,and'goodgovernment'supported(anexplicitpolicyoftheBritishOverseasDevelopment
Administrationsincethelate1980s).Anotherstrategytoimproveinfrastructuremightbetheintroductionofinformationtechnologytolocalinstitutions,orthetraining
ofpersonneltousenewtechnology.Inbothscenarios,variouschangesareunderstoodasnecessaryforacountryorregionto'takeoff'.Withmoreefficient
infrastructure,economicgrowthisencouragedand,itishopedbarringotherobstacles,thecountrywillmoveontothenextstage.Developmentagenciesand
practitionersarethuscastintheroleoftroubleshooters,creatingarangeofpoliciesaimedat'improvement'(Long,1977).
Bythelate1960sitwasbecomingobviousthatdespiteattemptstoremoveobstaclestodevelopment,ofteninvolvingconsiderableforeigncapitalinvestment,
economicgrowthratesindevelopingcountriesweredisappointinginsomecasestherewereevensignsthatpovertywasincreasing.Thefailureofseverallargescale
developmentprojects,whichshouldhaveprompted'takeoff',increasinglyindicatedthatsimplisticnotionsofmodernisationwereinadequate.Onenownotoriouscase
istheGroundnutSchemeofsouthernTanzania.9 Thislatterprojectreceived20millionin194652(thetotalBritishaidbudgetin194656was120million)and
hadareturnofzero(Mosley,1987:22).Unquestioningfaithinthedesirabilityofcashcropsonbehalfofplanners,togetherwithinadequateresearchintolocal
farmers'needsandintotheappropriatenessofdifferentcropstothelocalenvironment,wascentraltothescheme'sfailure.
Modernisation,asbothatheoryandasetofstrategies,isopentocriticismonvirtuallyeveryfront.ItsassumptionthatallchangeinevitablyfollowstheWesternmodel
isbothbreathtakinglyethnocentricandempiricallyincorrect,afactwhichanthropologistsshouldhavelittledifficultyinspotting.Indeed,anthropologicalresearchhas
continuallyshownthateconomicdevelopmentcomesinmanyshapesandformswecannotgeneraliseabouttransitionsfromone'type'ofsocietytoanother.Religious
revivalismisjustone
Page15
exampleofthis,andhasbeeninterpretedasareactiontomodernity(see,forexample,Ahmed,1992).Combinedwiththis,whiletheoriesofmodernisationassume
thatlocalculturesand'peasant'traditionalismareobstaclestodevelopment,whatNormanLongcalls'actororientedresearch'(1992)hasconsistentlyfoundthat,far
frombeing'irrational',peopleinpoorcountriesareopentochangeiftheyperceiveittobeintheirinterest.Theyoftenknowfarbetterthandevelopmentplannershow
tostrategisetogetthebestfromdifficultcircumstances,yetmodernisationstrategiesrarely,ifever,payheedtolocalknowledge.Indeed,localcultureisgenerally
eitherignoredbyplannersortreatedasa'constraint'.Thisisagravefailing,foranthropologistssuchasMair(1984)andHill(1986)haveshownindetailhowan
understandingoflocalcultureisvitalformoreappropriatedevelopmentprojects.Weshallspendmuchofthisbookdiscussingsuchinsights.
Modernisationalsoignoresthepoliticalimplicationsofgrowthonthemicrolevel.Premissedonthenotionof'trickledown',itassumesthatonceeconomicgrowthhas
beenattained,thewholepopulationwillreaptherewards.Again,anthropologistsandsociologistshaverepeatedlyshownthatlifeisnotsosimple.Eveninregionsof
substantialeconomicgrowth,povertylevelsoftenremainthesame,orevendeterioratefurther(Mosley,1987:155).Evidencefromareaswhichhaveexperiencedthe
socalledGreenRevolutionillustrateshowevenwhenmanyofthesignsofeconomicdevelopmentarepresent,localisedpovertyandinequalitycanpersist(see
Pearse,1980).Disastrously(forthepoorestorforsomeminorities),modernisationtheorydoesnotdistinguishbetweendifferentgroupswithinsocieties,either
becauseitassumesthesetobehomogeneous(the'masspoor')orbecauseitbelievesthateventuallythebenefitsofgrowthareenjoyedbyall.Thecommunitieswhich
areatthereceivingendofdevelopmentplansare,however,composedofamixtureofpeople,allwithdifferentamountsofpower,accesstoresourcesandinterests
(Hill,1986:1629).Heterogeneityexistsnotonlybetweenhouseholds,butalsowithinthem.Themarginalisationofwomenbydevelopmentprojectswhichtreat
householdsasequalandhomogeneousunitsisacaseinpoint(Whitehead,1981Rogers,1980Ostergaard,1992).
Themostfundamentalcriticismoftheoriesofmodernisation,however,isthattheyfailtounderstandtherealcausesofunderdevelopmentandpoverty.Bypresenting
allcountriesasbeingonthesamelinearpath,theycompletelyneglecthistoricalandpoliticalfactorswhichhavemadetheplayingfieldveryfarfromlevel.Europe
duringtheIndustrialRevolutionandAfricaorSouthAsiain
Page16
thesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturyarenot,therefore,comparable.Thesepointshavebeenforciblymadebywhatisgenerallyreferredtoasdependency,orneo
Marxist,theory.Thisschoolofthoughtwasradicallytoaffectdevelopmentstudiesduringthe1970s.
DependencyTheory
OneofthefirstgroupstoexplaindevelopmentintermsofpoliticalandhistoricalstructureswastheEconomicCommissionofLatinAmerica(ECLA).Establishedin
1948bytheUnitedNations,bythe1950sthishadbecomeagroupofradicalscholarswhoseoutlookwasdeeplyinfluencedbyMarxism.TheworkoftheECLA
drewattentiontothestructureofunderdevelopment:unequalrelationsbetweentheNorthandSouth,especiallyintermsoftrade,theprotectionismofmanyNorthern
economiesandthedependencyonexportmarketsofmanycountrieswithinLatinAmerica.Thesenotionsofdependencyandunderdevelopment(asopposedto
undevelopment)gainedwidespreadrecognitionwiththeworkofA.G.Frank(1969).10
DrawingfromMarxistconceptsofcapitalismasinherentlyexploitative,dependencytheoristsarguethatdevelopmentisanessentiallyunequalisingprocess:whilerich
nationsgetricher,therestinevitablygetpoorer.LikemostMarxistanalysis,theirworkisprimarilyhistoricalandtendstofocusuponthepoliticalstructureswhich
shapetheworld.Ratherthanbeingundeveloped,theyargue,countriesintheSouthhavebeenunderdevelopedbytheprocessesofimperialandpostimperial
exploitation.Onemodelwhichisusedtodescribethisprocessisthatofthecentreandperiphery(Wallerstein,1974).ThispresentstheNorthasthecentre,or'core'
ofcapitalism,andtheSouthasitsperiphery.Throughimperialconquest,itisargued,peripheraleconomieswereintegratedintocapitalism,butonaninherentlyunequal
basis.Supplyingrawmaterials,whichfedmanufacturingindustriesinthecore,peripheralregionsbecamedependentuponforeignmarketsandfailedtodeveloptheir
ownmanufacturingbases.Theinfrastructureprovidedbycolonialpowersiswhollygearedtowardsexportinmanycasesaneconomymightbedependentupona
singleproduct.Dependencyisthus
acontinuingsituationinwhichtheeconomiesofonegroupofcountriesareconditionedbythedevelopmentandexpansionofothers.Arelationshipofinterdependencebetween
twoormoreeconomiesorbetweensucheconomiesandtheworldtradingsystembecomesadependentrelationship
Page17
whensomecountriescanexpandthroughselfimpulsionwhileothers,beinginadependentposition,canonlyexpandasareflectionoftheexpansionofthedominantcountries,
whichmayhavepositiveornegativeeffectsontheirimmediateposition.(DosSantos,1973)
Closelyrelatedtotheoriesofdependencyarethosepresentingtheglobeasasingleinterrelatedsysteminwhicheachcountryisunderstoodintermsofitsrelationship
tothewhole.ImmanuelWallerstein's'worldsystem'(1974)andWorsley'snotionof'oneworld'(1984)arecentraltotheseideas.Itisfromthiscontextthatnotionsof
'ThirdWorld'and'FirstWorld'havedevelopedthesetermsexplicitlyrecognisethewayinwhichtheworldisdividedintodifferentandyetinterdependentparts.The
ThirdWorld,itsuggests,isnotnatural,butcreatedthrougheconomicandpoliticalprocesses.
Structuresofdependency,theargumentgoes,arealsorepeatedinternally.Justasonaninternationallevelthecentreexploitstheperiphery,withinperipheralregions
metropolitanareasattractthebulkofscarcelocalresourcesandservices.Theyareoccupiedbythelocalelite,who,throughtheirlinkswiththecentre,spend
considerabletimetakingprofitoutofthecountry(byinvesting,forexample,incostlyeducationabroad).Likeinternationalrelationsbetweencentreandperiphery,
theyalsoexploitsurroundingruralareas,throughunequalexchange,forexampleintermsoftradebetweenruralfarmersandurbanmarkets.Capitalaccumulationin
theperipheryisthereforeunlikelytooccur,bothbecauseofprocesseswhichsuckitintothemetropolitancentre,andbecauseofwiderinternationalprocesseswhich
takeitoutsidethecountry.
Dependencytheorythereforeunderstandsunderdevelopmentasembeddedwithinparticularpoliticalstructures.Inthisviewtheimprovementpoliciesadvocatedby
modernisationtheorycanneverwork,fortheydonottackletherootcausesoftheproblem.Ratherthandevelopmentprojectswhicheasetheshorttermmiseriesof
underdevelopment,orsupportthestatusquo,dependencytheorysuggeststhattheonlysolutionpossibleisradical,structuralchange.Thereareofcourseexamplesof
thissolutionbeingfollowed.Theradicalinternalrestructuringofcountriesembracingsocialism(ChinaandCubaarekeyexamples)andthesubsequentproblemsfaced
bythemdemonstratethatthisisaroutefraughtwithdifficulty,however.Notonlyisstatesocialismoftenassociatedwithextremepoliticalrepression,butbythe
1990s,withthebreakdownofcommunismintheSovietUnionandEasternEurope,thenewopennessofChinatoworldtrade,aidandother
Page18
manifestationsofcapitalism,andtheeconomiccrisisfacingCuba,itslongtermviabilityappearslimited.
Theinternationalpoliticalbacklashagainststatesocialismwhichgatheredforceduringthe1980shasbeenmatchedbysimilarlyforcefulrevocationofneoMarxist
analysiswithinacademia.ThegeneralisationsofMarxistanalysis,itsinabilitytodealwithempiricalvariationanditsinsistenceonpushingallhumanexperienceintothe
narrowstricturesofasingletheoryarefundamentalproblems.Analytically,itappearstobeoflimitedhelp,foritsexplanatoryframeworkistoosimplistic.Itisalso
attackedfromwithinorthodoxMarxism.BillWarrenhasarguedthatdependencytheoryfailedtounderstandthenatureofimperialismandcapitalistdevelopmentin
thepreviouslycolonisedSouth.Ratherthanremainingstagnantandperpetuallyunderdeveloped,theexcoloniesaremovingforwardinawaylargelyinkeepingwith
Marx'soriginalideasabouttheprogressive(thoughdestructiveandcontradictory)forceofcaptalismwithinhistheoryofhistoricalmaterialism(Warren,1980).
Oneofthemainproblemswithdependencytheoryisthatittendstotreatperipheralstatesandpopulationsaspassive,beingblindtoeverythingbuttheirexploitation.
Whileitiscertainlyimportanttoanalysethestructureswhichperpetuateunderdevelopment,however,wemustalsorecognisethewaysinwhichindividualsand
societiesstrategisetomaximiseopportunities,howtheyresiststructureswhichsubordinatethemand,insomecases,howtheysuccessfullyembracecapitalist
development.
Ratherthanofferingsolutionstosocietiesinthecapitalistworld,dependencytheoryisindangerofcreatingdespondencyinitsinsistencethatwithoutradicalstructural
change,underdevelopmentisunavoidable.Thisdoesnotmeanthatithasnothadpervasiveandcontinuinginfluenceondevelopmentalpractice.Ithascontributedto
thepoliticisationofdevelopment,whichcannolongerbepresentedasneutral.Internationally,thispoliticisationisexpressedbytheformationofalliancesofThird
WorldcountriesagainsttheNorth,suchastheNonAlignedMovement,whichsinceitsinceptionfollowingtheBandungConferencein1955hasactedasakindof
internationalpressuregroupforThirdWorldcountries.OutofthisemergedtheGroupof77countries(G77)whichfunctionsasacounterbalancetotheinfluenceof
theNorthernindustrialnationswithintheUNanditsassociatedagencies(McGrew,1992).
Notionsofdependencyhavealsocontributedto,andreflect,theincreasingpoliticisationof'development'intheSouthatbothgrassrootsandstatelevels.Asan
intellectualmovement,its
Page19
proponentsweremostlysituatedintheSouth,inparticularLatinAmerica.Mostfundamentally,neoMarxistanalysisraisesaquestionlargelyignoredbytheoriesof
modernisation,butofcrucialimportance:whogetswhatfromdevelopment?Byfocusinguponthewaysinwhichprofitforsomeisconnectedtolossforothers,neo
Marxistanalysisremainsanimportantcontributiontotheunderstandingofdevelopment,evenifasananalyticaltoolitissometimesalittleblunt.
Whilemodernisationanddependencytheoryarepoliticallypolaropposites(oneliberalandtheotherradical),theyhaveasurprisingamountincommon.Bothare
essentiallyevolutionary,assumingthatcountriesprogressinalinearfashionandthatitiscapitalismwhichpropelsthemfromonestagetothenext.Bothassumethat
changecomes'topdown'fromthestatetheyignorethewaysinwhichpeoplenegotiatethesechangesand,indeed,initiatetheirown.Botharefundamentally
deterministicandarebaseduponthesamefundamentalrationalistepistimology(Hobart,1993:5LongandLong,1992:20).Mostcruciallyforthoseatthereceiving
endofunderdevelopment,neitheroffersarealisticsolution.Modernisation'simprovementpolicies,whichwronglyassume'trickledown'fromprofitmakingelitesto
therest,oftendolittletohelpthepoorestandmostvulnerable.Meanwhiletheradicalchangesuggestedbydependencytheoryisoftenimpossibletoachieve.
Inthemid1990s,wecandiscerntheinfluenceofbothmodernisationanddependencytheoryincurrentpracticeandthinking.Notionsofmodernisationsurvivein
muchcontemporarydevelopmentalthought.Aswehavealreadymentioned,agenciessuchastheWorldBankremaincommittedfirstandforemosttopromoting
economicgrowth.Meanwhilestatementssuchasthefollowing,fromaFoodandAgricultureOrganisationreportonthesocioculturalaspectsofamultimilliondollar
aquacultureproject,arestillsurprisinglycommon:
Itmaybethatattemptingtoinculcate'modern'valuesandpracticesmaybeeasierwithvillagerswhoarealreadymore'modernised'...However,thisprinciple,ifcarriedtoofar,
couldleadtoconcentrationofeffortonthe'bestprospects'andneglectofthosewithmanifestlybetterneedofassistance.(FAO,1987)
Theonlythingwhichdifferentiatesthisfromearlierstatementsofmodernisationistheratherselfconscioususeofinvertedcommas.
Dependencytheoryalsocontinuestoinfluencethoughtandpractice.Itcanbelocated,forexample,alongsidenotionsofempowermentwhichrejectaidasaformof
neoimperialismandarguethat
Page20
postivechangecanonlycomefromwithinSouthernsocieties.PaoloFriere'sworkonfunctionaleducation,whichhashadahugeinfluenceonsomeareasof
developmentalpractice,inparticularuponnongovernmentalorganisations(NGOs),isanexampleofthepracticalapplicationofneoMarxisttheoryfirstand
foremost,hesuggests,peopleneedtodeveloppoliticalconsciousness,andtheroutetothisisthroughpedagogictechniquesofempowerment(Friere,1968).Debates
ongenderanddevelopmenthavealsoincreasinglyinvolvedawarenessofthestructuralinfluencesofglobalinequalityandcolonialismongenderrelations,andofthe
needforwomenintheSouthtoempowerthemselvesratherthanberecipientsofNorthernbenevolence(SenandGrown,1987).
TheDemiseofDevelopmentTheory
Despitetheselingeringinfluences,itwasincreasinglyarguedduringthe1980sthattheageofthe'grandnarrative'11waslargelyover.Bythe1990s,neither
modernisationnordependencytheoryhavesurvivedintactasaviableparadigmforunderstandingchangeandtransformation,orprocessesofpovertyandinequality.
Therearevariousinterconnectedreasonsforthis.Wehavealreadysuggestedthatneithertheorycanrealisticallyexplaintheproblemsofglobalinequalityandpoverty.
Thestrategiestheyofferforredressingsuchproblemsarealsoflawed.Buttherearewiderfactorsoperatingtoo.
Politically,assincethelate1980stheoldpolaritiesoftheColdWarhavebecomeobsolete,thereismuchtalkofa'NewGlobalOrder'.Althoughthisconceptis
contested'12theglobalandpolarisedstrugglebetweenthetwoopposingsocioeconomicsystemsofcapitalismandcommunismisclearlyatanend.Itisnolongerso
easytospeakofthe'ThirdWorld',fortheboundariesbetweentheFirstandtheSecondhavelargelycollapsed.WithintheNewGlobalOrderthereisalsonoeasy
divisionbetweenstatesontheperipheryandthoseinthecentretheeconomicdynamismofEasternAsia,forexample,whichisovertakingtraditionalcentresof
capitalisminNorthAmericaandEurope,appearswhollytodisprovedependencytheory.Combinedwiththis,religiousandethnicrevivalism,andtheconflictwith
whichbothareoftenassociated,havevividlyindicatedthatunderstandingmodernityisnotnearlysosimpleamatteraswasonceassumed.
The1990s:TheAgeofPostModernity?
Arguablythen,inthe1990swehaveenteredtheageofpostmodernism.Whilethistermhasvariousmeanings,itismostsimply
Page21
explainedasaculturalandintellectualrejectionofmodernity.Culturally,postmoderntendenciesintheNorthcanbetracedbacktothe1940sand1950s,wherein
theartshaveincreasinglymovedbeyondmodernismtoabroader,morepluralisticrangeofstylesandtechniqueseclecticism,parodyandmultimediaformsarenow
common.Likewise,theboundariesbetween'high'and'low'cultureareincreasinglybrokendown:insomequarterstheworksofMadonnaortelevisionsoapoperas
areconsideredtobeasvalidsubjectsforcriticalanalysisandattentionasShakespeareorclassicalopera.Intellectually,postmodernisminvolvestheendofthe
dominanceofunitarytheoriesofprogressandbeliefinscientificrationality.Objective'truth'hasbeenreplacedbyemphasisonsigns,imagesandthepluralityof
viewpoints:thereisnosingle,objectiveaccountofreality,foreveryoneexperiencesthingsdifferently.Postmodernismisthuscharacterisedbyamultiplicityofvoices.
Postmodernisminvolvesbothconservativeandsubversivepoliticaltendencies.Byinsistingupondiversityandculturalrelativity,itdisregardsthepossibilityof
commonproblemsandthuscommonsolutions.Sorevolutionarymovementswhichadvocateblanketremediesforsocialillssuchasstatesocialismarenotonthe
agenda.Initsinsistenceuponlocatingparticularvoicesanddeconstructingwhattheysay,however,itisinherentlysubversive.EdwardSaid'sbrilliantanalysisof
Orientalism(1978),forexample,deconstructsNorthernwritingsonthe'orient'toshowhowtheyhomogeniseandexoticisethe'East'andbydoingthisfunctionas
theideologicalbackboneofimperialism.FollowingFoucault,sincethelate1970sand1980stherehasbeenanincreasingawarenessoftherelationshipbetween
discourse(fieldsofknowledge,statementsandpractice,suchasdevelopment)andpower.Fromthis,allcategorieswhichlumppeoplesorexperiencestogether
becomepoliticallysuspect.Onesignoftheincreasingacceptanceofsuchviewsisthatthe'ThirdWorld','women'orthe'poor'aremoreoftenthannotaccompanied
byinvertedcommastoshowourawarenessoftheproblematicnatureofsuchcategories.Theseargumentshavehadaradicaleffectontheauthorityof'experts',
fundamentallyunderminingmanyoftheearlierassumptionswhichcameoutofthecolonial,andpostcolonial,North.
Theinfluenceofsuchargumentsshouldnotofcoursebeexaggerated.Themajorityofpeopleworkingwithindevelopmentarelargelyunawareofpostmodernismand
arecertainlynotinterestedinproblematisingthediscourseswithinwhichtheywork.Wesuggest,however,thatdevelopmenttheoryhasreachedaprofoundimpasse,
andthatthisispartlyaresultofpostmoderntendencies.
Page22
Emphasisondiversity,theprimacyoflocalisedexperienceandthecolonialrootsofdiscoursesofprogress,ortheproblemsoftheThirdWorld,haveradically
underminedanyattemptatgeneralisation.Toadegree,thisisreflectedinpractice.Overrecentdecadestherehavebeenmanydifferentapproaches,whichratherthan
beingbasedupononesingletheoreticalcreed,promisingallencompassingsolutionsinasinglepackage,attempttodealwithspecificproblems.Itisbesttodiscuss
theseasstrategiesratherthantheories,formanydrawonseveraltheoreticalsources.Thenewtrendsalsorelatemoredirectlytopracticeandpolicyratherthan
theory.
Intheabandonmentofgeneralisedanddeterministictheory,thereisanincreasingtendencytofocusuponspecificgroupsandissues('women','thelandless'),13a
morereflexiveattitudetowardsaidanddevelopmentandanewstressupon'bottomup',grassrootsinitiatives.Theseperspectiveswerealreadyemerginginthe
1970s,whenstressupon'basicneeds',ratherthanmacrolevelpolicyaimedatindustrialisation,wasincreasinglyfashionablewithinaidcircles.Insteadofbeingradical,
thesestrategiesareinherentlypopulist.Aspartofageneraltrendwhichplacespeoplemoredirectlyonthedevelopmentalstage,theyareclosertoliberalideologiesof
individualism,selfrelianceandparticipationthanMarxistonesofrevolutionorsocialism.Othertrendsincludehumandevelopment,14theuseofcostbenefitanalysis
andtheconceptof'goodgovernment',orinstitutionbuilding.WeshallreturntosomeofthesenewdirectionsinChapter5.Fornow,weneedonlynotethattheydo
notcompriseabodyofhomogeneousthoughtandpractice.Indeed,wesuggestthatdevelopment,bothastheoryandaspractice,isincreasinglypolarised.While
multilateralagenciessuchastheWorldBankorUnitedNationsagenciesembraceneoliberalagendasofstructuraladjustment,freetradeand'humandevelopment',
othersstressempowermentandtheprimacyofindigenoussocialmovements.Asthenotionofdevelopmentlosescredibility,developmentpracticeisbecoming
increasinglyeclectic.Thiscanbebothconfusinganddirectionless,andliberating:asourceofpotentialcreativity.
PostModernismandAnthropology
Justaspostmodernistapproacheshaveproblematisedconceptsandtheoriesofdevelopment,theyarealsoassociatedwithacrisisinanthropology(Grimshawand
Hart,1993).Whilethedegreeofthisiscontested,therecanbelittledoubtthatsincethemid1980smanyconventionaltenetsofthedisciplinehavebeenrigorously
queried,
Page23
bothwithinandoutsidetheprofessionalestablishment.Toadegree,anthropologyhasalwayshadsomepostmoderntendencies.Culturalrelativism,oneofthe
discipline'scentraltenets,insistsuponrecognisingtheinnerlogicofdifferentsocieties.Theworldisthuspresentedasculturallydiverseandcomposedofmany
differentrealities.Whatanthropologistshavenottendedtoquestiontillrecently,however,isthestatusoftheknowledgethattheygather.Ahistoricalgeneralisations,
basedupontheobservationsofthe'objective'anthropologist,havebeenmadeinmany'classic'ethnographieswhichdisguiseheterogeneitywithinlocalculture.
Theoreticalframeworkssuchasfunctionalismandstructuralism(whichcontinuedtoinfluencesomebranchesofanthropologyupuntilthelate1970s)15tendtoreduce
societiestoaseriesofcommonalities,whetherthesebethenotionofinterdependentinstitutionswhichfunctiontomaintaintheworkingsoftheoverallsocialsystem,as
infunctionalism,ortheideaofcommonbinaryoppositionswhichunderlieallsocialformsandtowhichallculturescanbereduced,asinstructuralism.
Inmanywaysthen,anthropology'sclaimtorepresentandunderstandthediversesocietiesoftheworldisaneasytargetforpostmoderncritiques.Oneareainwhich
ithasbeenattackedistheclaimofsocalledobjectivegeneralisation,orwhatJonathanSpencercalls'ethnographicnaturalism'(1989:1534).Thisconfersauthority
ontheanthropologistbysuppressingthehistoricalspecificityoftheethnographicexperience.Givenpostmodernemphasisonlocalanddiversevoices,theintellectual
authorityoftheanthropologistwhoissupposedlyprovidingan'objective'accountofexoticpeoplesiseasilycriticised.
Uneaseaboutthequasiscientificparadigmsofanthropology,andtextualconventionswhichconstructanthropologistauthorsasexperts,wasexpressedbyaseriesof
publicationsoverthe1980s,suchasCliffordandMarcus'sWritingCulture(1986),MarcusandFischer'sAnthropologyasCulturalCritique(1986)andClifford's
ThePredicamentofCulture(1988).Writingconventionsarenot,however,theonlyproblem.Growingreflexivityaboutthecolonialheritageofanthropology16and
itscontributiontoimperialistdiscoursesabouttheSouthern'other'havecontributedtoincreasingintrospectionconcerningthesubject'sassumptions.Objectificationof
otherpeoples,wenowrealise,islinkedtopoliticalhierarchy(GrimshawandHart,1993:8).Anthropologicalrepresentationsarenotneutral,butembeddedinpower
relationsbetweenNorthandSouth.Thishasledtowhatinfeministtheoryhasbeentermedthe'politicsoflocation'(CornwallandLindisfarne,1994:445)the
notionthat
Page24
onehasnorightto'speak'forothergroups,andtheascribingoflegitimacyonlyto'authentic'voices.
Theseargumentshaveledtovariousreactions.Someanthropologistshavemovedawayfromethnographyandretreatedintotheanalysisanddeconstructionoftext
othershaveexperimentedwithdifferentstylesofwriting.Aconsiderablenumberhaveretainedtheirinterestinethnography,butturnedtheirattentiontotheirown
societies,ortoothersintheNorth.Rabinow(1986:259)hasarguedthatonesolutiontothe'crisisofrepresentation'facinganthropologyisto'studyup'andresearch
thepowerfulratherthanthepowerless.Thismightinvolvestudyingcolonialauthorities,planners,governmentanddevelopmentagenciestoo.Connectedtothisisthe
callto'anthropologisetheWest'(ibid.:241).Anthropologists,itissuggested,needtoturntheirattentionawayfromtheexotic'other'andfocusinsteaduponthe
assumptionsoftheirownsocieties.Whilesufferingconsiderableselfdoubtandanxiety,sincethelate1980santhropologyhasthereforemovedinvariousnew
directions.
AnthropologyandPostDevelopment:MovingOn
ArturoEscobarhasattackedanthropologistsworkingindevelopmentforfailingtoreacttochangestakingplacewithinanthropology,forquestionablemethodological
practicesandmostdamninglyforreproducingdiscoursesofmodernisationanddevelopment(1991:677).Inalaterworkhesuggeststhatdevelopmentmakes
anthropologicalencounterswithThirdWorldotherspossiblejustascolonialismoncedid.Ratherthanchallengingit,anthropologists'overlookthewaysinwhich
developmentoperatesasanarenaofculturalcontestationandidentityconstruction'(1995:15).Thereareindeedgraveproblemsfacinganthropologistsengagedwith
development.Ifweacceptthatitfunctionsasahegemonicdiscourse,inwhichtheworldisrepresented,orderedandcontrolledinparticularways,howcanthose
workingwithinitnotbeethicallycompromised?
Intherestofthisbookwehopetoshowthatwhiletherelationshipbetweendevelopmentandanthropologyishighlyproblematic,anthropologistsshouldnotsimply
retreat.Discoursesarenotstaticbutcanbechanged,bothbythoseworkingwithinthem(whocanhelptochallengeandunpickcentralassumptionsandpractices)
andbythoseworkingoutside(byrevealingalternativeunderstandingsoftheworldandalternativeprocessesofchange).Weshahsuggestthattheseprocessesare
alreadyunderway,andhavebeenforsometime.Whileitisundeniablytruethatanthropologistsindevelop
Page25
mentareoftencompromised,theirinsightscooptedandneutralisedbythedominantdiscourse,theirworkpracticeschangedandtheircriticalfacultiesnumbed,this
neednotnecessarilybethecase.
Ifbothanthropologyanddevelopmentarefacingcrisisinthe1990s,bothtoocontainthepossibilitiesforpositiveengagementandchange.Anthropologycan
contributetomorepositiveformsofdevelopmentalthoughtandpractice,bothbyworkingindevelopmentandalsobyprovidingacriticalaccountofdevelopment.As
weshallargue,thisdistinctionisoftenblurred:thosethatproducecritiquesofdevelopmentofteninfluencedevelopmentpractice,evenifunintentionally.Meanwhilethe
studyofdevelopmentisafertileareaforanthropologistswishingtoanswerRabinow'scallto'studyup'.Itisalsoawayinwhichwecanmovebeyondthesilencingof
identitypoliticstoamorepoliticallyengagedanthropology.Somefeministshavearguedthattheremustbepostmodern'stoppingpoints'ratherthanendlesscultural
relativism(Nicholson,1990:8),andthatonesuchpointisgender.Wesuggestthatanotheristhepoliticsofpoverty.
What,then,dowemeanbydevelopment?Weusethetermheretorefertoprocessesofsocialandeconomicchangewhichhavebeenprecipitatedbyeconomic
growth,and/orspecificpoliciesandplans,whetheratthelevelofthestate,donoragenciesorindigenoussocialmovements.Thesecanhaveeitherpositiveornegative
effectsonthepeoplewhoexperiencethem.Developmentisaseriesofeventsandactions,aswellasaparticulardiscourseandideologicalconstruct.Weassumethat
theseareinherentlyproblematicindeed,someaspectsofdevelopmentareactivelydestructiveanddisempowering.
Ratherthanpromotingdevelopmentperse,whatweareinterestedinischallengingthesocialandpoliticalrelationsofpoverty,throughgeneratingandapplying
anthropologicalinsights.Wedefinepovertyasastateinwhichpeoplearedeniedaccesstothematerial,socialandemotionalnecessitiesoflife.Whilethereare'basic
needs'(water,sufficientcalorificintakeforsurvivalandshelter),manyofthesenecessitiesareculturallydetermined.Povertyisfirstandforemostasocialrelationship,
theresultofinequality,marginalisationanddisempowerment.ItoccursintheNorthaswellastheSouth(althoughmuchofourattentioninthisbookwillbeconfinedto
theSouth).Wesuggestthatwhileweneedtomovebeyondthelanguageandassumptionsofdevelopment,theapplicationofanthropologyinattemptingtoconstructa
betterworldisasvitalaseverinthepostmodern,andpostdevelopment,era.Beforediscussinghowthismightbedone,letusturntothehistoryofapplied
anthropology.
Page26
2
ApplyingAnthropologyAnHistoricalBackground
SincetheearliestdaysofBritish,FrenchandUSanthropology,someanthropologistshavebeeninterestedinusingtheirknowledgeforpracticalpurposes.Thisbranch
ofthedisciplinebecameknownas'appliedanthropology'.Fromthe1930sonwards,manyacademicanthropologistscollaboratedformallyorinformallywith
professionalsengagedinpublicadministration,socialworkandagriculture.Otherssoughtcareersoutsideacademiainsectorswheretheirskillscouldbeutilisedona
longertermbasis,workinginfieldsasdiverseasindustry,agriculture,conservationanddefence.
Oneofthemainareasinwhichthese'applied'anthropologistshavelongbeenactiveisthatofdevelopment.1 Someoftheearliestappliedworkwascarriedoutfor
theBritishcolonialadministrationsinAfrica,whereanthropologistsundertookresearchintoareasofspecificinteresttoadministrators,providedinformationoradvice
toofficials(eitheronrequestorofalessspecific,unsolicitedkind)orparticipatedinthetrainingofgovernmentservants.IntheUS,opportunitiesforapplied
anthropologyoriginatedthroughtheBureauofIndianAffairs,whichbecameasponsoringbodyforresearchintolocalcustoms,politicalinstitutionsandlandholding
patternsandrights.
Theconcernsofappliedanthropologistsgrewmorewiderangingasopportunitiesweretakenupforworkinareasasdiverseasinnercitycommunityhealthcare,
companymanagementwithinprivateindustryandinvolvementinUSgovernmentcounterinsurgencyactivities.Anthropologywasseenatthistimeasatoolwhich
gaveadministratorsorbusinesspeopleanabilitytounderstand,andthereforetosomeextentcontrol,thebehaviourofthepeoplewithwhomtheyweredealing,
whethertheywere'natives',employeesor
Page27
consumersinthemarketplace.ThegradualprofessionalisationandinstitutionalisationofdevelopmentaftertheSecondWorldWarledtothecreationofformal
opportunitiesforappliedanthropologiststoworkindevelopmentagenciesorasprivatedevelopmentconsultants.
Thischapterbeginswithabriefhistoryofappliedanthropologybeforemovingontoadiscussionofthedifferentrolesinwhichappliedanthropologistshaveworkedin
development.Weconcludebyconsideringthevariouswaysinwhichanthropologistshavebeendeployedwithindevelopment(asconsultants,advisorsand
researchers)andwesuggestthedirectionthatappliedanthropologymighttakeinthefuture.
Anthropologists,SocialChangeandCulturalRelativism
Earlyanthropologistswereengagedindebatingtwomajorsetsoftheoreticalissueswhichboredirectlyonthepracticalapplicationofanthropologicalknowledge.The
firstofthesewasthenotionofchangeitself.Withinanthropology,socialchangewasinitiallydebatedbetweendiffusionists(suchastheGermanKulturkreiseschool,
whichincludedFritzGraebnerandMartinGusinde),whosawchangeasgraduallyspreadingacrossculturesfromacommonpoint,andevolutionists(includingLewis
H.MorganandHerbertSpencer),whoseideasrestedontheassumptionthatallsocieties,ifleftalone,wouldevolvethroughbroadlysimilarstages.Intimethe
diffusionistarguments,whichrecognisedthatculturesinteractwitheachotherandaretherebyaltered,graduallyreplacedthoseoftheevolutionists.Withthegrowthof
functionalism,anthropologybegantoconcernitselfmorewiththemeansthroughwhichsocietiesmaintainedthemselvesthanwiththewaysinwhichtheychanged.2
Duringthe1930s,thefunctionalistperspectiveofmodernBritishsocialanthropology,personifiedbytheworkofA.R.RadcliffeBrownandBronislawMalinowski,
emphasisedtherelationshipsbetweendifferentelementsofasocietyandthewaysinwhichitreproducedandmaintaineditself.Thefunctionalistspaidverylittle
attentiontohowcommunitieschangedovertime.ThetendencytostudysocietiesasiftheywerestaticremainedstrongintheperioduptotheSecondWorldWar,but
waschallengedbyanthropologistsinterestedinwhatwastermed'culturecontact'inthecolonialterritories.Graduallyanthropologicalworkbegantotakeaccountof
thehistoricalcontextofcommunitiesandexplanationsofsocialandpoliticalchange,incontrasttoinfluentialbutahistoricalethnographicmonographssuchasEvans
Pritchard'sTheNuerand
Page28
Malinowski'sArgonautsoftheWesternPacific.Althoughthisseemsobviousfromthevantagepointofthe1990s,Beattie'sobservationhasnotalwaysbeen
reflectedintheworkoffunctionalistanthropologists:
Changeistakingplaceinallhumansocietiesallthetime.Sometimesitissuddenandcatastrophic,aswhenasystemofgovernmentisdestroyedbyrevolutionandreplacedbya
differentonesometimesitisgradualandhardlyperceptible,sothateventhemembersofthesocietythemselvesscarcelynoticeit.(1964:241)
Increasingly,changecametobeseenasinseparablefromsocietyitself,andtherealisationandacceptanceofthisbyanthropologistsunderpinacontinuingrelationship
betweenanthropologyanddevelopment.Nevertheless,itremainsthecaseeventodaythatanthropologyretainsaresidualreluctancetoinvolveitselfwithcertain
aspectsofchange.Aninterestingexampleofthistrait(andonewhichwediscusslater,inChapter5)isanthropology'slatenessincontributingtorecentdebatesinthe
socialsciencesaboutwhathavebeentermedthe'newsocialmovements'andparticularlytoquestionsaboutpeople'spoliticalandculturalstrugglesinpursuitofsocial
andeconomicgoals(Escobar,1992:397).
Asecondobstaclewhichstoodinthewayofdevelopinganappliedanthropologywastheissueofculturalrelativism,whichwasstrongerintheUSthaninBritain.
Relativismraisedtheproblemoftheethicsofinterventionbyanthropologistsinthecommunitiesinwhichtheyworked,adilemmawhichhasneverbeensatisfactorily
resolvedandwhichcontinuesasatopicfordiscussiontoday.Theethicalchoiceofmakingpracticaluseofanthropologybecameacomplexoneformany
anthropologists.Ifaculturewastobeunderstoodonitsownterms,asRuthBenedict'sinfluential1934book,PatternsofCulture,hadconvincinglyargued,what
businessdidmembersofoneculturehavetellingthoseofanotherwhattodo?EricWolfhaspointedoutthat:'Appliedanthropology,bydefinition,representsa
reactionagainstculturalrelativism,sinceitdoesnotregardtheculturethatisapplyinganthropologyastheequaloftheculturetowhichanthropologyistobe
applied'(1964:24).
Theimplicationsofthisdebatearestillbeingfeltamongmanyanthropologistsinacademicdepartmentsaroundtheworld:betweenthosewhofavouramoreopen
endedtheoreticaldevelopmentofthedisciplinethroughprolongedfieldwork,andthosewho,crudelyspeaking,mightseeanthropologyasatoolforsocialengineering
or,asweourselvesmightprefertoputit,aretryingtohelpraiselivingstandardsnotonlyinmaterialterms,butwithregard
Page29
tolegalrights,freedomofexpression,qualityoflifeforthepoorersectionsoftheworld'spopulation.
TheOriginsofAppliedAnthropologyintheUK
Colonialadministrationscreatedstructuresandinstitutionswhichprofoundlyinfluencedthesocieties,politicsandculturesofthe'indigenous'peoplesoverwhichthey
assumedcontrolinAfricaandAsia.Manyprewaranthropologistsgainedopportunitiesforfieldworkwithinthisframework,andtherewasagrowinginterestonboth
sidesinthepossibilitythatanthropologymightplayaroleinassistingthecolonialadministrationswiththeirwork.Thenotionofan'appliedanthropology',inwhich
anthropologicalskillscouldbedeployedinordertoproduceadesiredoutcomeintheencounterbetweencommunitiesandthestate,arosefromthisrealisation.The
BritishanthropologistLaneFoxPittRivershadusedtheterm'appliedanthropology'in1881(Howard,1993:369)andSirRichardTemplehadbeenurgingtheuseof
anthropologyasa'practicalscience'inthecolonialcontextsince1914(Grillo,1985:5).Oneofthebestknownearlyadvocatesof'appliedanthropology'was
RadcliffeBrownduringthe1920s,inthecontextofdiscussionsundertheUKcolonialadministrationsconcerningsocialchangeandcontactbetweencultures.
Thequestionofapracticalroleforanthropologyprovokedconsiderablecontroversyamonganthropologists,activistsandofficials.Somecolonialadministratorssaw
anthropologistsasotherworldly,nonpracticaltypeswithlittleofvaluetocontributetothedaytodayadministrativeproblemsoftheterritories.Theanthropologists,
particularlythosewithliberalorantiimperialistviews,tendedtoviewlocal,nonWesterncultureassomethingtobepreserved,almostatallcosts,againsttheravages
ofcolonialism.Therewasconsiderablescopefordisagreementandmisunderstandingonallsides.Butdespitethesehurdles,therewereanthropologists(someof
whomwereveryinfluential)whodecidedthatanthropologydidhavesomepracticalvalueandcouldthereforebeappliedwithinanadministrativecontext.For
example,RadcliffeBrownbegancoursesin'appliedanthropology'afterhisappointmentasProfessorofSocialAnthropologyattheUniversityofCapeTowninthe
early1920sandsetupaSchoolofAfricanStudiesbasedonthestudyofanthropology.OneofRadcliffeBrown'smainmotivationswasthereductionofconflict
betweenwhitesandblacksinSouthAfricaandheemphasisedapotentialroleforanthropologyincon
Page30
tributingtobetterculturalunderstandingbetweencommunities(Kuper,1983).
Fromthisperiodonwards,itbecamepossibleforanumberofanthropologiststofindfieldworkopportunitiesandfundingwithintheBritishcolonialsystem,usuallyin
theAfricanterritories,wheretheyworkedonissuessuchaslocallandtenuresystemsandproposedreforms,successiontoauthorityinparticulartribes,labour
migrationandcustomarylaw.SimilarprocesseswereunderwayamongFrenchanthropologistsintheirgovernment'scolonialterritories.Someanthropologistswere
commissionedtoundertakespecificresearchonprescribedareasofgovernmentinterest,othersprovidedinformationandsuggestionsonaregularorhaphazardbasis
andoutofavarietyofmotivations,rangingfromcriticalsupportforcolonialadministrationstotheattemptedsubversionofthe'system'fromwithin.
TheOriginsofAppliedAnthropologyintheUS
IntheUS,evolutionaryideasaboutcultureweregraduallydisplacedaftertheFirstWorldWarbythoseofthe'culturalanthropologists',whoseoutlookdrewonthe
relativistideasoftheirfounderFranzBoas.Incontrasttotheevolutionists,whosawsocialchangeintermsofculture'sadaptationtoenvironment,Boas'sworkamong
theEskimos(Inuit)hadledhimtoadoptaviewofcultureasbeingcompletelyindependentof'natural'circumstances,andinasensethisopenedthewayfor
anthropologicalinterventioninsocieties.AsBloch(1983:1268)hasargued,theviewofcultureheldbytheseanthropologistsledtothepredominanceofa'cultural
relativism',whichheldthat'itiswrongtoevaluateonecultureintermsofthevaluesorknowledgeofanother'.Blochgoesontopointoutthatthedominanceofcultural
anthropologyintheUSintheperioduptothe1950ssquaredwithprevailingAmericanpoliticalideas.Whilerecognisingtheexistenceofculturaldifferences,cultural
relativismmadepossiblethecoexistenceofdifferentethnicgroupswithinonesociety,atthesametimejustifyingnoninterferencebythestateinpeople'slives.
USanthropologistsdidnothavethesameopportunitiesforforeigntravelasdidtheircounterpartsinBritainandFrance.Althoughafew(suchasMargaretMeadand
RobertRedfield)didtravelfurtherafieldduringthe1920sand1930s,mostculturalanthropologistsconcernedthemselveswithdocumentingtheruinedculturesofthe
NativeAmericans,whosecommunitiesprovidedopportunitiesforfieldwork'intheirownbackyards'
Page31
(Wolf,1964:13).Muchofthisworkwas'applied'innature.The1934IndianReorganizationActwaspassedbytheUSCongresswiththeaimofprovidingthe
meansfortheOfficeofIndianAffairstogainaccesstolocalinformationinitsattemptstoreverseresourcedepletiononIndianlandsandincreaseIndianparticipation
inthemanagementoftheirowneconomicaffairs.AnAppliedAnthropologyUnitwassetupinordertolookintothecreationofselfgoverningbodies,settlement
patternsonnewlyacquiredlands,educationpolicies,localmoraleandtheuseofexistinglocalinstitutionsforbringingabout'economicrehabilitationandsocial
control'.TheaimwasforresearchtoinformadministrativeactionontheseissuesunderthenewAct(H.G.Barnett,1956:37).
Inthelate1930stheBureauofIndianAffairsembarkeduponalargescalenaturalresourcesurveywiththeDepartmentofAgricultureinwhichanthropologistsalso
playedarole.Theresultsofthisinterventionincludedrecommendationswhichemphasised'thenecessityoftakingpersistentIndianattitudesintoaccountinplanning
fortheirsocialandeconomicadjustmenttodominantAmericanvalues'(ibid.).
TheAmericansocietyforAppliedAnthropologywasfoundedin1941(farearlierthananycomparablebodyintheUKorFrance)andpublishedawiderangeof
articlesinitsquarterlyjournal,HumanOrganisation.AswellasdocumentingworkwithNativeAmericans,thejournalcoveredissuessuchastheapplicationof
anthropologytoindustry,mentalhealth,healthprogrammesingeneral,andsocialworkandsocialwelfare.However,althoughitisclearthatanthropologistsintheUS
hadbeguntoadoptasenseofresponsibilitytowardsaddressingsomeoftheissuesofwidersociety,asaneditorialpointedoutsome15yearslater,appliedworkin
theearly1940sstilltendedtowardsastaticperspective,withanthropologistsrarelyseekingtotrytoexplainsocialchange(HumanOrganisation,1956:13).
Therelationshipcreatedbetweenanthropologistsandpolicymakersintheworldof'Indianaffairs'exercisedawiderinfluenceontheideasandtheinstitutionsofUS
anthropology.Forexample,theterm'acculturation'wascoinedbyUSanthropologiststoexplainhow'groupsofindividualshavingdifferentculturescomeinto
intensivefirsthandcontact,withsubsequentmajorchangesintheoriginalculturepatternsofoneorbothgroups'(Haviland,1975:366).Thisidealedanthropologists
toexaminechangeintermsofcontactsbetweencultures,whichledtosuchnewideasas'syncretism',whereoldfeaturesblendedwiththenew,or'deculturation',
whereaspectsofculturewerelostaltogether.
Page32
Acculturationwasausefulconceptinthatitprovidedanthropologistswithaframeworkforanalysingchange,butitalsocontainedcertaincruciallimitations.In
presentingculturalchangemainlyintermsofthereorganisationofdifferentcomponentsacrosscultures,emergentaspectsofculture,aswellasthemoresubtlechanges
inrelationshipsbetweendifferentinstitutions,tendedtobegivenlessconsideration.Theemphasisonfirsthandcontactalsooverlookedthetremendouspowerofthe
mediatoinfluenceculturewithouttheneedforanydirectcontact.
WhentheUSenteredtheSecondWorldWarin1941allthiswassettochange.Duringthewar,thegovernmentmadeextensiveuseofprofessionalanthropologists
andasmanyas90percentofanthropologistsmayhavebeeninvolvedinwaractivities(Mead,1977).SomeworkedinareasoccupiedbyUSforces,suchasthe
TrustTerritoryofthePacificIslands,andwerechargedwithfacilitatingthecooperationofthelocalpopulationwiththeauthoritiesinorganisedactivitiessuchas
constructionwork.Trainingwasgiventomilitaryofficersandadministratorsinanticipationoffuturerolesadministeringterritoriestakenfromtheenemy(H.G.Barnett,
1956:12).OtheranthropologistsworkedathomeincentresfortherelocationofJapaneseAmericans.TheUSwareffortwas,accordingtoEricWolf(1964:14),'a
lessoninculturaldominanceonascaleneverseenbefore',andthiswastohaveaprofoundeffectonUSanthropology:aconsciousnessgrewinwhichsocietywas
seenasfarmorepowerfulthanindividuals.
Theresultwasthatmanyanthropologistswithdrewfromaninvolvementinwidersocialissuesthroughtheirwork,retreatingtowardsamorestrictlydelineatedarenaof
'academic'ethnographicandtheoreticalresearchapositionwhichwewillconsiderinmoredetaillaterinthischapter.
Anthropology,ColonialismandAsymmetricalPower
Theutilisationbyanthropologistsofopportunitiesforfieldworkwithincolonialadministrationshassubsequentlybeensubjecttoconsiderablecriticism.Thebest
knowncritiqueisbyTalalAsadandcolleagues(Asad,1973),whomountedapowerfulretrospectiveattackontheaimsandmotivationsoftheseanthropologistsand
indeeduponanthropologyitself,baseduponwhatAsadseesasthesubject'scolonialorigins.ItwastheunequalencounterbetweenEuropeandtheThirdWorld,it
wasargued,whichgavetheWesttheopportunitytogainaccesstothetypesofculturalinformationuponwhichanthropologydepends.Anthropologyitselfbecame
Page33
partofthisactofdomination,thoughAsadrecognisesthatanthropologysimultaneouslyaspartofwhatheterms'bourgeoisconsciousness'providedideasand
activitieswhichdidnotreflecttheideologyofthecolonialadmininistration.
Whileitwouldbewrongtojudgetheactionsofthoseanthropologistswhoworkedforcolonialadministratorsbythecriteriaofanotherage,itisalsonaivetoassume
thatanthropology'srelationshipwithcolonialismwasnotitselfthesubjectofconsiderabledebatewithinthedisciplineandsoulsearchingamongindividual
anthropologists.Forinstance,P.H.GulliverhassubsequentlyreviewedhisworkamongtheArushapeopleforthecolonialgovernmentinwhatusedtobeTanganyika
inEastAfricaduringthe1950s(Gulliver,1985).Gulliver'sjobhadbeentoidentifyissuesofimportanceandproviderelevantinformationtothegovernment.While
someofhisrecommendationswererejectedorignored,others,suchastheneedtomakemorelandavailableforArushasettlementtorelievepressureonheavily
cultivatedexistinglands,andthereorganisationofArushalocalgovernmenttoincludeanelectedtribalcouncilwithlegislativeresponsibilities,wereaccepted.He
writes:
ithasbeengenerallyacknowledgedthatmanyofusinsocialanthropologywerecriticalofcolonialregimes,bothforwhattheyrepresentedanarmofWesternmetropolitan
exploitationandpaternalism,tingedwithracialismandfortheirinequitiesandinefficienciesandthedownrightoppressionbyparticularregimesinparticularconflicts.Withsuch
acriticalattitude,itneverthelessseemedtomein1952,whenIappliedfortheappointmentinTanganyika,thatcolonialismwasthegoingregimeanditseemedreasonableand
attractivetotry,redworkwithinit,tocontributetowardsameliorationandimprovementandeven,justalittle,tohastenitsend(ibid.:45).
Alongsidethosewhoarecriticalofanthropology'sroleinthecolonialera,andthosewhojustifytheirinvolvementonthebasisoftheirabilitytoplayaroleinimproving
conditionsforcolonisedpeoples,thereisathirdviewwhicharguesthatinfactthewholerelationship,forbetterorforworse,hasbeenexaggerated.Kuper(1983)
suggeststhatmanycolonialadministratorswerescepticalofanthropologistsandhostileingeneraltoscholarship,whichwasregardedasirrelevanttodaytoday
issuesofadministration.3 EvansPritchard,inanarticlewrittenin1946,bemoanedthefactthatintheprevious15yearsofworkintheSudanhehadneveroncebeen
askedhisopinionaboutanythingbytheauthoritiesthere.
TheBritishacademicestablishmentinitsallocationofresearchfundingduringthe1940sand1950stendedtorewardscholarshipratherthanappliedorpractical
research.Thissimultaneously
Page34
servedtowidenthegulfbetweentheanthropologistsandcolonialadministrations(Kuper,1983:11415).DemandfromtheUKForeignOfficeforapplied
anthropologywasweak,andanthropologiststhemselvesdidlittletocountertheviewsofthosewhosawthemas'romanticreactionaries'orunworldly,even
untrustworthy,eccentricswhoalltoooften'wentnative'.Indeed,Kuperpointsoutthat:'anthropologistsfailedtodevelopacoherentviewofthestructureofcolonial
societies,andso,withtheirfunctionalistorientation,theywereeasilycastintothemouldofthestereotype'(ibid.).
Manyanthropologistswereuninterestedintherolewhichtheauthoritieswantedthemtoundertake:thatoforganisingpeopleinpracticalwaystomakethetaskof
administrationmoreeffective,whichasJames(1973)pointsout,wouldhavemadeanthropologythereal'toolofimperialism'.Thiswasadifferenttypeof
anthropologyfromthatwhichmostpractitionerswerepreparedtoundertake.
Manyoftheseissuescontinuetobedebatedwithinthefieldofdevelopment,withanthropologistsworryingaboutbeingcooptedandcompromisedandadministrators
beingconcernedthatanthropologistscannotdeliverusefuloutputs.Gulliver'scomments,particularlytowardstheendofthepassagequotedabove,alsoreflect
continuingtensionswithinthedisciplinebetweentheoryandpracticeandillustratethedilemmawhichstillhauntsmanyanthropologistsconsideringworkingin
developmenttoday.
Therehavealsobeenlongstandingcritiquesofanthropology'sasymmetricalpowerrelationsatthemicrolevel,whereanthropologyhasbeenaccusedofspeaking
aboutindigenouspeoplesbutonlyrarelycommunicatingwiththem(Sponsel,1992).Thedataacquiredbyanthropologists(whichdependsontheirinformants'
cooperation,hospitalityandgoodwill)isoftenhierarchicallycontrolledwithinprofessionalorcommercialinstitutions,fromwhichitcaneasilybemanipulated,while
ethnographytendstobewritteninlanguagestowhichinformantsmayhavelittleornoaccess.Thesecritiques,asweshallsee,havebeenrespondedtowithvarying
degreesofsuccesswithinappliedanthropology.
PostWarAppliedAnthropology
Appliedanthropologyemergedintothepostwarerawithitsreputationsomewhattarnished.Manyofthenewnationalistleadersinnewlyindependentcountries
identifiedanthropologistswiththeoldorder.4 IntheUS,thedubiousactivitiesofmanyanthropologistsduringtheSecondWorldWarunderminedthelegitimacyof
appliedworkamongacademicanthropologists.Therewastherefore
Page35
ageneralreactionamongsocialscientistsagainstgovernmentanditsinterventionistforeignpolicy,thoughsomeanthropologistsdidcontributetocounterinsurgency
activities(Hoben,1982).ProjectCamelot,forexample,initiatedin1964,wasaUSarmysocialscienceprojectfocusingonissuesofsocialconflictintheUSand
countriessuchasChile(Belshaw,1976).TherewereclearlinkswithdubiousUSforeignpolicyobjectives:ProjectCamelotcausedfuriousdebateinacademiccircles
andwaswidelydiscredited.InBritain,anthropologywaswithdrawingfromitsremainingcoloniallinksandwiththesechangeslostamajorsourceofappliedfunding.
Furthermore,anthropology'sofficialinfluenceinthepostcolonialworldfadedastheBritishForeignOfficewasreorganisedduringthe1950sandtherewereno
anthropologistsinvolvedwhentheOverseasDevelopmentMinistrywasestablishedin1964(Grillo,1985:16).
SomeanthropologistswereabletoexpandtheirappliedrolesinthepostwarperiodintheUSbytakinguppositionsinofficialpolicycirclesandbyadvisingonthe
Trumangovernment'snewprogrammeofforeignaid,which,asnotedinChapter1,effectivelylaunchedtheconceptofdevelopmentassistancetotheSouth.New
agenciesandinstitutionswererapidlyestablishedforthispurpose.However,theimpactoftheseanthropologistsondevelopmenttheoryandpracticewasnot
sustained,andthenewscienceofdevelopmenteconomicsheldmoreswaythananthropology.Forthoseanthropologistswhocontinuedtoworkinappliedfields,
problemsandtensionsremainedintheirrelationshipswiththebureaucratsandthepolicymakers.Anthropologiststendedtolackstatuswithintheadministrative
hierarchy,especiallywhencomparedwithengineersandeconomists.H.G.Barnett(1956:49)wroteatthetime:'Nomatterhowtactfullyitisphrased,thetruthisthat
anthropologistsandadministratorsdonot,onthewhole,getalongwelltogether.'
Thesedifficultieshadsurfacedparticularlyinthecaseofanthropologistsworkinginassociationwithgovernmentagencies,whereprejudices,preconceptionsand
doubtsonbothsidestendedtomakeattemptedcollaborationarathermarginalendeavour.Bytheearly1970s,veryfewanthropologistsremainedamongthe
membersoftheInternationalCooperationAdministration(ICA),whichwastheforerunnerofUSAID,eventhoughthishadoncebeenthecountry'smainemployer
ofanthropologists(Hoben,1982:354).
Appliedanthropologistsdidnotreceivemuchrespectfromtheirmoreacademiccolleagueseither.Althoughtheirstatuswithinthedisciplineasawholehadneverbeen
particularlyhighineitherBritainortheUS,insomeacademicdepartmentsthepursuitof
Page36
appliedanthropologynowcametobeconsidered,inLucyMair's(1969:8)oftquotedwords,asan'occupationforthehalfbaked'.Acontinuingdivergencebetween
mainstreamacademicanthropologyandappliedanthropologypromotedafeelingamongmanyuniversitybasedstaffthatonlythesecondrateanthropologistscarried
outappliedwork,whilethe'real'anthropologistsworkedonloftier,selfdeterminedsubjectmatter.
Thesechangesdidnotonlyoccurinthedevelopmentrelatedareasofappliedanthropology.MontgomeryandBennett(1979)describeageneralmoveintheUS
awayfrompracticalanthropologicalconcernsinthefieldsofdomesticfoodandnutritionstudiesaftertheSecondWorldWarareaswhereMeadandRedfieldhad
madeimportantcontributionsduringthe1940s.Insteadtherewasa'returnvoyagetotribalethnologyandtheoreticalinterests'awayfromappliedconcerns
(MontgomeryandBennett,citedinRhoades,1984:3).Atthesametime,manynewanthropologydepartmentswerecreatedafterthewarandanumberof
anthropologiststooktheopportunityinthe1950sand1960stoenteracademiaandgain'respectability'.
InIndia,thetraditionalconcernsofanthropologywithminorityor'tribal'communities(astheyarestillknownlocally)ledtotheinstitutionalisationofanthropology
withinthenewlyindependentstate.AnthropologicaltextsformedpartofthetraininggiventoIndiancivilservants.Anthropologywasseenashavingaspecialised
contributiontomakeinthetaskofnationalsocialandeconomicdevelopment,andagovernmentDepartmentofAnthropologyestablishedin1948becameaCentral
AdvisoryBoardforAnthropologyin1958,chargedwithfurtheringtheeconomicdevelopmentofthe'tribal'areas.Neverthelessadistrustofanthropologists'motives
continuedinsomequartersofIndiansociety,wheretheywere(notwithoutevidence)suspectedofbeingmoreinterestedinkeeping'tribal'people'inazoo'thanin
helpingtoaddresstheirrealproblems(Mathur,1989:43).InAfrica,another15yearsorsoofcolonialgovernmenthadtobeenduredbeforeanthropologybeganto
findaplacewithinnewlyindependentcountries.5
IntheWestatleast,fewanthropologistshadattemptedtoforgelinkswithprofessionalsinotherfields.Thisisolationiststancestoodinstarkcontrasttotheir
counterpartsineconomics,whosepractitionerswerefarmorepreparedtoputthemselvesattheserviceofwidersociety.Incontrast,anthropologyremainedlargely
rootedwithintheacademicestablishment,andintheUSwasbasedwithinliberalartscollegesasopposedtosciencecampuses,isolatedfromthepracticalconcerns
ofeconomics,managementandagriculture.
Page37
Anthropologistsingeneralgainedareputationforbeingoverconcernedwiththeintellectualindependenceoftheiracademicagendasandunrealisticallyinhibitedabout
thedangersof'sellingout'.
Thistendencywasparticularlytrueinthecaseofagriculture.Whileagriculturaleconomistshadshownareadinesstoplacethemselveswithinpracticaldevelopment
situations,anthropologistshadnot,despitetherelevanceoftheirconcerns.Thedisciplineofagriculturaleconomicsbenefitedfromthewidermodelofa'client
relationshipwithsociety'whichhadbeenpursuedbytheeconomicsestablishment(Thurow,1977,citedinRhoades,1984:4).However,someagricultural
anthropologistsintheUSinthe1950sand1960sdidgiveseriousattentiontoappliedissues,butthesetendedtobeindividualswhowereonlyoccasionallysuccessful
inmakingasignificantimpactinpracticalterms.AsRhoades(1984:ix)pointsout,whileRedfieldandWarnerhadwrittenaslongagoas1940ofanthropology's
potentialproblemsolvingroleinagriculturethroughitsabilitytoprovideinsightsintothesocialandenvironmentalaspectsoffarmers'lives:
Overthefourdecadessincethearticleappeared,thepathsofanthropologistsandagriculturalscientistsrarelycrossed,amostsurprisingcircumstancesinceanthropologists
havedealtmoredirectlyandintimatelywithfarmingpeoplesthananyothergroupofsocialorbiologicalscientists.
Ofcourse,asweshallseeinChapter3,therewereimportantexceptions.GeertzexploreddevelopmentissuesinIndonesiafromacontextual,historicalperspective
andhisworkwaswritteninaformwhichwasaccessibletononanthropologists.Forinstance,PeddlersandPrinces(1963)tellsthestoryofthedifferinghistoriesof
entrepreneurshipintwoIndonesiantowns,whichherelated,drawinguponWeber'sideasaboutreligionandeconomics,tohistoricalandculturalfactors.Agricultural
Involution,publishedbyGeertzinthesameyear,waswidelyreadandcitedbyagriculturaleconomistsandothersworkingonIndonesia,sinceitengagedwith
agriculturalproductionissues,ecologyandagrarianchange.Fromourvantagepointinthe1990s,manyoftheassumptionscontainedwithinthesestudiesnowseem
taintedwithamodernisationperspectiveondevelopment,suchastherelianceonconceptssuchas'takeoff'.ButtherecanbenodoubtthatGeertz'sworkplayedan
importantroleincontinuingtodeveloplinksbetweentheconcernsofanthropologyanddevelopment,whileproducingworkwhichremainedattheforefrontofwider
academicdebate.
Page38
IfanthropologistsintheUShadbythisstagelosttheir'politicalinnocence',asHoben(1982:356)haspointedout,anumberofnewdoorsdidopenforthe
revitalisationofappliedanthropology.Forexample,theconceptof'actionanthropology'evolvedfromtheworkofSolTaxandhiscolleaguesamongNativeAmerican
communitiesandattemptedtomovebeyondtheconfinesofbothacademicandappliedanthropologybypursuingaresponsibilitytothemembersofacommunityside
bysidewiththeacquisitionofknowledge(Polgar,1979:409).AccordingtoTax(Blanchard,1979:438),theanthropologistundertakingactionanthropologyhastwo
goals:'He[sic]wantstohelpagroupofpeopletosolveaproblem,andhe[sic]wantstolearnsomethingintheprocess.'
Aswellasallowingfortheexplicitinvolvementoftheanthropologistincommunityproblemsolving,thisapproachemphasisedtheneedfortheanthropologistto
presenthisorherfindingstoboththeacademicandthe'native'community.Thiswasanewidea:whereastheBureauofAmericanEthnologyhadbeenestablishedas
anarmofUSCongresstogenerateinformationforpolicyimplementationtowardsindigenouspeople,nocomparableinformationflowhadbeenprovidedforthose
peoplethemselves(Sponsel,1992).
Bythe1960s,anthropologistswhowerebelatedlyadoptingananticolonialstancefoundtheoreticalsupportforamorepracticalinvolvementinradicaldevelopmental
activitiesthroughtheemergenceof'dependencytheory'(seeChapter1).Anumberofanthropologistsproducedworkwhichdrewontheideasofpoliticaleconomy
tolocateethnographieswithinthewiderinternationaleconomicrelationshipsaffectingcommunitiesundercapitalisttransformation.Twoinfluentialexamplesofthistype
ofworkareEricWolf'sEuropeandthePeoplewithoutHistory(1982),whichisdiscussedinChapter3,andSidneyMintz'sSweetnessandPower(1985).
ManyanthropologistswithintheUSmainstreamhadbecomemoreinterestedintheeffectsofeconomicchangeonsocialdifferentiationwithincommunities,weremore
opentosamplingandquantitativemethodologiesandhadbeguntogeneratebodiesofworkonissuessuchashealthcaredelivery,technologyadoptionand
education,andanumberofthesejoinedUSAID(Hoben,1982:356).Developmentagencieswereatlastreflectinglongstandingappliedanthropologicalconcerns,
andmoreattentionwasbeingpaidtothesocialandculturalcontextofUSAIDprojects.
Anthropologistsfromthe1970sonwardswerethereforeabletomakesomeimpactontheallocationofdevelopmentresourcestolowincomegroups,asofficial
policygraduallyrecognisedthelimi
Page39
tationsofthe'trickledown'approachbuttheycannotbesaidtohavesuccessfullychallengedthedominantdevelopmentparadigm.Thetraditionofapplied
anthropologyathomewascontinuedby,amongothers,CyrilBelshaw,whosebookTheSorceror'sApprentice(1976)advocatedclosertieswithpolicymakersby
elaboratingaconceptof'socialperformance'whichcouldevaluatetheeffectivenessofasocialsystemindeliveringgoods,servicesand'satisfactions'intheeyesofits
people.
Despitealoyalcommitmenttoappliedanthropologyamongsmallnumbersofanthropologiststhroughoutthepreviousdecades,itwasnotuntilthelate1960sandearly
1970sintheUKthatlargernumbersofanthropologistsbeganengagingonceagainwithpolicyissuesandneedsbasedresearch.Activistorsociallyconcerned
anthropologistsbegantorejecttheconfinesofapurelyacademicjobandsoughttoapplyanthropologicalknowledgetotheimportantdomesticsocialissuesofthe
day.Forinstance,duringthisperiodanthropologistsbecameinvolvedwith'racerelations'(Grillo,1985:2).Oneoftheearliestandmostbasicinsightswhich
anthropologistsprovidedatthistimewas,accordingtoBeattie(1964:271),asetofideasabouthowrecognisablephysicaldifferencesbetweendifferentpeoplescan
bemanipulatedonasymboliclevelbythosewishingtoexploitorperpetuatesocial,economicandculturaldifferences.
SomeUKanthropologistsbeganoncemoretoturntheirattentiontodevelopmentissuesintheSouth,inspiredbythenewdependencyperspectiveswiththeircritique
ofneoclassicaleconomicassumptionsandtheirassaultonmodernisationtheory,whichmanyanthropologistshadlongregardedasbeingcrudelygeneralisedand
ethnocentric(T.Barnett,1977).Otheranthropologistsoptedtoworkwithinmainstreamdevelopmentagencies,asoccasionalconsultantsindevelopmentprojects.
Robertson's(1984)workadvocatedmoreinvolvementandresponsibilityamonganthropologistsintheadministrativeissuesofplanneddevelopment,ratherthan
simplyworkingwithmembersofsmallscaleruralcommunities.SomewhatlaterthanintheUS,theBritishOverseasDevelopmentAdministrationbegantoappoint
fulltime'socialdevelopmentadvisors',manyofwhomwereanthropologists,butitwasnotuntilthe1980sthattheconcernsof'socialdevelopment'begantobe
reflectedmorestronglyinODApolicyandpractice(Rew,1985Grillo,1985).
AlongwitharesurgenceinappliedanthropologyintheUKduringthistime,andnodoubtrelatedtoit,wasthegrowingproblemofacademicunemploymentfromthe
early1980sonwards.Socialscienceresearchfundinginparticularandhighereducation
Page40
spendingingeneralwerecutbackseverelyundertheConservativegovernmentofMargaretThatcher.Therewerefewteachingjobsorresearchopeningsfortrained
anthropologistswithintheuniversitysystemandopportunitiesoutsideacademiaforworkinganthropologistssuddenlybecameapressingissuewithinBritain's
professionalassociations.Thedangersofacademicresearchagendasbecomingdeterminedwhollyorinpartbythedemandsofthemarketplaceunderconditionsof
reducedpublicexpenditureduringthe1980sledtofearsabouttheacademiccredibilityofappliedanthropology.6
Thestatusdistinctionbetween'academic'and'applied'worklivesoninsomeUKacademicdepartmentswhileinCanada,appliedworkistaughtalongsidegeneralist
coursesinordertotrytoavoidthedangersofseparatingthetwo(Warry,1992:155).TheAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,themainprofessionalbodyfor
anthropologistsintheUS,lists'appliedanthropology'asalegitimatefieldofthediscipline(thisissomewhatlessapparentincorrespondingUKliterature).Applied
anthropologistshavecontinuedtoundertakeworkandpublishonawiderangeofimportantsocialissues.RecentarticlesinHumanOrganisationhaveincluded
studiesontherelationshipbetweenAIDSknowledgeandbehaviouralchange(Vinckeetal.,1993),theperceptionsofeconomicrealitiesamongdrugdealers(Dembo
etal.,1993),andtheadaptiveproblemsofGeneralMotorspersonnelandtheirfamiliesduringoverseasassignments(BriodyandChrisman,1992).Workin'radical
anthropology'and'actionanthropology'hascontinued,thoughoutsidethemainstream,toexploreissuesofpoliticalaction.7
AswehavealreadynotedinChapter1,mainstreamanthropologyembarkeduponaperiodofreevaluationduringthe1980s,withdiscussionsaboutrepresentation
andtextuality,basedmainlyonthecritiquesetinmotionbytheworkofCliffordandMarcus(1986).Thispostmodernanthropologyconcerneditselfprimarilywith
theneedforareflexiveapproachtoethnographicwriting.Theconceptofpracticewastosomeextentrelegatedtothebackburneragain,despiteitscentralityto
issuessuchasanthropology'srelationshiptodevelopmentandthegrowinginterestamongsociologistsandpoliticalscientistsaboutthenewsocialmovementswhich
werebeginningtochallengeandchangesocialandpoliticalrealitiesatthelocallevel(Escobar,1992).Therealisationthatmuchofappliedanthropologyhadbeen
takingplacewithinwhatEscobar(1995)callsthe'dominantdiscourse'begantostimulatediscussionaboutanthropology'spotentialtochallegeitshegemonyandto
draw
Page41
attentiontoother,lessvisiblediscourses.Thesethemesarereturnedtoinsubsequentchapters.
Therearesignsthattheinsightsofpostmodernismcouldleadappliedanthropologytowardsnewapproachesinkeepingwithradicaldevelopmentperspectives.A
recentarticlebyJohannsen(1992:79)suggeststhecontinuationofTax'straditionofactionanthropologyinwhichanthropologyprovides
aninfrastructureforsustainedselfreflectionbythepeoplebeingstudied,whichwillultimatelyproduceaprocessofselfassessment.Itaimsatempoweringpeoplebyprovidinga
contextthatbetterenablesthemtorepresentthemselves,theircultureandconcerns.
Johannsenadvocatessteeringanewpathbetweentryingtosolveposedproblems(appliedanthropology)andrepresentingaculturalsystembyone'sownwriting
(interpretativeanthropology).Bothtypesofapproachrecognisethatthepracticeofanthropologyisessentiallyaninterventionofsomekind,eitherintentionallyor
unintentionally.Byacceptingthisandmakingitexplicit,apostmodernappliedanthropologycanprovidethemeansbywhichpeoplewithinacommunityrepresent
themselvesandidentifythenatureandsolutionsoftheirproblems.Itremainstobeseenhowthiscouldworkinpractice,buttheseideascomeclosetothetypesof
actionresearchbeingundertakenbysomeNGOsandothergrassrootsorganisations.WewillbediscussingthisinmoredetailinChapters4and5.
AppliedDevelopmentRolesforAnthropologists
Theprecedingsectionshavedealtbrieflywiththehistoryofappliedanthropology.Nowweneedtoturntowhatitisthatanthropologistshavetooffer,andwhatthey
actuallydo.Whatfollowsisanexplorationofthevarioustypesofactivitieswhichappliedanthropologistshaveundertakeninthedevelopmentfield.
Thetraditionalmethodologyofsocialanthropologyiswhatisknownrathervaguelyas'participantobservation':thatis,theprincipleoflivingwithinacommunityfora
substantialperiodoftime'fieldwork',whichmightbeexpectedtotakeoneortwoyearsandimmersingoneselfinthelocalculture,work,foodandlanguage,while
remainingasunobtrusiveaspossible.Manyoftheearliestanthropologistsrecordedtheirobservationsinafieldworkdiary,takingcopiousnotesonallaspectsoflife,
tobewrittenuplaterasamonographorethnographictext,andwithoutnecessarilyhavingasenseoftheparticularresearchquestionstheywishedto
Page42
addressuntiltheywerewellintotheirperiodofstudyorevenuntilaftertheyhadreturnedhome.
Whatresultedfromthisapproach(andmanyofanthropology'sclassictextsfallintothiscategory)tendedtobehighlypersonalisedaccountsvoicedasobjective
accounts,withlittleexplicitdiscussionofresearchmethodology.This,coupledwiththeconventionofchangingnamesofpeopleandplaces,meanttherewasverylittle
opportunityforotherssubsequentlytoverifythemorecontroversialaspectsofanthropologicalaccounts.Inoneofthemorefamousexamplesofanthropological
revisionism,elementsofMargaretMead'sworkinWesternSamoawerechallengedinacontroversialbookbyDerekFreeman(1983),whoallegedthatsomeof
Mead'skeyfindingsongenderandsexdifferenceswerebasedonmisleadinginformationwhichhadbeenprovidedbySamoanadolescentswhohadfounditamusing
tomisleadananthropologistwithstoriesoffictionalsexualexploits.Asnotedinthepreviouschapter,thisquestioningof'classic'anthropologyreachedamoreserious
crisispointduringthemid1980swhenpostmoderncritiques(e.g.CliffordandMarcus,1986)castseveredoubtsupontheauthorityoftheanthropologistandthe
textsheorsheproduced.
Theblandnessofparticipantobservationasatechnicalmethodologicalterminthe1960sand1970swasgraduallyaddressedbythegrowingbodyofmoredefined
datacollectiontechniqueswhichanthropologistsbegantouseunderthegeneralcategoryofparticipantobservation:casestudycollection,questionnairesurveys,
structuredandsemistructuredinterviewing,evencomputermodellingandthesupplementingofqualitativematerialwithquantitativedata.Nevertheless,participant
observationhasretaineditscentralitytotheworkofmanyanthropologists,andanthropologistshaveingeneralretainedtheirfondnessforqualitativeratherthan
quantitativedata.
Appliedanthropologistshavedrawnuponanumberofkeyinsightsfromwideranthropologyinordertoequipthemselvesfortheirwork.Intermsofresearch
methodologies,themainchangeisthatparticipantobervationmustnormallynowbeundertakenwithinatightlycircumscribedtimeframe,withasetofkeyquestions
(providedbytheagencycommissioningtheresearch)replacingthemoreopenended'blanknotebook'approach.Furthermore,theappliedanthropologistknowsthat
hisorherfindingswillbeappreciatedfarmoreiftheycanbepresentedconciselyandmadetoincludeatleastanelementofquantification.
Atamoretheoreticallevel,appliedanthropologistshavetriedtouseanawarenessofWesternbiasandethnocentrismtoprovidea
Page43
counterweighttothelessculturallysensitiveperspectivesofplannersandtechnicians.Appliedanthropologistshaveutilisedtheonceinfluentialdistinctionbetweenthe
'emic'(internalculturalorlinguisticculturalcategories)andthe'etic'(objectiveoruniversalcategories)inordertohighlighttodevelopmentpeopletheimportanceand
varietyofpeople'sowncategoriesofthoughtandaction.8 Inotherwords,whatpeoplesaytheyaredoingmaynotbethesameaswhattheyareactuallydoing,and
whatprojectssetouttodomayinpracticehaveverydifferentoutcomes.
Anthropology's'actororiented'perspective(Long,1977LongandLong,1992)providesavaluableentrypointanda'wayofseeing'whichisappropriatetospecific
developmentprojects,particularlyinruralareasorwithspecificsectionsofthecommunity.Developmentprojectscanthemselvesbeviewedas'communities'.
Combinedwiththis,participantobservation,withthedirectcontactwithlocalpeoplewhichitinvolves,mightbeseenasless'topdown'thanothermethods,suchas
thesurveyorquestionnaire.Finally,appliedanthropologistshavedrawnuponanthropology'sholisticapproachtosocialandeconomiclife,whichstressesan
interrelatednessthatisoftenmissedbyotherpractitioners.Thiswasseenashavingthepotentialtomakeusefullinksbetweenthemicroandthemacroperspectives,as
wellasrevealinghidden,complexrealitieswhichhaveabearingonprojectbasedwork.
Equippedwiththesegeneralinsights,anthropologistshavesetabouttheirappliedworkinaconsiderablenumberofdifferentroles.Firth(1981)hassetoutageneral
typologyandhislistformsausefulstartingpointforourdiscussion.Perhapsthemostcommonroleisthatofmediationbytheanthropologistbetweenacommunity
andoutsidersand,followingfromthis,theattempttointerpretaculturetooutsiders.Anthropologistscansometimescontributetotheformationofpublicopinionon
issuesrelatingtoasmallscalecommunity,suchasthroughjournalismorparticipationinothermedia.Amoreactivelevelofparticipationmightincludehelpingto
providedirectaidduringtimesofcrisisforasocietybeingstudied.Finally,anthropologistscanundertakeclientorientedresearcheitherascommissionedacademics
orasprofessionalconsultants.
Sinceappliedanthropology,aswehaveseen,beganitslifewithinthearenaofpublicadministration,manyappliedanthropologistshavecontinuedtoconcern
themselveswithplanneddevelopment.LucyMair'sAnthropologyandDevelopment(1984)providesanoverviewoftheanthropologist'sroleasintermediary
between'thedevelopers'and'thedeveloped':inwhichanthropologistsshouldactasgobetweensbetweenthetopdowndevelopersandthe
Page44
voicelesscommunities.Ifadevelopmentinterventionistoachieveitsobjectives,thentheanthropologisthasaresponsibilitytobecomeinvolvedtotrytoensurethat
certainkindsofproblemsareavoided.Mairrecountshairraisingstoriesofplannersfoistinginappropriateprojectsonhaplessruralpeople,whichincluderesettlement
schemeswherepeoplearemovedwithoutadequatecompensation,andnewtechnologyresultingineconomicbenefitsbeingcapturedbymenwithinthehouseholdat
theexpenseofwomen.ButMair'sisessentiallyanoptimisticviewofthepotentialofanthropologytorenderdevelopmentmorepeoplecentred,andshereassuresus
that'ifIconcentrateonthedisasters,itisbecausetheyarewhatanthropologicalknowledgemighthelptopreventonlateroccasions'(1984:111).
AppliedAnthropologistsandDevelopmentProjects
Anthropologistsarealsoincreasinglybeingemployedbydevelopmentagenciestohelpwithprojectdesign,appraisalandevaluation.SincetheSecondWorldWarthe
notionofthe'project'hasbecomecentraltomainstreamdevelopmentactivity,whethercentredonlargescaleinfrastructuralworksuchasthebuildingofadamor
bridge,or'softer'areassuchashealthoreducationprovision.Projectstendtopassthroughaseriesofstagedactivities,oftenknownasthe'projectcycle',andthis
processisdepictedinFigure2.1.
Bythe1960sand1970s,theWorldBankandtheUnitedNationswerepromotingwhattheytermed'integratedruraldevelopment',inwhichconventionalplanning
methodswerecastasideinfavourofameasureofcommunityparticipation(atleastatthelevelofintention)insettingneedsandamorecomprehensiveapproachto
tacklingproblemsonanumberofsectoralfrontssimultaneouslyforexample,agriculture,healthcareprovisionandeducationcomponentsmightbelinkedinone
largeproject.Manyoftheseprojectsunfortunatelyremainedconservativeincharacteraslargebureaucraciesprovedthemselvesincapable(orunwilling)toinvolve
localpeopleindecisionmaking(Black,1991).
AsPottier(1993)pointsout,theideathateconomicandsocialchangecanbeframedwithinprojectsiscentraltothetopdown,controllingurgeofdevelopment
activity.Whenquestionsareaskedwithintheconceptualframeworkofaproject,itisalltooeasytosubmittotheideaof'socialengineering'andtoforgetthatmost
'complications'involverealpeopleinreallifesituationsaroundwhichstraightforwarddecisionmakingboundariescannotbedrawn.
Page45
Figure2.1
Theprojectcycle
Butitshouldnotbesurprisingtofindthatmanyappliedanthropologistshaveventuredintotheworldofdevelopmentprojectsinthesincerehopethatbetterresultscan
beachieved.Theyhavebeeninvitedtocarryout'impactstudies'amongthelocalcommunityto
Page46
assesswhetherornottheproject'sobjectiveshavebeenmet.Sometimesthesestudiescanbecombinedwithacademic,longertermresearchconcernsinfamiliar
culturalcontexts,whileothersare'oneoffs'inlessfamilarareasoftheworldfortheanthropologist.Manyanthropologistshaveformedpartofinterdisciplinaryteams
assembledforshortperiodsinordertoundertaketimeboundconsultancieswhichinvestigatethesesetsofissues.
LucyMair(1984)fullyendorsestheinterventionistapproachandarguesthattheappliedanthropologistisinapositiontowarnthoseactiveindevelopmentofthe
'likelyresistancetobemet'withregardtodevelopmentprojectsfromamongthecommunitiesforwhichsuchprojectsaredesigned.Heorsheisalsowellplacedto
tryto'registerthediscontent'ofpeoplebypassedbydevelopmentprocessesandtopassthisinformationtothoseinapositiontomakeimprovements.Thedangerof
Mair'spositionisthatitretainsatendencytotreatcommunitiesasbeing'actedupon'inthedevelopmentprocess,insteadofactivelydeterminingthedirectionand
conditionsofchangethroughamorebottomup,participatoryinvolvement.Thereareotherpitfalls:anthropologistscanbeviewedbydonorsastherepresentativesof
thelocalpeopleandaskedsimplytoprovidecertificatesofsocialacceptabilityforprojects.Anotherareaofdifficultyhasbeenthetendencytobringinthe
anthropologistsonlywhenthingsbegintogowrong,ratherthanhavingtheminvolvedfromthestart.AsRobertsonhasputit,anthropologistshaveoftenbeenused
onlyas'pathologistspickingoverprojectcorpses',withlittleinvolvementinplanning(1984:294).
AppliedAnthropologyandAdvocacy
Theseissueshaveledsomeanthropologistsawayfrommediationandprojectbasedworktowardsadvocacy.Givencontemporarypostmoderndebatessurrounding
'voice',andthelegitimacyofthepronouncementsofoutsidersabout'disadvantaged'groupswhichwerementionedinthelastchapter,thisroleisnotwithoutits
problems.SomeofthepitfallsofadvocacyareexemplifiedbytheworkofOscarLewis,whoinresearchinasluminthe1950sinMexicosawhimselfasbotha
'studentandaspokesman'forthepoor,who(itwasassumed)wereunabletospeakforthemselves.ThepublicationinSpanishofLewis'sbookaboutthe'cultureof
poverty'inasluminMexico(TheChildrenofSanchez)causedapoliticalstormandhewasaccusedbythegovernmentofhavinginsultedthecultureofthepeopleof
Mexico(Belshaw,1976).
Page47
Inspiteoftheseproblems,advocacyhasalongtraditioninappliedanthropology.Duringthe1960s,inthefieldofresettlementissues,ThayerScudderandothers
struggledtoinfluencetheauthoritiesandagenciesinvolvedtotaketheneedsofrelocateesmoreseriously.Scudderwasapioneerofwhatbecameknownas
'resettlementanthropology',thoughtheadvocacyroleoftenadoptedbytheanthropologistinthiscontextbringswithitmanyrisksandresponsibilities(DeWet,1991).
Advocacyhasnowdevelopedintoarelativelywellestablishedtraditionwithinanthropology,atleastwithintheUS,whereactivitieshaveincludedlobbyinginstate
legislaturesforincreasesinwelfarerights,fightingtoimproveconditionsinwomen'sprisonsandtestifyingbeforecongressionalcommitteestosupportchildhealthcare
programmes(M.Harris,1991).
Theappearanceofwhathasbeentermed'advocacyanthropology'byitspractitioners(suchasthatpractisedbytheCulturalSurvivalgroupseeMiller,1995)has
involveditselfwiththeeffortsof'indigenous'peopletogainmorecontrolovertheirlives(Escobar,1992).Forexample,therightofpeopletoretaintheirowncultural
identitiesandtomaintainaccesstotheirlocalnaturalresources(particularlyland)isbeingcontestedintheUnitedStates,Canada,Australia,Brazilandmanyother
countries.AnthropologistshaveplayedaroleinorganisationssuchasSurvivalInternationalandtheInternationalWorkGroupforIndigenousAffairs(IWGIA).These
concernshavealsogeneratedabroaderformofwhathasbeencalled'committedanthropology',whichmayextendoutsidetheformalacademiccareerenvironmentor
thedevelopmentmainstreaminordertobringtopublicattentioncasesofgenocideandethnocide,takingactionincampaigningaboutsuchabusesandmaking
requestsformaterialhelpforcommunitiesunderthreat(Polgar,1979:416).Therehavealsobeencallsforanthropologiststopaymoreattentiontoissuesofconflict
resolution,whichmightallowa'fusionofsocialcommitmentandcriticalinsight'(Deshen,1992:184).
Inthedevelopmentcontext,theadvocacyrolehastendedtobemoreassociatedwithresistancetooutsideinterventionsratherthanprimafacieagendabuildingfor
example,supportingoppositionfromlocalcommunitiestothebuildingofadam,orthepreservationoflocalcultureinthefaceofchangeandrepression.Thenew
emphasisontheideaof'participation'withindevelopment(whichwediscussfurtherinChapter5),alongwithsoulsearchingwithinanthropologyitself,hasmeantthat
anthropologistsarenowkeenertoseethemselvesasfacilitatingdisadvantagedgroupswithinacommunityinfindingtheirvoices,ratherthanspeakingonbehalfof
Page48
them.Ashiftmaybeunderwaywhichtakestheanthropologistawayfrommediatingbetweenpeopleandprojectstowardsfacilitatingbettercommunicationbetween
communitiesandoutsiders.
Tosomeextenttheseadvocacyand'socialmobilisation'rolesareoneswhichmanyNGOsandcommunitygroupsalreadyfulfilthemselves.Therehasbeena
tremendousgrowthinrecentyearsofNGOactivities,withadvocacyandlobbyinganimportantpartoftheagenda.Thecaseforanthropologists'involvementhere
maybeweakenedinmanycontexts,andthiswillbediscussedinChapter7.Nevertheless,anthropologistsareinagoodpositionfromwhichtocontribute:helpingto
facilitateorcreatesituationsinwhich,say,hitherto'voiceless'lowincomefarmerscanputacrosstheirviewstopolicymakersthroughtheirownformsoflocal
organisation,andhelpingtonetworkinformationandlobbyingpolicymakersintheNorth,areperhapssomeofthekeyroleswhichremainfortheapplied
anthropologistinthedevelopmentcontext.9
Conclusion
Variousotherapproachestodevelopmentissueshavebeentakenbyanthropologists.Forexample,althoughanthropologistssuchasLucyMairexplicitlyrejectthe
dependencyschoolofdevelopmenttheorywithitsimplicationthatonlybyrevolution,notevolutionarychange,canrealdevelopmenttakeplace,moreradical
anthropologistshavesoughttodevelopexplicitlyjustsucha'revolutionaryanthropology'(Stavenhagen,1971).
Ratherthanstandingapartfromthesubjectsofstudy,someanthropologistshavethereforeacceptedvariousdegreesofinvolvementwiththepeopleamongwhom
theyhaveworked.Sometimesthistakestheformofhelpingoutinvariouswayswithlocalproblems(suchasprovidingmedicalsuppliesortakingamemberofthe
communityfortreatmentoutsidethelocality),ortryingtohelpthecommunitythroughprovidingresources,suchascontributingtothebuildingofanewschool.Other
anthropologistshavetakenamoreactiveroleincommunityaffairs,adoptingtheviewthattheirresearchimplieswiderresponsibilitiesforbringingaboutchange,as
debatesaboutempowermentandparticipationwithindevelopmenthavebeguntocrossfertilisewiththepostmodernquestioningofconventionalanthropological
theoryandpractice.
Insubsequentchaptersofthisbookweshallfurtherexplorethedifficultissuesfacedbyanthropologistsworkingindevelopmentinthe1990s.Isanthropology
hopelesslycompromisedbyitsinvolvementinmainstreamdevelopmentorcananthropologistsofferan
Page49
effectivechallengetothedominantparadigmsofdevelopment?Wewillarguethatanthropologistscansuggestalternativewaysofseeingandthusstepoutsidethe
discourse,bothbysupportingresistancetodevelopmentandbyworkingwithinthediscoursetochallengeandunpickitsassumptions.Theanthropologicalcritiqueof
developmentisoftenapiecemealtask,resemblingaconstantchippingawayatagiantrock,buttherockisnotimmovable.
Page50
3
TheAnthropologyofDevelopment
Anthropologists,ChangeandDevelopment
Whileanthropologistshavelongmadepracticalcontributionstoplannedchangeandpolicy,manyhavealsostudieddevelopmentasafieldofacademicenquiryin
itself.Althoughmuchofthisworkhas'applied'uses,itsprimaryobjectivehasbeentocontributetowidertheoreticaldebateswithinanthropologyanddevelopment
studies.Inthischapterweshallexploresomeofthiswork,andattempttoshowhowthedistinctionbetweenwhatNormanLongcalls'knowledgeforunderstanding'
versus'knowledgeforaction'islargelyfalse.Inotherwords,the'anthropologyofdevelopment'cannoteasilybeseparatedfrom'developmentanthropology'(i.e.
appliedanthropology).AsLongpointsout,suchadichotomyobscurestheinextricabilityofbothtypesofknowledge,thusencouragingpractitionerstovieweverything
notwritteninreportformas'irrelevant'andresearcherstoignorethepracticalimplicationsoftheirfindings(LongandLong,1992:3).Asweshallseeinthisandthe
nextchapter,theinsightsgleanedfromknowledgeproducedprimarilyforacademicpurposescanhaveimportanteffectsuponthewaysinwhichdevelopmentis
understood.Thisinturncanaffectpracticalactionandpolicy.
Ratherthannecessarilybeingtrappedwithinthedominantdiscoursesofdevelopment,weshallalsosuggestthattheanthropologyofdevelopmentcanbeusedto
challengeitskeyassumptionsandrepresentations,bothworkingwithinittowardsconstructivechange,andprovidingalternativewaysofseeingwhichquestionthe
veryfoundationsofdevelopmentalthought.Researchwhichfocusesuponlocalresistancetodevelopmentactivities,orwhichcontradictsstaticanddualisticnotionsof
traditionalandmodern
Page51
domains,arejusttwoexamples.Aswehopetoshowtoo,therelationshipbetweenanthropologyanddevelopmentisnotnecessarilyoneway:thestudyof
developmenthasprovedtobefertilegroundforanthropology,influencedbyandfeedingintowiderdebateswithinthediscipline.
Sincenosocietyisstatic,changeshouldbeinherentinallanthropologicalanalysis.However,thishasnotalwaysbeenthecase.Whileinitsearliestphasesthe
disciplinewasbaseduponmodelsofevolutionarychange,fromthe1920suntilthe1950sBritishsocialanthropologywasdominatedbythefunctionalistparadigmsof
MalinowskiandRadcliffeBrown(GrimshawandHart,1993:1429).Thesepresentedthe'exotic'peoplesstudiedasisolatedandselfsufficientsocialinstitutions
werefunctionallyintegratedandeachcontributedindifferentwaystosocialreproduction.Ratherthancontinuallychangingaccordingtowiderpoliticaloreconomic
circumstances,suchsocietieswerethereforepresentedinahistoricalterms,functionallyboundtogetherbythesumoftheircustomsandsocialinstitutions.
Bythe1960sandearly1970s,structuralfunctionalismwasincreasinglysupersededbythestructuralismofLeviStrauss.1 Whilebasedonquitedifferenttheoretical
premissesfromthoseofstructuralfunctionalism,thistoowaslargelyuninterestedinchange,seekingoutthebinaryoppositionswhich,thestructuralistsargued,
underlieallhumanculture.Althoughstructuralfunctionalismandstructuralismwerenottheonlyparadigmsinanthropologyovertheseperiods,andwriterssuchas
Leachchallengedthestaticnatureofstructuralfunctionalistaccounts,2 ingeneralhistoryandeconomicchangewerenotgivenmuchconsiderationbythemainstream.
Thistendencycontinuestodayintheworkofsomeanthropologists.Indeed,culturalunitsareoftenportrayedinethnographyasisolatesiftheforcesofmarketorstate
arementioned,theyarepresentedasautonomousforces,impingingfromtheoutside(MarcusandFischer,1986:77).
Inspiteofthesetrends,individualanthropologistshavelongbeenstudyingtheeffectsofeconomicchange,developmentprojectsandglobalcapitalism.Withinsome
branchesofanthropology,suchworkhasalwaysbeencloselyconnectedtotheory:FrenchMarxistanthropologyisjustoneexample.3 Meanwhile,recognitionofthe
historicalembeddednessofethnographyhasbeengrowinginrecentdecades.Thisisassociatedwithanthropology'srecentboutofselfcriticismandreflexivity,and
withwidercritiquesofthewayinwhichWesternscholarshiphaspresentedtimeless,ahistorical'others'(ibid.:78).Today,understandingculturalandsocial
Page52
organisationasdynamic,ratherthanfixedordeterminedby'set'essentials,iscentraltocontemporaryanthropology.Itiswidelyappreciatedthatculturedoesnotexist
inavacuum,butisdeterminedby,andinturndetermines,historicallyspecificpoliticalandeconomiccontexts.
Inthisshortchapterwecannotbegintodiscussthevastrangeofanthropologicalworkwhichplaceschangeatthecentreoftheanalysis.Evenifweonlyincluded
researchwhichfocusesdirectlyonsituationswherecapitalistformsofproduction,exchangeorlabourrelationshaverecentlybeenintroduced,thepotentialrangeof
materialishuge.Itisnotourintentiontoproduceacomprehensivesurveyofsuchwork,nordoweintendtodiscussthemanynonanthropologicalstudiesof
development.Instead,inwhatfollowsweprovideaquick'taste'ofthewaysinwhichanthropologistshavetackledeconomicchangeandgrowth,whetherthiswas
deliberatelyplannedormorespontaneous.Asweshallsee,whilenotallofthisworkexplicitlyquestionsorchallengesthedominantdevelopmentdiscourse,someofit
doessoimplicitly.
Ingeneral,theanthropologyofdevelopment(andbythiswemeanplannedandunplannedsocialandeconomicchange)canbelooselyarrangedaroundthefollowing
themes:
1.Thesocialandculturaleffectsofeconomicchange.
2.Thesocialandculturaleffectsofdevelopmentprojects(andwhytheyfail).
3.Theinternalworkingsanddiscoursesofthe'aidindustry'.
Someworkcoversallthesethemesthefirsttwo,inparticular,arecloselyinterrelated.Clearlytoo,thepotentialapplicabilityofthedifferentanalysesvaries.Work
whichaddressesthesecondissue,forexample,oftenaimstoaffectpolicyaswellasaddtoacademicdebate.Itisgenerallysympatheticratherthancompletely
condemnatoryofdevelopmentpractice,assumingthattheunderstandingswhichitprovidesarecrucialtoolsinthestruggletoimprovedevelopmentfromwithin.Inthis
senseittendstoblurtheboundariesbetweenacademicandappliedanthropology.Incontrast,anthropologistsinterestedinthelastquestionareusuallylessinterested
inaidingdevelopmentpractitionerswhiletheirinsightsmayhavepolicyimplications,suchworkrarelyendswithpracticalrecommendations.Insteadtheyhopeto
problematisetheverynatureofdevelopment.Asweshallsee,thethreethemescanalsobelinked,albeitveryloosely,tohistoricalchangeswithinbothdevelopment
andanthropology.
Page53
TheSocialandCulturalEffectsofEconomicChange
Althoughthestudyofeconomicchangehasnotalwaysbeenacademicallyfashionable,individualanthropologistshavelongbeengrapplingwithit.Aswesawinthe
lastchapter,therelationshipbetweenanthropology,itspracticalapplicationandquestionsofchangewereoriginally(inBritishsocialanthropologyatleast)entangled
withcolonialrule,especiallyinAfrica.Malinowskiwasthefirst:anthropologisttoproposeanewbranchofthesubject:'theanthropologyofthechanging
native'(1929:36,andcitedinGrillo,1985:9),sendingstudentssuchasLucyMairtoAfricatostudysocialchange,ratherthanmoreabstracttheoreticalprinciples.
EvenEvansPritchardaccusedtodayofhavingremainedsilentinhisfamousethnographicwritingsontheNueraboutthefrequentaerialbombingsoftheirherdsas
partofthecolonialgovernment's'pacification'programmeinthe1930sduringhisfieldworkarguedinearlierworkthattheNuerwereinastateoftransition,their
clansandlineagesbrokenupbyendlesswars(discussedbyKuper,1983:94).Letusstart,then,withsomeoftheearlyworkofBritishanthropologistsworkingin
colonialAfrica.
RuraltoUrbanMigrationand'Detribalisation'
OneoftheearliestcollectiveeffortstomakesenseofeconomicandpoliticalchangeinAfricawasembodiedbytheRhodesLivingstoneInstitutein1937.Whileitwas
originallyassumedthattheInstitute'sresearchwouldconcentrateupon'traditional'Africanrurallife,thedirector,GodfreyWilson,madeitclearthathewasmost
interestedinurbanisationanditsinfluenceonrurallife(Hannerz,1980:123).InthebookswhichresultedfromWilson'sresearchinBrokenHill(nowZambia)
(Wilson,19411942),hearguedthatwhileCentralAfricansocietywasnormallyinastateofequilibrium,destabilisingchangeshadbeenintroducedwhichhadledto
disequilibrium.Thesechangesweremostlytheresultoftheincreasinginfluenceofcapitalistproductionwithintheregion:industrialisation,andgrowingruraltourban
migration.AsinZambia'sCopperbelt,BrokenHillwasdominatedbytheEuropeanminingindustry,whichlargelydeterminedAfricanmigrationtoandsettlement
withinit.Becausecolonialpolicydiscouragedpermanentsettlement,mostofthemalemigrantsworkingfortheminesmovedbetweentheirvillagesandthetown.
Wilsonsuggestedthatdestabilisationmightbeoffsetifthispolicywerereversedand
Page54
proposedthateventuallythechangeswouldbeincorporatedbythesocialsystem,leadingoncemoretoequilibrium.
UrbanmigrationinRhodesia,asinotherpartsofAfrica,hadadramaticeffectonruralareas.Manyvillageslostalargeproportionoftheirmalelabourforce,andmost
migrantscouldnotaffordtosendbackenoughremittancestocompensate.Theworkofotheranthropologistsconfirmedthisgloomyviewoflabourmigration,linkingit
withdecreasingagriculturaloutput(A.Richards,1939)andculturaldecay(Schapera,1947).Whilethisperspectivewastochangeinlaterstudieswhichsuggested
thatruraltourbanmigrationinAfricamightbeaforceofmodernisation(forareview,seeEades,1987:3),other,morecontemporaryworkhastakenupsimilar
themes.ColinMurray'sanalysisoflabourmigrationinLesotho,forexample,showshowrurallifehasbeendeeplystructuredbyitsdependenceontheexportof
labourtoSouthAfrica.Oscillatingmalemigrationhasgeneratedeconomicinsecurity,maritaldisharmonyandthedestructionoftraditionalkinshiprelations.Inother
words,capitalaccumulatedattheurbancoretakesplaceattheexpenseoftheruralperiphery(Murray,1981).
Whilethisbodyofworkraisesquestionsabouttherelationshipofsocietiesonthe'periphery'totheglobalpoliticaleconomy,researchbasedintheCopperbelttowns
hasgreatlycontributedtoanthropologicalunderstandingofethnicity.TheRhodesLivingstoneInstitute,andthecontinuationofitsworkunderMaxGluckmanatthe
UniversityofManchester,focusedlargelyuponsocialandculturalformswithintheminingtowns.Centraltomuchofthiswastheissueof'detribalisation',theargument
thatonceindividualsmovedtothetownstheirtribalbondsbecamelessimportant,beingsupersededbyclassorworkplaceaffiliations.Researchshowedthatthiswas
notnecessarilythecase.Rather,tribalidentitiesandobligationschanged,andwereusedindifferentwaysintheurbansetting.Mitchell'sseminalanalysisoftheKalela
Dance(1956),Epstein'sPoliticsinanUrbanAfricanCommunity(1958)andCohen'sslightlylateranalysisofYorubatradersandtheuseofethnicityforpolitical
andeconomicinterests(1969)raisedquestionsofidentity,ethnicconflictandculturaldiversity,whichareofcentralinteresttoanthropologiststoday.
AgriculturalChange:Polarisation
WhiletheanthropologyofurbanisationinAfricawasrootedinprewarcolonialpolicy,studiesofruralchangeinSouthandSouthEastAsiawerelargelyinfluencedby
postcolonialstates'effortsto
Page55
moderniseinthe1950sand1960s.Muchofthisworkindicatedthatthetransitiontocashcropping,mechanisationandthegrowingimportanceofwagelabourhada
rangeofsocialeffects,notleastofwhichwasincreasingpolarisationandtheproletarianisationoftheruralpoor.Itseemedthatthe'GreenRevolution'andother
modernisationstrategieswereunlikely,atleastintheforseeablefuture,todiminishpoverty.Thesecritiquescontributedtogrowingscepticismaboutthe'trickledown'
effectsofeconomicgrowth,andaddedtocallsforashiftinpolicytowards'basicneeds'andthetargetingofparticularlyvulnerablegroups.
LetusstartwithCliffordGeertz'saccountofIndonesianagriculturalchange,AgriculturalInvolution(1963a).ByprovidinganhistoricalaccountofIndonesian
agriculture,Geertzshowedhowcolonialpoliciesencouragedthedevelopmentofapartialcasheconomyinwhichpeasantfarmerswereforcedtopaytaxestosupport
plantationproductionforexport.This,alongsidethepoliciesofthepostindependenceelite,contributedtogrowingdualism.Themajorityoffarmersformedalabour
intensivesectorinwhichtheywereunabletoaccumulatecapitalandproducedmainlyforsubsistence,whileanothersectorgrewcapitalintensiveandtechnologically
advancedundercolonialmanagement.EconomicstagnationinIndonesiahasthereforebeendeeplystructurednotonlybyhistoryandecology,butalsobysocialand
culturalfactors(Geertz,1963a:154).
IncontrasttoGeertz'sadventurousmultidisciplinaryapproach,otheranthropologists,inamoretraditionalmode,havefocusedupontheeffectsofeconomicchangeat
themicrolevel.InSouthAsia,twoofthemostfamousoftheseareBailey'sCasteandtheEconomicFrontier(1958)andScarlettEpstein'sEconomic
DevelopmentandSocialChangeinSouthIndia(1962).Inalaterwork,SouthIndia:Yesterday,TodayandTomorrow(1973),Epsteindiscussestheeffectsof
theintroductionofnewirrigationtechniquesandthegrowingimportanceofcashcroppingtotwovillagesinsouthIndia.InthevillageofWangala,wherefarmerswere
increasinglyproducingforandprofitingfromalocalsugarrefinery,thechangeshadnotledtomajorsocialreadjustment.Thevillagecontinuedtohavefewlinkswith
theexternaleconomyandthesocialstructureremainedlargelyunaltered,duetoboththeflexibilityofthelocalpoliticalsystemandthefactthattheeconomywasstill
whollybaseduponagriculture.Incontrast,inthesecondvillage,Dalena,whichhadremainedadrylandenclaveinthemidstofanirrigatedbelt,malefarmerswere
encouragedtomoveawayfromtheirrelativelyunprofitableagriculturalpursuitsandparticipateinotherwaysintheburgeoning
Page56
economywhichsurroundedthem.Somebecametraders,orworkedinwhitecollarjobsinthelocaltown.Thesemultipleeconomicchangesledtothebreakdownof
thehereditarypolitical,socialandritualobligations,thechangingstatusoflocalcastegroupsandtheriseofnewformsofhierarchy.
Thedifferentchangesineachcommunityindicatethatprocessesofcapitalisttransformationarefarfromhomogeneous,evenwithinthesameregion.Instead,economic
andtechnologicalchangesinterrelatewithpreexistingsocialandculturalformsinavarietyofways,andhavediverseconsequences.Epstein'sworkalsoshowsthatin
bothvillagessocialdifferentiationwasincreasing.InWangala,despitethegovernment'sabolitionof'untouchability'in1949,thoselowestinthecastehierachy
remainedinthesameposition.Thegapbetweenthepoorestandtherichestwas,however,growing.Likewise,traditionalbondsbetweenemployersandlabourers
werelargelyintact.InDalenatherehadbeensomecompromisesover'untouchability',butatthesametimethesecurityoflabourershaddiminishedthepoorestwere
becomingincreasinglytemporaryandwhollydependentupontheirsmallwagesratherthanthetraditionalpatronageoftheiremployers.
AwideliteraturesupportsEpstein'sviewthatthemodernisationofagriculture(theintroductionofnewtechnologies,cashcropping,wagelabour)inSouthAsiahas
contributedtogrowingruralpolarisation.MuchofthisconstitutesacritiqueoftheGreenRevolution,correctinginitialclaimsthatthe'package'ofagricultural
innovationswouldcureallhunger.Again,theeffectsoftheinnovationsdependpartlyuponpreexistingsocialrelations.Harriss'studyofsocialchangesinNorth
Arcot,southIndia,forexample,showsthatwhilefarmersareincreasinglylinkedtoexternalmarketsandgovernmentinstitutions,traditionalpatronclientageis
reinforced(J.Harriss,1977).Meanwhile,thepoorestareworseoff,foralongsidethenewtechnologyhascomeincreasingcompetitionoverscarceresources,
togetherinsomecaseswithdisplacementoflabourbythenewtechnology(Farmer,1977).Theseeffects,addedtothenonadoptionofmanypartsofthepackage,
havebeennotedacrosstheworld(Pearse,1980).
Modernisationisthusnotnearlysosimpleasmanytheoristsduringthe1950sand1960shadassumed.WhilewriterssuchasEpsteinwerenotengagedinthecritical
deconstructionof'development'whichwastoemergeseveraldecadeslaterintheworkofpostmodernistanthropologists,theirethnographyvividlydemonstratedthe
flawsintheconventionaldevelopmentalthinkingofthetime.Theyalsocontributedtowiderdebateswithinanthropology
Page57
forexample,BaileyandEpsteinwerejusttwoofmanyanthropologistsworkinginSouthAsiaonthechangingnatureofcasteandkinshipinstitutionsduringthisperiod
4
Capitalismandthe'WorldSystem'
Asnotionsofmodernisationandthe'trickledown'effectsofeconomicgrowthwerebeingincreasinglyquestionedbybothanthropologicalfindingsandtheevident
failureofmanydevelopmentpolicies,otherresearcherswereturningtheirattentiontotherelationshipoflocalcommunitiesandculturestotheglobalpoliticaleconomy.
Thiscanbelinkedtothegrowingdominanceduringthe1970softheoriesofdependency,andespeciallytoWallerstein'sworldsystemtheory(Wallerstein,1974),as
wellastheuseofMarxisminthe1970sand1980sbysomeanthropologists(forexample,Bloch,1983).Ratherthananalysingdevelopmentintermsofthe
transformationofotherwiseuntouchedor'traditional'communitiesbyeconomicortechnologicalinnovations,theemphasisherewasmoreuponthewaysinwhich
societiesonthe'periphery'hadlongbeenintegratedintocapitalism,andontheculturalexpressionsofeconomicandpoliticaldependencyand/orresistance.Such
workplacesindigenousexperiencesandexpressionsofhistoryatthecentreoftheanalysiscolonialismandneocolonialismareoftenkeytothis.5 Itisworthnoting
thatmuchofthisresearchwascarriedoutinLatinAmerica,wheredependencytheoryoriginated.Likedependencytheory,thequestionsraisedbythisapproachare
lesseasilytranslatedintonationalorregionalpolicy.Itcritiquesthebasisofdevelopmentdiscourse,ratherthanattemptingtoworkwithinit.
AclassicattempttofuseneoMarxistpoliticaleconomywithanthropologicalperspectivesisEricWolf'sEuropeandthePeoplewithoutHistory(1982).Thisisan
ambitiousattempttoplacethehistoryoftheworld'speopleswithinthecontextofglobalcapitalism,showinghowthehistoryofcapitalismhastiedeventhemost
apparentlyremoteareasandsocialgroupsintothesystem.Init,Wolfarguesthatconceptssuchasthemodeofproductioninvolvesocialandcultural,aswellas
technical,aspects.Sinceheconcentratesonthemacrolevelhisanalysisofcultureisratherlimited,however(MarcusandFisher,1986:85).Asothershavepointed
outtoo,thespreadofEuropeancapitalismisfarfrombeingtheonlyhistorytobetoldofthe'peoplewithouthistory'(Asad,1987).Similarthemesaretakenupin
Worsley'sTheThreeWorlds:CultureandWorldDevelopment(1984),whichprovidesfurtheranalysisofthe
Page58
relationshipbetweenlocalculturalexpressionsandtheexploitativeworkingsofglobalcapitalism.
Theintegrationofpoliticaleconomyandhistoryintoethnographicanalysisopenedimportantdoorsinanthropologyduringthe1980s,contributingtosomeofthemost
excitingworktobeproducedinrecentdecades.Inthis,themediationbetweenstructureandexperiencedpracticeiscentral,indicatingthediversewaysinwhich
peoplestruggletoconstructmeaningandactupontheforceswhichoftensubjugateandengulfthem.Comaroff'sBodyofPower,SpiritofResistance(1985),an
analysisoftheinterrelationshipbetweenhistoryandcultureamongtheBaralongbooRatshidi,apeopleonthemarginsoftheSouthAfricanstate,isaclassicexample
ofsuchanapproach.DavidLan'sGunsandRain(1985),anethnographyofruralrevolutioninZimbabwe,isanotherexample.
DrawingmoredirectlyfromneoMarxisttheoriesofdependency,twoimportantstudiesbyanthropologistsworkinginLatinAmericaindicateboththeextenttowhich
groupsarelinkedintoglobalcapitalism,andthewaysinwhichthisisinterpretedandculturallyresisted.MichaelTaussig'sTheDevilandCommodityFetishismin
SouthAmerica(1980)isanaccountoftheculturalaswellaseconomicintegrationofColumbianpeasantsandofBoliviantinminersintothemoneyeconomyand
proletarianwagelabour.TheColumbianpeasantswhoseasonallyselltheirlabourtoplantationspresenttheplantationeconomyandprofitsmadefromitastiedtothe
capitalistsystem,andthustothedevil.Plantationsareconceptualisedasquiteseparatefromthepeasants'ownlandintheformer,profitmakingrequiresdealstobe
madewiththedevil,whereasinthelatteritdoesnot.IntheBoliviantinmines,workersworshipTio(thedevil),whoTaussigarguesisaspiritualembodimentof
capitalismandawayofmediatingprecapitalistbeliefswiththeintroductionofwagelabourandindustrialisation.SimilarthemesareexploredinJuneNash'sWeEat
theMinesandtheMinesEatUs(1979).AgaindrawingonLatinAmericandependencytheoryandonMarxistanalysisofideologyandclassconsciousness,Nash
explorestheculturalandsocialmeaningsgiventocapitalistexploitationattheperiphery.
Taussig'sandNash'sworkconcentrateslargelyuponlocalideologiesofcapitalistintegration,withoutdirectlyquestioningmodelsofdependencyandglobal
exploitation.Otheranthropologists,however,haveaddedtothegrowingcritiqueofdependencytheoryanditseventualfallfromgraceduringthe1980s.InNorman
Long'sresearchintheMantaroValleyofcentralPeru,forexample,hefoundthatneoMarxismonlyofferedlimitedinsights(Long,1977).Instead,hisfindings
challengeddependencytheorists'
Page59
assumptionsthatintegrationintoglobalcapitalismcouldonlyleadtostagnationontheperiphery.Inhisresearchhefoundbothgrowthanddiversificationinthe
MantaroValley.Indeed,somegroupshadbeenhighlyentrepreneurial,generatingconsiderablesmallscalecapitalaccumulation.Localproducershadalsodeveloped
acomplexsystemofeconomiclinkages,whichwasfarfromsimplydeterminedbythe'centre'.Contrarytotheassumptionsmadebydependencytheory,therewere
noobviouschainsofhierarchylinkingthemtothemetropolis,ortotheminingcorporation.Throughanthropologicalmethods(interviews,situationalanalysis,life
historystudies,socialnetworkmethodsandsoon),Long'sresearchthereforeallowedhimtoindicatethedifferentresponsestochangeoftheactorsthemselves,
revealingafarmorecomplexanddynamicsituationthanstructuralistanalysisofthemacrolevelcouldeverallow.
Mostimportant,perhaps,isLong'suseofthenotionofhumanagencytherecognitionthatpeopleactivelyengageinshapingtheirownworlds,ratherthantheiractions
beingwhollypreordainedbycapitalortheinterventionofthestate(LongandLong,1992:33).Similarconclusionshadbeenmadebyresearchersworkingin
squattersettlementsinLatinAmerica.PromptedinpartbythefindingsofMangin,asociologist,andTurner,6 anarchitect,variouswritersarguedduringthe1960s
and1970sthatratherthanbeing'slumsofdespair'thesettlementswereinfact'slumsofhope'(Lloyd,1979).Invasionsoflandwerecarefullyplannedandpeople
workedtogethertoobtainwater,electricityandroadsfortheirsettlements,formingcommitteesandgainingavoicethroughelectinglocalpoliticianstostateand
metropolitanbodies.Ratherthanbeingpassive'victims'ofinternationalandnationalstructuresofexploitation,thesquatterswereactiveagents,workinghardto
transformtheireconomicandsocialstanding.Whetherornottheywerealwayssuccessfuldependedtoalargedegreeuponstatepoliciestowardssquatting.They
werenot,however,'marginal'instead,theyweremarginalisedbywidercontexts,evenwhilestrivingtoimprovethemselves(Perlman,1976).
Whilestressontheperspectivesofactors,ratherthanthe'systems'ofwhichtheyareapart,hasalwaysbeencentraltoanthropology,suchideashavebeenwidely
takenupwithindevelopmentstudiesinrecentdecades,partlyperhapsbothbecausetheypointtoconstructivechangeswhichcanbemadeintopolicy,andbecause
the'developmental'messageisessentiallyoptimistic:peoplearenotwhollyconstrainedbyexploitativesuperstructuresorthe'worldsystem'theyareactiveagents
and,ifthereistobeintervention,
Page60
merelyneedtobe'helpedtohelpthemselves'(themottooftheBritishOverseasDevelopmentAdministration).Duringthe1980sgrowingemphasiswasputuponthe
subjectsofdevelopmentprojectsas'actors',addingtoideasaboutparticipatorydevelopment,the'farmerfirst'movementandtheimportanceof'indigenous
knowledge',allofwhichwillbediscussedinlaterchapters.Fornow,however,letusturntoanothermajorcontributionofanthropologytotheunderstandingofsocial
andeconomicchange:theanalysisofgenderrelations.
TheGenderedEffectsofEconomicChange
Alongsidethefirststirringsoffeministanthropologyintheearly1970scamethegrowingrecognitionthateconomicdevelopmenthasdifferingeffectsonmenand
women.IncreasinginterestintherelationshipbetweengenderanddevelopmentwasprecipatedlargelybythepublicationofEsterBoserup'sgroundbreaking
Woman'sRoleinEconomicDevelopment(1970).Inthis,Boseruppointedoutthatthesexualdivisionoflabourvariesthroughouttheworldandthat,contraryto
Westernstereotypes,womenoftenplayacentralroleineconomicproduction.NowhereisthismoretruethaninAfrica,whichBoserupcontrastswith'plough
economies'where,sheasserts,womenaresecludedandplayadiminishedroleinproduction(anassumptionwhichinfactislargelyunfounded).Women'svaried
productiveroles,sheargues,areduetopopulationpressure,landtenureandtechnology.Aseconomiesbecomemoretechnologicallydeveloped,womenare
increasinglywithdrawnfromproductionorforcedintothesubsistencesector,whilementakecentrestageintheproductionofcashcrops.Thesechangesarenot
automatic,buthavebeeninfluencedbyethnocentriccolonialpolicieswhichassumedthatwomenwerenotinvolvedinagriculturalproductionandthusbypassed
femalefarmersinfavourofmen.
Boserup'sworkwasanimportantcatalystforanenormousliteratureontheeffectsofdevelopmentongenderrelations.Muchofthisfocusesonparticularprojects
andpolicies,whichweshalldiscussinthenextsectionofthischapter.Otherresearcherslookedatthewiderrelationshipbetweencapitalistchangeandgender.This
wasnotanewdebate:asearlyas1884Engelshaddiscussedtherelationshipbetweenthesubordinationofwomenandthedevelopmentofclassrelationsalongside
theprivatisationofproperty,inTheOriginoftheFamily:PrivatePropertyandtheState.Whilelyinglargelydormantinanthropologyupuntilthe1960s,such
conceptswereeagerlytakenupandreworkedbyanewgenerationoffeminist
Page61
anthropologistsduringthe1970s(forexample,Leacock,1972Sachs,1975).Whilenotallacademicsworkingonwhatbecameknownas'GAD'(genderand
development)wereanthropologists,muchoftheirworkdrewheavilyonthefieldoffeministanthropology,whichduringthe1970swasgrowinginintellectual
credibilityandtheoreticalrigour.7 Notallofthisworkwasdirectlyconcernedwitheconomic'development'somefeministanthropology,forexample,involvedthe
restudyofthesubjectsofethnographicclassicsfromafeministperspective,8 whileotherworkfocusedonwomen'ssupposeduniversalsubordinationanditscultural
expressions.9
Thecapitalisttransformationofsubsistenceeconomiesisgenerallyacknowledgedashavinganegativeeffectonwomen.10Changeinlandtenure,labourmigrationand
agrowingmarketinlandandlabourhaveallcontributedtothemarginalisationofwomenfromprocessesofchange,relegatingthemtosubsistenceproduction.The
'feminisationofsubsistence'thesisisexplainedintwoways(Moore,1988:75).First,sincewomenhavereproductiveaswellasproductiveduties(theymustfeed,
clothe,shelterandemotionallysupporttheirfamilies),theyarelessfreetospendtimeproducingcashcrops.Thuswhilemenmaybeabletoexperimentwithnew
technologiesandproductionforexchange,womenmustfirstandforemostproducethesubsistencefoodsonwhichtheirhouseholdsdepend.Second,malelabour
migrationleaveswomenbehindtocarrytheburdenofsupportingthesubsistencesector.
Whilethe'feminisationofsubsistencethesis'isinmanywaysproblematic(forexample,inmanypartsofAsiamenstillplayadominantroleinsubsistenceagriculture),
itraisessimilarissuestothatofresearchontheGreenRevolution:economicchangehasdifferentialsocialeffects.Butratherthanthesedifferentialeffectsbeing
experiencedbetweenhouseholds,feministanthropologyindicatesthattheyexistwithinthem.Equalitycannotbetakenforgrantedatanylevelofsocialorganisation
(Folbre,1986).
AnnWhitehead'sresearchontheKusasiinGhanaisanexcellentexampleofthesepoints,demonstratingthatweneedtodeconstructconceptsofboththehousehold
andthesexualdivisionoflabour,whichinvolvesnotjustdifferenttasksbutalsodifferentaccesstoresources(Whitehead,1981).AmongtheKusaitherearetwo
typesoffarm,privateandhousehold,andmenandwomenhavedifferentaccesstoresources,whichtheydonotpool.Themainconstraintonproductivityisaccessto
labourratherthantoland.Productivitydependstoalargeextentonthedegreetowhichsocialnetworksandthuslabourcanbemobilised.Menarebetterableto
dothisthanwomen:whiletheycancalluponthelabouroftheirwives,
Page62
womencanonlyusemalehouseholdlabourbypayingforitwithdrinkandfood.Meanwhilemenareoftenabletocommandeercommunitywideworkparties.Asthis
andotherresearchclearlyindicates,projectsaimedatincreasingproductivitythusoftenhavetonegotiatecomplexeconomicandsocialrelationswhichareembedded
inthelocalculturalcontext.Assumptionscannotbemadeaboutthenatureofhouseholds,thedistributionofresourceswithinthem,orthesocialrelationsof
production.
Theworkoffeministanthropologistsinanalysingthegenderedeffectsofeconomicchangehasmadeasubstantialcontributionbothtodevelopmentstudiesandto
anthropology.Weshalldiscusstheformerinthenextsection.Withinacademicanthropology,duringthe1970sand1980sfeministspushedawholenewdomainof
studyontotheanthropologicalagenda:thecultural,politicalandeconomicconstructionofrelationsbetweenmenandwomen.Thisinvolvedradicallyunpickingvarious
anthropologicalconceptswhichhadformerlybeentreatedasunproblematic:thehousehold,the'domesticmodeofproduction'andthedivisionoflabourwereall
deconstructedandreconstitutedinfarmoreincisiveterms(see,forexample,O.Harris,1981).Feministanthropologyalsosoundedthefinaldeathknellforstructural
functionahsm:givenwhatittoldusaboutpower,resistanceandtheculturalhegemonyofpatriarchy,thenotionthatsocietiesarefunctionallyintegratedandin
equilibriumwasclearlynolongercredible.Thepressurefromfeministanthropologytodeconstructandrocentriccategoriesandassumptionscanalsobeseenasthe
precursortotheincreasinglyreflexivenatureofanthroplogyinthe1980sandintothe1990s.
TheSocialandCulturalEffectsofDevelopmentProjects(andWhytheyFail)
Clearly,manyofthetextsdiscussedabovehavebeenconcernedwiththeissueofsocialandculturalimpacts.Here,however,weshallconsiderworkwhichfocuses
specificallyupondevelopmentprojects.Ratherthantreatingthemasexternalforceswhichaffectthesocialgrouporcommunitybeingstudied,thismayinvolve
studyingtheinternalworkingsoftheprojectsthemselves,anissueweshallreturntointhenextsection.Much(butnotall)ofthisworkislargelysympathetictothe
developmentaleffort(Ferguson,1990:9),presentingitasacollectiveefforttofightpoverty,ratherthanaformofimperialismordependency.Theresearchagenda
thustendstobedominatedbypragmaticassessmentsofwhatgoeswrongwithdevelopmentprojects,andhowtheycouldbeimproved.Withinthe
Page63
anthropologyofdevelopment,thisbodyofworkisthusthemosteasytoapplypractically,andtextsoftenendwithlistsofconcreterecommendations.Asweshall
see,anthropologiststendtocallforthesamesolutions:localparticipation,awarenessofsocialandculturalcomplexities,andtheuseofethnographicknowledgeatthe
planningstage.
Oneofthemostcommoncriticismsmadebyanthropologistsofdevelopmentplanningisthatitisdoneina'topdown'manner:plansaremadebydistantofficialswho
havelittleideawhattheconditions,capabilitiesorneedsareintheareaorcommunitywhichhasbeenearmarkedfordevelopmentalinterventions.Byimposingsuch
plansonpeople,ratherthanallowingthemtoparticipateinthedecisionmakingprocess,itisargued,interventionsaredoomedtofailure,fordevelopmentcanonly
everbesustainableifitisfromthe'grassroots'.Criticismsarethusaimednotatdevelopmentperse,butatthewayinwhichitiscarriedout.Changesinpolicyand
practice,itisoptimisticallyassumed,willmeanthatdevelopmentprojectsareincreasinglysuccessfulinhelpingthepoor.
RobertChambers'sRuralDevelopment:PuttingtheLastFirstisaseminalstatementofthispositionanddrawsheavilyupontheinsightsofanthropology
(Chambers,1983).Inthisandsubsequentpublications,Chambersattacksthebiasedpreconceptionsofdevelopmentplanners,mostofwhomhaveonlyaveryshaky
understandingofrurallifeinsocalleddevelopingsocieties(Chambers,19831993).Theirurbanbias,theuseofmisinformedresearchandstatistics,andtheirneglect
oflocalsolutionsandknowledgemeansthatdevelopmentpoliciesandprojectscanneversucceed,fortheydonotunderstandthehiddennatureofruralpoverty.The
onlysolution,Chambersargues,isto'putthepoorfirst'and,mostimportantly,enablethemtoparticipateinprojectsoftheirowndesignandappraisal.
TonyBarnett'sTheGeziraScheme:AnIllusionofDevelopmentisaclassiccritiqueof'topdown'development(T.Barnett,1977).TheGeziraSchemewasa
colonialeconomicdevelopmentprojectbegunduringthe1920swhichwasintendedtointroduceintensiveirrigatedcottonproductioninSudan.Despitetheapparent
wellbeingoftheGezirapeasants,Barnettsuggeststhattheprojectledtostagnationanddependency.Theschemewashuge,involving12percentofthetotal
cultivatedareainSudanandtheleasingofgovernmentlandtoover80,000tenants.Thesecultivatedcottonforexport,andwereallowedneithertohavemoreland
thantheycouldcultivate,nortosellit.Barnettarguesthattherelationshipbetween
Page64
thecultivatorsandtheSudanGeziraboardwaspaternalisticandauthoritarian,basedonBritisheffortstocontrol'black'labour.Thismeantthatcultivatorshadfew
incentivestobeinnovative,andSudanremainedlargelydependentuponforeignmarketsforitscotton.Insuchacontext,aidismoretodowith'neocolonialism'than
evenattemptingtohelpthepoor.TothisextentBarnett'sworkhastheoreticallymoreincommonwithneoMarxistanalysesoftheroleofaidinreproducingthe
dependencyoftheperipherythanwiththemorepositiveapproachofwriterssuchasChambers.
Mostanthropologicalcritiquesofdevelopmentprojectscriticiseplanningwhichisinsensitivetotheculturalandsocialcomplexityoflocalconditionsandthustothe
diverseeffectsofexternallyinducedchange.Letusturntoworkwhichexaminestheeffectsofthisongenderrelationswithindevelopmentprojects.
Aswehaveseen,anthropologicalresearchhashadamajorimpactonunderstandingsoftheeffectofeconomicchangeongenderrelations.Notonlyhavefeminist
anthropologistsprovidedethnographicaccountsofthis,theyhavealsodevelopedvariousanalytictools(thedivisionoflabour,productionandreproduction,the
household)toilluminatewhydevelopmenttendstohavesuchdifferenteffectsonmenandwomen.Muchofthisworkfocusesontheeffectsofspecificdevelopment
projects.Thereisavastliteratureonthishere,weintendonlytogiveabriefintroductiontosomeofthemainissuesandtexts.
Bymisunderstandingthesexualdivisionoflabour,accesstoresourcesinthehouseholdandwomen'sdoubleburdenofproductiveandreproductivework,
developmentplanningandprojectsfrequentlyleadtothemarginalisationofwomen.Thisisbecauseofbothpreexistinggenderrelations(whichmeanthatmenare
betterplacedtoappropriateneweconomicopportunities)andthepatriarchalassumptionsofplanners.Thisprocessbeganwithcolonialadminstrators,whoimported
ethnocentricnotionsof'theplaceofwomen',andcontinuestodaythroughtheworkofWesterndevelopmentplanners.InTheDomesticationofWomenBarbara
RogersarguesthatWesterndevelopmentplannersmakearangeofWestern,andthuspatriarchal,assumptionsaboutgenderrelationsindevelopingcountries(Rogers,
1980).Itisoftenassumed,forexample,thatfarmersaremale,thatwomendonotdoheavyproductiveworkandthatnuclearfamiliesarethenorm.Through
androcentricandbiasedresearch,suchastheuseofnationalaccountingproceduresandsurveyswhichassumethatmenarehouseholdheads,womenbecome
invisible.Womenarethussys
Page65
tematicallydiscriminatedagainst,notleastbecausethereisdiscriminationwithinthedevelopmentagenciesthemselves.Again,thisprocessbeganwiththe'men's
club'(ibid.:48)ofcolonialadministration,butiscontinuedtodayinorganisationssuchastheFAOandWorldBank.
Theanswer,Rogersargues,isnotsimplymoreprojectsforwomen,fortheseoftenproducea'newsegregation'inwhichwomenaresimplytrainedindomestic
scienceorgivensewingmachinesforincomegeneration.Instead,genderawarenessmustbebuiltintoplanningprocedures,aprocesswhichwillnecessarilyinvolve
reformofthedevelopmentinstitutionsinvolved.Similarconclusionsaremadebyother,policyorientedwriters,suchasStaudt(Staudt,19901991)andthe
contributorstoOstergaard'sGenderandDevelopment:APracticalGuide(Ostergaard,1992).
WhileRogerstakesamoregeneralviewofthediscriminatoryeffectsofplanneddevelopment,otherwritersconcentrateonparticularprojects.Dey'saccountof
irrigationprojectsintheGambiashowsthatbyassumingthatmencontrolledland,labourandincome,theprojectsfailedtoincreasenationalriceproductionand
increasedwomen'sdependencyonmen(Dey,1981).WithinthefarmingsystemoftheMandinka,cropproductionistraditionallydominatedbycollectiveproduction
forhouseholdconsumption(maruo),butalsoinvolvesseparatecultivationbymenandwomenonlandtheyareallocatedbythehouseholdheadinreturnfortheir
maruolabour(kamanyango).Cropsfromthislandarethepropertyofthemaleorfemalecultivators.However,underriceirrigationprojectssponsoredbyTaiwan
(196674),theWorldBank(197376)andChina(197579),onlymenweregivenkamanyangorightstoirrigatedlandinotherirrigatedplotsdesignatedas
maruo,menincreasinglyusedwomen'sskilledcollectivelabour,butwereabletopaythemlowwagesbecauseofthelackofotherincomegeneratingopportunities
availabletowomen.Women'straditionaleconomicrightswerethussystematicallyunderminedbytheprojects,aprocesswhichhadstartedduringthecolonialperiod,
whenoncemorethereciprocalrightsanddutiesoffarmingwereunderminedbypolicieswhichencouragedmalefarmerstoproducecashcropsandfailedto
recognisethecentralroleoffemaleproducers.Byignoringthecomplexitiesofthefarmingsystemandconcentratingonmalefarmers,theprojectsthusnotonly
disadvantagedwomen,butlostoutontheirvaluableexpertise.
Becausegenderrelationsareculturallyspecific,developmentprojectshavedifferenteffectsaccordingtowheretheyarecarriedoutandthewaysinwhichtheyare
implemented.DatafromAsia,
Page66
forexample,showsthatwhereasfarmmechanisationledtodecliningfemalelabourinricefarmingvillagesinthePhilippines,inJapanfemaleparticipationhasremained
relativelyhigh(Ng,1991:188).InhercasestudyoftheintroductionofadvancedmechanisationinaricegrowingvillageinWestMalaysia,Ngshowshowwomen's
participationinthelabourforcehasdeclined(Ng,1991).TheNorthwestSelangorIntegratedAgriculturalDevelopmentProject,launchedin1978,aimedtoincrease
yields,maximiseincomeandthusalleviateruralpovertybytheintroductionofGreenRevolutiontypetechnologies.Whilethishasindeedledtohigheryields,the
divisionoflabourbygenderhasbeentransformed,significantlyreducingwomen'scontributiontofarmingandthusleadingtoareductionintheirproductiveskills.With
theirdisplacementfromriceproduction,theirdomesticroleisincreasinglyimportanttowomen,duetotheprevailinggenderideologywhichplacespriorityonwomen's
reproductiveworkthisisencouragedbyboththestateandruralpatriarchy.Classisanimportantfactortoo.Whilewomenfromrichandmiddleincomehouseholds
haveincreasingly(andapparentlyhappily)retreatedtothedomesticarena,womenfrompoorhouseholdsneedtoworktoraisethecashforthenewinputsnecessary
forincreasedproductivity.Therearethustwobroadtrends:patriarchalhouseholdsamongtherichandmiddleincomehouseholds,andfemaleheadedhouseholds
amongthepoor.
Theanalysesofdevelopmentprojectsbyfeministanthropologistshavehadimportantimplicationsforpolicymakers.11Thereisnotspacehereforacomprehensive
reviewoftheeffectsofwomenindevelopment(WID)andgenderanddevelopment(GAD)ondevelopmentpolicy.12Sufficeittosaythatsince1975,withthestart
ofthefirstUNDevelopmentDecadeforWomen,genderhasbeenincreasinglyacknowledgedasanimportantissuewithindevelopmentcircles.Manyagenciesnow
haveexplicitpoliciesongender,employing'experts'toensurethattheirprojectsgivesufficientconsiderationtotheinterestsofwomen.TheWorldBank,forexample,
hasaWIDunit,whileUNIFEM(UnitedNationsDevelopmentFundforWomen)hasbeenaUnitedNationsagencysince1985(Madeley,1991:29).Gender
traininghasalsotakenoffsincethe1980s,withagenciesfundingthetrainingofboththeirownstaffandthatoflocalgovernmentsandotherinstitutionsinrecipient
countries.13Whetherornottheseeffortshavehadanyrealimpactonimprovingthedetrimentaleffectsofdevelopmentonwomenis,however,debatable.Indeed,
somearguethatWIDpoliciesandtrainingreproduceethnocentricassumptionsaboutthenatureofgenderand
Page67
women'ssubordinationthattheycooptradicalfeministcritiquesintothedevelopmentdiscourse,thusneutralisingthem.Weshallreturntotheseissueslater.
Closelyrelatedtoanthropologicalcritiquesof'topdown'planningisthecriticismthatplannersfailtoacknowledgeadequatelytheimportance,andpotential,oflocal
knowledge.Instead,projectsofteninvolvetheassumptionthatWesternorurbanknowledgeissuperiortotheknowledgeofthepeople'tobedeveloped'theyare
regardedasignorantalthough,asanthropologistshaverepeatedlyshown,theyhavetheirownareasofappropriateexpertise.Thisistiedtothe'farmerfirst'movement
(Chambersetal.,1989).Italsoraisesinterestingquestionsabouttheinterrelationshipofdifferentformsofknowledge,whichweshallreturntointhenextsection.For
now,however,letusconsidercaseswhere'topdown'planningmeansthatnotenoughisknownaboutthecultureorconditionsofanareaortargetgroupbeforea
projectisembarkedupon.
Developmentprojectsoftenfailbecauseoftheignoranceofplannersratherthantheignoranceofthebeneficiaries.Thismightinvolvearangeoffactors,suchaslocal
ecologicalconditions,theavailabilityofparticularresources,physicalandclimaticconditionsandsoon.Theresultisinappropriateintervention,whichmayendin
disaster.(AnexampleistheinfamousGroundnutSchemeinTanzaniaseeWood,1950.)Thesuccessofallprojectsdependsuponwhetherornottheyaresocially
andculturallyappropriate,yetitisironicallythesefactorswhichtendtobeleastconsidered.Muchliteraturethereforefocusesupontheneedforethnographic
knowledgeattheplanningstageofprojectdesign(forexample,Mair,1984Hill,1986Pottier,1993).Again,thisperspectiveisultimatelyoptimistic:withbetter
planning(andtheuseofethnography),itisassumed,developmentprojectswillsucceedinhelpingthepoor.
Mamdani'sclassicanalysisofthefailureoftheKhannastudy,anattempttointroducebirthcontroltotheIndianvillageofManupur,isafascinatingaccountof
developmentaltopdownismandignorance(Mamdani,1972).Becauseoftheculturalandeconomicvalueofhavingasmanychildrenaspossible,Mamdaniargues
thatpopulationprogrammesareunlikelytohavemuchsuccessinruralIndia.ProgrammeplannersintheKhannastudy,however,assumedthatvillagers'rejectionof
contraceptionwasdueto'ignorance',thuscompletelyignoringthesocialandeconomicrealitiesofthevillage.Onceagain,anthropologicalmethodsandquestions,
ratherthanbureaucraticplanning,revealthetrueconstraintson'successful'
Page68
development.WhileMamdaniistobecongratulatedforpowerfullyillustratingtheculturalandeconomicinfluencesonfamilyplanninguptake,hecanalsobecriticised
forassumingthatlocalattitudestofamilyplanningarehomogeneous.Otherworkquestionsthis,indicatingthatmenandwomenoftenhaveverydifferentviewsand
thatitismenwhousuallycontroleventualfertilitydecisions.Thisisanareawherefeministresearchersclearlyhavemuchtocontribute(forfurtherdiscussion,see
Kabeer,1994:187222).
Pottier'seditedcollection,PractisingDevelopment,takestheseissuessubstantiallyfurther.Italsoclearlyreflectschangeswithindevelopmentalpractice,wherein
notionsofparticipationand'farmerfirst'havegainedincreasingcurrencyinrecentyears(Pottier,1993).Whileallcontributionstakeforgrantedtheneedfor
anthropologicalinsightsattheplanningstageandshowhowthisisalreadyacommonpracticeforsomeorganisationsforexample,theInternationalFundfor
AgriculturalDevelopment(IFAD)(Seddon,1993)andBandAid(GarberandJenden,1993)mostexaminehowsocialscienceperspectivescanbeeffectively
incorporatedintodevelopmentprogrammes.Thisisnotsimplyamatterofbecomingliterateinthelocalculture,asifitwerecomposedofessentialandaccessible
elements.Acriticalperspectivehereisthat'thesocialworldswithinwhichdevelopmenteffortstakeshapeareessentiallyfluid'(Pottier,1993:7).Gatter'sZambian
casestudy,forexample,demonstrateshowfarmingpracticestendtobesystematisedbydevelopmentworkers,whothusmisunderstandtheircomplexityandfluidity
(Gatter,1993).Toavoidsuchmisrepresentations,andmakeethnographicknowledgemeaningful,theremustthereforebeacontinualcollectionofethnographicdata.
Thisresearchneednotnecessarilybecarriedoutbyexpatriateconsultantsbutcanbedonebytrainedfieldstaff,especiallythoseinNGOs.Crucially,Pottier's
collectionadoptsanapproachincreasinglyemergingintheanthropologyofdevelopment:thatofstudyingdevelopmentbureaucraciesandinstitutionsinthemselves,as
wellasthediscourseswhichtheyproduce.Letusturntoourthirdtheme.
TheInternalWorkingsandDiscoursesofthe'AidIndustry'
Ratherthansimplyviewingdevelopmentasanexternalforce,whichactsuponthe'real'subjectsofanthropologicalenquiry(the'people'),anthropologicalaccountsof
developmentareincreasinglytreatingitsinstitutions,politicalprocessesandideologiesasvalidsitesofethnographicenquiryinthemselves.Whilethisapproachis
Page69
notsolelyconfinedtothelate1980sand1990s,itsincreasingdominancereflectscontemporarytrendsinanthropology.Beforeturningtothis,letusstartwiththe
anthropologyofdevelopmentplanning.
Developmentanthropologistshavebeenawareoftheneedtostudytheinternalworkingofdevelopmentinstitutionsforsometime,althoughstudiesofadministration
areusuallyfocusedfarmoreontherecipientsofplannedchangethanonthe'developers'.EarlyworkintheappliedanthropologytraditionsuchasH.G.Barnett's
AnthropologyinAdministration(1956)dealsmainlywiththepracticalusestowhichanthropologicalknowledgecouldbeputbyadministrators,usingexamples
drawnfromtheauthor'sexperienceofworkingintheTrustTerritoryofthePacificIslands,andonlyoccasionallyturnsitsgazeuponthesystemitself.Cochrane's
DevelopmentAnthropology(1971)emphasisestheneedforadministrators,undertheguidanceofanthropologists,torecognisetheculturalissuessurrounding
developmentinadditiontothemorefamiliareconomicandtechnologicalaspectsinwhichtheyaretrained.Belshaw'sTheSorceror'sApprentice(1976)seeksto
drawanthropologicalconcernsawayfromthe'exotic'towardsrealpolicyissuesinthedominantcultureandtocounterthetendenciesofadministratorsonlyto'know
andcontrol'.
Morerecently,andmoreambitiously,Robertson'sPeopleandtheState(1984)attemptstoanalyseplanneddevelopmentasapoliticalencounterbetweenthepeople
andthestate.Developmentagencies,heargues,arepremissedontheneedtoturnanunreliablecitizenryintoastructuredpublicdevelopmentinterventionsarethus
thesiteofcontestbetweenthepeopleandbureaucracy(1984:4).Muchofthebookrecountsthehistoryofplanning,frompostrevolutionaryRussiaandcolonial
planningtotheeconomicplanningofcontemporaryThirdWorldstates.Robertsonalsomakesapleaforanthropologytobecomemorecentrallyinvolvedin
development.Althoughhistoricallyanthropologyhasbeenweakonstatetheory,hesuggeststhatitcanpotentiallyofferanoverviewofthewholeplanningprocess,
thusmakingavitalcontributiontowiderunderstandingsofdevelopment.LikeCochrane,Robertsonisinterestedinthepracticalusesofanthropologyandappearsto
beoptimisticaboutthepotentialofplannedchange.Asheconcludes:'anthropologymayultimatelyproveitsworthbyhelpingtoexplainaconfusedandlethally
dividedworldtoitself,andtoindicatehumaneandrealisticprospectsforprogress'(Robertson,1984:306).
Projectandplanningethnographyislinkedtoshiftingparadigmswithindevelopmentstudies.Heretoo,thereisincreasingrecogni
Page70
tionthattherealitieswithinwhichpeopleactandmakedecisionsaremultipleandchanging.Thisiscloselyrelatedtoactororientedresearch,inwhichtheworldviews
ofindividualactors(ratherthanpassivetargetgroupsorbeneficiaries),andtheinterfacesbetweenthemandbureaucraticinstitutions,arethefocusofstudy(Longand
Long,1992).Notionsof'farmerfirst'development,andparticipation,areinfluentialhere.Onaslightlydifferentlevel,recognitionoftheneedtounderstand(andthen
change)theworkingsofbureaucracy(in,forexample,recentwritingsongenderanddevelopment:Staudt,19901991)isalsoimportant.
Theauthorsdiscussedabovepresentplanningasarelevantandimportantareaofanthropologicalresearch.Allshareindifferentdegreesapracticalagenda:to
improvetheplanningprocess,usuallywithhelpfromanthropologicalinputs.Incontrasttothis,morerecentworkdeconstructsandproblematisestheverynotionof
developmentbyanalysingitasaformofdiscourse.Thisworkisnotintendedtobeinstrumentalforpolicymakers,asitcritiquestheepistemologicalassumptions
withinwhichtheywork.Instead,ithasfarreachingimplicationsforthewayinwhich'development'isconceptualised,pointingtoaradicalreappraisalofthewaysin
whichglobalpovertyandinequalityareconceptualisedandtackled.Asweshallsee,suchworkhasbeenstronglyinfluencedbypostmodernunderstandingofculture
asnegotiated,contestedandprocessual.Socialrealitiesintheseaccountsaremultiple,andchangeaccordingtocontext.Tothisextentwritersdonotsearchfor
objective'truths'aboutdevelopmentoritseffects,butseektounderstandthewaysinwhichitissociallyconstructedandinturnconstructsitssubjects.Muchofthis
hasbeeninfluencedbyFoucault'sworkondiscourse,knowledgeandpower,whichwediscussbelow.
ThenewfociintheanthropologyofdevelopmentondiscoursearelinkedtotherecentdebateswithinanthropologywhichwediscussedinChapter1.Thesequestion
thediscipline'sportrayalofanahistorical,exotic'other'whichexistsinoppositiontotheWesternself.Incontrast,within'postmodern'anthropologyalldomainsare
seenasvalidsubjectsforresearchinstitutionsanddiscoursesfromtheanthropologist'sownsocietybecomerelevantareasofstudy(MarcusandFischer,1986:111
13)Toredressthebalanceofpreviousorientalism,itissuggested,anthropologistsshoulddeconstructculturalassumptionsoftheNorthaswellastheSouth,orwhat
Rabinowterms'anthropologisingtheWest'(1986:241).Suchworkcanalsoindicatehowpowerisgained,andreproduced,atlocal,nationalandgloballevels.While
therearemanypotentialfieldworksitesforthis,'development'isanobvious
Page71
candidate.Thismightinvolvestudyingaidagencies,thecategories,knowledgesandcultureofdevelopment,orconductingfieldworkamongexpatriategroups.
Thestudyofdevelopmentinstitutionsandideologiesalsocontributestorecentdebateson'globalisation'.Thisreferstotheincreasinglyinterconnectednatureofthe
worldthroughinternationaltravel,labourmigrationandtechnologysuchastelephones,computernetworksandTVswhichhavespreadacrosstheworldandcreated
globallinks.Elementsofglobalisation,itissuggested,linkpreviouslyisolatedculturesandproducenewtransnationalcultures,whichtranscendnationalboundaries
(Featherstone,1990:6).Byresearchinginternationalagencies,theideaswhichtheyproduceandhowthesearedisseminatedandmademeaningfulatdifferentlevels,
thelivesandcultureofdevelopmentconsultants,orsocialmovementssuchasNGOsorenvironmentalpressuregroupswhichcrosscutgeographicalboundaries,
anthropologistsareideallyplacedtostudytheprocessesof'globalisation'whicharesupposedlybecomingsoimportantasweapproachthetwentyfirstcentury.
Tounderstandwhatismeantby'developmentdiscourse',weshouldstartwiththeworkofFoucault,arguablythemostimportantthinkerofthelatetwentiethcentury.
InTheOrderofThings(1970),Foucaultfocusesupon'fields'ofknowledge,suchaseconomicsornaturalhistory,andtheconventionsaccordingtowhichtheywere
classifiedandrepresentedinparticularperiods.Whiletheyarerepresentedasobjectiveandpoliticallyneutral,hethusshowshowareasofknowledgearesocially,
historicallyandpoliticallyconstructed.Discoursesofpower,whilepresentedasobjectiveand'natural',actuallyconstructtheirsubjectsinparticularwaysandexercise
poweroverthem.Malinowski's'scientificethnography',forexample,claimedtogenerateobjectiveandscientificaccountsofnative'others',whichpresentedthemina
particularlightandsojustifiedtheirsubordination.Knowledgeisthusinherentlypolitical.AsFoucaultputit:'thecriteriaofwhatconstitutesknowledge,whatistobe
excluded,andwhoisqualifiedtoknowinvolvesactsofpower'(1971citedinScoonesandThompson,1993:12).Discoursesthussubsumepracticesandstructures,
withveryrealeffects.
Fromthis,areasofdevelopmentalknowledgeorexpertisecanbedeconstructedashistoricallyandpoliticallyspecificconstructionsofreality,whicharemoretodo
withtheexerciseofpowerinparticularhistoricalcontextsthanpresenting'objective'realities.Thenotionofdiscourse'givesusthepossibilityofsinglingout
''development"asanencompassingsocialspaceandatthesametimeofseparating
Page72
ourselvesfromitbyperceivingitinatotallynewform'(Escobar,1995:6).Howsuchdiscoursesinterrelatewithotherstructures,thewaysinwhichtheyarecontested
andtheinterfacebetweendevelopmentalandotherformsofknowledgearejustafewimportantquestionsgeneratedbythisapproach.Thisisanareawherethestudy
ofdevelopmenthasamajorroletoplayinwidertheoreticaldebatesinanthropology,fordevelopmentprojectsprovideanopportunityforexaminingthedynamic
interplayofdifferentdiscoursesandformsofknowledge(Worby,1984).
ArturoEscobar,whomwehavealreadycitedseveraltimes,isakeyfigureinthegrowingtrendofdeconstructingdevelopmentaldiscourse.Inapaperpublishedin
1988,forexample,heexaminesthehistoryofdevelopmentstudiesanditsproductionandcirculationofcertaindiscourses,seeingtheseasintegraltotheexerciseof
powerwhathecallsthe'politicsoftruth'(Escobar,1988:431).Developmentpractice,heargues,usesaspecificcorpusoftechniqueswhichorganiseatypeof
knowledgeandatypeofpower.Theexpertiseofdevelopmentspecialiststranscendsthesocialrealitiesofthe'clients'ofdevelopment,whoarelabelledandthus
structuredinparticularways('womenheadedhouseholds'/'smallfarmers,'etc.).Clientsarethuscontrolledbydevelopmentandcanonlymanoeuvrewithinthelimits
setbyit.AsheputsitinEncounteringDevelopment,'Developmenthadachievedthestatusofacertaintyinthesocialimaginary'(Escobar,1995:5).
InTheAntiPoliticsMachine(1990)JamesFergusontakesasimilarapproachbyanalysingtheThabaTsekaprojectinLesotho.Theresultingtextdemonstrates
excitingpossibilitiesforprojectethnography.Ratherthanbeingconcernedwithwhetherdevelopmentis'good'or'bad',orhowitcouldbeimproved,Fergusonargues
thatweshouldanalysetherelationshipbetweendevelopmentprojects,socialcontrolandthereproductionofrelationsofinequality.Thiscannotbesimplyexplained
bymodelsofdependencystructuresdonotdirectlyanswerthe'needs'ofcapitalism,butreproducethemselvesthroughavarietyofprocessesandstruggles(ibid.:
13).ByanalysingtheconceptualapparatusofplanneddevelopmentinLesothoandjuxtaposingthiswithethnographicmaterialfromaproject's'targetarea',heshows
howwhiledevelopmentprojectsusuallyfailintheirexplicitobjectives,theyhaveanotheroftenunrealisedfunction:thatoffurtheringthestate'spower.
TheAntiPoliticsMachineopenswiththedeconstructionofaWorldBankreportonLesotho.Fergusonshowshowitsamazinginaccuraciesandmistakesarenot
theresultofbadscholarship,butoftheneedtopresentthecountryinaparticularway.Lesothois
Page73
frequentlyreferredtointhereportas'traditional'andisolated,withaboriginalagricultureandastagnanteconomy.Inrealitythisisfarfromthetruth,forthecountryhas
longbeeneconomicallyandpoliticallyintertwinedwithSouthAfrica.Inaddition,thereportonlyconsidersLesothoatanationallevel.Theimplicationsarethus,first,
thatdevelopmentinterventionswilltransformandmodernisethecountryand,second,thatchangeisentirelyafunctionoftheactionorinactionofthegovernment.
Fergusonarguesthatdiscoursesareattachedtoandsupportparticularinstitutions(ibid.:68).Onlystatementswhichareusefultothedevelopmentinstitutions
concernedarethereforeincludedintheirreportsradicalorpessimisticanalysesarebanished.Thediscourseisthusdynamicallyinterrelatedwithdevelopment
practice,affectingtheactualdesignandimplementationofprojects.Initsdefinitionofallproblemsas'technical'thediscourseignoressocialconditions,acentral
reasonwhytheprojectfails.Cruciallytoo,developmentispresentedaspoliticallyneutral.Instrumentally,however,theprojectunintentionallyenablesthestateto
furtheritspoweroverthemountainareaswhichittargeted.Ratherthanthisbeingahiddenaimofdevelopmentalpractice,andthediscourseaformofmystification,
Fergusonarguesthatdevelopmentplanningisasmallcoginalargermachinediscourseandpracticearearticulatedinthis,buttheydonotdetermineit.Plansfail,but
whiletheirobjectivesarenotmet,theystillhaveinstrumentaleffects,fortheyarepartofalargermachineryofpowerandcontrol.
Consideringdevelopmentasdiscourseraisesimportantquestionsaboutthenatureofdevelopmentalknowledgeanditsinterfacewithotherrepresentationsofreality.
Anthropologycanhaveanimportantrolehere,firstindemonstratingthattherearemanyotherwaysofknowing(thusunderminingdevelopment'shegemonicstatus),
andsecondinshowingwhathappenswhendifferentknowledgesmeet.Inanothercontributiontothegrowing'postmodern'anthropologyofdevelopment,for
example,therelationshipbetweenscientificandlocalknowledgewithindevelopmentpracticeisexplored.AsthearticlesinAnAnthropologicalCritiqueof
Development(Hobart,1993)indicate,claimstoknowledgeandtheattributionofignorancearecentralthemesindevelopmentdiscourse.Thescientificand'rational'
knowledgefavouredbydevelopmentconstructsforeign'experts'asagents,andlocalpeopleaspassiveandignorant.
Ratherthanpresentinglocalknowledgeashomogeneousandsystematic,theseaccountsshowthatitisdiverseandfluid.Thesemultipleepistemologiesareproduced
inparticularsocial,political
Page74
andeconomiccontextsinsteadofbeingbodiesoffacts,whatisimportantishow,ratherthanwhat,thingsareknown.Thisisadifferentapproachfrommuchof
mainstreamdevelopmentdiscourse,whereknowledgeisonlymentionedasanabstractnoun,andthosethatknowarethusstrippedoftheiragency(Hobart,1993:
21).Itisalsotiedtoagrowingcritiqueofthe'farmerfirst'movement,whichwhileprovidinganecessarycorrectivetomodernisationtheory'sassumptionthat
traditionalbeliefsandpracticeareanobstacletoprogress,tendstosimplifyandessentialiselocalknowledge,orassumethat,likescientificknowledge,itcanbe
understoodasa'system'(Gatter,1993ScoonesndThompson,19931994).
Withintheseaccountspeopleappearasagents,whoseknowledgeinteractsinavarietyofwayswiththatofdevelopmentagencies.Richards,forexample,showshow
ratherthanbeingfreestanding,indigenousknowledgecanbeunderstoodasimprovisedperformance.WestAfricancultivatorspossessperformanceskillsaswellas
technicalandecologicalknowledge,mixingtheircropsinacertainway,providingfoodanddrummingfortheirlabourers,andsoforth.Thishasbeenmissedbymost
agriculturalresearchanditsensuing'scientific'expertise,whichcarriesoutagriculturalexperimentsin'set'conditions,ignoringthevitalfactthatfarmersusetheir
creativityandperformanceskillsincultivation(P.Richards,1993).
Inotherwords,peopledonotpassivelyreceiveknowledgeordirectionsfromtheoutside,butdynamicallyinteractwithit.Anotherexampleofthisisprovidedby
Burghart(1993),whosetouttostudylocalknowledgeofhealthandhygieneinaHinducobblers'villageinNepal.AlthoughBurghartassumedthattherewouldbea
symmetricalexchangeofknowlege(histechnicalknowledgeversustheirviewsonhygiene)andthathecouldconstructanobjectivemodeloftheirknowledge,this
wasnottobethecase.Instead,thecobblersrefusedtoaccepthisrole,constructinghiminsteadasaHindulord,whowasseenasbenevolentwhenthewellcleaning
hehadinitiatedwentwell,andthenasmalevolentwhenthewaterbecamebitter.
Asthisbodyofworkindicates,anthropologistsneedtoexaminethewaysinwhichpeopleandthediscourseswhichtheyproduceinteractaccordingtotheirdifferent
cultural,economicandhistoricalcontexts.Researchmustbeactororiented,notonlythroughstudyingthoseto'bedeveloped',butintermsofhowindividualand
groupagenciescrosscut,reproduceorresistthepowerrelationsofstateandinternationaldevelopmentinterventions.Throughtheseandsimilarinsights,the
anthropologyofdevelop
Page75
mentopensupandbecomessomethinginfinitelymoreinterestingthansimplythestudyofthe'problems'ofdevelopment.
Conclusion
IfdevelopmentistobeunderstoodasahegemonicdiscourseinwhichThirdWorldpeoplesareobjectified,orderedandcontrolled,howcananthropological
involvementinitbejustified?Surelytheonlyethicalresponseistovehementlyrejectitandwalkaway?Whileacceptingthatdevelopmentisindeedpoliticallyhighly
problematic,wedonotbelievethatnoninvolvementistheonlypossibleresponse.Instead,therearevariousimportantwaysinwhichanthropologists,themethods
theyuseandtheinsightstheyhavecanhelpsubvertandreorientdevelopment,contributingtoitseventualdemiseandtransformationintopostdevelopmentdiscourse.
Throughoutthischapterwehaveindicatedvariouswaysinwhichthismightbedone.Byanalysingthesocialeffectsofdevelopment,anthropologicalaccounts
undermineitscentralassumptions.Clearly,localsocietiesdonotnecessarilystrivetowardsscientific'progress'theyalsohavemultipleresponsestoglobalcapitalism
andeconomicgrowth,whichhaveverydefinitelynothadthepositiveeffectswhichdevelopersassumed.Asanthropologistshaveshownagainandagain,theworldis
notdivisibleintoneatcategorieswhichcanbetargetedandactedupon,norcanuniversalisinglawsbeappliedorpredictionsmadehumanlifeisfartoocomplicated
anddiverseforthat.Bydeconstructingdevelopment,itssubjectiveandculturallyproducednatureisrevealed.Developmentisnomore'true'thananyotherwayof
understandingandactingupontheworld.Itisjustthatasanorganisingdiscourseitisoftenmorepowerful.
Anthropologistscanthereforecritiqueandunderminedevelopmentthroughethnographyandanalysis.Butthisisnotall.Ratherthanacceptingthatdevelopment
discourseisunchangeable,wesuggestthatanthropologistscanalsohelpchangedevelopmentdiscoursefromwithin.Ratherthanbeingmonolithicandstatic,
developmentdiscourseismorefluidandliabletochangethanmanyanalysesallow.ThisisacknowledgedinpartbyEscobar,whoacceptsthatthediscoursecanbe
modifiedbytheintroductionofnewobjectsandvariables,butwhoatthesametimeinsiststhatultimatelythesystemofrelationswhichholdsitsdifferentelements
togetherremainsthesame(1995:42).Needthisnecessarilybethecase?Inthefollowingchaptersweshallsuggestthatthediscourse
Page76
canbechanged:newpracticesandknowledgescanbeandareintroduced,reorientingsomeaspectsofdevelopmentawayfromitsearlierpositions.Thediscourseis
alsofarmorediverseandcontestedthanmanyaccountssuggest.TherearedevelopmentagenciesotherthantheWorldBank,14forexample,andreportwritingis
oftenahighlycontestedbusiness,havingasmuchtodowithinternalpowerrelations(which,again,areasyetbarelytoucheduponbydiscourseanalysts)asa
hegemonicrepresentationoftheThirdWorld'other'.
Inthenextchaptersweshallindicatewaysinwhichthediscoursemightbechallengedfromwithinthroughtheapplicationofanthropologicalinsightsbyapplied
anthropologistsanddevelopmentworkersalike.Asweshallsee,anthropologistsareincreasinglypickingawayatdevelopmentagencies,infiltratingtheir
decisionmakingbodies,lobbyingthemfromtheinsideandcontributingtotheirreports.TheWorldBankreportanalysedbyFerguson(1990)isnotnecessarily
representativemanyreportsnowincludesectionswrittenbyanthropologistswhichusedifferentimagesandrealities.
AsFergusonimplies,however,theextenttowhichtheseareallowedtodivergefromtheinstitutionallineisoftenlimitedanimportantissueforapplied
anthropologists,whichweshallreturntoinChapter6.Thereareveryrealdangersofthedominantdiscoursecooptinganthropologicalconceptsbytranslatingthem
intosimplifiedandhomogenisingcategories:'womenheadedhouseholds','indigenousknowledge'and'communitydevelopment'areallexamplesofhowimportant
insightshavebeenincorporatedintodevelopmentdiscourse,made'policyfriendly'andinsomecasesdistorted.'Womenindevelopment'isanother.15Thisisan
importantinsight,whichwediscussfurtherlaterinthebook.
Combinedwiththeimportanttaskofdeconstruction,anthropologists'in'and'of'developmentcanthereforealsohelpchangetherepresentationsthatdevelopment
institutionsproduce.Developmentanthropologyisatanexcitingjuncture.Whilepostmodernismhascausedadegreeofcrisisforbothdevelopmentstudiesand
anthropology,wesuggestthatbycombiningthetwodomains,importantstepsforwardcanbetaken.Wearenotsuggestingthatanthropologistsshouldbecome
developers,northatweshouldnecessarilystrivetomouldourconceptsaroundtherigidjargonofdonors.Instead,anthropologicalperspectivescanbeadoptedby
variousactors,includinglocalcommunityorganisationsandNGOs.Theycanalsohelpshiftdiscussionsawayfrom'development'andtowardsafocusuponsocial
relationsofpovertyandinequality.
Page77
4
SubvertingtheDiscourseKnowledgeandPractice
Aswesuggestedinthelastchapter,oneofthemostimportantfunctionsoftheanthropologyofdevelopmentisitsabilitytodeconstructtheassumptionsandpower
relationsofdevelopment,ataskwhichhasbeengatheringinmomentumoverthelastdecadeorso.Whilethesedebateshavebeenmostlycarriedoutwithinacademic
domains,otheranthropologistshavebeenworkinghardwithandwithindevelopmentalinstitutionstoalterpolicy.Suchanthropologistsmayperformavarietyofroles:
theymaybeemployedasindependentconsultants,orassalariedstaffothersmaybeinvolvedwithpressuregroupswhichlobbyagenciesorproducealternative
visionsofchange.Anthropologicalperspectivesandmethodswhichhelpsubvertandtransformthedominantdiscoursesofdevelopmentmayalsobeusedbyarange
ofnonspecialists.
Suchworkisnoteasy.Indeed,Escobar(1991)hasarguedthatanthropologicalinvolvementindevelopmentisinherentlycompromising:appliedanthropologists'buy
in'tothediscourse,reproducingandbenefitingfromitspowerrelations.Thepaththeytreadisindeedfraughtwithdifficulty.Sincedonorsanddevelopmentagencies
workwithinaparticulardiscourse,anthropologicalinsightsmayeasilybecomedistortedand'hardened'intopolicieswhicharethenappliedunilaterallytorecipient
societies.Onceagain,theworldispackagedandcontrolledinaparticularway.1 Anthropologistsmayalsofacedirecontradictions,fortheirpremissesareinmany
waysinherentlydifferentfromthoseofdevelopers.Whileanthropologistsaretrainedtobeculturalrelativists,developmentagenciesareusuallycommittedtouniversal
principlesofprogress.Thisofteninvolvesethnocentricassumptionsaboutwhatconstitutesdesirablesocialchange.Strategiesof'socialdevelopment'and'womenin
development',forexample,all
Page78
involvechangingsocietyinwayswhichmaynotbe'culturallyappropriate'.
Weshallcontinuetodiscussthesecontradictionsthroughoutthisbook.Thischapter,however,outlinesthemainwaysinwhichanthropologicalinsightscanbeapplied
toplannedchangeandpolicyinordertochangethedominantdiscoursefromwithin.Ratherthanbeingwhollymonolithic,staticandencompassing,wesuggestthat
developmentworkactuallycomprisesavarietyofcountervailingperspectivesandpractices,aswellasamultiplicityofvoices.Developmentaldecisionmakingand
policyarethereforelesssimpleorhomogeneousthanonemightassume.Anthropologists,alongwithothers,canhelptounpickoppressiverepresentationsand
practices,putdifferentquestionsontheagendaandformnew,alternativediscourses.
Mostoftheinsightswhichanthropologistsprovidearerootedfirstandforemostincommonsense.Wearenotclaimingthattheyhave'exclusive'expertisewhich
otherscannotgainaccessto.Onepossibilitywhichwewillbeexploringlaterinthisbookisthatlocaldevelopmentworkersmightcollecttheirownethnographyand
developtheirownanthropologicalintuitions.Whatwedosuggest,however,isthattheanthropologicaleye,trainedasitistofocusonparticularissues,isinvaluablein
theplanning,executionandassessmentofpositive,nonoppressivedevelopmentalinterventions.Thisisnotsomuchbecauseanthropologistshaveaccesstoabodyof
objective'facts'aboutanygivensociety,butmorethattheyknowwhatquestionstoaskandhowtoaskthem.While,inretrospectatleast,suchquestionsmayappear
tobeobvious,timeandtimeagain,asthefailureofsomanydevelopmentinterventionstestifies,theyareforgotten.
Belowaresomeofthemainissuesaddressedbyappliedanthropologists.Asweshallsee,thesearedeeplyinformedbythefindingsofnonappliedanthropology,
someofwhichwerereviewedinthelastchapter.Again,knowledgeforunderstandingandknowledgeforactionareinseparable.Whilethesequestionsareoftenfirst
raisedbyanthropologists,wesuggestthat,ideallyatleast,developmentanthropologistsshouldnotbeinthebusinessofpredictingwhatis'best'forthepoor(although,
assomeofthecasestudiesinChapter6indicate,bureaucraticandpoliticalfactorsmeanthatthisisoftenpreciselywhattheyendupdoing).Incontrast,
anthropologistsworkingindevelopmentcanhelpfacilitatewaysforthe'victims'or'recipients'(dependingonone'sperspective)tohaveavoiceinthedevelopment
process,sothatultimatelyitistheywhodictatetheirinterestsandthemostappropriateformofdevelop
Page79
mentalinterventions.Therestofthechapterwillbeorganisedaroundthefollowingthemes:
1.Access.
2.Effects.
3.Control.
Access
Asanthropologicalresearchindicates,economicgrowthcanexacerbateratherthaneradicatepovertyandexploitation.Colonialismandneocolonialismhavemeant
thattherewardsofcapitalistgrowtharespreadveryunevenlybetweendifferentpartsoftheworld.Thismeansthatpolicieswhichpromoteeconomicgrowth,orare
presupposedonthenotionof'trickledown',areunlikelytobenefiteveryoneequally,forbydefinitioncapitalismpromotesaccumulationforsomeattheexpenseof
others.Thisinequalityexistsatinternationalandnationallevels,bothofwhichanthropologistsmaywishtoanalyseandcommentupon.Accessmaydependon
inequalitybothwithincommunities,betweenlocalgroupsandthestate,orataninternationallevel.Itshould,however,benotedthatalthoughsomeanthropologists
haveattemptedtoanalysetherelationshipbetweenworldcapitalismandglobalexploitation,2 themajorityaremoreaccustomedtoinvestigatingsocialrelationsatthe
microlevel.
Althoughunequaldistributionmayappeartobeanobviousandcrucialissue,plannersoftenforgetthatinthecommunitieswheretheyareworkingpeople'saccessto
resourcesanddecisionmakingpowerisrarelyequal.Thismaybeduetopoliticalnaivety,butisalsobecausethosewhoplanfromtheoutsidetendtoassumethat'the
poor'areallthesameandthushavethesameinterests.Asallanthropologistsareaware,however,mostcommunitiesarehighlyheterogeneous.Therearealsomany
differentformsofinequality:thosedependinguponconstructionsofrace,gender,classandagearejustsomeofthemostbasic.Eachoftheseinturnisstructuredand
experiencedaccordingtotheparticularcultural,economicandpoliticalcontext.Wecannotthereforedeclarethatparticulargroupsarealwaysmoredisadvantaged
thanothersandmustthusbethe'targets'ofaid.'Womenheadedhouseholds',forexample,areindeedoftendisadvantaged.Buttheyarealsonotallthesame,even
withinthesameculturalcontext,letaloneindifferentsocieties(Lewis,1993).
Page80
Inequality,anddifferentialaccesstoandcontroloverresources,alsoexistsatmanylevelswithincommunities.Thismayinvolveinequalitybetweendifferent
households,whetherstructuredthroughcaste,ethnicity,socialstatusoreconomicclass.Allofthesefactorsmayalsocrosscut,orcoincidewitheachother.Inequality
mayexistbetweendifferentkinshipgroups,thustranscendingtheboundariesofindividualhouseholds,oritmayexistwithinhouseholds,whetherthisisintermsof
gender,ageorparticularkinshiprelations.Combinedwiththis,theexerciseofpowerinvolvesvarioustypesofrelationship,interactionandsocialaction.Ifpoweris
defined,afterWeber,astheabilitytoinfluenceevents,thenclearlyitmaycomethroughavarietyofsources.Itmaybelegitimate('authority')orunofficial(theabilityto
influenceeventsinformally,perhapsthroughpersonalrelationships,covertstrategisingandsoon).
Inconsideringwhogetswhat,wemustthereforebeawareofseveralkeyissues.First,whileinequalityexistsinallsocieties,itisstructuredinparticularways
accordingtoitsculturalandhistoricalcontext.Second,poweroverresourcesanddecisionmakingisnotalwaysexplicit.Evenwhileofficiallythereareequalrightsfor
allcitizens,inrealitythismaybefarfromthecase.Itisthushardlysurprisingthatdevelopmentinterventionssooftenbenefitonlyparticulargroups,orendup
disadvantagingthoseitwasassumedtheywouldhelp.Toillustratethis,letusconsidersomecasestudieswhichillustratevariouslevelsandformsofinequality,andthe
waysinwhichthisaffectspeople'saccesstothe'benefits'ofdevelopmentalresources.
Case1
Albania:DifferentialAccesstoRuralResourcesinthePostcommunistEra3
WebeginwithashortcasestudyofAlbania,thepoorestcountryinEurope,inwhichastrictlyisolationistandtotalitariancommunistregimediditsbesttoeliminate
economicinequalitiesinthecountrysideinthe40yearsbefore1990throughtheimpositionofasystemofcollectivefarming.
TheStalinistgovernmentofEnverHoxhawasrepressiveandinefficient,butitdidmeetpeople'sbasicmaterialneedsandincludedacomprehensivewelfaresystem
whichprovidedreasonablehealthcareandeducationfacilitiesforthemajorityofthepopulation.Inagriculture,despitelowlevelsofproductionandaserious
disregardforlongtermenvironmentalissues,farming
Page81
inputssuchastractorploughingservicesandfertiliserswereavailableandagronomistswereonhandtoadvisethecooperatives.
In1990,aftertheupheavalsintherestofEasternEurope,thegovernmentwasfinallybroughtdownthroughlargelypeacefulprotest.Thepoliticalsystemcollapsed,
usheringinaneweraofsocialdemocracyandtentativecapitalistdevelopment.Duringthedownfallofthegovernmenttherewasaspontaneousandviolentuprisingby
thepeople,notagainstthecommuniststhemselvesbutagainstallthephysicaltrappingsoftheoldregime.Villageschools,healthcentresandotherelementsof
infrastructureweredestroyedbyangryvillagers.
Alongperiodofstructuraladjustmentbegan,managedbytheWorldBankandincludingaprivatisationdrive,alandreformprocessandtheopeningofthecountryfor
thefirsttimetoforeigninvestment.Butduringthisperiodoftransition,whichlikeinmostoftheformercommunistcountriesofEasternEuroperemainsinitsinfancy,
mostoftheservicesoftheformerstatewereinrapiddeclineorcollapsedcompletely.Today,thecountryisdependentonfoodaid.Thesocialsafetynet,whichhad
includedasystemofoldagepensions,sicknessbenefitsandfoodsubsidies,barelyexists.Completelyunpreparedforthesenewrealities,mostfarmershavebeen
thrownbackontotheirownresourcesandmanyhaveretreatedintosubsistenceagriculture.Manyvillagersarereturningtoprecommunisttraditionalsystemsof
villagegovernmentthroughelders.Localmosquesandchurches,whichhadbeenclosedordestroyedundercommunism,havebecomethecommunityfocusfor
survivalandwelfare.
Asmallnumberofruralpeoplehave,however,benefitedfromthecollapseofcommunism,byholdingontoimportantcooperativeassetsatthemomentoftheir
dissolution.Inonevillage,thegoatherdwasabletosellmostofthecommunity'scooperative'sherdforprivategain.Inanother,afarmerendedupwithatractorwhich
hewasabletorentoutinaprivateploughingservice,makingenoughprofittobuyanothertractorayearlater.Almostovernight,newlayersofruralinequalityhave
beencreatedthesurvivalstrategiesofdifferenthouseholdsnowdependontheirlevelofaccesstoarangeofmaterial,socialandculturalresources.
Case2
MaliSudRuralDevelopmentProject:InequalitybetweenCommunities4
TheMaliSudProjectwaslaunchedin1977todevelopthesouthernregionofMalialandlockedcountryintheWesternSahel.Itwas
Page82
extendedforafurtherfiveyearsin1983,fundedlargelybyforeignaid:US$61millionoutofatotalofUS$84million.Theproject'sobjectivewastoincrease
agriculturalpotentialinthearea,byboostingtheoutputofkeycropssuchasmaizeandsorghum,topromotevillagedevelopmentassociationsandtoimprove
standardsoflivingwithinruralareasthroughbasichealthservicesandwatersupplies.Theprojectareaspannedsome3500villages,coveringarangeofecological
conditions,fromarid(havingonlyaround400mmofrainayear)totherelativelyfertile(furthersouth,someareasenjoy1400mmofrainannually).
Inthefirsteightyearstheprojectdidindeedincreasetheoutputofmanyofthesecrops.Outputofthestaplefoodssorghumandmilletincreasedby10percent,and
theareagivenovertomaizesawa60percentincrease.Butitwasonlysomevillageswhichbenefited.Inareaswheretherewasinadequaterainfall,maizewas
ecologicallyinappropriate.Followingtheencouragementoftheproject,however,peoplehadplantedmaizeextensively.Inmanycasestheylostthewholecrop.
ThemainproblemwiththeMaliSudProjectwasthatitdidnothelpthepoorest,manyofwhomwerevulnerabletofamine.5 Theprojectonlyofferedcreditand
technicaladvicetofarmerswhowantedtodevelopnewlandandbuynewseeds,fertiliserandtechnology.Theseweredistributedthroughofficiallyrecognisedvillage
committees,whichnotallvillageshad.Indeed,thecommitteestendedonlytoexistinwealthiervillages,wheretherewasmoremotivationandorganisationalskills.
Thosevillageswhichreceivedhelphaveclearlyenjoyedariseintheirstandardofliving,yetthoselivinginthepoorervillages,withoutacommittee,receivednothing.
By1985,someofthepoorestvillagesinthearidareasofMaliwhichwereexcludedfromtheprojectwereonthebrinkoffamine.Theydesperatelyneededseeds,
especiallyhighyieldvarietiestoincreasetheirfoodoutput,yetwerenoteligibleforhelpfromtheproject.Thiswasduetotworeasons.First,theywerenotpartofa
villagecommitteeandsecond,theyhadinsufficientcredittoqualifyforaloanwithwhichtobuyseedsfromtheproject:allfarmersgivencreditneededatleastsome
capitalasaguaranteebeforebeingfunded.Thosemostinneedofassistancewerethereforeexcluded.
TheMaliSudProjectexcludedthoselivinginthepoorestcommunitiesbecauseofpredeterminedprojectcriteria.ButasMadeleypointsout,projectsinotherparts
oftheworldhavedemonstrated
Page83
thattheverypoorcanbesuccessfullygivenloanswithoutprovidingmaterialguarantees.Thenextcasestudydemonstratesthatparticulargroupscanbeexcludedfrom
projectbenefitsnotbecauseofpreexistingcriteria,butbecauseinsufficientattentionhasbeengiventothedynamicsofresourceallocationinthesettlementstargeted
for'development'.Ratherthansimplyexcludingthemostvulnerablegroups,thisseemstohavemadetheircircumstancesevenmoredifficult.
Case3
LandRightsinCalcutta:InequalitybetweenHouseholds6
Arecentstudyoftheeffectsofphysicallyupgrading'bustees'(slums)inCalcuttademonstrateshowtheoriginal,andpoorest,inhabitantshavetendedtobe
disadvantaged,ratherthanbenefitingfromtheimprovements(M.Foster,1989).Slumimprovement,whichsuperficiallyisaphysicalratherthanasocialorpolitical
process(theprovisionofsanitation,pavedroads,theconstructionofnewhousesandsoon),thushasvariableeffectsondifferentgroupsaccordingtowheretheyare
placedonexistingsocioeconomichierarchieswithinthesameurbancommunty.Withouttakingthesedifferencesintoconsiderationintheplanningstage,andby
treatingallslumdwellersasiftheyhaveequalaccesstotheirhomes,Fosterarguesthatsuchprojectshavedamagingeffectsonthemostvulnerable.Astheyleadtoan
unforeseenriseinrents,manyofthepoorestbusteeinhabitantsareultimatelyforcedtomovetoincreasinglymarginalareasofthecity.Theupgradingoflegalbustees
hasthusbeenaccompaniedbyagrowthinillegalsquattersettlements,whichareuntouchedbyslumimprovementprogrammes.
TheIndiangovernmenthasbeeninvolvedinslumupgradingsincethe1970s.InCalcutta,afundofUS$80millionwasmadeavailablein1971toimprove
environmentalandhealthconditionsinthecity,andin1971811.7millionslumdwellerswereaffectedbytheprogramme.Importantdifferencesintheirrelative
accesstopropertyandeconomicstatuswere,however,largelyignored,asweretheneedsofthepoorestofCalcutta'spoor,thepavementdwellers.Foster'sresearch
intodifferentbusteesshowsawiderangeofsettlementhistoriesanddifferenttypesoftenancyamonginhabitants.Whiletheearliestsettlersoftenbuilttheirown
homes,manyhousesarenowownedbylandlordswhocanillegallyraiserentsthroughinformalsalaam(gratuity)andkeypayments,eventhoughofficiallyrentsare
controlled.Tenantswhohavemovedinmorerecentlytendtopayhigherrentsmanyofthesealreadyhave
Page84
jobsinthecentreofthecity,andsomehavecommissionedspacetobereservedforthemastheirhouseholdsinotherareasexpand.
Busteesarethusbeing'gentrified'asthesericherdwellersmovein.Meanwhilelandlordsareillegallyextractinghigherrentsinavarietyofhiddenways.Slumupgrading
addsmomentumtothisprocess,attractingwealthierinhabitantsandenablinglandlordstochargemoreandmore.Thepooresthouseholds,andespeciallythose
headedbywomen,whoareparticularlyvulnerabletolandlords'coercivetechniques,arethusbeingforcedout.
Fosterarguesthatthekeytoidentifyingthebeneficiariesofurbanenvironmentalupgradingliesinunderstandingexistingpatternsoflandcontrol.Byfailingtoconsider
thesefactorsandtreatingslumdwellersasallthesame,itseemsthatonceagaindevelopmentaidstherichestwhiledisadvantagingthepoorest.Theseeffectscould
onlyhavebeenavoidedbyunderstandingthecomplexnatureoftenancyandpropertyownershipinCalcuttabusteesattheplanningstage,ratherthanassumingthat
busteesarehomogeneouscommunities,withsharedinterests.
Thenegativesideeffectsofslumimprovementcannotofcoursebeentirelyblamedonbusteeupgrading.Giventhepressureonurbanland,suchprocessesarealso
likelytooccurwithoutphysicalimprovements.Avoidingsuchnegativeeffectsisalsodifficult,forclearlythelegalchangesnecessaryforthisarebeyondthepowerof
urbandevelopmentauthoritiesoraidagencies.Morerecentprojectsfundedbyforeigndonorshavenotbeenpermittedbylocalgovernmenttoworkwiththepoorest
pavementdwellers,becausetheyareregardedasillegalsquatters.Here,then,constraintsimposedbytherecipientgovernmenthavepreventedaidfrombeingas
'povertyfocused'asthedonorsmighthavewished.
Asweknow,unequalaccessoccurswithinhouseholds,aswellasbetweenthem.Inthenextcase,weshallseehowtheconstructionofgenderrelationsinBangladesh
meansthatevenifprojectsarespecificallyaimedatwomen,theydonotnecessarilybenefitfromthem.
Case4
Women'sCreditGroupsinBangladesh:InequalityWithinHouseholds7
In1975theBangladeshigovernmentintroducedaprogrammeofruralwomen'scooperativesin19selectedadministrativedistrictscontrolledbytheIntegratedRural
DevelopmentProgramme.Thesewomen'scooperativeswerevillagebasedandstructuredonthe
Page85
modelofpreexistingmen'speasantcommittees.Eachcooperativewasrunbyamanagementcommittee,electedbymembers.Theserepresentedthecooperativeat
fortnightlytrainingsessionsinhealth,nutrition,familyplanning,literacy,vegetablegardening,livestockandpoultryrearingandfoodprocessing,sharingtheirknowledge
withothermembersbackintheirvillage.Theirprimaryfocuswas,however,thegrantingofsmallloans,whichinconjunctionwiththetrainingwassupposedto
increasemembers'incomeearningcapacity.
InavillagestudiedbyRozario(1992)theseloansseemedtobethemainreasonwhywomenjoinedthecooperatives.Ataninterestrateof12.5percent,awoman
couldapplyfor500taka8 ifshehadatleast50takaworthofshares.SincetheinterestrateschargedbyprivatemoneylendersareextortionateinBangladesh
(sometimesrunningat100percent),andbanksareunlikelytogivecredittosmalllandownersandthelandless,obtainingtheseloanswasobviouslyhighlydesirable.
Rozario'sresearchindicatesthatloansintendedtobeusedbywomenfortheirownincomegenerationwereeithergoingtowardsjointhouseholdexpenses,orbeing
cooptedbymen.Loanstakenoutbythepoorestwomenwereoftenspentonbasichouseholditems,suchasfood,clothingandmedicine.Thesewomen,however,
weretheonesmostlikelytoinvesttheirloansingrowingvegetables,orpoultryraising.Incontrast,wealthierwomentoldRozariothattheydidnotknowhowtheir
husbandsspenttheloans,whichtheyhadpasseddirectlytothem.Theysimplysignedtheformstocollecttheloan.Sincesomanyloanswerenotrepaid,withwomen
claimingthattheycouldnotcontroltheirhusbands'decisionsorabilitytorepay,eventuallyhusbands'signatureswererequiredbeforealoanwasmade.Menwerethus
officiallygivengreatercontroloverwomen'scredit.
EvidencefromelsewhereinBangladeshsuggestssimilarprocessesarecommontocreditprogrammeswhichgiveloanstowomen(Goetz,1994).Becausewomen
andmendonothaveequalaccesstoresourceswithinhouseholds,timeandtimeagainloanswhicharegiventowomenarepassedbytherecipientstotheirhusbands.
Combinedwiththis,becauseitiswomen'sresponsibilitytofeedandclothetheirfamilies,moneyearmarkedforincomegenerationisspentonahousehold's
reproductiveneeds.Classisclearlyanimportantfactortoo.Womenfromricherhouseholds,whoaremorestrictlysecluded,seemtohavetheleastcontroloverthe
credit.Thismaybebecauseideologiesofpurdah(femaleseclusion)prevent
Page86
suchwomenfromenteringmarketsandotherpublicandmaledomains.Thebuyingandsellingofvegetablesorpoultrymaythereforebeseenas'unrespectable'for
them,whileforpoorerwomensocialprestigeisnotsomethingtheycanafford.Allwomen,however,shouldertheburdenofrepaymentifandwhentheirhusbands
default.
BydisregardingthewaysinwhichresourcesareallocatedwithinBangladeshihouseholds,theculturalconstructionofwomen'sworkandtheiraccesstomarkets,
creditprogrammesinBangladesharelikelytobecontrolledbymen,eveniftheyareoriginallyintendedforwomen.Akeyfactorheremightbethatitiscash,rather
thanotherresources,whichisloaned.Cashistraditionallyassociatedwithmaledomains,whereasothercommodities(poultry,grain,householdgoods)are
traditionallywithinthefemaledomain.IfprojectplannershadlocatedgenderrelationsandinequalitywithinthespecificculturalcontextofBangladesh,theresults
reportedbyRozariomightthereforehavebeenavoided.
Tosummarise,anthropologicalstudyofdevelopmenthelpsgeneratearangeofquestionswhichfocusonpeople'saccesstoresourcesprovidedbyplannedchange.
Thesemaybeanswered
Access:KeyQuestions
Whatarethemostimportantresourceswithinsociety?
Howisaccesstoresourcesorganised?
Arekeyresourcesequallyshared,ordosomegroupshavemorecontrolthanothers?
Arethereobviouseconomicdifferenceswithincommunities?
Dosomegroupshavemoredecisionmakingpowerthanothers?
Aresomegroupsdeniedavoice?
Aresomepeopleincitedtospeak?
Isaccesstoresourcesequalwithinhouseholds?
Dosomegroupshaveparticularinterests/needs?
Arethereprojectcriteriawhichconstrainsomepeople'saccess?
Isacertainlevelofcapitalnecessary?
Doestheprojectonlyapplytopreconceivedcategories,e.g.landowners,malefarmersorhouseholdheads?
Arethesefactorsadequatelyconsideredinthedevelopmentplan/policy?
Page87
throughtheanthropologicalmethodsoutlinedinChapter2,orthroughmoreparticipatorymethods(seeChapter5).Conventionallyindevelopmentpracticesuch
questionsareposedby'expert'consultants,butthisneednotnecessarilybethecase:localparticipants,activists,nongovernmentalworkersandsoonmayall
contribute.Mostimportantisthattheanswersarefedbackeffectivelyintoplanningandpolicy.
Gatheringsuchinformationisnotofcourseunproblematicwhetherornottheobjective'truth'ofsociopoliticalrelationscaneverbereachedisamootpoint,notonly
becauseoutsiderstendtofinditextremelydifficulttofindsuchthingsout,butalsobecausethe'truth'tendstovaryaccordingtothepositioningandperspectivesof
differentactors:itisunfixedandvariable.Weshallreturntotheseproblemsattheendofthischapter.
Effects
Whatarethesocialandculturaleffectsofdevelopment?Thisquestionisclearlycloselylinkedtorelativeaccess.Ratherthanfocusingonthedistributionofbenefits,
however,itteasesoutdifferentquestions.Byaskingaboutthesocialeffectsofdevelopment,weareforcedtoconsidertheoftencomplexsocialrepercussionswhich
mayspilloverintoquiteunexpecteddomains.Suchquestionsarealsovitalinassessingprojectsorprogrammeswhichplannerslackinginanthropologicalinsightmay
nothaveorginallyconsideredtohaveanyparticularsocialimplications,sincetheseprojectswereprimarilyconceivedofintechnicalterms.
Focusinguponsocialeffectsalsodemonstratesthehighlycomplexnatureofsocialchange.Peopleareembeddedinarangeofsocial,economicandpolitical
relationshipswhichaffecttheiraccesstopropertyandlabour,theirdecisionmakingpowerwithintheircommunitiesandhouseholds,theirpositioninthedivisionof
labourandsoon.Althoughanthropologistsmaynotbeabletopredictexactlywhatthesocialeffectsofdevelopmentwillbe,fromwhattheymayalreadyknow,and
byaskingtherightquestions,theyareoftenfarbetterequippedthanmosttomakeinformedguesses.Whilethesocialeffectsofdevelopmentmustclearlybe
investigatedduringandafterprojects,throughproceduresofevaluationandappraisal,suchquestionsalsoneedtobeposedattheirinception.Asweseebelow,the
failuretodothishasledtomanygravemistakes.
Page88
Case5
TheKaribaDam:TheEffectsofResettlement9
Manylargescaleprojectswhicharedesignedtoimprovenationalinfrastructure,andwhichareperceivedasbeingsolelytechnical,requiretheresettlementoflarge
numbersofpeople.Thebuildingofroads,airstripsanddamstogeneratehydroelectricpowerprovidesclassicexamples.Thesocialimplicationsoftheseprojectsare
oftennotfullycomprehendeduntilaftertheyareunderway,andkeyquestionswhichmightatleasthavelimitedthedamagedonetothegroupsthatareforcedtomove
arenotasked.TheKaribaDamisaclassicexample(seeScudder,1980).
AsMairpointsout,whenhydroelectricdamsarebuiltthedisplacedpopulationisunlikelytobenefitdirectly,fortheelectricityisusuallyintendedfortheinhabitantsof
distantcities(Mair,1984:110).Thehardshipscausedforthosewhoareforcedtomovecan,however,bereducediftheirsocial,economicandculturalcircumstances
areconsideredbyadministrators.IntheGwembecountry(ZambiaandZimbabwe)wheretheKaribaDamwasbuilt,therewasinsufficientconsiderationofthese
factors,eventhoughmanyofficialsweredeeplyconcernedforthepeople'swelfare.Inaddition,aseriesoforganisationalmistakesweremade.Theworstofthesewas
thatalthoughthepopulationwasoriginallyallowedtochoosewheretheywouldrelocate,atechnicaldecisionwastakentoraisethelevelofthelake,resultinginthe
floodingoftheareaproposedforresettlement.Thiseffectivelydestroyedanygoodwillorconfidenceintheadministratorsthattherelocateesmighthavehad.While
somevillagersdidmovetositestheyhadchosen,atleast6000weresenttotheLusituPlateau,160kilometresaway.Althoughthegovernmenthadpromisedthat
waterwouldbesupplied,notonlywasthedrillingmachineryprovidedinadequate,butthewaterprovedtobeundrinkable,sothatpipelineseventuallyhadtobring
waterfromtheZambeziRiver.Inthetimeittookforthesetobebuilt,manypeoplesufferedfromdysentry.
Thepeopleweremovedtotheareabytruck.TheywerenotallowedtoreturntoGwembecountry.Sincetheadministratorsassumedtheyhadnoproperty,many
valuablepossessionswereleftbehindorbroken.Theschemealsototallyignoredthelocalorganisationofwork.MenweresentaheadtoLusitutopreparetheland
andbuildhousesintheveryseasonwhentheywouldnormallyhavebeenearningcashandclearingfields.Womenwerethusleftbehindtodoalltheagriculturalwork,
whiletheirmendidtasksinLusituwhichtraditionallywomenwouldhavecontributedto.On
Page89
topofallthis,compensationpaymentswereinappropriatetocustomarypropertyrights.Householdheadswerecompensatedforallthehutsintheirhomestead,even
thoughthesewereoftenbuiltandownedbyyoungermalerelatives.Afixedsumofcompensationwasawardedtoeachindividual,includingchildren,butpaidtothe
householdhead.Mostofthesesharedoutthemoney,butnonesharedequallysomeyoungmenclaimedthattheyhadtoearntheirsharefromtheirfathersbyworking
forthemfirst.
AlthoughtheproblemofwatersupplyinLusituwastechnical,mostoftheotherproblemsrelatedirectlytoissuesofananthropologicalnature.Hadkeyquestions
beenaskedbeforeplanningthemove
TheEffectsofResettlement:KeyQuestions
Whatisthenatureoflocalpowerandhierarchy?
Howisdifferenceandinequalitystructured?
Areparticulargroupsmarginalised?
Dosomegroupsmonopolisepoliticalpowerandresources?
Whatisthenatureofthehousehold?
Howisthehouseholdorganised?
Wholiveswhere?
Howisdecisionmakingpowerallocatedwithinhouseholds?
Howdothesefactorscustomarilychangeovertime?
Howarelocalpropertyrelationsorganised?
Whatgoodsarehighlyvalued?
Whataccessdodifferentsocialgroupsorhouseholdmembershavetopropertyorotherresources?
Whataretheusualpatternsofinheritance?
Howdothesefactorsrelatetothehouseholddevelopmentcycle?
Howisworkorganised?
Whatarethemaintasksdoneinthecommunity,andduringwhatseasons?
Whodoeswhatwork?
Whatistheimportanceofkinshiprolesorrelationsintheallocationoflabour?
Howsuitableistheproposedrelocationsite,giventheaboveeconomic,social,andculturalfactors?
Page90
andthepaymentofcompensation,manyofthenegativeeffectsmighthavebeenavoided.
Thelistofquestionsintheboxisnotofcoursecomprehensive.ItisalsospecifictoGwembecountry.Indifferentcontexts,otherissuesmaybeimportant.For
example,whensquattersettlementsarecleared,perhapsbecausearoadisplannedorsimplybecausetheyarean'eyesore',detailedquestionsmustbeasked
regardingpeople'srelationshiptothehomestheylivein,tenancyarrangementsandsoon.Theremustalsobesafeguardstoensurethatopportunistsdonotclaim
propertywhichlesspowerfulindividualsoccupy,orthat'householdheads'arenotgivenlumpsumswhichmaybewithheldfromothermembers.Itisvitalthatthese
questionsareaskedattheplanningstage,notaftertheprojecthasalreadystarted.
Case6
TheMaasaiHousingProject:TechnologicalChange10
Sincetechnologyisusuallyproduced,distributed,usedandcontrolledbydifferentgroupsofpeople,changesinanyoftheseareasarelikelytohaveknockoneffects
onarangeofsocialandeconomicrelations.Differentactivitiesalsoinvolvevaryingamountsofpowerandstatus,accordingtoeachculturalcontext.Simplybecause
somepeopleproduceacertaintypeofgoods,forexample,itcannotbeassumedthattheyenjoyeconomicpower,fortheydonotnecessarilycontrolitsdistribution
anduse.Likewise,peopleusingatechnologydonotnecessarilyalsocontrolit.Whatimplicationsdoesthishaveforprojectsinvolvingtechnologicalchange?The
followingexampledemonstratesthattechnologicalinnovationsandtraininginahousingprojectinKenyahavehadvariousrepercussionsonlocalgenderrelations.
Theseeffectsarebynomeansuniversalrather,theydependuponthespecificculturalcontextinwhichtheprojectistakingplace.
ArecentreportindicatesthatwhilesometechnologicalinnovationsinKenyahavehadlargelypositiveeffectsonwomen,forotherstheeffectshavebeenmoremixed
(ITDG,1992).TheMaasaiHousingProjectisagoodexample.Maasaiwomentraditionallyplayacentralroleintheinnovation,production,useandcontrolof
housingmaterials,butsincetheinceptionoftheprojecttheirroleininnovatingnewtechnologieshasbeenreduced.Intheirplace,menarebecomingincreasingly
involved.Ironically,however,women'sworkloadhasincreased.
TheeffectsoftheMaasaiHousingProjectmustbeunderstoodinthewidercontextofMaasailifeinKajiado,Kenya.Althoughcus
Page91
tomarilyassociatedwithpastoralism,localMaasaihavebecomeincreasinglysettled.Alongsidethismoresedentarywayoflife,evidenceindicatesthatwomennow
shouldergreaterburdensofwork.Forexample,whilemenweretraditionallyresponsibleforlivestockherding,womenhavenowstartedherding,eventhoughmenstill
buy,sellandcontrolthelivestock.Mostwomenworkaround15hoursadaylackoftimeisthusoneoftheirlargestproblems.Otherfactorswhichpreventagreater
shareofdecisionmakingpowerandaccesstoresourcesforwomenaretheirlackofaccesstotrainingandbusinessopportunities,theirunderconfidence,thethreatof
maleviolence,andtheirexclusionfromdecisionmakingandownership.
TheMaasaiHousingProjectwasintroducedtoKajiadoDistrictbytheAridandSemiAridLandsProgramme(ASAL)inconjunctionwithapartnerNGO.Itstarted
workin1990,withtheidentificationofelevenwomen'sgroupsandtheconstructionofademonstration'modern',threeroomedhouse.In1991womenwereinvited
toaworkshopinwhichtheyexpressedtheirownpreferencesregardingshape,sizeandinterioroftheiridealhouses.Theprojectthensupervisedtheconstructionof
fivehouses,threeforrentalandtwoforprivateuse.AMaasaiwomanwasemployedasanextensionworker,butthetechnicalspecialistandprogrammemanagers
weremen.A1992reportsuggestedthatwomenshouldbemorecentraltotheproject:trainingcoursesshouldsuittheirtimeconstraints,andhousingdesignsshould
encompasstheirneeds.
Oneproblemwasthattheproject's'improved'housestooklongertobuildandthusaddedtowomen'sworkburden.Whileonewomanreportedthathavinga
modernhousegavehermorestatus,mostclaimedthatthegreatestbenefitswerederivedfromtechnologicalimprovements,ratherthananysocialorpoliticalchanges.
Althoughitwashopedthatonewomen'sgroupwouldrenttheirhouseoutwhilerunningashopnearbyinordertoraisethemoneytoprovideitwithbetterfacilities,
thegroupreportedthatthiswasnotpossiblesincetheydidnothavethetimeorthemoneytorunashop.Thehousewasthusleftunoccupied.
Beforethechangeswereintroducedwomenwerethemaininnovatorsandproducersofhousingcentrally,theyalsocontrolledthefinishedproducts.Aftertheproject,
however,menwereincreasinglyinvolvedininnovationthroughtheirparticipationintrainingcoursesandinsomeaspectsofconstruction(forexample,carpentry).
Whilewomenwerestillthemainproducersofhousing,menhadalsostartedtodistributeit.Combinedwiththis,thevaluesandstatusesofeachactivityhavealso
beguntochange.Since
Page92
modernityishighlyvaluedinKajiado,thedistributionandcontrolofmodernhousesleadstomorestatusthanthatoftraditionalhouses.Thismaybeanotherreason
whymenarebecomingincreasinglyinvolved.Thereisthereforeaveryrealdangerthatmenmayincreasinglycontrolhousing,whilewomenwillcontinuetodothebulk
oftheworkandbethemainusersofthecompletedhouses.Changesinthegenderrelationsofhouseproductionmayalsothereforeleadtotochangesinthegender
relationsofhousedesignandcontrol.Ratherthanbenefitingfromtheproject,womenwillbedisempoweredbyit.
Onewaythatthesenegativeeffectsmaybeavoidedisbyensuringthatmenarepaidbywomenfortheirlabour,thusgivingthemfewrightsoverthefinishedproduct.
Likewise,byimprovingtraditionalhousingdesignswhichareassociatedwithfemaleknowledge,malecontrolofinnovationmightbereduced.Itshouldalsobe
rememberedthatthesocialrelationsoftechnologyarenotonlyculturallyspecific,theyarealsotechnologicallyspecific.HousingamongtheMaasaiisnotan
exclusivelyfemaledomain.Thismeansthatmenmaychoosetobecomeinvolvedinhousingprojectsiftheyperceivethattheywillbenefitfromthem.Incontrast,other
technologiesarelocallyconstructedasbeingexclusivelyfemale.Forexample,theproductionofstovesisseenbytheMaasai
TechnologicalChange:KeyQuestions
Howislocalknowledgeused,produced,distributedandcontrolled?
Whodoeswhat,andhowistheworkorganised?
Whatistherelationshipbetweentheseactivitiesanddecisionmakingpowerandstatus?
Whataretheconstraintsfacingwomen?
Howcanprojectactivities(training,groupmeetingsandsoon)fitmostappropriatelyintowomen'stightwork
schedules?
Howmightthenewhousesbemoreappropriatelydesigned?
Couldthenewdesignsbeless,ratherthanmore,labourintensive?
Whatistherelationshipbetweenproduction,distributionandcontrol?
Doesthebuildinganddistributionofhousesautomaticallyleadtotheircontrol?
Wouldpayingmalehousebuilderswagesreducethedangerthattheywillcontrolthefinishedproduct?
Page93
as'women'swork'.Improvedstovetechnologyisthereforeofferedonlytowomenbyprojects,withoutapparentlydiscriminatingagainstmen.Inthiscase,thenew
technologysaveswomentime,ratherthanincreasingtheirworkload.
TheMaasaiHousingProjecthasnothadwhollynegativeeffectsonlocalwomen.Indeed,greateffortshavebeenmadetorecognisetheirproductiveroleinhouse
buildingandtoenablethemtoparticipateinthedesignofnewhouses.Theaccompanyingquestions(seebox)might,however,help'finetune'it.
Control
Astheabovecasestudiesindicate,itiscrucialtounderstandthedynamicsoflocalsocietiesifparticulargroupsarenottobemarginalisedorfurtherdisadvantaged
throughdevelopmentinterventions.Itwould,however,bemisleadingtoindicatethattheseissuesareresolvedsolelythroughtopdownplanning.Indeed,this
replicatesdominantdevelopmentdiscourseswhichpresupposethatplanningandpolicymakingsimplyneedtobetweakedinparticulardirectionsto'solve'the
problemsofdevelopment.Topdownplanningisfarfrombeingtheonlysolution.Howeverwellthoughtoutdevelopmentplansare,iftheyaredesignedand
implementedbyoutsiderstheyareincontinualdangerofbeingunsustainableinthelongtermandofcontributingtodependencywhenfundingends,sodoesthe
project.
Unlesspeoplecantakecontroloftheirownresourcesandagendas,developmentisthuscaughtinaviciouscircleby'providing'forothers,projectsinherently
encouragethedependencyofrecipientsonoutsidefundsandworkers.Developmentdiscoursesmustthereforebechallengeduntiltheyrecognisethatlocalpeopleare
activeagents,andbychangingtheirpracticesenablethemtoparticipate11inprojectplanningandimplementation.Inthissectionweindicatehowdevelopment
practicepreventspeoplefromtakingcontrolandhowitmightbechangedfromwithin.Asintherestofthischapter,weareconfiningourattentiontoplannedchange
andassumingthat,atsomelevel,externaldonorsareinvolved.
WorkingwithLocalGroupsandInstitutions
Developmentplansoftenassumethattheimplementingagenciesofaprojectorprogrammewillcomefromoutsidethelocal
Page94
community:thereisacleardistinctionbetweenthe'givers'ofaserviceorresource(developmentworkers)andthe'receivers'(localpeople).Sincedevelopersare
primarilyinterestedinproblemsandsolutionswhichareperceivedintechnologicalterms,localsocialstructurestendtobeseenasatbestirrelevantandatworstan
'obstacle'.Indeed,outsidersoftenfailtorecognisethedegreetowhichcommunitieshavetheirowninternalformsoforganisation,decisionmakingandlobbying.
Unsurprisingly,however,projectsareoftenmostsuccessfulwhentheyworkthroughpreexistingsocialstructuresandinstitutions.Theremay,forexample,bepre
existinggroupswhichareworkingtobringresourcesorservicestotheircommunities.Thesemaytakemanydifferentforms.Forexample,aswesawinChapter3,
LatinAmericansquattersettlementsareoftencarefullyplannedbyinhabitants,withlocalneighbourhoodcommitteesformedtodevelopthesettlement.Inother
communitiesthegroupmayhaveformedforasinglepurpose:gatheringtogethertoraisemoneyforaschool,aclinicoraplaceofworship,forexample.Sportsclubs
arecommonformsofcommunitybasedgroups,asarepoliticalparties.Allofthesevaryfromplacetoplacetheirsuitablityasimplementorsorpartnersfor
developmentworkwilldependonboththeirparticularcharacteristicsandthoseofthedevelopmentplan.
Anthropologicallymindedadvisorshaveanimportantroletoplayincontestingdominantdiscourseswhichignoresuchgroups.Byfindingoutaboutthem,representing
theirintereststoplanners,orenablingthemtospeakforthemselves(forexample,byarrangingmeetingsorworkshops),anthropologistsindevelopmentcan
demonstrateacommunity'sorgroup'spotentialforparticipation.Anthropologicalresearchandrepresentationcanalsoshowthatpeoplearenotpassive'recipients',
butareaccustomedtotakingmattersintotheirownhands.
Whetherornotthesegroupsbecomethebasisforparticipationinaprojectisofcoursedependentuponarangeoffactors.Themostimportantoftheseisprobably
thedevelopmentagency'scommitmenttoparticipation.Itshouldalsonotbeassumedthatlocalgroupswishtoparticipate.Asweshallseeinthenextchapter,much
maydependuponthevariousmeaningsofparticipationbeingused.Whatismostimportant,however,isthatsuchgroupsareaskedwhattheirinterestsare.They
mightdecidethattheyneedadvice,trainingorextraresources.Buttheymightjustaseasilywishtobeleftalone.
Ifthereisatraditionalsystemofcommunaldecisionmaking,itmaybeeasierandmoreexpedienttousethisasaparticipatory
Page95
channelratherthancreatingnewcommitteesorinstitutions.Iftheseinstitutionsaredominatedbyapowerfulelite,orparticulargroupsareexcluded,thismayofcourse
createproblems,butsimplytobypasslocalpowerholdersmaycausegreaterdifficultiesinthelongrun.TheworkofProshika,aBangladeshiNGO,providesan
example.Whileitsprojectswereultimatelyaimedatthelocallandless,organisingthemintogroupsandhelpingtoraisetheirpoliticalconsciousnessinordertogain
greatercontroloftheirsituation,fieldworkersoftenfounditexpedienttogainthetrustoflocalelitesandworkthroughexistingpoliticalstructures.Wherethiswasnot
doneintheinitialstages,theprojectsoftenmetwithfierceopposition.12Inothercasesexistingcommitteesordecisionmakersmightbelinkedtoanewstructure.In
contextswherecommunitydecisionmakingisdominatedbymen,forinstance,aseparatewoman'scommitteecouldbesetup,feedingintotheexistingmale
dominatedone.Ifwomenareunusedtobeingoncommitteesorhavingapoliticalvoice,theymayneedparticularsupportortraining.Suchprojectscannotachieve
miracles.Menmaycontinuetodominateandwomentohaveanunequalsayinwhattakesplace.Butatleastanopportunityforthemtoredefinetheirpoliticalroles
hasbeenprovided.
Oftentherearenongovernmentalorganisationsalreadyworkingwithinanarea.13Becausethesearesmallerinscalethangovernmentalagenciesandarelocally
based,theseoftenworkfarmoresuccessfullyatthegrassrootsthanbilateralaidprojects,14andaremoreexperiencedinparticipatorydevelopment.Increasingly,
projectswhichaimtogivebeneficiariesgreatercontrolareattemptingtoworkthroughNGOsalreadyinvolvedatthegrassroots.Appliedanthropologistsmaybe
askedtoidentifywhichlocalNGOshavethemostparticipatorymethodologiesandwhichmightbemostabletocarryoutsuchwork.Thisinvolvesvariousideological
andpracticalproblems,whichweshalldiscussfurtherinChapters5and6.
Thefollowingcasestudyisanexampleofhowprojectplanningcanbuilduponandstrengthenpreexistinglocalgroupsandinstitutionsinordertoenablepeopleto
participatemorefullyinprocessesofchange.Asitindicates,developmentdiscoursesarenothomogeneously'topdown'theyarebothhighlycontestedfromwithin
andliabletochangeovertime.
Case7
LabourWelfareinTeaPlantations:EnablingControl15
AprojecttoimprovethequalityofteaproductioninSouthAsiahadbeenfundedforseveraldecadesbyabilateraldonor.Originallythe
Page96
projecthadbeenalmostwhollytechnical,focusingonupgradingthequalityofteaplantsandproductivetechniques.Whiletherewasalabourwelfarecomponent,this
concentratedonprovidingservicesforlabourerswithintheplantations:improvingtheirhousingprovidingtubewellsandhealthservices.
Bythelate1980sthelabourwelfarecomponentbegantobereappraised,notleastbecauseofideologicalchangeswithinthedonoragency.Ratherthansimply
providingservicesforlabourers,policymakersdecidedthattheprojectshouldenablethemtotakegreatercontrolofresourcesasmuchaspossible,theproject
shouldprovideaframeworkforthelabourerstoruntheirownproject.Thiswaspoliticallyhighlycontroversial,fortheplantationswereownedbyprivateindividuals
andcompanies,whowantedtheirlabourerstobeaspassiveaspossible.
Ananthropologicalconsultantwashiredtoassesstheviabilityofsuchplansbyresearchingsocialstructureandorganisationamongthelabourers.Whatshefound
werehighlevelsofpreexisting'indigenous'organisation.Labourerslivedin'lines'ofhousing,withinwhichforemenwereappointedtooverseethemaintenanceof
resources(suchastubewells)andreportproblemstotheestatemanagement.Locallyformedcommitteestookresponsibilityforotherdecisionsforinstance,those
involvinginternalsocialaffairs.Whereresources(suchashousing)hadbeenprovidedbytheplantation,therewasatendencytorelyonthemanagementoftheestates
tomaintainthem.Wherelabourershadbuilttheirownhouses,however,theymaintainedthem.Combinedwiththis,insomeestatesfemalelabourerswereinvolvedin
managingcreditandsavingsgroups,anactivitywhichappearedtohavebeeninitiatedbythewomenthemselves,ratherthananyoutsideagency.Theyalsohadtheir
ownindigenoushealersandbirthattendants,aswellasthehealthservicesprovidedbytheplantations.
Lastly,registeredlabourerswereallmembersofthenationaltradeunionforteaworkers.Thishadalonghistoryofmilitancy.Locallevelactionstrikes,
demonstrationsandthegarrotingofmanagersregularlybroughtproductiontoahaltinsomeestates.Eachplantationthereforeincludedunionleaders,whohad
substantialexperienceinpoliticalorganisation,lobbyingandaction.Manyofthemostforthrightofthesewerewomen.
Thuswhileinsomewaystheyhadbeenforcedintoapassiverolebythenonparticipatoryallocationofserviceswithintheproject,inotherdomainslabourerswere
alreadyactivelytakingcontrolofaffairs.Buildinguponthisknowledge,projectworkersplannedanewphaseinthelabourwelfarecomponentoftheproject.Local
Page97
committees,basedonthepreexistingorganisationofthe'lines',wouldbesetup.Thesewouldinvolveequalnumbersofwomenandmengiventheactivismofsome
femalelabourers,itwasreasonabletoassumethatthiswouldnotbetoodifficult.Thecommitteeswouldbebasedaroundthemanagementandallocationofa'social
fund',tobeprovidedthroughtheproject.Itwouldbeuptothemhowthesefundswereused.Iftheywantedtospendthemontraining,primaryeducationor
improvedhealthservices,theywoulddecide.
AppropriateOrganisationalStructures
Peopleareoftenexcludedfromparticipatinginandultimatelycontrollingplanneddevelopmentbecausetheorganisationalformittakesisinappropriate.Indeed,
bureaucraticplanningandadministrationareinmanywaysinherentlyantiparticipatory,fortheyaredeeplyintolerantofalternativewaysofperceivingandorganising
activities,timeandinformation.Institutionalproceduresarethereforecentralwaysinwhichdevelopmentpracticesexcludesupposedbeneficiaries,evenifsuperficially
policyaimsat'participation'.Theseproblemsarenotbydefinitioninsurmountable,butmostbureaucracieswillhavetoundergomajorreorientationsiftheirprocedures
aretobemoreopenandflexible.Understandingthewaysinwhichpeopleareexcludedbyorganisationalstructuresandproceduresmeanstakingasteptowards
achievingthis.
Anexampleoftheexclusivenatureofplanningproceduresistheprojectframework,whichsomedonorsnowinsistuponbeforeprovidingfunds.Thisinvolvesan
organisationalchartinwhichplannersspecifyprojectobjectives,inputs,timingsandthecriteriatheywillusetomeasuresuccessfuloutput.16Whilethisisundoubtedly
ausefulwayofclarifyingplans,theproductionofsuchaframeworkisalsoclearlymucheasierforadministratorsaccustomedtoparticularwaysofthinkingand
planning,andmayrequiretimeconsumingtraining.
Projectreportsareanotherwayinwhichadministrationanddecisionmakingremain'topdown'.Reportsandotherformsofdocumentationtendtobekeytothe
formulationofpolicywithinaidagencies,yettheyarealsooftenhighlyexclusivetoanyonefromoutsidetheinstitution.Reportsareusuallyproducedinveryparticular
ways(forexample,conventionssuchaslistingrecommendationsatthebeginningofthereport,summarisinginformationinappendices,keepingthetexttoacertain
length,usingparticularbureaucraticphrasingsandjargon).Thosefrom
Page98
outsidetheorganisationwhoarenotfamiliarwithsuchconventionsarethuseffectivelyexcludedfromeffectivecommunication.
Projectswhichsupposedlyallowforlocal'participation'areoftenplannedinawaywhichmakessuchparticipationimpossible.Thisisespeciallythecasewithprojects
whichinvolvelargescaletechnicalcomponents,suchasbuilding.Thistendstobeplannedaroundarigidtimetableandcanusuallybeimplementedrelativelyquickly.
Tosetupthemechanismsforlocalparticipationinplanning,however,usuallytakesfarlonger.Meanwhilethoseresponsibleforbuildingarekeentoprogressas
quicklyaspossible.Thesetypesofcontradictionareextremelycommon,pointingtoalargerproblemindonorleddevelopment:workingwithlargebudgets,which
theyareanxioustospend,donorsandrecipientgovernmentsareoftenreluctanttospendtime'fiddlingaround'withthecomplexitiesofsettinguplocalcommitteesand
consultingcommunitiesabouttheirplans.Instead,projectswhichabsorbfundsefficientlyandareadministrativelyrelativelysimple(buildingroadsordams)are
preferred.
Thetimingofprojectactivitiesmayalsobeinappropriate.Again,thisistheresultofnotconsultinglocalpeoplefirst.Meetings,forexample,maybeheldat
inconvenienttimes.Womenmaynotbeabletoattendmeetingsorclassesheldatnight.Inothercontextswomenandmenmaynotbeabletoattendthoseheldinthe
daybecauseofworkdemands.Oncemoretheseareissueswhicharebestdecidedbythepeopleinvolved.Anthropologistsworkingindevelopmentshouldnottake
thesedecisionsonbehalfofbeneficiaries,butwhereverpossibleshouldensure,attheveryleast,thatplansinvolvecarefulconsultationwiththem.
Thelocationofprojectactivitiesshouldalsobeconsidered,fortheymightbeheldinaplacefromwhichsomepeopleareexcluded.InmanyMuslimsocietieswomen
donotusuallygointopublicplaceswheretherearemanymen.Theymayalsobeunabletotraveltonearbytownstobetrained,receivecreditandsoon,bothfor
reasonsofmodestyandfamilyhonourbutalsobecausetheyhavedomesticresponsibilitiesthroughouttheday.Eachcontextisofcoursedifferent,butproject
activitiesareusuallymoreaccessiblewhentheyaredecentralised.
Lastly,plannersneedtoconsiderwhethertheyaremakingappropriatedemandsonparticipants.Asweknow,men,andespeciallywomen,havetomeethugework
demandsinmuchoftheworld,yetthisisoftenillconsideredintheplansofoutsiders.Projectswhichdonottaketheseintoconsiderationarethereforeunlikelytogain
muchlocalsupport.Agoodexampleofthisisincomegeneration
Page99
projectswhicharehighlylabourintensive.Intheteaplantationprojectdescribedabove,anearlierplaninthelabourwelfarecomponentoftheprojecthadbeenfor
incomegenerationactivitiesforunregisteredlabourers,whooftenreceiveonlyverysmallincomesand,asalabourreserve,arenotalwaysinfullemployment.The
problem,however,wasthattheplantationsneededtohaveacontinualsupplyoflabourfortimesofhighdemandiftheunregisteredlabourershadanalternative
sourceofincome,theplantationswouldnothavebeensoeasilyabletodemandtheirwork.Theproposalswerethereforeblockedbythemanagement.
AppropriateCommunication
Peopleareoftenpreventedfromtakingamoreactiveroleindevelopmentbecauseitisconductedinculturalcodesandlanguageswhicharealientothem.Aswesaw
inChapter3,recentanthropologicalanalysesofdevelopmentdiscoursesuggestthatbyitsverynatureitexcludespeople,disregardstheirknowledgeandportrays
themas'ignorant',byupholdingWesternscientificrationalityastheonlyparadigmforunderstandingandcommunication(Hobart,1993).
Whileinthemajorityofcasesthisscientificrationalitymayprovidesolutions,itneednotnecessarilybethecase.Again,thediscourseismoreheterogeneousandopen
tochangethanmanycommentatorssuggest.Asweshallseeinthenextchapter,therehavealreadybeensignificantadvancesintheunderstandingofwhataretermed
'indigenousknowledgesystems'17bydevelopers.Anthropologicalknowledgehashadanimportantroleinpromotingsuchconcerns.Itcanalsohelptosuggestmore
appropriatewaysofgettingmessagesacrossandenablingpeopletoparticipatebyusingtheirownculturalidiomsratherthanthoseimposedfromtheoutside.Again,
thisisnotnecessarilybecauseanthropologistsindevelopmenthave'expert'knowledgeofaparticularculture,butbecausetheycaninsistattheplanningstagethatthe
adviceoflocalpeopleissought.
Communicationmustbebothappropriateandeffective.Thenotionofappropriatecommunicationmayappeartobeobvious,butitisextraordinaryhowoftenthe
localculturalandlinguisticcontextisnotconsideredinprojectplanning.Forexample,intheearly1990sKatyGardnersatinonaUNICEFtrainingsessionfor
midwivesinOrissaineastIndia,inwhichtheywereshownatrainingvideomadeinthePunjab,severalthousandkilometresaway.ThevideowasinPunjabi,andused
traditionalPunjabi
Page100
implementsandmethods.Moreover,womensittingatthebackofthesmallroomcouldhardlyseethevideoscreen.However,therearemanyotherexampleswhere
greateffortshavebeentakentoensurethatdevelopmentalmessagesareappropriate.Literacymaterials,forexample,aspioneeredbyPauloFriereanddevelopedby
NGOsthroughouttheworld,takecaretoteachliteracyusingculturallyappropriateidiomsandcontexts.WeshalldiscussfunctionaleducationfurtherinChapter5.
Onesimplewaytocommunicateeffectivelyistousepreexistingculturalforms.Communityeducationprojectsoftenusetraditionalformsofentertainmenttogreat
effect.Jatra,ortraditionaltravellingtheatreinIndia,forexample,hasbeenusedbycommunityhealthprojectstogetacrossfamilyplanningmessages.Andinplaces
wherethereisno,orverylimited,electricity,communitiesmaygathertogethertowatchtelevisionspoweredbybatteries.Again,thismayprovideausefulforumfor
showingfilmsonpublichealth,orotherformsofcommunityeducation.
Butperhapsmostimportantly,plannersmustconsiderwhetherthemessageitselfisappropriate.Asanthropologicalanalysesindicate,localknowledgeisoftenbased
onassumptionsthatarequitedifferentfromthoseof'rational'developmentalknowledge(Pottier,1993Hobart,1993).Trainingoreducationwhichdisregardsthe
waysinwhichpeopleunderstandtheworld,andsimplyassumesthatscientificorrationalknowledgeisaccessibleanduseful,isthereforeunlikelytobesuccessful.
AswesawinChapter3,RichardsarguesthatfarmingpracticesinWestAfricacanbeunderstoodasinvolvingperformanceskillsaswellasdetailedecologicaland
technicalknowledge.Ratherthanskillsbeinglearnedand'set',farmersimprovisetheiragriculturalskills(P.Richards,1993).Persuadingfarmerstoadoptnewseed
varietieswhichhavebeendevelopedinlaboratoryconditionsbecausetheyarescientificallymoreadvanced,orattemptingto'train'theminpracticesbasedon
scientificunderstandingsofagriculture,thereforedisregardstheverynatureofsuchfarmers'knowledgeandisunlikelytomeetwithmuchsuccess.Peopleunderstand
eventsandideasontheirownterms.Aslongasdevelopmentworkinvolvestheimpositionofideasandknowledgeratherthanbeingadialogue,peopleareunlikelyto
beabletogaingreatercontrolofit,orvoluntarilyparticipateinit.
Conclusion
Asthecasestudiescitedinthischaptershow,themorethatisknownaboutthedynamicsandorganisationofsocieties,atall
Page101
levels,themoreitispossibletoensurethatparticulargroupsarenotexcludedfromordisadvantagedbyplannedchange.Althoughonedoesnotneedtobean
academicanthropologisttoobtainthisinformation,wesuggestthatunderstandingwhatquestionstoaskisprimarilyananthropologicalskill.Wearenotsuggestingthat
theinsightsandstrategiesdiscussedinthischaptershouldbeconfinedtoaneliteofinternationalanthropologicalconsultantsor'experts'.Ratherthancertainindividuals
beingtherepositoriesofsuchknowledge,itisparticularinsightsandmethodswhichareimportant,andthesearepotentiallyaccessibletoeverybody.Indeed,
anthropologicalperspectivesalreadyinformmuchworkbeingcarriedoutbyNGOs,andformthebasisofvariousnewresearchmethodologies(suchasparticipatory
actionresearchandparticipatoryruralappraisal)whicharecurrentlygainingwidespreadacceptanceinsomedevelopmentaldomains.Weshalldiscusstheseinthe
nextchapter.
Thereisalsonosinglewayofgainingthesortofknowledgewehavebeendiscussinghere.Whiletraditionalparticipantobservationiscertainlyapossibility,suchin
depthandtimeconsumingresearchisoftennotpossiblewithinthecontextofdevelopmentwork.Theuseoflocalconsultantsisnearlyalwayspreferabletohiring
expatriateslocalparticipantscanalsobecome'indigenousanthropologists'settingtheirownresearchagendasandansweringquestionsontheirownterms.
Likewise,locallybasedNGOsoftenhaveextensiveknowledgeoflocalcultureandsocialorganisation(althoughthisisnotalwaysthecase).
Theeasewithwhichsuchinformationcanbeobtainedshouldnotbeoverestimatedhowever.Questionscanbeaskedinanynumberofwaysbutthereareno
guaranteesthatthecorrectanswerswillbegiven,oreventhatthereare'correct'answers.Toacertainextentsocialrealitiesalwaysdependuponthesubjective
perspectivesofthoseviewingthesituation.Realityisalsooftenhighlycontesteddifferentinterestgroupswillrepresentitindifferentways(landlordsandtenants,for
example,areunlikelytoagreeaboutwhatthe'correct'levelofrentsshouldbe).Thewaysinwhichoutsidersareperceivedmayalsoinfluencehowrealityis
representedtothem.Researchersassociatedwithaidagencies,forinstance,maybeseenaspotential'providers'.Inthesecontextsitmaybeactivelyinpeople's
interesttorepresentthemselvesmoreintermsof'needs'thanofselfsufficiency.Inothercontexts(forexample,whereresearchersareassociatedwiththe
government),localpeoplemaybeextremelyreticenttoshareinformationaboutlandholdings,incomeandsoforth.
Page102
Lastly,whilenewmethodologiessuchasparticipatoryruralappraisalofferinterestingalternativestomoretopdownresearch,thedangeristhattheymayeasilybe
reducedtomechanisticgestures,aseriesofprespecifiedactivitieswhichdevelopmentworkerscarryoutasquicklyaspossiblewithlittleunderstandingofthe
rationalebehindthem,beforegettingstartedonthe'real'businessoftheproject.Suchdangersareexacerbatedwhenprojectsarehemmedinbytimeframeworksand
targets.
Therearenoeasyanswerstotheproblemsposedby'findingout'.Thefirststeptowardsmoreeffectiveandempoweringformsofplannedchangeis,however,toget
therightquestionsontheagenda.Avarietyofformalandinformalmethodscanbeusedtofindouttheanswers,butthoseinvolvedmustalsoacceptthattherearefew
'objective'socialtruths,thatculturescannotbereducedtoafewbareessentialswhichcanbeusedtopredictaparticularresult.Humanlifedoesnottakeplaceina
laboratory,anditsstudycannotbeapproachedlikeascience.Rather,developersmustunderstandthatthesocietieswithwhomtheyworkarehighlydynamic,
variableandlikelytohavearangeofstrongopinionsaboutthedirectionsofchangewhichtheywishtosee.
Questionsandtheiranswersarenotofcoursethesameasactualpoliciesandstrategies.InChapter5wethereforeturntoparticularpracticeswithindevelopment
whichseemtoofferviablealternativestothedominantdiscourse,andwhichcanbedirectlyrelatedtotheanthropologicalinsightsoutlinedinthisandtheprevious
chapter.Someoftheseideasarealreadycurrentincertainareasofpractice.Asweshallsee,thesetakeusfarbeyondtheconventionalconcernsofeconomicgrowth
and'development'.
Page103
5
NewDirectionsPracticeandChange
AswesawinChapter2,theprojectof'appliedanthropology',whichwasbeguninthecolonialperiod,wasonlyoccasionallysuccessfulinitsattemptstoinfluence
mainstreamdevelopmentpractice.However,morerecentlyideaswhichhavebeengeneratedbytheanthropologyofdevelopment(whichwediscussedinChapter3)
havecombinedwiththeeffortsofthoseanthropologistsworkingcriticallywithindevelopmentframeworks(Chapter4)toinfluence,challengeandsubvertthedominant
developmentdiscoursesothattheyhavebegunultimatelytoinfluenceactualdevelopmentpractice.
Inthischapterweshallarguethattheprevailing'mainstream'discourseofdevelopmentisfarfrommonolithic.Althoughstructuredbyrelationsofpowerinwhich
particularcountries,institutionsandgroupsdominate,developmentpracticeandpolicyareincreasinglyheterogeneous,andareconstantlychallengedfrommore
'radical'positionsbypeopleworkingbothwithinandoutsidemainstreamdevelopmentinstitutions.Inwhatfollowsweshalloutlinesomeofthesenewdirections.As
weshallsuggest,however,whiletheseoftengeneratepromisingnewandalternativeapproachestolongstandingdevelopmentperspectives,manyalsoprovideonly
tantalisingglimpsesintowhatmightbepossibleratherthanfullyfledgedchangesindevelopmentthinkingandpractice.Therisksofcooptionanddilutionwithinthestill
powerfullogicofthetopdowndevelopmentparadigmremaineverpresent.Thus,althoughchallengedbyalternativeperspectives,theextenttowhichthediscourse
hassofarbeensignificantlytransformedisopentoquestion.Indeed,somewouldarguethatessentiallynothinghaschanged.AsEscobarputsit:'Althoughthe
discoursehasgonethroughaseriesofstructuralchanges,thearchitectureofthe
Page104
discursiveformationlaiddownintheperiod194555hasremainedunchanged,allowingthediscoursetoadapttonewconditions'(1995:42).
Towhatextentisthisinfactthecase?Inthisandthenextchapterwehopetoindicatethattheevidenceismixed:whileEscobar'sconclusionsmaybetoopessimistic,
ideaswhichstarttheirlifeasradicalalternativesalltoooftenbecomeaneutralisedandnonthreateningpartofthemainstream.Letusstartwithapolicyresponseto
critiquesofdevelopmentwhichindicatethatitdoesnotbenefitthepoorestsectionsofsociety:incomegenerationandthenotionof'targeting'.
PovertyFocusedAidand'IncomeGeneration'
Duringthemid1970stheapparentfailureofmanymodernisationpoliciesledtoanewemphasisontheimportanceof'basicneeds'and'povertyfocusedaid'.
Expensiveattemptstopromoteindustrialisationandcashcroppinghadleftthepoorestgroupsstillunfed,unhousedanduneducated.Cheneryetal.'sRedistribution
withGrowth(1974)wasakeytextinthisreassessment,aswasBrandtetal.'sNorthandSouth:AProgrammeforSurvival(1980).Cheneryetal.'swork
stressedtheneedtoimprovedistributionofthebenefitsofdevelopmentwithoutsacrificingoverallgrowth(seeRobertson,1984:59).Theyarguedthatparticular
groups,assumedtohavemoreorlesshomogeneousneeds,shouldbeidentifiedas'targetgroups':aconceptwediscussinthenextsection.
Thisshiftduringthe1970scameatthesametimeasagrowingfocusonstructuralissuesofclassandgender,whichwereassociatedwiththeanthropologicalcritique
ofmodernisation.Nowtherewasanincreasingrecognitionoftheneedtomobilisepeoplewhohadbeenbypassedbyorwrittenoutofthedevelopmentprocessand
toencouragetheirparticipationinprojectplanningandimplementation.Suchideasbroughtwiththemanewattentiontoissuessuchasintrahouseholdinequality,
equitableincomedistribution,arecognitionofthevalueofindigenousinadditiontoexternalor'expert'knowledge,theimportanceoflocallevelorganisationandthe
needtomobiliseunderprivilegedandneglectedgroupsofpeopletoaccessresources,rightsandservices.
Someforeigndonorsbegantopayattentiontotheseissues.Forexample,theSwedishInternationalDevelopmentAuthority(SIDA)madethereductionofeconomic
andsocialinequalityaspecificgoalofitsdevelopmentassistancein1978.WithintheBritishaidbudgetanexplicitpolicydecisionwastakenduringthe1980stomake
aid
Page105
'povertyfocused'andtotargetwomenasbeneficiaries.Someprojectsarestillbasicallyconcernedwiththeprovisionofservices,butothersseekamoreactiverole
fromtheirbeneficiaries.
Incomegenerationisoneexample.Here,individualsorgroupsofpoorpeopleareenabledthroughcontactwithagovernmentagencyorNGOtogeneratemore
incomeforthemselves,throughcredit,marketingadvice,skillstrainingoracombinationofallthree.Thesestrategiesforbuildingwhatissometimestermed'micro
entrepreneurship'canprovideimportantnewsurvivalroutesforthepoor,whiletheyareparticularlyattractivetosomedevelopmentagenciesbecausetheyfitwellwith
neoliberalideasaboutenterpriseculture,marketsandprivatisation.
Closelylinkedwiththeincomegenerationapproacharesavingsgroups,whichhelppeopletosaveforthemselvesandprovideaccesstocreditwithoutinterest.The
pioneeringworkofBangladesh'sGrameenBank,whichhasbeensupportedbyforeigndonorssuchasSIDA,isafamousexampleofthistypeofprojectwhichhas
nowbeenreplicatedinmanyotherpartsoftheworld,includingtheUS(Madeley,1991:8797Holcombe,1995).Thebankhasfoundthatbylendingrelativelysmall
amountsofmoneytotheverypoorestruralpeople(andparticularlytowomen),evenatmarketratesofinterest,thosetakingoutloanscanidentifysmallscale
investmentopportunitiestypicallyrearingfarmanimalsorhuskingriceforothersonacontractbasisandrepaytheirloansontime.Bystressinggroupidentityand
bybuildinggroupsolidarityamongitsmembers,thebankhasfounditpossibletomotivatepeopletorepaytheloanfarmoreeffectivelythanconventionalbanks
(whichinanycasenormallylendonlytoricherpeople)havedone.Byfreeingpeoplefromtheirdependenceuponthelocalmoneylenders,whochargeenormous
levelsofinterest,thebankmayalsohaveawiderdevelopmentimpact.However,aswesawinChapter4,therearealsoproblemswiththeapproach.
'TargetGroups'
InChapters3and4wesawhowanthropologistshavechallengedtheblandviewofmanydevelopersthateverybodyin'thecommunity'willnecessarilybenefitfrom
theintroductionofnewresourcesorservices,bydrawingattentiontothelocalpowerstructureandtheabilityofthebetterofftocapturebenefits.This'relational'view
ofsocialandeconomiclife,whichstressestheinterdependentbutconflictualsetsofrelationswhichmakeupcommunities,hascontributedwithindevelopmenttoan
increased
Page106
awarenessoftheneedtoensurethatnewlyprovidedresourcesflowtothosewhoneedthemmost.Thischangeinemphasisisalsoofcourseassociatedwiththe
critiqueofmodernisationtheoryand'trickledown'whichgatheredforcethroughoutthe1970s.
Awarenesshasgrownoftheneedforspecificsectionsofapopulation,sometimesknowninaratherominousmilitarymetaphoras'targetgroups',tobesingledoutfor
specialattention.Intheirliteratureandstatementsofintentmostdevelopmentagenciesthesedayshighlighttheparticulargroupsofpeoplewhomtheywishtoassist,
oftentermingthem'thebeneficiaries',reflectingworryingassumptionsabouttheirpassivityintheprocess.Thesegroupsobviouslyvarycontextually.Thereis
considerabledifferenceacrosscommunitiesastothetypesofpeoplewhofallintosuchtargetgroups:landlessmenandwomen,indigenousminorities,urbansquatters,
femaleheadedhouseholdsorfarmerswhofarmecologicallyfragilelands.Whatholdsthetargetingideatogetheristheobjectiveofincludingpeoplewhohavebeen
'leftout'ofthedevelopmentprocess.
Thereare,however,inherentdangersinthisapproach,whichalltooeasilyfeedsbackinto'topdown'discoursesandreflectstheunequalpowerofthoseinvolved.
Forexample,thepitfallsofoutsider'labelling',inwhichcomplexrealitiesareforcedintosimple,easilydigestiblecategories,havebeendiscussedbyWood(1985).
Theendresultmaybethefurthermarginalisationof'targets',alongwithareluctancetoacknowledgethestructuralrelationshipswhichperpetuatedifferentialaccessto
opportunities.Thenotionofthetargetgroupiscloselyrelatedtothecontrollingurgeembodiedintheideaof'projectised'development,inwhichthesocioeconomic
categoriesofbeneficiariessimplybecomeanothervariablewhichcanbedefinedandadjustedbyprojectstaff.
Agoodexampleofthisproblemcanbefoundindiscussionsaroundthefemaleheadedhousehold,whichhasbecomeaprominentfeatureofdevelopmentdiscoursein
manycountries.Forexample,althoughfemaleheadedhouseholdsinBangladeshareoftenrepresentedwithindevelopmentagencydiscourseashavinguniformneeds,
thecategoryisinfactavariedone,cuttingacrossbothrichandpoorsocialgroups.Thesehouseholdsarealsosometimestransitory,locatedwithinsetsofwidersocial
relationships(whichcruciallyaffectstheiraccesstoresources)andgeographicallyscattered,whichmakesneat'targeting'byoutsideagenciesimpossible(Lewis,
1993).
Page107
NonGovernmentalOrganisations(NGOs)
Asthelimitationsofstatesponsored,projectbased,topdowndevelopmentbecameapparent,the1980sandthe1990ssawincreasingattentionfocusedonprivate,
professionaldevelopmentorganisationsandthevoluntarysectorbydevelopmentagencies.Thissocalledthirdsectorisnowwidelyseenascontainingpotentially
viablealternativestoconventionalapproachestodevelopmentandreliefwork.
AtonelevelthechanginglevelofsupportgiventoNGOssuggestsasignificantshiftindevelopmentpractice,forfundsareincreasinglybeingchannelledto
organisationsontheoutsideofthe'mainstream'whichoftenofferradicalnewapproachestohowtheworkof'development'iscarriedout.This,togetherwiththe
diversityofapproacheswithintheNGOsector,illustratesoncemorethatdevelopmentdiscourseisfarfromhomogeneousorrigidlyfixed.Atthesametime,however,
somecriticsarguethatratherthanenablingNGOstochangetheagenda,theincreasedfundingofNGOsbyNorthernaidagencieshassimplybroughtapotential
threattothemundercontrol.Letusexaminesomeoftheevidence.
InbothNorthandSouth,theinfluenceofNGOsisincreasingasprivatisationagendasreducetheroleofthestateinthedeliveryofservices.Manydevelopment
agenciesnowpromotethebeliefthatNGOshavespecialstrengthsbecauseoftheflexibilityderivedfromthesmallscaleoftheiroperations,thedegreeofparticipation
oftheir'clients'andthereplicabilityoftheirinitiatives.ManydonoragenciesnowdirectmoreandmoreoftheirbudgetstowardsNGOsinpreferencetogovernment
agencies.Forexample,SIDA'sdisbursementstoNGOsincreasedfrom13percentoftotalfundsin1983tocloseto30percentin1994(RiddellandBebbington,
1995).
FiguresquotedbyEdwardsandHulme(1992)indicatethatthenumberofdevelopmentNGOsregisteredintheOECDcountrieshasrisenfrom1600in1980to
2970in1993andthattheirspendinghasincreasedfromUS$2.8billiontoUS$5.8billion.TherehavebeensimilarincreasesinthenumbersandscaleofNGOsin
manySoutherncountries,whereNGOsoftenconstitutearesponsebyalienatedmiddleclassgroupswithincivilsocietytoaweakorresourcepoorstate'sinabilityto
deliverservicesandresources(FarringtonandLewis,1993).InBangladesh,admittedlyanextremeexampleinthatnationalNGOssupportedbyforeignfundshave
expandeddramaticallytofillgapsinserviceprovisionleftbythe
Page108
weakandunderresourcedstate,largerNGOssuchastheBangladeshRuralAdvancementCommittee(BRAC)andProshikaarebeginningtocounttheirlandless
groupmembersintermsofmillionsratherthanthousands.
Aswehaveseen,NGOsarebelievedtobeabletoallocateresourcesandservicesmoreefficientlyandtoreachpeoplemoreeffectivelythanstateinstitutions(Paul,
1991).NGOsthemselveshaveclaimedthattheircomparativeadvantageisderivedfromastrongercommitmentandmotivation,coupledwithabetterabilitytoform
goodqualityrelationshipswithpeople,comparedwithgovernmentagencies.Forexample,asBebbington(1991:24)pointsoutinthecontextofagricultural
developmentwork,NGOs'aremorewillingtoaskfarmerswhattheythink,totaketheirfarmingpracticesseriously,andconsequentlytoorienttechnologyadaptation
andtransfertowardsrealconcerns'.
Theorigins,activitiesandperformanceofNGOshavevarieddramaticallybetweenandwithindifferentcountrycontexts,whereparticularstatehistorieshave
permittedvaryinglevelsof'space'withinwhichNGOscanexistandwork.Incountrieswhereapoliticallyrepressiveregimehaspreventedlocallevelsoforganisation,
manyNGOshaveexistedasradical,undergroundorganisations,asinthecaseofthePhilippinesunderPresidentFerdinandMarcos(196586).Wherethestatehas
soughtassistancewithservicedeliveryorprojectimplementation,frequentlywithdonoragencysupport,NGOshaveoftenmergedseamlesslywithmainstream
governmentstructures.IncommunistAlbania,thenotionofacivilsocietywithitsarenafororganisationoutsidethestatehardlyexistedatallandNGOswere
unknown.
NGOsthemselvesareadiversesetofactors,withoriginsinbothNorthandSouth.Thereareimportantdifferencesinscaleandbetweenlocal,nationaland
internationalspheresofactivity.1 SomeNGOscarryouttheirownprojectbaseddevelopmentactivities,whichcanrangefromthedirectprovisionofservices(credit,
agriculturalinputs,healthcareandeducation)togroupformationandconsciousnessraising,bothofwhichaimtomakepeopleawareofnewpossibilitiesforself
determinedchange.Othersdonotworkdirectlywithbeneficiariesbutinsteadfund,trainorotherwisesupportpartnerorganisationsatthegrassroots.Thereisalsoan
increasingnumberofactivistNGOswhoseetheirworkintermsoflobbying,informationexchangeoradvocacyaimedatchangingthewiderpolicyenvironment.
NGOsarebecomingimportantnotjustintermsoftheirabilitytoworkdirectlywithpeople,butalsointerms
Page109
oftheirpotentialcontributiontothestrengtheningofcivilsocietydemocracy,legalrightsandaccesstoinformation(Clark,1990).
NGOshaveclaimed,withsomejustification,thattheycanworkmorecloselywithpoorpeoplethansimilargovernmentagenciescan(EdwardsandHulme,1992
BebbingtonandFarrington,1993Clark,1990).Critics,however,havedrawnattentiontotheprevalenceofanumberof'NGOmyths'andshow,withsomesuccess,
thatthesesupposedadvantagesareinfactlargelyunsubstantiated(Tendler,1982).Furthermore,thereisagrowingradicalcritiqueofNGOswhicharguesthat,rather
thanpromotingdeeprootedchange,theyactuallypreservethestatusquobysettingupasystemofpatronagebasedontheflowofdevelopmentassistance,which
underminesanddepoliticiseslocalgrassrootsorganisation(Hashemi,1989ArellanoLopezandPetras,1994Tvedt,1995).
Despitethesequalifications,manyNGOsworkingdirectlywiththepoorhavetakenwhatmightbedescribedasan'anthropologicalapproach'totheirfieldactivities.
Ratherthanworkingfromthetopdownwards,manyofthemoreeffectiveNGOshaveevolvedfromlocalcommunitiesanddrawtheirfieldstafffromtheareaswhere
theyareworking.Unlikemanygovernmentordonorprojects,theyspendtimediscussinglocalinterestswithdifferentsectionsofthecommunityinordertobuildupa
pictureofthedynamicrelationshipswhichexistamongdifferentgroupsandclasses.Forexample,thisistheapproachofProshika,theBangladeshiNGO(Khanetal.,
1993KramsjoandWood,1992).AdistinctiveNGOorganisationalstylehasemerged:fieldstaffareencouragedtospendtimewithlocalpeopleandpass
informationabouttheirneedsandintereststotheNGOinordertoinformandshapefuturepolicyinaddition,lessrigidboundariesarevisiblebetweenjuniorand
seniorstaff.Thiscontrastswiththemorerigid,directiverolesusuallytakenbygovernmentindevelopmentactivities,inwhichofficialsoftensubordinatedevelopment
agendastothemorepressingdemandsofcontrolandauthority(Fowler,1990).
Thisresponsivenesstolocalneedscangobeyondmereservicedelivery.Inagriculture,NGOshavesometimesbeenabletoundertakeclientorientedresearchwhich
hasbeenbasedonagendassetbylocalgroupmembersandtopromotetechnologieswhichmeetlocallygeneratedneeds,especiallyamongthelowincomesectionsof
thepopulationwhicharefrequentlypassedoverbyformalgovernmentagriculturalefforts.Theuseoflocalinstitutionsandpracticesasthestartingpointhasoften
provedafruitfulbasisforinnovation.2
Page110
SomeNGOworkalsoresemblestheolddreamof'advocacyanthropology'inwhichoutsiderstrytopromotetherightsofthecommunitieswithwhichtheywork
eitherduringlocalconflicts(forexample,withlocalelites)orinthewiderstatecontext(suchaslandrightsorthelegalrightsofwomen).NGOsfindthatiftheywishto
influencethe'bigpicture',theycannotignorewhatthegovernmentisdoing.Atthesametime,governmentagenciesincreasinglyseeNGOsasasourceofdynamism
andinnovationandareseekingtodrawupontheirservices,eitherbyformingpartnershipsor,inlesssatisfactorycases,bycooption.Butinsomecountries(suchas
thePhilippinesandBangladesh)therearetentativesignsthatprevailinggovernmentadministrativecultureandprocedurearebeingslowlyquestionedandreformed.
Justastheroleofanthropologistsasdevelopmentparticipantsraisesanumberofuncomfortablequestions,therearesimilardilemmastobefacedbythosewhoargue
thatNGOsconstituteanallpurposesolutiontotheproblemsofdevelopmentpractice.HowaccountablearetheseNGOstothepeoplewhomtheyclaimto
represent?HowefficientareNGOsinreality,anddotheymerelyperformbetterthangovernmentagenciesbecausetheyreceiveproportionatelymoreresourcesfor
thetaskswhichtheyundertake?DoNGOssimplyreproducepatronagerelationsatthelocallevelbybecomingthenewpurveyorsofstateresourcesinthe
countryside?AreNGOsthereforeweakeningthestatefurtherandperpetuatingthisweaknessbydrawingscarcestaffandotherresourcesawayfromit?
WhatisparticularlyinterestingaboutNGOsisthatmanyhaveradicaloriginsandareengagingcriticallywiththeprevailingdevelopmentdiscourse,occasionally
influencingdonorandgovernmentattitudesandpracticesalongtheway.WhiletheworkofsomeNGOsprovidesfascinatingwindowsintoalternativedevelopment
paradigms,thelargenumbersofopportunisticorcooptedorganisations,whichalsoformpartofthecategory'NGO',servetoremindusthatrealchallengestothe
existingorderarealltooeasilyneutralised.
'Participation'
Participationisanothertermwhich,althoughderivedfromradicalideaschallengingdevelopmentalorthodoxy,isnowtobefoundinthedevelopmentplansandpolicy
statementsofthemostmainstreaminstitutions.Again,whetherthisrepresentsasignifi
Page111
cantchangeinthediscourse,orthecooptionofchallengestoit,isopentodebate.
Likemanyofthecurrentlyfashionabledevelopment'buzzwords',theprecisemeaningofparticipationiselusive.Adrianetal.(1992)arguethatmeaningsof
participationcanbebrokendownintothreebroadcategories.First,participationcansimplyrefertoaprocessinwhichinformationaboutaplannedprojectismade
availabletothepublic.Thismayinvolvelisteningtolocalpeople'sviewsabouttheplans,amorestructuredsurvey,oraformaldialogueregardingprojectoptions.This
typeofparticipationoftenonlyinvolvescommunityleaders.Italsoleavesmostdecisionmakingpowerinthehandsoftheplanners.
Second,participationmightincludeprojectrelatedactivitiesratherthanmereinformationflows.Thismightinvolveusinglabourfromthecommunity,oralongerterm
commitmentbylocalgroupstomaintainservicesorfacilitiesoreventoplanfortheirfutureuse(forinstance,committeessetuptomanagesanitationfacilitiesinan
upgradedslum).Again,theinitiativehascomefromtheoutside.Peopleareinvolved,butarenotdirectlyincontrol.
Lastly,therearepeople'sowninitiatives.Thesefalloutsidethescopeoftheprojectagendatheyaretherefore,someargue,theonlytrueformofparticipation,forthey
arenotimposedfromtheoutside.Ifmobilisationcomesfromthepoorersectionsofthecommunity,italsotrulyempowering.AfamousexampleofthisistheChipko
movementintheHimalayasthatbeganinthe1970s,inwhichwomenmobilisedthemselvestoprotectthetreesthatweresovitalfortheireconomyfromcommercial
loggers(Shiva,1988).
Theideaofparticipationisdrawnfromradicalroots,butinpracticehasnowbecomesoeverpresentindevelopmentjargonastobeoftenvirtuallywithoutmeaning.
Manycriticsofdevelopmentthereforeviewparticipationasadegradedterm,whichhasservedonlyto'soften'topdownismandhasbeensuccessfullystrippedofits
previousradicalconnotations(Rahnema,1992).Itcanallowideastobeimportedintocommunitiesandthenattributedtothem:atokenagendaofinvolvementatone
leveloftheproject(usuallyattheimplementationratherthantheplanningstage)canthenbeusedtolegitimisedecisionswhichhavealreadybeentakenbypowerful
outsiders.Evenwhenparticipatoryresearchmethodsaredeployedbydevelopmentagencies,whilepeoplemightbeabletoinfluenceeventsbyprovidinginformation
orknowledgewhichmayeventuallyfeedintopolicyorprojectdesign,theyarenotactuallytakingthekeydecisions.
Page112
Nevertheless,theconceptofparticipationstrikesattheheartofpreviousdevelopmentalparadigmsbysuggestingthatdevelopmentshouldcomefromthebottomup
insteadofthroughtopdownpoliciesandtheagencyofthestate.Onlywhenthesupposedbeneficiariesofdevelopmentinterventionsparticipateintheplanningand
implementationoftheprojectswhichareintendedtobenefitthemwilltheyhaveanyrealinterestinmakingdevelopmentprojectssucceed.Participationisthereforea
keyprerequisiteforsustainability.
Someagencies,suchastheUK'sOverseasDevelopmentAdministration,thusnowtalkoflocalpeopleasbeing'stakeholders'indevelopment,seeingthisasaway
offormingastrongerbasisfortheirinvolvement.Ifpeopleknowthattheystandtobenefitfromaparticularintervention,thereasoninggoes,theywillworktoensure
thattheprojectsuceedsandwillcontributeideasforimprovement.Notonlywillthisleadtobetterprojects,itwillformanimportantgoalofdevelopmentinthe
contextofthe'goodgovernment'aimsofmanydonors,sinceitstrengthenslocalaccountabilityanddemocracy(Eyben,1994).
However,asanthropologistswillalreadybeaware,thenotionof'participation'isitselfproblematic.Forastart,itmasksdifferencesbetweenpeople:local
heterogeneityisdissolvedintovaguenotionsof'community'.Thismaydisregardimportantcrosscuttingdivisionsofclass,genderandage,whichmayleadto
substantialdifferencesinlocalviewsandinterests.Notionsofeffectiveparticipationthereforeinvolvehavingtodisentangleconflictinginterestswithinlocalcommunities
andbuildingsupportfortheinterestsofparticular,identifiablegroupingsofpeople.Participation,ifitishandledproperly,cancreateanopeningformorevulnerable
sectionsofthecommunitytodeterminetheformandoutcomeofdevelopmentinitiativeswhicharebeingundertakenintheirname.Thisisundoubtedlyadifficult,time
consumingandcomplicatedprocess.
Inpractice,therhetoricofparticipationcaneasilybemisusedwhilerealpowerremainsinthehandsofoutsiders:
1.Itcanlegitimiseaprojectbygainingthesanctionorformalapprovalofkeypeopleinthecommunity,whichthenfeedsbackintoprojectappraisalcriteriaandhelps
tomaketheprojecta'success'.
2.'Participatorydiscussion'canprovideanopportunityforlocalpeopleto'understand'whatitisthatthedevelopmentagencyseeksfromthem.Certainpeoplecan
then,inreturnforthe
Page113
promiseofasupplyofresourcestothecommunity,telldeveloperswhattheywanttohear.
3.Itcanopenupanopportunityforcertaininterestswithinthecommunitytobe'writtenin'totheprojectdesign,ortogaincontrolofitsimplementation,whichtends
toskewbenefitstowardsbetteroffsectionsofthepopulation.
Justassomegovernmentagenciesarenowseekingtoestablishgreatercredibilityfortheirstillessentially'topdown'programmesbyenlistingtheservicesoflocally
basedNGOs,participationisoftendesiredbydevelopmentagenciesfortheideologicallegitimacyitbringsYetisisalsofearedforitspracticalimplications.Planners
usuallydonotwishtoinvolvelocalcommunitiestheyhaveinstitutionaldeadlinesandapredeterminedagenda,whichbythetimeitreachesthecommunitycannotbe
changed.Thesecontradictionsshowhoweasilyanobjectiveofparticipationcanfeedeffortlesslybackintoexistingmodelsof'topdown'developmentandbecome
neutralisedbythedominantdiscourse.
ParticipatoryResearchMethodologies
Withtheincreasingacceptanceofparticipationasadesirablegoalindevelopmentpracticehavecomeotherimportantchangesinresearchandprojectmethodologies,
particularlywithinagriculturalwork.Thisiscloselyrelatedtotheanthropologicalperspectivesonlocalknowledgeandhumanagency,outlinedinpreviouschapters,as
wellasanthropologicalmethodologies.Increasingly,considerableattentionisnowbeingpaidtochangingthewaysinwhichlocalknowledgeandinformationare
elicited,understoodandbuiltuponbythoseengagedindevelopmentactivities.
TheworkofRobertChambershasbeenextremelyinfluentialinthisregard,initsattemptstocounterexcessivelyformalisticapproachesto'datacollection'by
developmentworkersandprofessionals.Participatoryruralappraisal(PRA)anditsvariantsaimtoenableruralpeopletoplanandenactsolutionstoproblemsby
analysingtheirownknowledgeoflocalconditions,facilitatedbyoutsiders.Thisapproach(Chambers,1992:5)hasdrawnuponinsightsborrowedfromsocial
anthropology,suchas:
1.Theideaoflearninginthefieldas'flexibleartratherthanrigidscience'.
2.Theneedtolearninthefield,informally,throughconversationsandrelaxedobservation.
Page114
3.Theimportanceoftheresearcher'sattitudes,behaviourandrapportwithlocalpeople.
4.Theemic/eticdistinction,ananthropologicalconceptdrawnfromlinguistics,whichcontraststhe'indigenous'realityofsocialactorswiththeobserver'sperceptionof
thatreality.
5.Thevalidityandpotentialvalueofindigenousknowledge.
PRAthereforeinvolvestrainingresearcherstogotovillagesandspendtimetalkingtogroupsofpeople'insitu',encouragingthemtoexpresslocalproblemsand
potentialsolutionsintheirownterms.Careistakentorepresentasmanydifferentsetsofinterestsaspossible,andthefocusisonmutuallearningbetweenresearcher
andinformant.
Whilesuchideasarefamiliartoanthropologists,onehastorememberthatengineers,economistsandagriculturalistsreceivelittleornotraininginsuchmatters.The
researchandadministrativecultureofmanydevelopmentagenciesandgovernmentdepartmentsplacesscantvalueondirectcommunicationwiththeirconstituencies,
inenvironmentswherepeoplehaveusuallybeenseenasthe'objects'ratherthanthe'subjects'ofthedevelopmentprocess.PRAhasthereforebeguntochallengethe
assumptionsofdevelopmentpractitionerstrainedwithinbureaucratic,statusconsciousandquantitativeresearchbasedinstitutionalcultures.
ThegrowthofPRA,andthequitesurprisingamountofattentionitcurrentlyreceives,providesanopportunitytoexaminewhetheranthropologycanreallybeusedas
a'quickfix'bydevelopmentpractitionersinthisway.IfPRAseekstodomoreorlesswhatanthropologistsdo,howrealisticisittoattempttodojusticetoparticipant
observationinafewdaysorweekswhenanthropologistshaveusuallytakenfarlongerperiodsoftimetotrytogetbeneaththesurfaceofacommunity?
PRAhasbecomeatoolwhichisnowincludedinmanyprojects,butitcaneasilybeusedwithinexistingtopdownframeworksifitismisapplied.Itcansometimesbe
usedtolegitimisecertainapproachesandideasand,ifitiscarriedoutcynically,canbeemployedtoshowsupportforpreexistingviewpoints.Thereisatemptation
forthoseutilisingPRAlessscrupulouslytoenactwhatmightbetermeda'participatoryritual',eitherbecausetheyarecynicalaboutthewholeprocessinthefirstplace
orbecauseithasbecomejustanotherpartoftheirjob.WhilesuchpeoplemightbesympathetictotheaimsofPRA,theymaybalkatthelevelsofcomplexity(and
resultingfrustration)whicharisefromtakingparticipationtooseriously.Forexample,villagerscanberoutinely
Page115
Participatoryactionresearch3
ParticipatoryactionresearchisaloosegroupofmethodologiesundertakenbyagenciessuchasNGOsin
areasofAsiaandAfrica.Itassumesthatthemainobjectiveofdevelopmentisthefulfilmentofthehumanurgefor
creativeengagement,anddoesnotthereforefocusonpovertyalleviation,'basicneeds'orstructuralchangeasthe
immediategoalstobetackled.
Inthisway,PARseekstoavoidthedependencewhichresultsfrommanyexternalinterventionsincommunities
bystressingtheoutsiderasanimator,facilitatingthepromotionofpeople'sselfdevelopment.Theinfluenceofthe
radicalBrazilianeducatorPauloFreirecanbeseeninthislineofthinking.Typically,catalyticinitiativesare
broughtaboutbyeducatedoutsiders,freeofpartypoliticalallegiances,whoencouragegroupsofpeopletoget
togethertodiscussthereasonfortheirpovertyandengageintheirownsocialinvestigation.
Groupbuildingfollows,combinedwithdiscussionofprioritisedactionswhichcanbeundertakentoaddressthe
principalcausesoftheirpoverty.Externalresourcescanbeprovidedforsupport,butarenotregardedasa
preconditionforproblemsolving.Theaimistogeneratea'progressiveactionreflectionrhythm'or'people's
praxis'.Asthegroupsformlinkswithothersimilargroupsandencouragenewones,thedependenceontheinitial
externalstimulusisthensupposedtofallaway,thoughcontactmaybemaintained.
consulted,mapsandchartscanbedrawn,gamescanbeplayedtoreveallocalrealities,butexpertsmaywellgooffandimplementtheirprojectmuchasplanned.Like
'participation',PRAiseasilyabusedinpractice.4
ButevenifPRAiscarriedoutproperly,canworkablecompromisesbereachedbetweentheinterestsoftherichandthepoormembersofcommunitiesthroughsuch
opendiscussion?Whospeaksandwhoremainssilentintheseencounters?Ifananthropologistneedsatleastayeartostartunderstandinghowavillagecommunity
actuallyworks(asanthropologicaltraditiontellsus),howcanPRAachievegenuinecommunitybasedinsightsinsuchashortperiodoftime,evenifamore
participatorymethodologythanusualisadopted?Whatarethedangersof'quickanddirty'anthropology,andcanitbejustifiedincertainsituations?Allthese
Page116
questionsneedtobeexaminedfurther.WhilePRAinmanywaysprovidesaneasytargetforthecritiquesofanthropologists,itisprobablythecasethatthe
methodologyisonlyrarelycarriedoutinthewaysandtothelengthswhichwereoriginallyintended.
SomeNGOshavedevelopedsimilarformsofresearchwhicharegearedtowardsamoreresponsiveapproachtolocalproblems,muchofwhichcanbeundertaken
bypeoplethemselves.Theconceptof'actionresearch'attemptstocombinelearninganddoing.Proshika,forexample,hasdevelopedareflexiveresearch
methodologywhichtheNGOterms'participatoryactionresearch'(WoodandPalmerJones,1990:25):
Whileprojectsaredesignedbetweengroupsandthefieldstaffwithasmuchforethoughtaspossible,newformsofsocialactionobviouslygenerateunforeseenprocessesand
problems,whichhavetobestudiedbythoseinvolvedaspartofthesocialactionitself.
Alinkbetweenresearchandactionhasatwofoldpurpose.ItpreventstheemergenceofdiscreteelementswithintheNGOwhoseresearchandevaluatoryfunctions
'constitutejudgements'ontheworkofothers.Itprovidesconstructiveopportunitiesforthe'subjects'oftheresearchtotietheresearchagendatotheirneeds.Action
researchbecomesaprocessinwhichresearchiscombinedwithpracticalproblemsolving,withtheparticipationofthosewhohaveidentifiedandneedtoovercomea
problem.ThisbringsusfullcirclebacktoChapter2:reflexiveactionresearchhaslongbeenoneoftheaimsofthemoreradicalproponentsof'appliedanthropology'.
ItmaybethattheNGOcontextformsoneofthemostfruitfularenasforworkofthiskind.
'Empowerment'
Theshiftindevelopmentthoughtduringthe1980sawayfromtheassumptionsoftopdownchangetowardsalternativedevelopmentmodelshas,atitsroot,a
conceptionofempowermentasaformofdevelopmentalchangebroughtaboutbylocalproblemsolvingeffortsandtechniques.Empowermenthasbeendescribedas
being'nurturing,liberating,evenenergisingtotheunaffluentandtheunpowerful'(Black,1991:21).Thisconceptofempowermentisinpartdrawnfromtheideasof
theBrazilianeducationalistPauloFreire,basedontheneedtostimulateandsupportpeople'sabilitiestounderstand,questionandresistthestructuralreasonsfortheir
povertythroughlearning,organisationandaction(seeboxon'Developmentandliteracy').Formanyradicaldevelopment
Page117
theoristsandpractitioners,particularlyintheNGOsector,theaimofpromotingparticipationshouldbeempowerment(Carroll,1992).
Developmentandliteracy5
Considerableattentionhasbeengiventotheissueofliteracyindevelopingcountries.InBangladesh,wherethe
literacylevelisaround35percent,illiteracyhasbeencorrectlyidentifiedasoneofthecountry'smostpressing
developmentproblems.Ithasbeenaprevailingmythofdevelopmentthatliteracycanbeseenasanindependent
variableinthedevelopmentprocesswhichcanbemeasuredbyauniversalyardstick.Anthropologistsand
sociologistshaveshownitisimportanttorecognisethatliteracyhastobeviewedinthecontextofothervariables
andshouldthereforeformpartofanintegratedapproachtodevelopment.
Forexample,peopleusetheskillofliteracyfortheirownandperceivedinterests,whicharenotalways
'developmentoriented':inruralBangladesh,suchskillscansometimesbeusedtofurthertheinterestsofthe
literateattheexpenseoftheilliterate.Literacyprogrammesthereforehavetobebasedonafirmunderstandingof
theusestowhichliteracycanbeputliteracyisan'ambivalentservant'.
TheNGOFriendsinVillageDevelopmentBangladesh(FIVDB)hasdevelopedafunctionalliteracyprogramme
forlandlessmenandwomen,whoorganisethemselvesintogroups.Literacytrainingiscombinedwith
organisationsupport,savingsandcredit,technicalassistanceforincomegeneratingactivitiesandthegradual
buildingofselfrespectandselfconfidence.Literacyisthereforelinkedtogeneratinglocalgroupstructuresand
capacitybuilding.Basicaspectsofhealthandnutritionaretaughtalongsideliteracy.
AusefuldiscussionofempowermentemergesfromJohnFriedmann'sanalysisofthepoliticsofalternativedevelopment.Friedmanndevelopsatheoryofpoverty
whichviewsitnotsimplyastheabsenceofmaterialorotherresources,butasaformofsocial,politicalandpsychologicaldisempowermentwhichmustbechallenged.
Inthisview,wholesectionsofthepopulationlandlessruralworkers,subsistencepeasantsandshantytowninhabitants,forexamplehavebeensystematically
excludedfromparticipationinthedevelopmentprocess.Friedmann(1992:vii)thereforemakesempowermentthecentralaiminhisdiscussionofthepoliticsof
'alternativedevelopment':
Page118
Theempowermentapproach,whichisfundamentaltoanalternativedevelopment,placestheemphasisonautonomyinthedecisionmakingofterritoriallyorganizedcommunities,
localselfreliance(butnotautarky),direct(participatory)democracy,andexperientialsociallearning.Itsstartingpointisthelocality,becausecivilsocietyismostreadilymobilized
aroundlocalissues.
Friedmannseestheneedforalternativedevelopmentmodelstoacknowledgetherightsandestablishedneedsofcitizenhouseholdsandindividuals,whichinvolvesa
politicalstruggleforempowermentandagainststructuralconstraints.Forexample,theNGOProshika'sworkhasincludedgroupformationinwhichlandlesspeople
takeactioninpursuitoftheirrightsagainstlocallypowerfulindividuals.
ThelocalpowerstructureincountriessuchasBangladeshisacrucialbarriertomoreequitableformsofchange:itsiphonsoffexternallysuppliedresourcesintended
forthepoor,impedestheruleoflawbysubstitutingformaljusticebydefactorulesofforcetosettledisputes,andcontributestogrowingimpoverishmentby
supportingmoneylendingwithexploitativeratesofinterest(seeBRAC,1979).InoneexampledocumentedinarecentcollectionofcasestudiesfromBangladesh,
groupsoflandlesspeopleinGazipurdistrictsuccessfullyorganisedapublicboycottofalocallandownerwhowasengagedinstealingpublicagriculturallandby
securingfalselandtitledocuments.Thelandownerhadnoaccesstopublictransportorhiredlabourandsufferedpublichumiliation,andthegroupmemberswhohad
lostrightfulaccesstothelandwonthelegalcaseagainsthiminthecourts(KramsjoandWood,1992:63).
Thereareofcoursecontradictionswithinthecurrentdiscourseofempowerment.Likeparticipation,empowermenthasbecomeafrequentlydegradedtermin
mainstreamdevelopment.Rahnema(1992:123)seesthetermsimplyasprovidingdevelopmentdiscoursewithanewformoflegitimationandconvincingpeople'not
onlythateconomicandstateauthoritiesaretherealpower,butthattheyarewithineveryone'sreach,providedeveryoneisreadytoparticipatefullyinthe
developmentdesign'.
Insomecountries,governmentsnowtalkgliblyofempowermentofthepoorintheirdevelopmentplans,havingstrippedthetermofanyrealmeaning.Inotherplanning
documentsthereisanassumptionthatempowermentcanbeachievedsimplybyprovidingcredittolowincomepeople.AsKorten(1990)notes,itisnotreally
possibleforonepersonto'empower'another:peoplecanonlyempowerthemselves.Kortenarguesthatthisrequiresaprocessof'mutualempowerment'inagroup
setting,oftenwith
Page119
outsidersasfacilitators.Thedangerofcreatingdependentgroups,wellversedintherhetoricofconsciousnessraisingbutremainingessentiallyunchangedbythe
experience,hasbeenobservedinBangladesh(Hashemi,1989).
Onamorepracticallevel,outsidersneedtothinkverycarefullyabouttheirresponsibilitiesinencouragingpotentiallyviolentconfrontationsbetweenvulnerablegroups
andwellorganisedandpowerfulelitesbackedbythestate(Bebbington,1991).Thismightbeanapproachfavouredbythosewhoseemuchofthemainstreamor
'alternative'discussionsofempowermentwithinthedevelopmentdiscourseasinadequateorcompromised.Forexample,theNaxaliteMaoistsinIndiainthe1960s
demonstrated,atanextremelevel,thefutilityofsuchconfrontationintermsofsecuringlongtermchangeinruralareas(Cassenetal.,1978).Manyoftheruralpeople
wereleftevenmorevulnerabletoviolentreprisalduringtherepressionwhichfollowedtheuprisings.
FarmingSystemsResearch
Aswehaveseen,topdowndevelopmenthastendedtoapplyWesternhightechnologysolutionstoproblemsofpovertywhileundervaluingordisregardinglocal
formsofknowledge:anareainwhichanthropologistsareoftenveryinterested.Localknowledge,ithasbeenargued,isoftensituatedinpracticeandinrealsituations
(P.Richards,1993).Forexample,whereasinBangladeshsmallscalefishfrytradersareencouragedby'expert'outsiderstotransporttheirfishoverlongdistances
usingexpensiveandcumbersomeoxygencylindersandplasticbags,onerecentanthropologicalstudyfoundthattherewaslittlereasonwhytheycouldnotcontinueto
relyonafarmorepractical,locallowcostsolutiondevelopedlocallyovergenerations,whichusesclayoraluminiumcookingpotsandinvolvestheoxygenationofthe
waterbyhand'splashing'(Lewisetal.,1993).
Theemergenceoffarmingsystemsresearch(FSR)inthelate1970sreflectedmanyoftheseconcerns.FSRfocusesonthesmallfarmasabasicsystemforresearch
anddevelopmentandattemptstobringaboutthestronginvolvementoffarmersthemselvesineverystageoftheresearchanddevelopmentprocess(Conway,1986:
18).Thefarmer'sdecisionmakingistreatedasbeingrationalratherthanguided,aswasoftensupposed,byignoranceorconservatism.Theobjectiveistoimprove
therelevanceandappropriatenessofresearch,andthisincludestheparticipationofsocialscientistsalongsidebiologicalscientists.FSRisalsoemphaticallyholistic,
Page120
treatingdecisionsandproceduresforonecropwithinthewiderfarmingsystemanditseconomic,socialandenvironmentalcomponents.FSRthereforedrawsupona
numberofanthropologicalinsightsinthewayitattemptstominimiseoutsiderethnocentricassumptionsandtounderstandthecomplexinterconnectednessofsocial,
economicandnaturalphenomena.
Thenewemphasisonindigenousknowledge(whatmightbetermedthe'farmerfirst'approach:Chambersetal.,1989)hasalsoencouragedsomeorganisationsto
attempttoworkwithlocalor'traditional'institutionsinsteadofcreatingnewones.SomeNGOshavebeenabletolinkupwithexistingpeople'sorganisations,with
whichtheycanthenworkinaservicingandadvocacyrole,strengtheningandsupportingthedevelopmentandadaptationoflocalorganisationalforms.Forexample,
theMaguumadFoundationInc.(MFI),whichworksinCebuinthePhilippines,hasworkedwithuplandfarmerstodevelopsoilandwaterconservationtechnologies.
Althoughtheapproachisrelativelylabourintensiveinthefirstfewseasonsofoperationandcouldthereforebeprohibitivelycostlyforfarmers,ithasbeenfoundthat
workcanbeundertakenbyfarmerswithintheexistingframeworkofalayonreciprocalvillageworkgroups.Thisageoldsystemhasnowsuccessfullyadapteditself
toaccommodatethisnewerformofcommunitylabouring(CernaandMiclatTeves,1993).
WhilesomeNGOsandgovernmentagencieshaveturnedFSRintoaprogressivetool,itstermsandconceptshavenowenteredthemainstream,sothatitiscommon
tohearmanyagriculturalextensionworkersandresearcherstalkof'farmerparticipatoryresearch'whileretainingessentiallytopdownapproaches.Likewise,thereis
atendencyforlocalknowledgetobecomeoverlysystematised,andreducedtoaquasiscientificschemawhichignoresitswiderepistemologicalbase.Local
knowledgescannotalwaysbesimplyreducedtoablueprint,readytobeinsertedintoadevelopmentplan,especiallywhentheyspringfromquitedifferentcultural
contextsfromthoseofthedevelopers.Theseproblemshavebeenraisedinanumberofcritquesofthe'farmerfirst'movement(inparticular,seeScoonesand
Thompson,19931994).Likemanyofthenewideaswehavediscussed,FSRhasfoundfavourinsomeareasofthedevelopmentmainstream,butusuallyinaform
whichconformstoexistingparadigmsandpracticeswithoutchallengingthewiderassumptionsandobjectivesofdevelopment.Whetherornotthiscontinuestobethe
caseremainstobeseen.
Page121
CommunityDevelopment
Anthropologistsandsociologistshavelongarguedthatlifeisnotdividedneatlyintocompartmentsandthattheworkingsofalocaleconomyareinseparablefrom
widersocial,politicalandculturalprocesses.Theconceptofcommunitydevelopmentiscentraltothisintegratedapproach.Withoutstrengtheninglocalcommunities,
andencouragingthemtotakeamoreactiveroleintheplanningandmaintenanceoftheirfacilities,theargumentgoes,strategiesforimprovementaredoomedtofail.
Manyprojectsthereforenowinvolvea'communitydevelopment'component.OneexampleisrecentslumimprovementprojectsinIndia.Here,slum'upgrading'(the
provisionofimprovedsanitationandhousing)isbeingincreasinglyintegratedwithsocialstrategies.Settinguplocalcommitteesthatareresponsibleformaintainingthe
improvedfacilitiesandplanningthefuturedevelopmentoftheircommunity,theprovisionofhallsorlibraries,ortheestablishmentofsavingsgroupstoencouragea
senseofcommunityareallstrategiesinrecentBritishprojectsaimedatintegratedslumimprovementprojectswhichhaveastrongcommunitydevelopment
component.
Communitydevelopmenthasatendencytobecomelargelycosmeticunlessitinvolvestheactiveparticipationofthecommunityintheplanningstagesoftheproject.
Oneveryrealareaofdifficultyisthattheseapproachesrestonanotionof'community'whichanyanthropologistknowsisbydefinitionveryshakyground.Whoor
whatconstitutesthecommunity?Thereareboundtobedifferentsetsofinterestswitharangeofdifferentneeds,differenttypesofpowerandvaryingdegreesof
visibility.Furthermore,itsoriginscanbetracedbacktocolonialsocialwelfarepoliciesinAfricainthe1940s(Midgley,1995),andthenotionof'socialdevelopment'
asdeployedbydevelopmentagenciescanattimesbedangerouslyclosetomodernisationtypethoughtinwhichcommunitiesarejudged,byavarietyofilldefined
criteria,tobeeithermoreorlessdeveloped.
WomeninDevelopment(WID)andGenderandDevelopment(GAD)
Debatessurroundingempowermentsharesomeoftheiroriginswiththerecognitionoftheimportanceofgenderissuesindevelopment.Aswehaveseen,duringthe
1970sandintothe1980sgenderrelationswereincreasinglyrecognisedascentralindetermining
Page122
people'saccesstoresourcesandthewaysinwhichtheyexperiencedevelopment.Inthissection,weshallconsiderhowsomeofthesedebateshavebeentranslated
intopolicywithindevelopmentagencies.
AmajorsteptowardsofficialacceptanceoftheneedtoconsidermorecarefullytherelationshipbetweendevelopmentandgendercameintheguiseoftheUN
DecadeforWomen(197585).Duringthisperiodtherewereimportantchangesinthewaysbothpolicymakersandacademicsapproachedgender.Whereas
previouslybothgroupshadtendedtoconcentrateon'women'andtheirdomesticreproductiveroles,bythemid1980spolicyincreasinglyemphasisedwomen's
employment,incomegenerationcapacitiesandsoon,ratherthantheprovisionofwelfareservicesforthem.Weshalloutlinethesedifferentpolicyapproachesand
theirrelationshiptodifferenttheoreticalpositionswithindevelopmentshortly.
TheUNDecademarkedwhatappearedatfirsttobeagrowinginstitutionalcommitmenttowomen'sissues,althoughtherationalebehindthisvaried.Promptedpartly
bytheworkofwriterssuchasBoserup,andalsoasareflectionofthesuccessesoffeminismintheNorth,whichhadenabledafewwomentoreachmanagerial
positionswithinaidagenciesandhadpushedfeministissuesontothepoliticalagenda,manydevelopmentagenciesbytheearly1980shaddeterminedto'do
something'forwomen.Forexample,inSwedenparliamentwassubjectinthe1970sand1980stosuccessfullobbyingpressurebySwedishwomen'sorganisationsfor
officialaidtoaddressspecificallywomen'sneedsandthisbecamereflectedinSIDA'sprogrammes.TheUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalAid(USAID)also
rapidlyadoptedthenewphrase'womenindevelopment',withtheestablishmentofanOfficeofWomeninDevelopment.AlthoughthemeaningsofWIDarefarfrom
fixed,USAIDseemedtouseitintermsofthepotentialcontributionwomencouldmaketothedevelopmenteffort,asasofaruntappedresource.Manyother
institutionsfollowedsuit,settingupWIDofficesor,liketheBritishODA,buildingacommitmenttowomenintoofficialpolicy.Indeed,itisnowcommonplacefor
governmentministries,NGOsandmultilateralagenciestopaylipservice(ifnothingelse)totheaimsofWID,andsomedonorsinsistonaWIDcomponentinproject
proposalsbeforetheyconsiderfunding.
TheWIDapproach,however,tendstofocusonlyonwomeninisolation,ratherthanthesocial,culturalandpoliticalrelationsofwhichtheyareapart.Asfeminist
anthropologistshavefrequentlypointedout,itisgenderandnotsexwhichisatissue.Thishasledtoashifttowards'genderanddevelopment'(GAD),whichturns
Page123
attentionawayfromwomenasanisolatedcategorytothewiderrelationsofwhichtheyareapart.Itshould,however,benotedthatthetermsareoftenused
interchangeably,andpoliciesalltoofrequentlyfocusattentiononlyonwomen.Indeed,despitetheenergyandresourcesdirectedatgenderissues,WID/GADstill
frequentlyremainan'addon'tomainstreampolicy(Moser,1993:4).
WID/GADapproachesarefarfromhomogeneous.InheraccountofWIDprojects,CarolineMoseroutlinesfivemainapproaches,eachassociatedwithadistinct
developmentalphilosophy(1989:1799825).Whilewemustbewareofoverschematisingaffairs(forexample,policiesandprojectsofteninvolveavarietyof
assumptionsandapproaches),thisclearlyindicatestherangeofresponsestogenderissueswithindevelopmentpractice.A'welfare'typeproject,forexample,is
linkedtocharitablenotionsof'doinggood'forwomenandchildrenandinvolvesthetopdownprovisionofservicesandgoodsforbeneficiaries,withoutdemanding
anyreturnontheirbehalf.Whilethisapproachwascommoninthe1960sandearly1970s,withthegrowinginfluenceoffeminismasthe1970sunfolded,notionsof
'equity'increasinglygainedswayinsomedevelopmentcircles.Theseaimedatboostingtherightsandpowerofwomenwithindevelopingcountries,againusually
throughtopdownchangesingovernmentalpolicy,stateinterventionandsoon.
Anotherapproachwhichgainedpopularityinthe1970sand1980sis'antipoverty',inwhichpovertyisrecognisedaswomen'smainproblem.Thiswascloselyallied
tothe'basicneeds'movement,whichhadtakenoffduringthe1970s.Solutionsincludeincomegenerationprojects,skillgenerationandsoon.Thesestrategiesare
oftenidenticaltothoseadvocatedbythe'efficiencyapproach',buttheirunderlyingphilosophyisfundamentallydifferent.Efficiencywascentraltomuchdevelopmental
philosophyduringthe1980s,inlinewiththedominantpoliticalideologiesofthetime.Accordingly,womenweretargetsofdevelopmentprojectsonlybecausethe
centralityoftheirproductivecontributionwasrecognised.Ifprojectsaimedtoimproverecipients'wellbeing,ratherthanbeingbasedinnotionsofwelfareoruniversal
humanrights,theunderlyingphilosophywasthatthiswould,inturn,increasetheirefficiencyintheproductiveprocessandthusaddtocapitalistgrowth.
Alloftheseapproachesassumethatchangeisinitiatedfirstandforemostfromtheoutside,throughdonorledpoliciesandplanning.Aswellasbeingfundamentally
'topdown',theyhavealsobeenaccusedofethnocentrism.Manyoftheirfiercestcriticsare
Page124
Southernwomen,whoarguethatdiscoursesofWID/GADreflectthepreoccupationsandassumptionsofWesternfeministsratherthanthewomentheypurporttobe
representingandassisting.Indeed,byhomogenisingall'ThirdWorld'women(inconceptssuchas'femaleheadedhouseholds',orinpolicieswhichtreattheinterests
ofwomeninvastlydifferentcultural,economicandpoliticalcontextsasthesame)andtreatingthemasvictimsindireneedofpolicieswhichaltertheirstatus,these
approachesfeedintocolonialstereotypesandcategories(see,inparticular,Mohanty,1988).Indeed,bytreatingthemas'victims'oftheirculture,theynegateand
underminetheagencyofSouthernwomen(White,1992:1522).
AnothercriticismmadeofWID/GADapproachesisthattheymakeethnocentricassumptionsregardingthecontentofrelationsbetweenmenandwomenindifferent
societies,seeingonlyexploitation,subordinationandconflict,whereasthewomenconcernedmightputmorestressoncooperationandtheimportanceoffamilial
bonds(BarriosdelaChungara,1983).Lastly,WID/GADisaccusedofignoringthetrueunderlyingcausesofSouthernwomen'ssubordinationandpoverty,which
aremoretodowithcolonialandpostcolonialexploitationandinequalitythantheculturalconstructionofgenderwithintheirparticularsocieties(SenandGrown,
1987).Thisreturnsustotheconceptof'empowerment'.
Manyoftheinstitutionalandpolicychangesregardinggenderanddevelopmentaretobewelcomed.However,theyalsoillustratethecapacityofradicalconceptsto
beneutralisedwithindevelopmentdiscourse.Thereisstillaverygreatdealofworktobedone,andthisshouldnotsimplyextendpreexistingWID/GAD
programmeswhicharethemselvesoftendeeplyproblematic.Atworst,theeffectofWID/GADapproachesindevelopmenthasbeentotransformwhatareinreality
complexandnuancedconceptualtoolsandinsightsintooverlysimplifiedcategoriesandphrases,whichnonethelessaremadecentraltopolicy(suchas'womenheaded
households')buteffectivelystrippedoftheirradicalimplications.
Furthermore,sincethetechniquesandjargonofmanydevelopersiscomparativelyrigid,withtheirinsistenceonframeworks,outputsandsoon,thetaskoftranslating
theworkoffeministanthropologistsintopolicystatementsoralistofrecommendationsisfarfromeasy.Thereisalsoadangerofgenderpoliciescollapsingintoanew
formofsocialengineering,wherebytheobjectoftheexerciseisto'raisewomen'sstatus',regardlessofthewiderculturalcontext.Weshallbeexploringthesepoints
furtherinourconcludingchapter.
Page125
Conclusion
Thischapterhasindicatedvariouswaysinwhich,farfrombeingmonolithic,developmentdiscourseisheterogeneous,contestedandconstantlychanging.Aswehave
seen,thereisconsiderableevidencethatmanydevelopmentpractitionersaregraduallybecomingawareofconceptssuchasparticipationandempowerment,are
consideringparticipatorymethodologies,realisingthatlocalknowledgeshouldbevaluedandtakinggenderissuesmoreseriously.Thisshiftingawarenessisdoubtless
influencedbywiderchangesunrelatedtoanthropology,suchasthefailureofeconomicmodelsofdevelopmenttodeliverbetterlivingstandardstothepoor,butisalso
dueinparttotheanthropologicalperspectivesdetailedinpreviouschapters.
Suchshiftsintheawarenessofdevelopershavealsoledtochangesinactualpoliciesandpractice.Gendertraining,aspractisedtodaybymanyNorthernagencies
involvingboththeirownemployeesandthoseofrecipientorganisations,isoneexample(forawiderdiscussion,seeKabeer,1994:264305).Anotheristhe
increasedfundingofNGOsbyagencies,orthecommitment(onpaperatleast)toparticipatorymethodologies.
Thesechangeshavenot,however,beenachievedwithoutastruggle.Itisimportanttorememberthatjustas'development'doesnotinvolveaunitarybodyofideas
andpractices,'developers'arenotaunitarybodyofpeople.Thediscourseiscontestedbydifferentinterestgroupsandindividualswithinagencies,aswellasbetween
them.Adevelopmentpolicyorresultingprojectmaybetheresultofconsiderablestrugglebydifferentactorstopromotewhattheybelievedevelopmentshould
involve.Forexample,while'WID'objectivesmaybewidelyacceptedbymanyagenciesinthe1990s(oratleast,whilemanypaylipservicetothem),thishasoften
involvedmanyyearsoflobbyingbyfeministsworkingtochangethepatriarchalnatureofdevelopmentdiscourse.Meanwhile,what'genderanddevelopment'should
involve,bothpracticallyandtheoretically,remainshotlydebated.
Itwould,however,bemisleadingtogivetheimpressionthatdevelopmentdiscourseinthe1990sisa'freeforall'inwhichopponentsofequalstrengthcontestthe
policyagenda.Thefactremainsthatsomeactorsandinstitutionsaremorepowerfulthanothers.Thenewideasandpracticesdiscussedherearealsobynomeans
allofequalpoliticalweight.Withinthediscourse,someconceptsaredominantandpervasivewhileothersremainsubordi
Page126
nate.Aswehaveindicated,thisoftenmeansthatmoreradicalideasbecomecooptedandneutralised,leadingtocontradictionsbetweenofficialpolicyandpractice.
'Participation',forexample,mightbeheavilyemphasisedinanagency'splanningdocuments,buthardlytakeplaceatall'ontheground'.Likewise,'empowerment'isa
conceptintendedtoimplyanalternativedevelopmentagendabasedonlocalgrassrootsactionandpower,butthetermisalsoincreasinglypartofthelanguageof
governmentsandofmainstreammanagementtheoryintheprivatesector.
Needthisalwaysbethecase?IsEscobarcorrectinarguingthatthe'architectureofthediscursiveformation'remainsessentiallythesame?Theanswersareclearly
highlycomplex,dependingbothonwhatarenasofpracticeandtypesofrelationsoneisexamining,andonwhatcriteriaonetakesasindicatingsignificantchange.For
example,dostaffinglevelswithinagenciesindicateashiftindevelopmentpractice?Withinsomeagencies,socialanthropologistsarebeingincreasinglyemployedas
toplevelpolicyadvisors,asarefeministscommittedtoWIDorGAD.Doesthismeanthattheideaswhichsuchgroupsembodyarebeingactivelytakenonboard,or
aresuchgroupsbeingcooptedbymoredominantandpowerfulinterests?Likewise,whilelobbyistswithinandoutsideagenciesmaybesuccessfulinchangingofficial
policy(acommitmentinagencydocumentsto'women'or'povertyalleviation',forexample),thisisnotnecessarilythesameaschangingactualpractice.
AnotherarenaonemightexamineisthatofchangingrelationsbetweenNGOsandbilateralormultilateraldonors.Increasedlevelsoffundinggiventosomeofthe
moreradicalNGOscouldbeevidencethatthebalanceofpowerwithindevelopmentisindeedchanging.However,itcouldalsobeacaseof'oldwineinnewbottles',
especiallyifthoserunningNGOsaremembersofthemostprivilegedgroupswhoaremerelytakingoverthefunctionsofthestate.
ToargueeffectivelyfororagainstEscobar'spointonethereforeneedstoexaminewhathappens'ontheground',overmanyyears.Inwhosehandsdoespower
remain?Asanthropologists'willbeaware,thisisnotaneasyquestiontoansweritrequiresconsiderablymoreresearchandisanareainwhichanthropologistsof
developmentpotentiallyhavemuchtocontribute.Theoutcomeofdevelopmentalworkisalsoaffectedbyfactorsoutsidethecontrolofdevelopers.Itisthustoo
simplealwaystoarguethatthe'dominant'developmentdiscoursehasonceagainsucceededinneutralisingradicalalternatives.Forexample,Southerngovernments
mayacttocurtailtheactivitiesofNGOsfundedbyNorthern
Page127
aidagenciesiftheirworkistoothreateningtolocalpowerrelations.Likewise,projectswhichattempttoincreasethestatusofwomenmaybeunintentionally
scupperedbyinattentiontothecomplexitiesoflocalgenderrelations.Thismaybetheresultofmisinformationandbadpractice,butdoesnotnecessarilyindicatean
internationalconspiracyofpatriarchy.
Inthischapterwehavethereforesuggestedthatprocessesareworkinginseveraldirectionsatoncebothtowardsandagainstchange.Attimesandinsomeways
thedominantdiscourseandthepowerrelationsitinvolvesaremaintainedatothertimes,inotherways,theyarechallengedandslowlytransformed.Inthenext
chapterweexamineinmoredetailtheactualprocesseswhichtakeplaceinthemachineryofdevelopmentbothtorepressandneutralisechallengesandslowlyto
adapttonewideasandalternatives.
Page128
6
AnthropologistswithinDevelopment
Sofarwehavediscussedconceptualissuesanddrawnupontheanthropologicalanddevelopmentliteratureforillustrationsofmostofourpoints.Inwhatfollows,we
discusssomeofourownexperiencesasanthropologistsworkinginwhatmightbetermedthe'aidindustry',indevelopmentagenciessuchasinternationaldonors,
privateconsultancyfirmsandnongovernmentalorganisations.Wewillprovidesomeexamplesofthedifferentformswhichthistypeofappliedworkcantakethrough
personalcasestudies.
Thesecasestudies,aswellasdocumentingsomeofthepracticalrealitiesfacedbyanthropologistsinthedevelopmentcontext,servetoreinforceanimportanttheme
whichrunsthroughmuchofthisbook:thatcontrarytotheimpressiongiveninmuchcontemporaryanalysis,discoursesofdevelopmentarenotallthesamenorindeed
aretheyfixed.Instead,theyareconstantlybeingcontestedandarethereforeopentochange.Manyoftheissueswehaveraisedinthisbookplaceanthropologistsina
potentiallystrongpositiontocontributetoandinfluencesuchchange.Howthismightbedonefromwithintheaidindustryisthesubjectofthischapter.
AnthropologistsasConsultants
InChapters2and4wediscussedthehistoryofappliedanthropologyandconsideredsomeoftherolesplayedbyappliedanthropologistsindevelopment.Inwhat
followswecontinuetodiscusstheactivitiesofprofessionalanthropologists,workinglargelyoutsideacademia,withinthedevelopmentindustry.Anthropologistsare
nowemployedingrowingnumbersbydevelopmentagencies,organisationsandprivateconsultancyfirms.Adiscussionofappliedanthropologydoesnottherefore
simplyraise
Page129
questionsofwhataprofessionalanthropologistmightdo,butalsoincludesananalysisoftheframeworkinwhichheorsheoperates.
Theroleofanthropologistasconsultantoriginatedinthepracticeofgovernmentagenciesreferringissuesoffactorpolicytoindependentauthorities.Examplesofthis
arethelinksestablishedbetweentheUnitedStatesTrustTerritoryadministrationandethnologistsattheUniversityofHawaii,andthosebetweenthegovernmentof
IndiaandthedirectorofitsnewDepartmentofAnthropologyduringthe1940s(H.G.Barnett,1956:28).Recentyearshaveseenthedevelopmentofthe
anthropologistas'policyprofessional',alongsideotherprofessionalswithdevelopmentrelatedexpertisesuchasengineersandeconomists.IntheUK,thisrolehas
beenexpandeduponindetailbyAlanRew(1985),ananthropologistwhohasconsistentlyprioritisedthiskindofworkwhilemaintainingabasewithinacademia.In
theUS,AllenHoben(1982)haswrittenonasimilartheme.Thereareanincreasingnumberofprofessionalpostsforappliedanthropologistsoutsideacademia,for
exampleintheUK'sOverseasDevelopmentAdministration(whosenewlyexpanded'socialdevelopmentadvisor'positions,discussedinmoredetaillaterinthis
chapter,arefrequentlyfilledbyanthropologists),orinactualdevelopmentprojectswhichmayrunforperiodsofseveralyears.
Thetypesofworkwhichprofessionalanthropologistsareaskedtoundertakecanvaryconsiderably.Theymayincludeappliedresearchtoproducesupportingdata
forplannedinterventionscontributionstotheappraisalandevaluationplanningofdevelopmentprojectsorattemptingtobuildlocalparticipationintotheproject.
Assignmentscanvaryfromashortconsultancyjoblastingafewweeks,toaplacementonaprojectforseveralyearsasoneofthefulltimestaff.Theanthropologistis
usuallymadeaspecialistmemberofateamwhichmayincludepeoplefromotherdisciplines,suchasengineering,managementoreconomics.
Theremaybe,understandably,anassumptionthattheanthropologistcanbringtobearadistinctivesetofinsightsandskillstoagivenseriesofproblemsorissues.
Anthropologistshavesometimesbeenportrayedasbringingaspecial,almostmagical,ingredientseenashithertomissingindevelopment.1 Evensomeanthropologists
themselveshavebeenpronetogetcarriedawaybythislineofthinking,andCochrane(1976)wasmovedtowriteinamomentofgreatoptimism:'Thethirdworld
badlyneedsthekindofexpertisethatonlyanthropologistshavetooffer.'Nodoubtthisreflectedthemoodofthetime,whenanthropologyseemedtoofferquite
straightforwardpossibilitiesofcontributingtothechangingdevel
Page130
opmentparadigm.Butasweshallsee,itisextremelydifficulttoidentifyspecificallywhatitis,inpracticalterms,thatprofessionalanthropologistsdohavetooffer
development.2
Onegoodstartingpointhereistoconsidertheanthropologicalapproachtocollectinginformationandideas,whichisusuallybaseduponfacetofacecontactwith
people.Aswearguedinthelastchapter,therecanbenodoubtthatanthropologicalmethodologiesarereceivingmoreandmoreattentionindevelopmentandpolicy
circles.Onewellknownexampleofthisisthegrowthofparticipatoryruralappraisal(PRA),whichdrawsonsomeofanthropology'smethodologicalinsightsanother
isfarmingsystemsresearch(FSR),whichseekstocombinetheindigenousknowledgeandpracticeoffarmerswithspecialisedoutsiderknowledgeinorderto
improvesupportforthepoorandmarginalfarmerswhousuallyfindtheirneedsignoredbyconventionalagriculturalextensionapproaches.
Buthowdoprofessionalanthropologistsworkwhentheyfindthemselvesunderthepracticalconstraintsofthedevelopmentworkplace?Withintheframeworkof
consultancythereisatremendouspressureontheanthropologisttocontributeconstructivelytointerdisciplinaryteamsandtotrytoproviderealisticsolutionsto
problems.Someanthropologistsfindappliedworkdifficultbecausetheyareusedtoasolitary,selfregulatingworkregimen.Others,theirinterestinanthropology
motivatedbyleftleaning,anarchistorrejectionistpositions,canfindthemselvesreluctanttocompromisewithinmainstreamcontexts.Asidefromthepersonalfeelings
oftheanthropologist,therearecertainmethodologicalcompromiseswhichmayhavetobemadebytheconsultant.Themainoneistime:whereasmostpeoplewho
havecompletedadoctoraldegreewillhavespentbetweenoneandtwoyearsdoingtheirfieldwork,workinthedevelopmentcontextmaybeallottedafewmonthsor
evenonlyweeksbytheemployingagency.Whileitmaybepossibletodomeaningfulworkbyreturningtocommunitiesalreadywellknownfrompreviouswork,this
islessthanidealforananthropologistaskedtoworkinacompletelynewcontext.Suchassignmentscanofferanexcitingchallenge,butitmayproveprofessionally
frustratingandmaygenerateresearchfindingswhichlacktheoreticalstrengthormethodologicalrigour.
WorkingwithinAgencies
Whilesomeanthropologistsworkasfreelanceconsultants,othersareemployedassalariedstaffbygovernmentornongovernmental
Page131
agencies.Inthecaseoftheseanthropologists,muchofthedaytodayworktheyhavetoundertakeisadministrative.Ratherthanbeinghiredfortheirknowledgeof
anyparticularsocietyorfortheirpotentialasfieldworkers,suchanthropologistsmustbringtotheirworkasetofinsightsandquestionswhichenablethemtocritique
andadviseonexistingprojectsandpolicy,aswellastohelpformulatenewideasandstrategywithintheagency.
Socialdevelopmentadvisors(SDAs)employedbytheODAprovideagoodexampleofthistypeofwork(foralongerdiscussionoftheroleofSDAswithinthe
ODAduringthe1980s,seeConlin,1985).Asweshallsee,theirchangingprofilewithintheorganisationoverrecentyearsalsodemonstrateshowdevelopment
agendasandpracticescanchangeovertime.
Likeotherprofessionaladvisors(e.g.economists,engineersandecologists),SDAsofferadvicetodeskofficersresponsibleforparticulargeographicalregionsandthe
projectswithinthem.Sincetheycontrolregionalbudgets,theseadminstratorshaveconsiderablepower.TheSDAremitistocommentonany'social'issue.Howthis
isdefineddoesofcoursedependuponone'sperspective.Oneimmediateproblemisthatdeskandregionalofficerswithoutsocialsciencetrainingmightnotrecognise
aprojectorpolicyashavingsocialimplicationswhentotheSDAsitclearlydoes.Partoftheirworkisthereforepolitical:togettheadministratorsontheirside.
TheworkofSDAsmightinvolve,amongotherthings,commentinguponprojectproposals,producingstatementsonpolicyrelatedissuesandparticipatinginmissions
toprojects'inthefield'3 aspartofteamsofadvisorsandadministrators.AsemployeesofthegovernmenttheymayalsoendupofferingadviceontheOverseas
DevelopmentMinister'sspeeches!
InmanywaysSDAsareforcedtoconformtothedominantdiscourseoftheODA.In1990thiswasheavilybiasedtowardseconomicsandtonotionsofgrowthand
efficiency.Manyemployees,especiallythoseinvolvedinmoretechnicalactivities,clearlybelievedstronglyinmodernityandthebenefitsoftechnologicalprogress.To
questiontheseexplicitlyortorefusetocomplytoestablishedpractices(particularbureaucraticproceduresandassumptions,e.g.theproductionofaspecificstyleof
reportanduseofaspecificlanguage)would,giventhebalanceofpowerwithintheODA,nothavemuchadvancedtheSDAs'cause.Instead,SDAsworkedoverthe
periodstealthilytoputsocialissuesontheagenda.
Toanextenttheyhavebeensuccessful.In1990thethreeSDAsemployedbytheODAdidnothavetheirownseparatedepartment,andwereheadedbyan
economist.In1995,however,thenumberof
Page132
SDAsemployedbytheODAmorethantrebled,andtheynowhavetheirownseparateSocialDevelopmentDepartment.Increasinglysocialissuesarereflectedin
policyandformpartofprojectappraisalsandevaluations.Slowlythebalanceofpowerwithintheorganisationisbeginningtochange.Thediscoursesitproduces
throughitsreports,itspolicystatementsandtheactualcontentofmeetingsisalsoshifting,albeitonlyslightly,tomoreanthropologicallyinformedwaysofseeingand
doing.ThisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatODAstyledevelopmentismoreempoweringandparticipatoryontheground.Thebureaucraticandpoliticalconstraints
arehuge.SDAsremainonlyonesmallpartofamuchlargermachinery.Theytooarenotcompletelyfreeof'topdownism'.Whatitdoesindicate,however,isthat
developmentiscontestedandfoughtoverwithinaidagencies.Consequentlyitiscontinuallyinastateoffluxandchange.
TheCompromisebetweenPureandApplied
TheofficialoriginsofappliedanthropologyledsomeanthropologistssuchasBrokensha(1966)toreservethetermonlyforworkundertakenonbehalfof
governmentsinanofficialcapacity.However,thisreflectsonlypartofthepictureappliedanthropologyhasalwaysbeenrathermorethanthisdefinitionallows.Inthe
US,forexample,aswesawinChapter2,theprivatesectoraswellasgovernmenthasmadeuseofanthropologiststhistrendisgrowingasanthropologistsare
increasinglyemployedbyprivateconsultancycompaniesandhiredbymanydifferenttypesofagency.Thegrowingimportanceoflocal,nationalorinternationalNGOs
indevelopmentalsorenderssuchadefinitionofappliedanthropologyobselete.Therearearangeofagenciesactiveinagriculture,health,educationandinfrastructure
workwithwhomanthropologistsnowcomeintocontactandwithwhomtheymaywishtocollaborate.
Butwhatisreallymeantby'applied'work?Appliedanthropologyhaspreviouslytendedtobeusedonlyinthecaseofaspecific,formalapplicationofanthropological
worktosolvingparticularproblems.Butitmightbearguedthatallanthropologyisinasenseappliedsinceitisconcernedusuallywithfieldlevelresearchwith
communitiesofrealpeopleandtriestoreflecttheviewsofthosepeople.Atthesametime,manyanthropologistswhodonotthemselveshaveanydirectinvolvement
indevelopmentissueshaveneverthelesscontributedtheoreticalideaswhichinformthewaysinwhichwethinkaboutdevelopment.Anthropologicalinvestigationdoes
notthereforeneedtobeundertakenwithaspecific
Page133
purposeinmindforittobeobjectivelyuseful.Eveniftheoriginalintentionbehindapieceofresearchwasnotanappliedone,itcanbedrawnuponsubsequently(and
usedormisused)bypractitioners.Inthecontextofdevelopment,thedistinctionbetweenpureandappliedalltooeasilybeginstodissolve.
Noncommissionedresearchmaybeofpracticalvaluetoarangeofotherpeoplebeyondacademia,includinggovernments,donoragenciesorNGOs,regardlessof
whetherornottheworkwasmotivatedbypracticalproblemsolving.4 Itisalsoimportanttodistinguishclearlybetweenthe'means'andthe'ends'ofapplied
anthropology.Whatkindsofoutcomesareappliedanthropologiststryingtoachieveintheirwork,andwhatcontroldotheyhaveovertheseoutcomes?These
questionshaveledtosomeinterestingtheoreticalareasofdebate.Bastide(1973:6)arguesthatthesubjectcontainsaparadoxwhichisimplicitinany'liberal'science:
appliedanthropologyimpliesthemeansforcontrolledchange,butdoesnotnecessarilycontainclearideasaboutexactly'what'thesemeanscancontributetowards.
Thewayoutofthisdilemma,hesuggests,isthatresearchcanbelinkedtoaction.Marx'sconceptof'praxis'providesanalternativeinwhichitisrecognisedthatvalue
judgementscannotbeseparatedfromconceptionsofreality.Thisinsightcanthereforegenerateaformofresearchwhichislinkedtoaction:
theoreticalknowledgedevelopsatthesametimeaspracticalknowledge,inandofthesamemovementofpraxis.Humaninterventioninsocialrealityisbothactionandscienceat
once,sinceitpermitsusatthesametimetochangetheworld,andinchangingit,todiscoverit.(Bastide,1973:6)
Whilethereisasenseinwhichappliedanthropologyisabout'changingtheworld',itisunlikelythattheanthropologistwillhaveabetterideaofhowtochangeitthan
anyoneelse,butheorshemaybringacertainkindofperspectivetotheproblem,onewhichinvolves,andseekstorepresent,theoutlooksandviewsofallthose
involved.
AchievingInfluence
Appliedanthropologicalwork,evenwhenitisofaveryhighstandard,isonlyasgoodasitsabilitytoinfluence,directlyorindirectly,thosewhoholdorseektohold
power.Animportantsetofquestionssurroundstheneedforanthropologiststoreachthepeoplewhomakepolicydecisions.WhilethereareinstitutionsintheUK
whichundertakepolicyrelatedresearchindevelopmentissues(suchastheOverseasDevelopmentInstituteandtheInstitute
Page134
ofDevelopmentStudies),thesehaveusuallyconcentratedmoreoneconomicthanonanthropologicalmatters.
Itiswellknownthatanthropologistshavenotalwayscommunicatedwellwithinterdisciplinarycolleaguesoradministrators.Strathern(1993:10)outlinesanumberof
commonpitfallsinthePapuaNewGuineacontextwhichhavemadetheanthropologist'sworklessrelevantandaccessibletopolicymakersthanitshouldhavebeen.
Formanyyearsanthropologistsusedaresearchmethodologywhichportrayedcommunitiesinstaticterms.Theuseofthe'ethnographicpresent'drewanthropological
attentionawayfromexaminingissueswhicharisefromsocialchange.Anotherproblemisthefieldwork'riteofpassage'oftheanthropologypostgraduatewhotendsto
headforisolatedareasofthecountrywheredetailedethnographicmaterialcanbecollectedawayfromthemorevisibleanduncertaincomplexitiesofareas
experiencingrapidchange.Thishasledtoanincompletenessinethnographiccoverage.Addedtothesefactorsistheageoldcomplaintofthetimelagbetweenthe
completionoffieldworkandwritingupthework,whichcaninanycasearriveinaformwhichisinaccessibletoadministratorswithlimitedtime.Furthermore,
Strathernargues,anthropologistshavetendedtooppose,apriori,thePapuaNewGuineagovernment'sapproachtodevelopmentpolicy,whichwasgrowthoriented
andsoughttoencourageforeigninvestmentatalmostanycost.
Recentlytherehasbeenmorediscussionaboutthepracticalwaysinwhichanthropologistscanmaketheirfindingsmoreusefultotheagenciesemployingthem,the
needtowritemoreaccessiblereportsandhowtoworkmoreeffectivelywithinaninterdisciplinaryteam.(Rew,1985EpsteinandAhmed,1984).Thereisclearlya
longwaytogobeforeanthropologistsanddevelopmentpractitioners,particularlythoseprimarilyconcernedwithtechnicaloradministrativepriorities,canlearnto
communicatewitheachothereasily.
Ontheotherhand,foranthropologistsinterestedindevelopmentissuesthereneedbenofixedboundarybetweentheacademicandconsultancyroles.Manyapplied
anthropologistsfindthatthesetwoareasofworkcanbemutuallyreinforcing,sincetheyprovidetheopportunityforcreatinglinksbetweenresearch,appliedworkand
teaching.Fortheconsultantwhoremainslinkedtoanacademicinstitution,consultancyworkcanbestrengthenedbyaperiodicreturntopureresearch,duringwhich
intellectualbatteriescanberechargedthroughlesspressuredperiodsofreflectionontheoreticalissues.
Perhapstheanthropologistswhostandthebestchanceofdoingworthwhiledevelopmentworkarethosewhocombinelongterm
Page135
academicresearchwithshorter,carefullyselectedforaysintoappliedconsultancy.Duringtheconsultancyassignments,ideascanbereformulatedintoformswhichare
morereadilyaccessibletopolicymakersshortreports,workshoppresentationsandtrainingsessions.Butthereoftenremainsasignificantgulfbetweenthe'applied'
andthe'academic'typesofinformationandunderstanding.Furthermore,manypolicymakerssimplydonothavetimetotakeonlengthytheoreticalworksand
respondfarmorereadilytofacetofacediscussionsorshortbriefingdocuments.
TheQuestionofEthics
Adiscussionofappliedanthropologybringsintofocussomedifficultethicalquestions.Thefirstoftheseisthejointissueofaccountabilityandresponsibility:forwhom
istheworkbeingundertakenandtowhomarethefindingsprovided?Informationisasourceofpowerintheinteractionsandconflictsbetweenrichandpoor,andas
suchquicklybecomeshighlysensitive.Theappliedworkcontextillustratesthedangerswhichcanarise,intermsofaccountabilityandquality,ifanthropologicalskills
areplacedformallyattheserviceofadministratorsandpolicymakers.Unlessanthropologists'involvementprovidesopeningsfortheweakersectionsofalocal
communitytoincreasetheirinfluenceoverthepossibleoutcomesofadevelopmentproject,heorshemayhaveonlycontributedtoadevelopmentproject'scontrol
overpeopleastheobjectsratherthanthesubjectsofthe'developmentprocess'.
Asecondquestionistheissueofquality.Theconstraintsplacedontheworkoftheappliedanthropologist,suchasashorttimescaleortheneedforaclearsetof
userfriendlyconclusions,hastendedtoleadtomethodologicalortheoreticalshortcutsbeingtaken.Amongsomeanthropologiststherehasbeenatendencytoview
appliedworkasbeingofsecondratequality.Whilesuchcriticismsaresometimesvalid(andthereisnodoubtthatpoorqualityworkcanemergeundertimebound,
subjectspecificconditions),thetendencyof'pure'anthropologiststowriteoffworkundertakenbytheirappliedcolleaguesisoftenunjustified.Intheend,thequality
ofworkwillvaryaccordingtothecommitmentandabilityoftheresearcher,andwhetheritisproducedunderacademicresearchconditionsorcommissionedbyan
agency.
Fromthismoregeneraldiscussionletusnowturntosomespecificexamplesofhowanthropologistsmightworkwithintheworldofdevelopment.Theseinvolve
importantquestionsaboutwhetherornotanthropologistsarecompromisingthemselvesby
Page136
'buyingin'tothewholedevelopmentdiscourse,asEscobarhasforcefullyarguedinrecentyears,orwhetherthediscourseitselfcanbechanged.Thecasestudies
whichfollowexploretheroomformanoeuvrewhichmayexist.Fromthesewewilltrytodrawgenerallessonsfromourexperiencesworkinginthe'aidindustry',
withoutgoingintotoomuchdetailconcerningthespecificcountryororganisationalcontexts.Thishasbeennecessarypartlybecausewearedealingwehopefrankly
withissueswhichmaybeseenassensitivebythoseinvolved.Wehavefollowedthetraditioninethnographicwritingofpreservinganonymitysothattheidentitiesof
informantscanbesafeguarded.Inconsultancywork,theremaybeafurtherrestrictiononworkundertakenwhichmeansthatcopyrightofthematerialgenerated
remainswiththeemployingagency.Thisrulecanbecomeaseriousbarriertoinformationdiffusion,andisfrequentlyusedtowithholdmaterialwhichrelatestofailures
ordifficultthemeswhichmayshoworganisationsofindividualsinabadlight.Forexample,whileundertakingaliteraturereviewrecentlyontheissueofcorruptionfor
theSwedishInternationalDevelopmentAuthority(SIDA),itbecameclearthatavastamountofdataanddocumentationresidedinalargelyunaccessibleformas
restrictedreportscarriedoutbyconsultantsworkingfordonors,governmentsandinternationalorganisations(Lewis,1992).Nevertheless,wehopethatthematerial
presenteddoesnotloseitsmeaningthroughbeingunspecificongeographical,culturalororganisationaldetails.Wehavesoughttoretainasmuchoftherelevant
narrativeaspossible.Ourapproachparallelsthattraditionallyadoptedbyanthropologistswritingethnography:thesecasesstudiesrepresentpersonal,ethnographic
andoftensubjectiveaccountsofexperience.
Case1
EvaluatingRuralCooperativeTraining
Thefirstcasestudyillustratesthedifficultyofcommunicatingwithoftendefensiveandpotentiallyhostileinformantsintheprojectsetting.Thisinvolvescomplex
questionsofethicsandpowerwhichmayrequirecarefulnegotiation.Thiscasestudyalsoillustrateshowprojectscanbecomedysfunctionalandtakeonalogicof
theirown,growingincreasinglyoutoftouchwiththeir'clients'.Theoutsiderperspectiveprovidedbytheshorttermconsultantcanbeofgreatvalueinbringingasense
ofproportionandbalance,andthescepticalinstinctsoftheanthropologistinparticularcanbeusefulinseeingthroughsomeoftheproblems.
Page137
AconsultancyassignmentwasundertakenbyananthropologistforaEuropeanagencytoevaluateacooperativetrainingprogrammeforfarmers.Thiswasbeing
carriedoutinassociationwithanAsiangovernment'sRuralCooperativesBoard(RCB).Thestudywasapparentlytriggeredbyagrowingrealisationonbehalfofthe
foreigndonorthatnoonewhowasresponsibleatanyofthedifferentadministrativelevelsoftheagencyreallyknewabouttheprogressoftheprojectanymore.The
foreignconsultantwhohaddesignedandtakentheinitialinterestintheworkhadleft.Noonehadsubsequentlymanagedtounderstandtheprojectinitsentirety,
especiallyasithadchangedinbothpersonnelandemphasesovertheyears.
Indeed,italmostseemedthatstaffatboththemainandtheregionalofficesweresecretlycountingonthefactthatsomeoneelsewithintheadministrationhadmoreof
agraspofwhathadbecomeaverycomplicatedprojectthantheydid.Achainofmutuallysupportiverelationshipshadresulted,althoughitwasbecomingapparent
thatsuchafragileproject'statusquo'couldnotbesustainedforlong.Intheend,itwasacknowledgedbythedonoragencythatsomethinghadtobedone.This
absenceofknowledgeabouttheprojectwasmirroredbyalackofinformationabouttheimpactofthetrainingonthefarmersthemselves,andthewayinwhich
cooperativesworked(ordidn'twork)ontheground.
Thestoryoftheprojectisasfollows.TheRCBisresponsibleforformingthousandsoffarmers'cooperativesinvillagesacrossthecountry,aprocesswhichhasbeen
inmotionsincethe1960s.Aruralcooperativemodelhadbeendevelopedusingrelativelyinnovativeideasandbecame,forabriefperiod,aninternational
developmentsuccessstory.Groupsofvillagefarmerswereencouragedtopooltheirresources,learncooperativemanagementskills,definetheirparticularneeds
(production,processing,marketing,etc.)andtherebygainaccesstosubsidisedgovernmentcreditandagriculturalinputs,whileatthesametimelearningtosolvetheir
economicproblemscollectively.Thegovernmenthadthentakenthebasicmodeland'scaleditup',withtheassistanceofforeigndonors,sothatitcoveredthewhole
country.However,thecountrywidereplicationoftheprojecthadweakeneditseffectivenessduringthe1970s,sinceithadbeenstretchedbeyondthecontrolofits
foundersandtheirconstantcare,inspirationandattention.
Severalacademicstudiesovertheyearshadindicatedtheweaknessesofthecooperativesystem,whichtendedtobedominatedbyricherfarmersandviewed
instrumentallyasameansofsecuringsubsidisedinputsratherthanasasystemofmutual
Page138
economicadvancement.Combinedwiththis,aburgeoningNGOsectorhadevolvedwhichwassuccessfullydevelopingalternativemodelsofruraldevelopmentthat
implicitlyhighlightedtheRCB'sweaknesses.Nevertheless,thegovernmenthadnowdevelopedanationalframeworkforstrengtheningfarmers'activities,andmostof
themainbilateralaidagencieshadjudgedsupporttotheRCB,withitsmandateforruralcooperatives,asapriority.
Forseveralyears,thedonoragencyhadbeenfundingateamofexpatriatecooperativespecialiststostrengthentheRCB'sstafftrainingcapability,bytrainingthe
trainingstaffanddevelopingappropriatetrainingmaterials.Theaimwastopromoteamoreparticipatorytrainingethosthanthe'topdown'traditionembodiedin
traditionalgovernmentapproaches.ThistrainingwastobeginatthemanagerialleveloftheRCB'sadministrativehierarchy,theobjectivebeingtoassistthetraining
messagetospreadthroughregionalandlocalleveladministrativestructures.
Theprojecthadbeenfunctioningforsixyearsbythetimethisparticularreviewwascommissioned.Therehadbeenreviewsofsomeoftheotheraspectsoverthe
years,andalthoughtheanthropologistattemptedtotracksomeofthemdown,nonewereinitiallymadeavailabletohim.Itseemedthatthevariousactorsinvolvedhad
managedtobuilduprelationshipsofmutualinterdependencebasedonacommoninterestinseeingtheprojectcontinue,whileobjectiveinformationabouttheproject's
progresswasjuggledbetweenthemsothatnosinglegroupintheendtookresponsibilityforthedeficiencieswhichwerebecomingapparenttomanyassociatedwith
theproject.
Theanthropologist'sjobultimatelyinvolvedtryingtoassesstheimpactofthetrainingatthevillagelevelbytalkingtofarmersabouttheusefulnessofthetrainingthey
hadreceived.Butbeforethiswaspossible,itwasnecessarytomakesenseoftheproject'shistory,personnelchangesandshiftsinemphasisthroughthevarious
phasesofitsexistence.Theexperienceofwalkingintotheprojectofficewasnotunlikeotheranthropologicalencounters,inwhichoneisfacedsimultaneouslywiththe
dualtasksofexplainingorjustifyingone'spresenceandtryingtomakesenseofalienlanguage,locations,codesofbehaviourandpowerstructures.Theprojectstaff
hadnotrequestedthatthestudytakeplaceandremainedunsure,evensuspicious,ofitsobjectivesandjustification.
Spatially,thecitybasedofficeillustratedtheboundariesofahierarchywithclearlymarkeddistinctionsinstatusbetweendifferentprojectstaff.Eachexpatriate
consultantsatatadeskinalargeopenplanoffice,aroundwhichclustered,ondrawnupchairs,
Page139
peopleknownas'localconsultants',whomitquicklyturnedoutactedinmostcasesmoreaspersonalassistantstotheforeigners,orasgobetweensbetweenthem
andthegovernment.Therewerealsodifferencesamongtheexpatriates,basedonlengthofservicetotheproject.Oneofthelongestservingteammembershad
mysteriouslymovedhisofficeandentourageacrossthehalltoanentirelyseparatesuite,whereanewprojecttitlehadbeenpastedonthedoorlittlecommunication
apparentlytookplacebetweenthenewandoldoffices.Theanthropologistwasinformedthatthisteammemberwasnolongertechnicallypartoftheproject,although
heseemedtobestillworkingonthesamesetofproblems.Wastheanthropologistsupposedtotalktohimornot?
Oneofthefirstlessonstheanthropologistlearnedwasthatwhileitisnaturalforeveryoneconcernedtofeelalittledefensivewhentheevaluatorarrives,several
responsivestrategiesareopentoprojectstaff.Somearefriendlyandopenfromthestart,whileothersadoptanaloofstanceandtreatinitialtentativeornecessarily
illinformedenquirieswithilldisguiseddisdain.Otherspatientlyreplyatlengthintermsdesignedtoconfuseratherthanclarify.Someareopenlyhostile,whilestillothers
areneveravailableforcomment.Anotherapproachistofendoffenquirieswithpilesoflong,detailedandnotnecessarilyrelevantreports.Somebehavetowards
outsidersverydifferentlyoutsidetheofficeinasocialcontext,wheremuchoftheinteresting,complexor'difficult'informationcanemerge.Allofthisbehaviourwas
immediatelyrecognisablefromvillagefieldworkundertakenafewyearsearlier...
Duringthenexttwomonthstheanthropologistconductedresearchwiththetownbasedconsultantsandotherstaffasinformantsandsupervisedagrassrootsstudy
withlocalfarmersandcooperativestaff.Theresultswereverydisturbing.Thetrainingactivitiesseemedtohavereachedveryfewfarmers.Moreover,manyofthe
cooperativeswhichtheprojectexistedtoserviceexistedonlyinname.Whilesomestaffremainedindifferentorhostile,neverthelesstheanthropologistbuiltupgood
relationshipswithothers.Everyonehadtheirown'version'oftheeventsandthefactsoftheproject.Despitetheemergingevidenceoflackofimpact,manycouldfind
iteasytoignore,avoidresponsibilityforor,moreinterestingly,explainthisfailurewithoutnecessarilyquestioningtheprojectanditsusefulness.Onememberofthe
teamactuallytookituponhimselfto'wineanddine'theanthropologistonenightandexplainthatitmightbegoodforhim(intermsoftheanthropologist'scareer)ifhe
wroteapositivereport.Whentheanthropologist
Page140
madeitobviousthatthiswouldnotbepossible,relationsbecameverybadwiththisparticular(quitepowerful)individual.
Intheendtheanthropologistdiscussedthereportwithprojectstaffbeforeleaving,andnoseriousfactualobjectionswereraised.Theprojectwasphasedoutsoon
afterwards,partlyasaresultofthereport,butalsoduetogrowingevidencefromothersourcesthatallwasnotwell.Intheendtheanthropologistheardinformally
thathisreportwasapparentlyreceivedquitewellbythedonorconcerned,buthewasneverinvitedtogivedetailedfeedbackortodefendparticularpointsagainst
criticism,apartfromashortdebriefingonhiswayhome.Theritualofundertakingthestudyseemednottorequireit.Itwouldbeinterestingtoknowhowmanypeople
actuallyreadthereport.
Therearedifficultethicalchoicesinworkofthiskind.Itistemptingfortheanthropologistevaluatortoattemptperfectioninjudgingtherealitiesofapoorproject,
forgettingthattherearerules(theprojectobjectives)againstwhichaprojectshouldbejudged,ratherthanjudgingitagainst'pure'principles.Anothertemptation
especiallyifoneisinneedofworkistobeaspositiveaspossible,whichmay,intheshorttermatleast,bethepathofleastresistance.
PointsforDiscussion
1.Powerishierarchicalindevelopmentprojects:betweenexpatriateandlocalstaff,externalconsultantsandlocalpersonnel,projectstaffandlocalpeopleor'clients'.
2.Ethicalquestionsarisecontinuallyduringappliedconsultancywork.Doestheanthropologistwanttospoilthechancesofanother,similarjob,bygivingaprojecta
negativewriteup?Willitbeausefulacademiccareermovetopublishapaperwhich'rubbishes'aprojectevenifitisslightlyoverstated?Orisittemptingtoerronthe
sideofcaution,provideacleanbillofhealthforaprojectandhopeformoreworkofthiskind?Theremaybedifferentobjectivesforconsultancyreportsand
academicpaperswhichleadtothetakingofdifferentpositionswiththesamematerialaccordingtocontext.Thiscansometimesappeartobehypocritical.
3.Projectscanrunforconsiderableperiodsoftimewithouteffectiveevaluationorobjectiveassessment.Variousinterests(donors,implementors,stafffactions)can
combinetosupportcontinuationwithoutdueregardtoresults,orwithanoveroptimisticbeliefthat,regardlessofstructurallimitations,positiveresultswilleventuallybe
demonstrable.
Page141
4.Theanthropologist'sknowledgeofthewideragrariancountrycontextconflictedwiththeprimarilydeskbasedoutlookoftheplanners.Thelatterpreferredto
concentrateonthetheoreticalexistenceoffarmers'cooperatives,andonthesetsofinterestswhosewellbeingdependedonanassumptionthatthecooperativeswere
inexistenceandfunctioning.Althoughbyquestioningthistheanthropologistcameintoconflictwithprojectstaff(whosometimessaid,'Youmayberight,butit'snot
ourjobtoquestionthatsideofthings'),anoverallperspectivewasprovidedwhichallowedafullerinvestigationoftheproblems.
5.Theskillsneededforprojectbasedworksuchasthisgeneratedmanyoftheusualmethodologicalproblemsinananthropologist'srelationshiptodifferent
informants,theirexpectationsandreasonsfor'slanting'certaintypesofinformation.
Case2
DisasterPreventionCycloneShelters,CommunityParticipationandNGOs
Oursecondcasestudyisanilluminatingtaleofgooddevelopmentalintentionandbadprojectdesign.Itillustratestheneedtoconsidersocialissuesfromthevery
beginningofaproject'slifecycleensuringthat'communitydevelopment'takesplaceisascomplexandtimeconsumingasconstructingbuildings,perhapsevenmore
so.Ithastobecarefullyplanned,ratherthanaddedonasalastminuteappendage,asissofrequentlythecaseinlargescaletechnicalprojects.Thiscasestudyis,
sadly,alessonin'hownotto'runaprojectwhichsupposedlyinvolves'communitydevelopment'.Itindicatesnotonlytheconstraintsexperiencedbydevelopmental
anthropologists,butalsothosefacingthewidersuccessofmanylargescaleprojects.
Background
Afteradisastrouscycloneinthelate1980sinwhichmanythousandsofpeoplewerekilled,donorsrushedtoprovideaidfortheconstructionofcyclonesheltersinthe
coastalareaofasmall,highlypopulatedandlargelyaiddependentcountryinthetropics.AsinsomanynaturaldisastersintheSouth,manylivesmighthavebeen
savedhadappropriatepreventativeandrescuesystemsbeeninoperation:betterwarningsystems,infrastructureand,cruciallyinthiscase,cycloneshelters.Whilea
substantialnumberofcyclone
Page142
sheltersexistedwhenthecyclonestruck,manypeopledidnotusethemeventhough,intheoryatleast,theyhadbeenwarnedthatacyclonewaslikely(cyclonescan
usuallybepredictedseveraldaysinadvance).
Therewereseveralreasonsforthis.First,manypeoplehadunderestimatedtheseriousnessofthecyclonewarning,livingastheydidinaclimatewhereinparticular
seasonscyclonesarearegularthreat.Second,manyotherseitherchosenottousetheirlocalshelters,orweredeniedaccesstothem.Someoftheexistingshelters
wereinverybadshape,shakinginthewind,withcrumblingwallsandbrokenstairwaysinthesecases,itseemedsafertostayawayfromthebuildingsratherthan
enterthem.Inotherinstances,peopledidnotleavetheirhousesforfearoflooting.Manywomenstayedbehindwiththeirchildren,fortheshelterswereperceivedas
'public'spaceswheretheymightbeharrassedbymen.Withinthecontextoflocalgenderrelations,inwhichpurdah(veiling)isaculturalideal,thiswastragically
common.Lastly,someoftheshelterswereeitheroccupiedbyparticularlypowerfulfamilies(whodeniedaccesstoothers),locked,orbeingusedforstoringgrainor
cattleandthusimpossibletouse.Again,thelocalcontextofeconomicandsocialdifferentiation,factionalismandpatronclientagehelpsexplainwhysomegroups
hadearliergainedcontroloftheshelters.Clearly,whilecyclonesareprimarilyclimatic,socialandculturalfactorsplayalargeroleindeterminingwhathappensbefore,
duringandafterthem.
Whilethereislittlewhichdevelopmentagenciescandotopreventcyclonesfromoccurring,measurestolimittheirdestructionarenotsimplytechnical.Cyclone
resistantshelterscertainlyhavetobebuilt,butvariousotherstepsneedtobetakentoensurethatpeopleusethem.Thesecanbesummarisedasfollows:
1.Sheltersmustbesociallyappropriate:theirdesignmusttakeintoaccountculturalfactorssuchaspurdahbyprovidingseparateroomsandlatrinesforwomen.
2.Sheltersmustbesitedappropriately,e.g.:closetosettlementssothatpeopledonothavetowalklongdistancestoreachthem.
3.Peoplemustbeawareoftheexistenceandpurposeoftheshelter.
4.Sheltersmustbeseenlocallyassharedcommunitybuildings,whicheveryonehasaccessto.Perceived'ownership'mayvitallyinfluencewhetherornottheshelters
areusedinanemergency.
Onewayofensuringpoints3and4areachievedistoputthebuildingstootheruseswhenthereisnoemergency.Ideally,theseshouldinvolveasmanydifferent
groupsaspossible.Sincesocially
Page143
marginalisedgroups(e.g.thelandless,women,migrantlabourers)arethosemostlikelytobedeniedaccessduringacyclone,theseactivitiesmightbebesttargetedat
them.
5.Thebuildingsmustberegularlymaintained.Thisshouldbedonebythecommunity,againinordertogivepeopleasenseof'ownership',butalsotoachievethe
longtermsustainabilityofmaintenanceactivities.
Theprovisionofcyclonesheltersclearlyinvolvesahostofsocialissues.Toensuretheirusebyallgroupsduringacyclone,theprojectsmustalsobeasparticipatory
aspossibleideally,thebuildingofsheltersshouldbeintegratedintowider,'communitydevelopment'typeprogrammes.
TheCycloneShelterCumPrimarySchoolProject
Intheimmediateaftermathofthecyclone,manydonorsandNGOswerekeentobuildcyclonesheltersintheworstaffectedareasofthecountry.Thisprogramme,
fundedbyalargemultilateraldonor,involvedtheconstructionofaproposed200sheltersinspecifiedregionsofthecoastalarea.Asagreedbythenational
government,theshelterswouldalsodoubleasgovernmentrunprimaryschools,manyofwhichhadbeendestroyedintherecentdisaster.Combinedwiththis,the
financingmemorandumsignedbythedonorandthegovernmentproposedthatthebuildingswouldbeusedbylocalNGOstoensurewidercommunityuseofthe
buildingsandparticipationintheirmaintenance.TheNGOs,itwashoped,wouldalsobeinvolvedindisasterpreparednesstraining.Whileitwasnotspecifiedhowthis
wouldtakeplace,itwasassumedthattheNGOsinvolvedwouldpromoteschemestogenerateincomeforbuildingmaintenance,andcarryoutappropriatetraining
programmes.Theywouldalsosharethebuildingwiththegovernmentrunprimaryschool.
TheimplementationoftheprojectwascontractedouttoaEuropeanengineeringfirm,whichweshallcallSmithandCompany.Ithadlocalcounterpartswithinthe
'ProjectImplementationUnit',whowerehiredandemployedbythenationalgovernment.AlthoughSmithandCompanyhadlongtermoverseasexperience,thiswas
whollyinconstruction.Noneofitsemployeeshadbackgroundknowledgeofthecountryconcerned,ofsocialdevelopmentorofNGOs.Thiswasnotperceivedby
thecompanyasaproblem,forwhenthecontractsitwonfromdonorsdemandedsocialinputs,itsimplyhiredshorttermexternalconsult
Page144
ants.Inthefirm'seyes,theprojectwasprimarilytodowithbuildingshelters.Thesubsequentuseofthese,theirimpactonlocalgroupsandissuesof'development'
werenotseen(atleastbytheteamleader)asrelevant.Astheteamleaderingenuouslyputit:'We'reheretomakemoney,notfordevelopment.'
SmithandCompanywas,however,contractuallyobligedbythedonortocarryoutthe'socialcomponent'oftheproject.Withintheprojectdesign,whichhadbeen
writtenbythedonor,twomonthswereprovidedforanexpatriatesocialconsultantandfourmonthsforalocalsocialconsultant.Thetermsofreferenceforthesewere
extremelyvague,fortheteamleaderlackedsufficientknowledgeof'socialdevelopment'orNGOstoknowwhatmightberequired.Indeed,ashelaterconfidedto
theexpatriateconsultant,forthefirstsixmonthsoftheprojecthewasnotevensurewhatanNGOwas.Uponarrivingtocarryoutthejob,theexpatriatesocial
consultantwastold:'Dowhateveryouthinkisappropriate.'Adefactoversionoftheseinvisibletermsofreferencewasto:
assesstheviabilityofcollaboratingwithlocalNGOsintheuseofthecyclonesheltersand
setupmechanismsforcontractingsocialdevelopmentactivitiestolocalNGOs.
Thiswasanenormoustask.Sincetheprojectinvolved200shelters,intheorythiscouldhavemeantcollaboratingwith200differentNGOs.Whileinsomecoastal
areastherewerealreadyseveralwellrespectedNGOsworkingwithinlocalcommunities,inotherstherewerefew,ifany.Evenifonlythelarger,nationallevelNGOs
withagreatergeographicalspreadwereinvolved,thelogisticsofassessingthemandnegotiatingandcoordinatingtheirinvolvementweremindboggling,especiallyina
contextwheretherewaslittlenationalcoordinationofNGOsandthespiritwasmoreoneofcompetitionthancooperation.
NGOscouldbeinvitedtosubmitprojectproposals,buttherewaslittletopreventthesefrombeingbogus.Asonemightexpect,wheneverdonorsareoffering
comparativelylargesumsofmoney,itisnotuncommonforsomeorganisationstooverestimatetheirowncapacityandcapabilitiesinordertoaccessfunds.Ontopof
this,thegovernmenthadanambivalentattitudetowardsNGOs,andforthefirst18monthsoftheprojecttheMinistryofEducation,whichfirstandforemostsawthe
buildingsasprimaryschoolsratherthancycloneshelters,refusedtocooperate.
Althoughtheobjectivesoftheprojectwerelaudableonasuperficiallevel,inrealityitsdesignwasthereforehighlynaive,reflecting
Page145
thedonor'signoranceoflocalconditionsandofwhatcollaborativeworkwithNGOsmightinvolve.EveniflargenumbersofNGOsweretobeintegratedintothe
project,therewerenoproceduresinthedesignformonitoringandevaluatingtheirwork.Norhadthefuturesustainabilityoftheirprogrammesbeenconsidered.The
projectintendedtofundthemintheir'communitydevelopment'activitiesforthreeyears,afterwhichtimeitsworkwouldbeconsideredfinishedandSmithand
Companywouldwinddownitsoperations.Yet,unliketheconstructionofbuildings,'communitydevelopment'cannotbecarriedoutinafewbriefmonths.Instead,the
workofthebestNGOscanneverbeshortterm:simplysettingupasavingsgrouporprovidingfunctionaleducationcantakeseveralyears,especiallyifthe
organisationhasnopreexistingcontactsinthecommunityconcerned.Takingthingsfurtherinvolvesevenmoretime.
Combinedwiththis,theprojectobjectiveofcommunity'participation'waspreposterous.Theselectionofsitesandshelterdesignwasalreadynearingcompletion
duringthesocialconsultant'sfirstinput.Therewasclearlynoopportunityforlocalpeopletoparticipateintheseprocesses.Suggestionsthattheymightbeinvolvedin
thesupervisionofcontractors'work,ashadbeenthecaseinthecycloneshelterbuildingprogrammesofsomeofthemoreradicalNGOs,werenottakenseriouslyby
theProjectImplementationUnit.Whileincludedasabuzzwordintheprojectdesign,participationwassimplynotpossiblegiventhatprojectobjectivesandschedules
hadbeenpreparedfarinadvance.
Thesocialconsultantshadatotalofsixmonthstodotheirwork.Whilethelocalsociologistmighthavebeeninvaluable,hewasunfortunatelyentirelyunsuitable,having
beenrecruitedbyengineerswhohadnotknownwhatqualitiestolookfor.Ineffect,then,thebulkoftheworkwaslefttotheexpatriateconsultant,whohadtwo
monthstodoajobwhichneededatleastayear,shouldhavebeenstartedbeforethebuildingofthesheltersandwouldcertainlyneedtocontinueafterthe
constructionwascompleted.
Aftercompletinghisfirstmonth'sinput,theexpatriateconsultanthadcompiledalistofsuitableNGOsworkinginoneareaoftheproposedproject.Hehadvisitedas
manyoftheseaspossible,butsincethelistonlyincludedsevensheltersitesthiswasonlythetipoftheiceberg.Initial'feelers'hadbeenputoutastowhether
organisationsmightbeinterestedinparticipatingintheproject.Theleastreputableorexperiencedhadjumpedatthechanceoffunding,whilethebesthadindicated
thattheydidnothavethecapacitytoexpandfurther,letaloneforsomanyshelters.TheProjectImple
Page146
mentationUnit,however,waskeenforNGOstotakeonasmanysitesaspossible,forthiswouldmakeprojectadministrationfareasier.Italsoinsistedthatitshould
dictatetotheNGOswhatactivitiestheywouldcarryout.TheSmithandCompanyteamleader,whosepreviousexperiencehadbeenwhollyinthecommercialsector,
sawthemverymuchaspotentialemployeescontractedtodoaspecificjobandwasaghastthattheydidnotnecessarily'jump'whencalled.
Inhisreporttotheproject,theconsultantrecommendedthattheonlywayinwhichNGOinvolvementmightbesuccessfullyimplementedwastoemployafulltime
localconsultanttoassessNGOproposals,negotiatetheirinvolvementandhelpmonitorwork.Althoughthedonorreadilyagreedtothissuggestion,oneyearlaterthis
hadbeenrepeatedlyrefusedbytheMinistryofEducation.Aftertheconsultant'sinputhadended,theteamleader,leftwithoutadvice,initiateddiscussionswithalarge,
semigovernmentalorganisationwithapresenceinthecoastalareaandanationalreputationforcorruption.Sincethiswastheonlyorganisationwhichcoulddealwith
suchalargescaleproject,thisappearedtobetheonlyoptionleft.
ThePrimarySchoolscumCycloneSheltersProjectisacaseparexcellenceofbadplanning,assumingthatthedonorsweresincereintheirdesiretointegratelocal
communitiesintheuseandmaintenanceoftheirshelters.Itisanexampleofhowinsomanycapitalintensiveprojects,socialusageisperceivedbythe'developers'as
marginal.Therewasplentyofscopeforcreativeanthropologicalinput,butitshouldhavebeenatthebeginningoftheproject.Matterswouldalsohavebeenhelped
hadtheProjectImplementionUnitnotbeencomposedentirelyofexpatriateengineers,withnolocalexperienceorknowledgeofsocialissues.Muchtimewasspent
bythebeleagueredteamleaderlearningwhatNGOswere,andwhattheydid.LikemanyofSmithandCompany'semployees,hiscommitmenttotheiraimswas
minimal,forhesawhisworkintermsofprofitandconstruction.
PointsforDiscussion
1.ShouldanthropologistscollaboratewithprivateconsultancycompanieswhoquiteopenlyadmitthattheirpresenceinSoutherncountriesisonlyforprofit?Whilethe
obviousanswermightbe'no',weshouldbearinmindthatananthropologistcanplayaneducativerolewithinsuchcompanies,helpingtoopencolleagues'eyestothe
socialimplicationsoftheirwork.
Page147
2.Doesananthropologicalpresencelegitimiseaprojectwhichinrealityinvolvesverylittlesocialdevelopmentorparticipation?Inthiscase,theanswerisprobably
'yes'.However,itwouldbetoocynicaltosuggestthatthiswastheoriginalintentionofthedonors,whogenuinelyhopedthatbyincludingaparagraphintheirproject
designtheywouldhavea'communitydevelopment'styleproject.
Howmightsimilarscenariosbeavoided?Letusturntoourlastcasestudy,anexampleofthepotentialsunleashedbyanthropologicalinvolvementfromtheoutset.
Case3
TheFishFarm'theTailWaggingtheDog'?
Ourthirdcasestudyhighlightsthetensionsbetweenthe'technicalfix'aspectsofmanyprojectsandthetypesof'soft'informationthatareofinteresttoanthropologists.
Itconcludeswithanexampleoftheproductive'fusing',aftersomeinitialdifficulties,ofthesetwosetsofemphases.
Inrecentyearsthegovernment,donorsandNGOsinanAsiancountrydiscoveredthatwhileagriculturewasnearingoptimumconditionsintermsoflocalresource
utilisationanddeployment,theinlandfisheriessectorappearedtoofferconsiderablepotentialforimprovingresourceutilisation,increasingproductionofscarceanimal
proteinandimprovingfoodavailabilityforthepopulation.Increasingfishproductionthroughaquaculture(theculturingoffishinponds)cametobeseenasan
importantrouteforincreasingfoodproductionandtherebyaddressingtheissueofpoverty.
Fishhavelongbeenanimportantpartofthelocaldiet,sincethecountrycontainsavastriverdeltaandiswaterloggedformuchoftheyear.Decliningnatural
availabilityandincreasingpopulationpressurehave,however,ledtostrainsontheavailabilityofwildfishandtheprevailing'extensive'systemoffarming.Aquaculture,
whichisjustbeginningtobepractisedintensively,isseenasaviablesolutiontothisdeficit.Fishcanbespawnedartificiallyinhatcheries,introducedintopondsinthe
formofsmall'fingerlings'5or8centimetreslong(sometimesknownalsoas'fry'),andthengrowntofoodfishsizeforsaleorconsumptionwithinaboutsixmonths.
Sincethismoreintensiveapproachtogrowingfishisstillrelativelynew,thedevelopmentagencieshaveworkedtotrytosupportitsgrowthwithtechnicaladviceand
assistance.Inparticular,oneEuropeangovernmentagencydevelopedamultimillionpoundprojectbasedaroundtheconstructionofalarge,
Page148
hightechnologyfishhatcherywhichitwashopedwouldprovideavastsupplyofhatchlingsforlocalfishfarmersandgrowersinanareawithverylimitednatural
supply.Althoughlimitedamountsofhatchlingshadhithertobeenavailablefromtherivers,thislevelofavailabilityhadbecomeplainlyinadequateforpresentneeds.
Theideaquicklygainedsupportandaprojectwasplannedwiththeparticipationofthegovernment'sFisheriesDepartment.Anoldanddisusedhatcherywaslocated
andaplanwasdevelopedtoupgradeitintoalarge,multipondproductionunitofferingmanydifferentspeciesoffishtolocalfarmers,coupledwithadviceon
extension,helpwithgainingaccesstoinputsandcreditfacilities.Thedesignwasdrawnupratherquicklybytheplanners,withoutmuchreferencetolocalpeople,and
withoutsufficientunderstandingofeithertheconstraintsunderwhichtheywereproducingtheirfishorthepotentialvalueoflocalknowledge.
Asworkprogressed,expatriateandlocalprojectstaffbeganlearningmoreaboutthelocaleconomyandecology.Someofthis'onthejob'learningbeganto
contradictcertainassumptionsimplicitintheprojectdesign.Forexample,theaquaculturewhichwasbeingconductedlocally(albeitonafairlysmallscale)was
supportedbyacomplexnetworkofrelationshipsandtransactions,involvingbothrichandpoorpeople,whobenefiteddisproportionatelyfromtheparticipationinthe
networks.
Inordertoexplorefurthertheissueswhichwerecomingtolight,aseriesofsocialresearchstudieswerecommissionedbythedonor,involvingresearchersfromaUK
universityworkingincollaborationwithalocalresearchorganisation.Anumberofthesestudieswereundertakenusingananthropologicalmethodologybasedupon
participantobservationandsemistructuredinterviews.Thesebegantorevealarangeof'hidden'issueswhichitbecameclearwereofgreatimportancetothesuccess
oftheproject.
Inparticular,whiletheplannershadassumedthatthebenefitsofincreasedfishproductionwould'trickledown'tothoseinthecommunitywithlowincomes,sucha
viewwashardtosustain.Thecomplexnetworkofproducers,intermediariesandtradersincludedbothwealthymembersofthelocalruralelitesandlandlesspeople
withfewassetsandlowincomes.Thelocalmarketsthroughwhichinputsforaquaculturewereboughtandsoldwerefarfromperfect.Instead,therewerecartels
controllingthemovementofhatchlingsandfingerlingsaroundthecountry,andformsof'tied'credit(e.g.inwhichanagreementboundthelesspowerfulcredittakerto
anobligationtosellproducebacktothecreditgiveratadisadvanta
Page149
geousprice)whichrestrictedtheabilityofbuyersandsellerstoshoparoundforthebestprices.
Furthermore,theplanners'assumptionsabouttechnicalsolutionstolocalproblemshadtakenlittleaccountoflocalknowledge,whichwasfoundtobehighly
developedincertainrathersurprisingways.Forexample,whilethehightechnologysolutiontofishseedtransportationrequiredtheuseofoxygencanistersandplastic
bags,localtradershadlongbeenusinganindigenoussysteminvolvingaluminiumorclaycookingpotsandthemaintenanceoftherequiredoxygenlevelsusingahighly
skillediftiringhandsplashingtechnique.WithouttheknowledgeorhelpofWestern'experts',localfishseedtradersweremovingvastqualitiesoffingerlings
aroundthecountryontrains,busesandrickshaws,sometimesoverdistancesofmorethan160kilometres,usingthissophisticatedsystemoflocallyevolved
techniques.
Theworkoftheanthropologistthereforesignificantlybroadenedtheknowledgebaseandtheperspectiveoftheproject,bringingtolightdetailswhichhadremained
'hidden'totheplanners.Perhaps,thesocialscientistsbegantoargue,thereweregoodreasonswhytherewerenosuccessfulhatcheriesinthispartofthecountryand
thesereasonshadbeenlargelyoverlookedbytheplanners.Somelocalpeopleweresayingthatthewaterwastoorichiniron,whichmadefishbreedingdifficult,a
factthatwasstartingtobeconfirmedbythescientiststhemselves.Perhapsthetradingandtransportationnetworkwhichexistedwascapableofbringingfingerlings
intotheareabyitselfandcouldmeetdemandeffectively,inwhichcasethelocalproductioncentrewasnotnecessary.Atworst,ifthehatcheryachieveditstarget
output,allthelowincome,longdistancefishtradersmightbemaderedundantandwouldloseimportantincomegeneratingopportunities,thusneutralisingoreven
contradictingthepovertyfocusedintentionsoftheproject.
Manyofthesefindingsweregreetedunenthusiasticallybyprojectstaff,whowerefacedwiththeprospectofarelativelystraightforwardtechnologicalintervention
(buildahatchery,trainlocalpeopleinitsuse,producemorefishforeveryone)turningintoarathermorecomplicatedandlessclearcutventure.Someprojectstaff
begantocomplainprivatelythatthesocialscientistsweregettinginthewayoftheprojectandthathavingthemaroundwaslike'thetailwaggingthedog'.Again,
technologywasassumedtobethepointoftheexcercise.
Atthispoint,considerablenegotiationskillswereneededonbothsidestoovercomemisunderstandingsandprofessionalpride.Forexample,itwastemptingforthe
anthropologisttocriticisethe
Page150
donorsforleavingthesocialscienceresearchuntilaftertheprojecthadalreadybeendesignedandstarted.Thishadbeenaseriousmistake,butonewhichtoomany
professionalcareersrestedupontoallowtheerrortobeopenlyadmitted.Thefisheriesscientiststhoughtthesocialresearchtendedtowardsnaivetyandnegativity,
andpouncedeagerlyuponexamplesofsocialscientists'ignoranceofspecialisedtechnicalinformationwheneveritwaspresented.Thiswasadebatewhichconcerned
the'types'ofknowledgeconsiderednecessaryfordevelopment.
Theworkofthesocialscientistswaseventuallyusedconstructivelyinordertoreorienttheprojectininnovativeandinterestingways.Itwasdecidedtotryto
encouragetherelativelypoorfishfrytraderstobroadentheirresourcebasebysellingadvice(afterrelevanttrainingfromprojectstaff)aboutfishpondcultivationand
managementtofishfarmersaswellassellingfishfry,anideawhichtheyfoundinterestingandpotentiallyuseful.Thisfrytraderextensionstrategywasanideathathad
emergedfromdiscussionsbetweenlocalstaff,farmersandresearchers,takinganindigenoussystem(thenetworkofrelationshipsbetweenfishseedtradersandpond
operators)andprovidingagroupofactorsinthatsystemwithtraininginpondculturepractice.Ethnographicinvestigationhadshownthattechnicalknowledgeoffish
productionwasinshortsupply,sincefishcultureofthiskindwasarelativelynewactivity.Thistrainingcouldthenfeedintoareadymadedistributionandextension
system,sinceithadbeenlearnedthatpondownersoftenaskedthefingerlingtradersforadviceonfishcultureissues,eventhoughmosttraderswereunableto
provideitadequately.
PointsforDiscussion
1.Arecurringproblemisthenoninvolvementofanthropologistsintheinitialplanningstagesofprojects.
2.Anthropologicalknowledgecanbeparticularlyusefulinunderstandingmanyofthehiddendifficultiesunderlyingasetofplanner'sassumptions,manyofwhichmay
bebiasedtowardstechnologyratherthantowardspeople.
3.Byopeningupavenuesfordiscussionwithlocalpeople,andidentifyingsomeofthepotentiallycontradictoryinterestsandneedsofdifferentclassesandgroups,
betterdecisionscanbemadeaboutrespondingtofeltneedsandtargetingwhattheprojecthastooffertospecificcategoriesofperson.
4.Farmorecanbeachievedbybuildinguponexistingsystemsthanbyimportingandimposingnewtechnologiesandideas
Page151
fromoutside.Forexample,locallyadaptedandhighlyskilledfishseedtransportationsystems,whilearchaicand'lowtech',werenotapriorityforchange,whereas
particulartypesofscarceknowledge,whichtheprojectcouldquiteeasilysupply,wereinconsiderabledemand.
5.Negotiationswithprojectstaffcanbejustassensitiveasdiscussionwithother'informants'.Anthropologistsmayendupbeingfarlesssensitivewiththesepeople
thantheyarewiththeirmore'traditional'informants(seecase1onruralcooperativetraining).
Conclusion
Wehopethatthesecasestudiesillustratetherangeofproblemsandpotentialsinstoreforanthropologistswhotaketheprofessionalrouteandengageinpractical
developmentwork.Eachoneraisesasetofquestions,whichcanbedebatedatlength.However,wewouldliketoendthischapterwithsomeconcludingthoughts
abouttheroleoftheappliedanthropologistindevelopmentwork.
Grillo(1985:7)hassuggesteddispensingaltogetherwiththeterm'appliedanthropology'andreplacingitwith'amuchbroadernotionofcontextuallydefined
professionalactivity',partlybecauseitexpresses'whatoughttobe'asopposedtowhatactuallyhappensinpractice.Furthermore,assoonasonemovesawayfroma
narrowdescriptionofappliedroles,thedistinctionbetween'applied'and'pure'anthropologybeginstobreakdown.Amoreaccurateandrealisticassessmentofthe
anthropologist'spotentialindevelopmentworkmightbebaseduponthediscipline'sabilityto'seebeyond'whatisinitiallyassumedandexplorethecomplexityof
socialandeconomicsituations.
Manyofthosediscussinganthropologyanddevelopmenthavereachedsimilarkindsofconclusions.Belshaw(1976)stressestheideaoftheanthropologist'swider
socialresponsibilitiesanddeploysthemetaphorofthe'sorceror'sapprentice'toarguehiscase.Theanthropologistiswithouta'firmtechnique'ordistinctcraft,but
maybeabletoplayanadvisoryroleaimedatmoderatingthetemptation,amongpolicymakersandotherswithpower,tounleashforcesoverwhich,inlatetwentieth
centurysociety,wecanexpecttohaveonlylimitedcontrol.Hoben(1982:366)islessdramatic,butarguesconvincinglythat'thediscipline'stheoreticalcontribution
liesintheelucidationofmeansendrelationships,ratherthaninthechoiceofendsthemselves'.
Page152
Rarelyareanthropologistsabletoagreeeitheramongthemselvesorwithdevelopmentpractitionersonasinglecourseofunproblematicaction,buttheyarewell
equippedtopointoutthesignificanceofcomplex,oftenhidden,relationshipsbysodoing,theycanprovideuniqueandpotentiallyvaluablecontributions.Following
fromthis,Grillo(1985:21)suggeststhattheessenceoftheanthropologicalperspectiveisthatitisholistic,inwhich'unitsofstudyareconceivedascomplexwholes
consistingofamultiplicityofrelatedelements'.DespitetheinterestingworkofanthropologicalmacrotheoristssuchasEricWolf,theanthropologicalperspective
usuallyretainsasignificantlocaldimension,oratleastonewhichbeginswithindividualperceptionsandoutlooksandthenseekstodrawconnectionsandlinks
betweenexperienceandwiderrealities.Anthropologistscandescribehowpeopleact,thinkandfeelastheworldchanges.
Despiteitsimportantmethodologicalcontributionstodevelopmentwork,anthropologyremainsprimarilya'wayofseeing'ratherthanaspecificsetofskillsoratool
kit.Oneofthemainwaysofapplyinganthropology,asWolf(1964)pointsout,isthereforetoteachthisdistinctiveoutlookandideasmorewidelytopeopleworking
inotherfields.Nowhereistheneedmorepressingthanintheworldofdevelopment,whereprevailingdiscoursesareperhapsnowmoreopentorenegotiationand
changethaneverbefore.
Page153
7
BeyondDevelopment?
Bynowitshouldbeclearthatanthropology'srelationshiptodevelopmentisrivenwithcontradiction.Whileontheonehandanthropologistshaveformanygenerations
workedwithingovernmentalandnongovernmentalorganisations,demonstratinghowmuchthedisciplinehastoofferintermsofimprovingtheworkofdevelopers,
otheranthropologistsareengagedinaradicalcritiqueoftheverynotionofdevelopment,arguingthatasaconceptitismorally,politicallyandphilosophicallycorrupt.
Aswehaveseen,thesedifferentandoftenconflictingpositionshavealonghistoryandtoanextentsimplyrepresentthediversityofviewsthatonewouldexpectto
findamonganygroupofindividuals:thereisnoreasonwhyanthropologistsandtheiropinionsshouldbehomogeneous.
Inthepostmodern/poststructuralistcontextofthe1990s,however,thetwoapproachesappeartobefurtherapartthanever.Inthisconcludingchapterweshall
suggestthatthisneednotnecessarilybethecase.Indeed,whileitisabsolutelynecessarytounravelanddeconstruct'development',ifanthropologistsaretomake
politicallymeaningfulcontributionstotheworldsinwhichtheyworktheymustcontinuetomakethevitalconnectionbetweenknowledgeandaction.Thismeansthat
theuseofappliedanthropology,bothwithinandoutsidethedevelopmentindustry,mustcontinuetohavearole,butindifferentwaysandusingdifferentconceptual
paradigmsthanpreviously.
This'involvedanthropology'isundoubtedlyfraughtwithdanger.Inthissenseitisperhapsthemosttestingandproblematicdomainforindividualanthropologiststo
workin,whetherasdetachedcriticsorasconsultantshiredbyaidagencies.Butthisshouldnotmeanthattheyshunpracticalinvolvement,althoughtheymayneedto
becarefulaboutwhatformittakes.Anthropologistsshouldalsonotexpectinvolvementtobeeasy.Iftheyhaveany
Page154
collectiveresponsibilityitisendlesslytoquestionandproblematisetheirpositions,tobeuncomfortable,andwiththeirquestionstomakeothersuncomfortable.Thisis
asourceofcreativity,aswellasaformofpoliticalengagement.Itisalso,however,aperilouspathtotake.
UnpickingDevelopment
AsFerguson(1990:xiii)haspointedout:
Like'civilisation'inthenineteenthcentury,'development'isthenamenotonlyforavalue,butalsoforadominantproblematicorinterpretivegridthroughwhichtheimpoverished
regionsoftheworldareknowntous.Withinthisintepretivegrid,ahostofeverydayobservationsarerenderedintelligibleandmeaningful.
Layingbaretheassumptionsbehindsuch'interpretivegrids',andthusindicatingtherelationshipbetweenknowledge,discourseandthereproductionofpower,isone
ofthemostimportanttasksofthecontemporaryanthropologyofdevelopment,aprojectwhichhasburgeonedinrecentyears.
Forexample,Hobart(1993:4)haswrittenaboutthewaysinwhichdevelopmentproblemsareconceptualisedinrelationtoWestern'worldorderingknowledge',
whilethestateof'ignorance'isnotsimplytheabsenceofknowledge,butastateofbeingwhichisascribedbythosewithpowertothosewithout.Aswesawinthe
fishtraders'casestudydescribedinChapter6,whileforeignaquacultureexpertsdealinatypeoftechnicalknowledgewhichseestheblanketapplicationofhigh
technologysolutionstoproblemsoffishseedtransportation,localknowledgerepresentsthesituationratherdifferently.Peopleareconstitutedasactivelyseeking
solutionstotheproblemsofmaintainingoxygenlevelsinwater,andtheirsolutionsarerootedinpracticeratherthanintheory.Althoughtradersknewthattheyneeded
tooxygenatethewaterbyhandtokeeptheirfishalive,theydidnothaveascientificexplanationastowhythisshouldbedone.Suchactivityismoreakintoasetof
'performanceskills'withahighlevelofimprovisationinvolved(P.Richards,1993),thantoacoherentorpermanentsystemoflocalknowledge.
Thenewanthropologyofdevelopmentcanalsobeusedtodeconstructtheknowledgeofdevelopersaswellasthose'tobedeveloped'.Althoughoftencaricaturedas
simplyinvolving'scientificrationality',thisisalsomorecomplex,inmuchthesamewaythat'indigenousknowledge'is.Asourcasestudiesindicate,developmentplans
areoftenfarfromrational,andrelationships
Page155
withindevelopmentinstitutionsareashierarchical,unequalandculturallyembeddedasanyofthesocietiesusuallystudiedbyanthropologists.Theinterfacebetween
developersandthosetobedevelopedisnotsimplyacaseofbinaryoppositions:modern('scientific')versustraditional('indigenous')thought.Instead,theparadigms
withinwhichdevelopersworkareascontextuallycontingent,culturallyspecificandcontestedasthoseofthesocialgroupswhomtheytarget.Whatmustnotbelost
sightof,however,isthatdiscoursesofdevelopmentareproducedbythoseinpowerandoftenresult(evenifunintentionally)inreproducingpowerrelationsbetween
areasoftheworldandbetweenpeople.
Theseperspectiveshelpanthropologiststurnahighlycriticaleyeontheassumptionswhichliebehindthosewhospeakof'development'inboththeresourcerich
NortherncountriesandtheeconomicallypoorcountriesoftheSouth.TheyhelprevealhowthelanguageusedintheNorthtodescribetheThirdWorldisnotneutral,
butreflectsthecontinuinginequalitiesarisingfromthehistoriesofcolonisation,theneedforNorthernstatestomaintaintheirpositionofeconomicdominanceandthe
limitedvisionthatthoseinrichercountriesmayhaveoftheglobalfuture.Italsobecomesclearhowdevelopmenthasbeeninstitutionalised,andthepeoplewhowork
withinitsprojectsprofessionalised.Importantissuesareraisedconcerningtheproductionandusesofknowledge,aboutthelegitimacyorotherwiseofthe'experts'
whoprovideadvice,aboutthelevelofparticipationoflocalpeopleinprojectsandabouttheintendedandunintendedeconomicandpoliticalconsequencesofthe
wholedevelopmententerpriseasitiscarriedoutacrosstheworld.
AnthropologyandDevelopment:MovingOn
Discomforting,butnonethelesscrucial,questionsarealsoaskedabouttheinvolvementindevelopmentworkofanthropologists,whoarefrequentlyaccusedof'buying
in'tothedominantdiscourseandthusperpetuatingglobalinequalityevenwhileattemptingto'dogood'.Asoneofitsfiercestcritics,ArturoEscobar(1991,6747),
putsit:
Developmentinstitutionsarepartandparcelofhowtheworldisputtogethersoastoensurecertainprocessesofruling.Undertheseconditions,developmentanthropology
almostinevitablyupholdsthemaintenetsofdevelopment...forallitsclaimtorelevancetosocialproblems,toculturalsensitivity...[developmentanthropology]...hasdone
nomorethan
Page156
recycleanddressinmorelocalisedfabrics,thediscoursesofmodernisationanddevelopment.
Suchperspectivesarevitalintheongoingtaskofrethinkingandthusremakingtheworld.Aswehavestated,anthropologistsmustcontinuetoaskdifficultquestionsof
themselvesandofothers.Butaswellasshowingthattheveryconceptofdevelopmentandallofitsdiscursiveparaphernalia(includingtheroleofdevelopment
anthropology)isdeeplyproblematic,anthropologistsinandofdevelopmentshouldalsobeproducingideasonhowtochangeit.Forthemtocriticisetheinabilityof
'development'todeliverisrelativelyeasyunderstandingandsupportingthealternativesaremoredifficult.
Whyshouldanthropologistsremaininvolved?ReadingthroughsomeofthetextsproducedbypoststructuralistsitmightappearthattheproblemsofSouthern
countriesaresimplyaconstruct,afigmentofthepostcolonialimagination,andajustificationforthecontinuingdominationoftheSouthbytheNorth.Itiscertainly
truethateveryeffortmustbemadetomovebeyondperceivingthe'ThirdWorld'incrudeanddebilitatingstereotypeswhichnegatetheagency,dynamismandself
relianceofthosewhoarelabelled'thepoor'.Itshouldalsoberecognisedthatthe'ThirdWorld'ifthisistobeunderstandintermsofmarginalisationalsoexists
withintheNorthwitnessthescandalofhomelessnessandsocialdeprivationwithinthecitiesofBritainandtheUS.Lastly,thosefrommateriallyrichersocietiesneed
torecognisethedegreetowhichtheirviewsareembeddedwithintheirownculturalassumptions.
Yetwhileitisimportanttoacknowledgethatnoteveryoneperceivestheworldinthesameterms,globalinequalitiesandpovertycannotsimplybeexplainedawayas
culturallyrelative.Thefirstproblemwiththisstanceisthatitreliesuponthenotionofboundedandseparatecultures,allofwhichhavetheirowninternallogicinthis
viewthereareclearlynouniversals.Recentdiscussionsofglobalisationchallengesuchideas(Featherstone1990Hannerz,1992).Indeed,itisincreasinglyrecognised
thattheworldanditsculturesarehighlyinterconnected.Peoplearenotsimplyseparatedbytheinvisibleandimpermeablewallsofculture.Althoughthereisofcourse
greatdiversityamongsocieties,therearealsogreatsimilarities.
Second,whileasanideologicalpositionculturalrelativismmaybe'politicallycorrect',itcanleadtocomplacency,atbothanindividualandastatelevel.Itmayalso
negatethestrugglesandper
Page157
ceptionsofthosefightingtochangeconditionswithintheirsocieties,whomayrequestandwelcomethesolidarityofoutsiders.Inthesecases,therelativismofpost
modernistapproachesisindangerofcollapsingintodepoliticisedirresponsibility.AsMicaeladiLeonardo(1991:24)comments:
Inotherwords,thereisnoplaceforanymorallyevaluativeorpoliticallycommittedstancewithinthedisintegratinglogicofpoststructuralism.Itisfundamentallynihilist...
Ironically,givenitssometimeassociationwithradicalpoliticalstances,poststructuralismdoesnotchallengethestatusquoinanincreasinglyretrogradeera.
Similarissueshavebeenhotlydebatedwithinfeminism.Whilethe'politicsofdifference'(therecognitionofthediversityoffeministvoicesandexperienceand,by
extension,thecritiqueofwhite,Westernfeminists'representations)hasbeencentraltodebateswithinfeministtheoryinrecentyears,somefeministsworrythatan
idealofendlessdifferencemightcausefeminismtoselfdestruct.Forthefeministmovementtohaveanymeaning,theremustthereforebepostmodern'stopping
points'(Nicholson,1990:8),arecognitionthatthereareglobalisedstructuresofdominanceandsubordination.Thesearenotsimplyaconstruct(Bordo,1990:149).
Anothermajorproblemwiththedeconstructionaliststanceisthatitmakesactiveinvolvementinprocessesofchangedifficult,forthetermsinwhichsuchchangeis
thoughtofarethemselvessuspicious,asisanyNortherninvolvementinSouthernsocieties(seeGlossary).ThosefromtheNorth1 thereforebecomesilenced,unable
toactbeyondproducinghostilecritiquesoftheworkofthosewhoareinvolved.Butifthisisalltheydo,theircontributionbecomesreductive:theydetractwhile
addingnothing.Althoughunpicking'development'isclearlyapoliticalaswellasanacademicact,theironyofpoststructuralismisthatitcanthusalsobeinherently
depoliticising.
Ifanthropologistsaretoretainacommitmenttoimprovingtheworldtheythereforeneedtomovebeyonddeconstruction,takingwiththemitscriticalinsights,but
leavingbehindthepoliticalapathythatitsometimesevokes.Therearemoralabsolutesintheworldpeoplearenotmerelyatomisedindividuals,endlesslyfragmented
bydiversity,withwhollydifferentperceptionsandexperiences.Peoplehavearighttobasicmaterialneedstheyalsohavearighttofulfiltheirindividualpotential,
whetherthisinvolvesbecomingliterate,retainingtheirculturalidentityortheirfreedom,havingthemeanstogenerateanincome,orwhatever.Yetmanymillionsof
peoplethroughouttheworldaredeniedtheserights.Wethereforemakenoapologiesforarguingthatprofessionallyaswell
Page158
aspersonallyanthropologistsshouldbeactivelyengagedinattemptingtochangetheconditionswhichproducepoverty,inequalityandoppression.
Onewayinwhichanthropologistscanmoveforwardistoshifttheirfocusawayfromdevelopmentandontorelationsofpovertyandinequality.Thismeansthatthere
isstillanimportantroleforanthropologistsworkingwithindevelopment,forfromtheirpositionsasparticipantstheycancontinuallyinsistthatinequalityandpoverty
associalrelationshipsremainatthetopoftheagenda.Aswehavearguedthroughoutthisbook,theycanalsoworkontheinstitutionsconcerned,whethertheseare
donoragencies,governmentsorNGOs,insistingthatthedevelopmentdiscourseitselfchanges.Afterall,discourseisaproductofthosewhoproduceititdoesnot
simplyexistinavacuum.Anthropologistscanthereforebeactiveagentsinradicallyreformulatingit.Toconsiderfurtherhowthismightbedone,andtheinherent
dangersofappliedwork,letusreturntotheroleofanthropologistsindevelopment.
WorkingfromWithin
Asinsidersintheaidindustry,anthropologistscanplayapartinensuringthattheissuesofequityandparticipationwithinthe'developmentprocess'(asopposedtothe
simpler,moremeasurablenotionsofeconomicgrowthandtechnologicalchange)areuppermostintheapproachesandpracticesofthoseworkingindevelopment.
Theseareinmanyways'anthropological'issues,forthetraditionalsubjectmatterofanthropologysmallscale,lowincomeruralcommunitieshasgenerateda
wealthofinformationabouthowthedifferentelementsofasocietyfittogether,andhow,byextension,thingscouldbeimproved.Aswehavearguedthroughoutthis
book,anthropologistsaskcrucialquestionsregardingpeople'saccesstoresourcesandthedifferentialeffectsofchange.Itisvitalthatthesequestionsstayonthe
developers'agenda,for,aswehaveseen,manyplannershavelimitedinsightintotheeffectsoftheirworktheyneedtobeconstantlyremindedthatchangeis
inherentlysocial.
Onerolethatanthropologistscanplayisthereforetokeepthedevelopersundercontrol.Mairwroteinherstudyofanthropologyanddevelopmentthatoneofthe
mainrolesofthesocialanthropologististo'begtheagentsofdevelopmenttokeeptheireyesopen'(1984:13)andtorepresenttheinterestsandthediscontentof
thosepeoplepassedoverbytheneworder(s)createdbyeconomic
Page159
progress.ButMair'sviewremainstosomeextentoneoftheanthropologistmediatingbetweenthedeveloperandthedevelopedalongtheinevitablepathofprogress.
Whenshepointsoutthattheanthropologistcanusefullywarndevelopersof'resistancelikelytobemet'(ibid.:4),thisisafarcryfromtheanthropologistas,ideally,a
fullparticipantinquestioningdevelopmentitselforfacilitatingtheparticipationofpeopleinthoseprocesses.
Anthropologyhasothertypesofcontributionstomakebeyondbeingamediatorbetweenthedevelopersandthosetobe'developed'.Anthropologistsaretrained
sceptics:theytendtoarguethatsituationsandideasareusuallymorecomplicatedthanisimmediatelyapparenttheybelievethatnofactordetailistootrivialtobe
consideredtheymaypreferqualitytoquantitytheyarerarelyreadytoofferconclusionsoradviceintermsofastraightforwardcourseofaction.Allthesequalities
areofcourseofimmensevalueininformingplannedchange,buttheysituneasilywithinthetimeframesandprioritiesoftheworldofdevelopmentpractice.Tosome
developmentpractitioners,anthropologistsarethereforeanadministrativenightmare,becausetheknowledgeandideasinwhichtheydealseemtohaveverylittle
practicalapplicabilityand,worsestill,canraiseendlessproblems.Yettheuneasinessandfrustrationsometimescreatedbythepresenceofananthropologistcanbe
harnessedindevelopmentworkandisarguablyanthropologists'greateststrength,ifitcanbedeployedconstructively.
Aswehaveseen,anthropologycanbeusedintheprojectsettingforanumberofpurposes.Anthropologistsarewellequippedtomonitortheprocessofproject
implementation,whichineffectisthetaskofmonitoringsocialchange.Todothis,acombinationofnationalandexpatriateanthropologists,withbothmenandwomen
involved,willbeabletodrawontheirdifferentskillsandperspectivesinordertopresentdifferent,thoughmutuallyreinforcing,analysesofevents.Anthropologistsin
thecourseofmonitoringneedtoassesswhetherthreewaycommunicationistakingplacebetweenplanners,implementorsandpopulation.Thisisneededtomake
projectsneedsbasedandtoreduceethnocentricassumptions.
Anthropologistsaretrainedtoseebeyondtheimmediateformalrelationshipswhichmightexist.Whiletheirquestionsmightappearirrelevanttotechnocrats,theyoften
probebeyondwhatisimmediatelyapparent.Aretheprojectboundariesdrawntoonarrowly?Forexample,arethereneworadaptingsetsofpatronclient
relationshipswhicharebeingfedbytheprojectanditsresources?Whatarethedistributionaleffectsoftheproject?Finally,surveydatacanbesupplementedwith
casestudies,whichcapturedynamismand
Page160
complexityandthereforeadddimensiontomorestaticdatacollection.
Onadirectlypracticallevel,anthropologyhashelpedtoprovideamodel,throughitstraditionalparticipatoryfieldworkmethodology,ofinformationgatheringwhichis
moresensitivetopeople.Thisnotonlyimprovesthequalityoftheinformationneededbypohcymakersandpractitioners,butcanincreasetheopportunitiesforlocal
peopletocontributemoredirectlytotheevolutionofpoliciesandprogrammes.TheuseofanthropologicalmethodologyinparticipatorytechniquessuchasPRAisan
example.Inturn,anthropologistscanquestionandthushelpredesignsuchtechniques,ensuringthattheydonotossifyintorigidexerciseswhichhavelosttheir
meaning.
IfanthropologistsaretobecomeinvolvedindevelopmentworkintheSouth,anumberofpracticalissuesneedtobeconsidered.Beforeturningtothequestionof
ethics,letusconsiderthese.
HowshouldAnthropologistsBecomeInvolved?
Therearevariouspracticalissuesanthropologistsshouldconsiderbeforedecidingwhethertotakepartinprojectbasedwork,aswellascompromiseswhichneedto
bemadeonceadecisiontoparticipatehasbeentaken.Oneimportantindicatororwarningsignwhichtheanthropologistshouldlookoutforwhenconsideringa
practicalinvolvementisthehistoryofaproject.Hasitbeendrawnupwiththeparticipationofananthropologist,oristheanthropologistpartofanattemptto'fixup'a
projectwhichhasrunintotrouble?
Whenworkinginateam,orwithotherorganisationsorgovernmentagencies,theanthropologistmayneedtokeepinmindthelackofwiderknowledgeor
misconceptionswhichcanexistaboutanthropologyduringthework.Animportantpartofsuchworkwillbeapreparednesstodiscussanthropologicalideasand
outlookswithmembersofaninterdisciplinaryteamorwithprojectstafforadministrators.Aswehaveargued,anthropologyisawayoflookingatsocialrealities,of
lookingbehindapparentlysimplesituations,andassuchcanbeofvaluetononspecialists.
Theanthropologistneedstobeawareofthedifferencebetweenthewayacademicanthropologyiswrittenupandpresentedandthemoreimmediaterequirementsof
projectoragencyreportsanddocuments.Reportswillhavetobewellstructured,sothatrelevantsectionscanbereadseparatelybythosewhowishtoaccess
informationquickly.Theyshouldbeclearlywritten,withunfamiliaranthropologicaltermsavoidedunlessnecessary(inwhichcasethey
Page161
mustbeexplainedsimply),andfocusedclearlyonthespecificquestionswhicharebeingaskedbytheagencyorproject.Mostanthropologistswillgeneratenewsets
ofquestionsandissues(unanticipatedbytheiremployers)thesecanthenbeoutlinedandaddressedaftertheinitialrequiredpointshavebeenanswered.
Itisalsoimportanttobeconstructivelycritical:itmakeslittlesenseiftheanthropologistfailstotakeresponsibilityforthepracticalimplicationsofcriticalpoints.If
certainassumptionsorideashavebeenshowntobefalse,alternativescanoftenbesuggestedwhichwillcreatemoreappropriatecoursesofaction.Manyprojectstaff
willbepleasedtoexperimentwithnewideas,butwillbefrustratedbyrelentlessnegativity.Aknowledgeoftheadministrativecultureinwhichmanydevelopment
initiativestakeplaceisanessentialprerequisiteforthistypeofappliedwork.
TheEthicsofInvolvement
Therecanbelittledoubtthatanthropologistscandomuchtochangeandimprovetheworkofdevelopers.Theirinvolvement,however,remainsdeeplyproblematic.
Whilesettingouttoreformulateandchangefromwithin,thedangeristhatanthropologistsbecomeprofoundlycompromised.Nodiscussionofanthropologyand
developmentcanthereforeignorethedifficultissueofethics,anunderlyingthemethroughoutthebook.
Oneofthemostcomplexquestionsforanthropologistsconcernsonwhattermstogetinvolvedindevelopmentwork.Littlecanbedoneiftheprojecthasbeenpoorly
designedorbasedonunfoundedassumptions,andthe'legitimisingrole'oftheanthropologistmayindeedmakemattersworseratherthanbetter.Theinvolvementof
theanthropologistwillalwaysbeamatterofindividualconscience,butinformedchoicescanbemadebyaskingsomepreliminaryquestions.Atwhatstageisthe
anthropologistbeingaskedtoparticipateinaproject?Howmuchtimewilltheanthropologisthavetoundertaketheresearch?Howmuchcredibilitywillbegivento
thefindings?Byparticipatingindevelopment,doestheanthropologistsimplybecomepartoftheprevailingdiscourseandhelptooilthe'antipoliticsmachine'?
Anothersetofethicalissuessurroundstherolesofexpatriatesandnationals.Thiscanleadtothelossofscarcelocalemploymentopportunities,andinthelongerterm
mayhaveimplicationsforthedevelopmentandstrengtheningoflocaleducationalandresearchinstitutions.Foreignanthropologistsneedtoaskwhetherornotthereis
acriticalresearchtraditioninthecountrywheretheanthro
Page162
pologistisworking,andhowtheanthropologist'sworkcontributestostrengtheningorweakeningwhatexists.Expatriateresearcherscaneasilyunderminetheworkof
localpractitionersbytakingjobsorbyusinglocalworkersinsubordinatepositions.Foreignanthropologistsneedtotakeresponsibilityfordeveloping,throughtheir
work,theabilitiesoflocalresearcherstocarryoutappliedandotherresearch.The'flyin,flyout'expertroleisonemostanthropologistswouldwishtoavoid,except
toprovidegeneralsupport,assuchactivitiescanweakenthepracticeoflocalresearch.
Forexample,inBangladeshtherecentFloodActionPlan(amultimilliondollarprojectwhichmaybelargerthananyotherdevelopmentprojectintheworld)hasin
recentyearsabsorbedlargenumbersofexpatriateandlocalsocialscientistsinitsnumerousconsultancystudies.Thismeansthatasignificantpartofthecountry's
researchagendaisbeingdeterminedbyforeigndonors,whileasizeableproportionofBangladesh'sfewtrainedsocialresearchersis'tiedup'withonesetofissues.
Manyotherimportantissuesgounresearchedandmaycontinuetodosoforsometimetocome.Thisraisesimportantquestionsregardingthecooptionofresearchby
developers,andtheencompassmentofanthropologicalfindingswithinthedevelopmentdiscourse.
CooptionbyDevelopmentalDiscourse
Theincreasinguseofanthropologicalresearchbydevelopersistobeapplauded,butwemustbewareofourworkbeingforcedintonarrow,institutionallydefined
boundaries,thusbecomingpartofthediscoursewhichweshouldbeobjectivelycriticising.Sincetheymaybefundingit,thedangeristhatdeveloperscandictatewhat
typeofresearchiscarriedout,andonwhatterms.White,forexample,haspointedouthowinBangladeshresearchhasbeenmostlyfundedbyaidagencies.This
meansthatwritingsaboutBangladesharelargelyconcernedwithaparticularsetofissues:ruralpoverty,thesocialandeconomicpositionofwomenand,ofcourse,
development(White,1992:1525).YetthereisfarmoretoBangladeshthanthesumoftheseissues(Gardner,1995:22).
Intheirinsistencethatresearchshouldbepractically'useful',developersusuallypresupposethattheyknowalreadywhatthemostimportantissuesare.Butaswe
haveseen,someofthemostinterestinganthropologyofdevelopmentdoesnotsimplyaskquestionsaboutpolicyitexamineschangewithinitswidercontext.By
insistingthattheresearchagendaconcentratesoncertainissuesandthatfindingsarepresentedinacertainway,developmentmay
Page163
thereforeabsorbanthropologypotentiallyitsmostradicalcriticintothedominantdevelopmentdiscourse,which,giveortakeafewadjustments,remains
unchanged.
Thishasalreadyhappenedtovariousimportantconcepts,whichhavebeenappropriatedfordevelopmentandwatereddowntothepointofagrotesqueparody.The
useoftheterm'participation'isagoodexampleofthedangers,sinceitcaneasilybe'coopted'bythosewithpowerandinfluence.ArecentWorldBankreport
(quotedbyPaul,1991:2)illustratesthetermsonwhichnotionsofparticipationhavebeenaccepted.LikeWID/GAD,themainrationalefortheuseofparticipatory
methodsbytheWorldBankappearstobethattheywillincreasethe'efficiency'ofprojects:
Donorsandrecipientshavegiventoolittleattentiontosocioculturalfactorsandhavenotbeensufficientlyawareoftheimportantrolethatthepoorthemselvescanplayin
initiativesdesignedtoassistthem.Evidencesupportstheviewthatinvolvingthepoorinthedesign,implementation,andevaluationofprojectsinarangeofsectorswouldmake
aidmoreeffective.InvolvementofwomenhascontributedtotheattainmentofobjectivesinmanyagriculturaldevelopmentprojectsinSubSaharanAfricaparticipationoflocal
communityorganisationshasimprovedperformanceinmanyurbanpovertyprojectsorganisationsofbeneficiariesinaidsupportedirrigationschemeshavemadeimportant
contributionstothemaintenanceandoperationofprojectworksandinvolvementoforganisedgroupsoflowincomeborrowershasfacilitatedrepaymentofloansinsmallscale
creditprogrammes.
Clearly,participationalltooeasilyslipsintoemptyrhetoric,canservetheinterestsofthestatusquoandcanreadilylenditselftothefateofbeing'veneered'.
Likewise,theinsightsofanthropologistsworkingongenderrelationshave,insomecases,beenreformulatedtofitintothedominantdiscourse,thusbecoming
depoliticisedandinstitutionally'safe'.BycreatingpostsforWIDofficers,oraddingWIDtothelistofpolicycommitments,institutionsmayfeelthattheyhavedealt
withtheproblem,wheninrealitythechangesarelittlemorethancosmetic.Conceptsmayalsogettakenup,formalisedtofitintothediscourse,andthussimplifiedand
changed.Gendertraining,forexample,whichiswidelyusedbyinstitutionssuchastheBritishODAinthetrainingofitsownemployeesaswellasgovernmentand
NGOworkersinprojectswhichitfundsthroughouttheworld,maybeeasilymisinterpretedasasimpleformulaforunderstandinggender.Whileattemptingtoprovide
toolstohelpplanners,bypresentingwomenintermsofthreeroles('reproductive','productive'and'communitymanagement')andsimplistically
Page164
dividingtheirinterestsbetween'strategic'and'practical',thedangeristhatsuchtrainingprovidesahomogenisingframework,whichdownplaystheimportanceof
culturalcontextandimportantdifferencesbetweenwomenandtheirinterests.2 Thismaynothavebeentheoriginalintentionofsuchtrainingtheideasbehinditare
certainlymorecomplex(seeMoser,1993).Rather,theinstitutionalisationoftheconcepts,andthewaysinwhichtheyareapplied,havebeentransformedthrough
theirabsorptionbythedominantdiscourse.
Thisalsohappenswithinprojectplanningandimplementation.Sincemostdevelopmentworkiscarefullyplanned,fittedaroundbureaucratictoolssuchasthe'project
framework',socialchangeisoftenforcedintotheconstraintsofinstitutionalagendasandphrases.Socialdevelopmentbecomesan'output'tobemeasured(usually
throughquantifiablecriteriasuchasnumbersofpeopletrained,loanstakenoutormeetingsattended).Likewise,researchwhichpointstopotentialproblemsinproject
implementationmustbepresentedinreportform,withpracticalrecommendationsor'actionpoints'listed.Reportswhicharetoocriticalarecondemnedasbeing
irrelevantoruselessandarenotactedupon,fortheydonotfitintothediscourse(Ferguson,1990:69).Itwouldseemthatanthropologyiswelcomedbysome
developers,butonlyontheirterms.
BreakingoutoftheDiscourse
Thesetendenciesmustbecontinuallyguardedagainstbyinvolvedanthropologists,anditisherethatthoseworkingwithindevelopmentandthosestudying
developmentasdiscoursemayhavemosttosaytoeachother.Weneedtoreassessendlesslyhowparticularconceptsareused,especiallyperhapsthosewhichseem
onthesurfacetobeanthropologicallyfriendlywhethersocialorcommunitydevelopment,WID/GAD,participation,orwhatever.Thisinvolvesresearchnotonlyinto
theirmeaningsatthemanagerialorinstitutionallevel,butalsointohowtheyaretransformedatdifferentstagesintheprojectchain.Howdolocalgovernmentworkers
whohavereceivedgendertrainingcarrythoseconceptsintotheirwork?Whatdoescommunitydevelopmentmeantothecommunitydevelopmentworkersemployed
inprojects?Howdothoseparticipatinginprojectsviewthings?
Itisimportanttorecognisethattheagendaisnotwhollypredetermined.Anthropologycanbeusedtoreradicalisethoseconceptswhichhavebeenabsorbedbyit
andstrippedoftheirmoreprogressiveconnotations:asRahnema(1992:122)argues,'noonelearns
Page165
whoclaimstoknowinadvance'.Thediscourseisalreadychangingtoadegree,despitethedangersofcooption.Indeed,byhighlightingtheproblemswedonotwish
tounderminethecontributionofmanydedicatedprofessionalsworkingwithindevelopmentagenciesandNGOswhoareactivelyengagedinchangingit.Perhapstoo,
weneedtoberathermoreconfident.Weurgeourcolleaguesworkingwithindevelopmentagenciestothinkbeyondtheimmediateconstraintsoftheirinstitutional
culture.Areprojectframeworksreallynecessary?Mustsocialissuesalwaysbetreatedasapoorrelative,allowedtoeatatthesametableastheeconomistsand
technocrats,butonlyontheirterms?Rew(1985)isrighttopointoutthevariousskillswhichappliedanthropologistsmustlearn(workinginateamandwriting
reports),butletusnotbetoosubservient:thedeveloperstoomustchange.
Beyond'AnthropologistsasExperts'
Anotherwayofmovingforwardistoensurethatanthropologicalinsightsandmethodsarenotconfinedtoasmallelitegroupofexperts.Aswehaveindicatedat
variouspointsinthisbook,asawayofseeing,andofworking,anthropologydoesnothavetobeconfinedtoexpertsfromtheNorth.Anthropologyhasthepotential
tobetakenup,utilisedand'owned'bypeopleincountrieswheretalkabout'development'ishighontheagenda.Anthropologicalinsightsneednotbesolelythe
propertyorthedomainofacademicorprofessionalanthropologists,butcanbeopeneduptothoseworkingindifferentcontextssuchaswithinNGOs.
InBangladesh,forexample,thedisciplineisanewone,butisalreadyprovidingaframeworkthroughwhichpeoplecanreexaminethedevelopmentprocessand
indigenisealocalanthropology.Thereisadangerthatacademicneutralitymaybediscouragedandthatthenewfieldwillbecontrolledbyforeigndonors,who,by
payingforthework,willsetitsagendasanddefinethelimitsofitsactivities.AnthropologistsintheSouthmustnotbecomemeresocialresearchers,fundedby
foreigners,onthedevelopmentprojectsunderwayintheirowncountries.Theyaregeneratingideaswithintheirownsocietiesandunderstandandexpressitsneeds,
buttheyalsoneedtobesupportedwithopportunitiestoworkelsewhere,inordertobringbackideasandinsights.Whatcantheseanthropologistsandotheroutsider
anthropologiststellusaboutdevelopmentissuesinboththeNorthandtheSouth?
Aswehavepointedoutthroughoutthisbook,anthropologicalknowledge,andinparticularanthropologicalmethodologies,is
Page166
readilyaccessibletothenonanthropologistandcanbeusedbydevelopmentpractitionersandindeedeveryone.Whileanthropologyshowsupthelimitationsofthe
popularlyusedsurveymethodologyforreflectingsocialandeconomicrealities,whatcanitofferinstead?
TheprovisionofPRAtrainingprovidesanopportunityforpublicservantsandNGOstafftoexaminetheirassumptionsandtheirmodesofworkinginordertomake
themmorepeoplecentred.Evenifdevelopmentprojectsweretodisappearovernight,everysocietyhasongoingrelationshipsandsituationsinwhichpeopleinteract
withoutsidersandexperts.Forexample,theagriculturalextensionworkerfromthelocalgovernmentofficecaneither'lordit'overthefarmers,relyingmoreonstatus
thanonaninterestinunderstandingtheirpossibleneeds,orsheorhecanworktowardsdevelopingamoreequalrelationshipinwhichatwowayexchangeof
informationtakesplace,puttingherorhimselfattheserviceoftheclients.Anurseinalocalhealthcentrecaneitherpatronisehisorherpatients,orcantaketimeto
listentotheirneedsanddeveloplasting,twowayrelationships.Suchmethodologiesmaybeadaptedordistortedorabusedintheprocess,aswhenPRAbecomesa
meansoflegitimisingexistingpracticeswithonlycursoryconsultationorforcedparticipation.Butultimatelythereisno'proper'wayofdoingthings.Morebroadly,this
typeofknowledgeandmethodologyisalsousefulinitsdeploymentincritical,oppositional,questioningroles,inquestioningethnocentricassumptionsandeconomism.
Meanwhile,manygrassrootsorganisationshavebeenworkinganthropologicallyforseveraldecades,withouttheinvolvementofexperts.Aswehaveseen,NGOs
havedevelopedapproacheswhichmaybechangingthewaysinwhichdevelopmentisconceivedandpractised.Theirfieldworkersmaybedrawnfromthelocal
communityandmayprovideasympatheticandaccountablelinkwitheventsandresourceslocallyandmorewidely.Theymaybeengagedinworkwhichmakes
outsideanthropologistslessrelevant,butbothcanhavesomethingtolearnfromeachother.Socialmovementsarealsopotentialvehiclesforchangewhichmay
expresslocalaspirationsandinitiatives.Sofar,fewanthropologistshavebeeninvolvedinsuchinitiativesaseitherresearchersoractivists,butthisdoesnotmeanthat
potentialrolesdonotexist,althoughtheanthropologistmayhavetotakesidesandabandonsomecustomary(andoftenillusory)detachment.
Forthemomentatleast,therhetoricofdevelopmentandtosomeextentitspracticeismovingindirectionswhichbringitcloserto
Page167
whatmightbetermed'anthropological'territory.Whileabacklashagainsttheparticipatorymodelofdevelopmentcannotberuledoutinfutureyears,itistobehoped
thatsuchchangeswithindevelopmentdiscoursewillprovideideaswhichwillfeedbackintoanthropology'sownprocessesofreflectionandsoulsearching.Whilethe
developmentarenaprovidesanthropologistswithasitethatisrichinpotentialforanalysingthewayspowerisexercisedandchangeachievedinthepostmodern
world,itmayalsosimultaneouslycontribute,asJohanssenhashinted(1992),tothereimaginingofanthropologyitself,aslocalpoliticalrealitesaremovedcentre
stage.
Conclusion
Itwouldberidiculoustosuggestthatanthropologyholdsallthesolutions.Althoughitmaybeabletocontributetoproblematisingandchangingaspectsof
developmentdiscourse,therearefarwiderissuesinvolvedoverwhichindividualanthropologistsandtheirmethodshavelittleinfluence.Ultimately,forthequalityof
people'slivesinpoorercountriestoimprove,globalconditionsmustchange.Povertyandinequalityareproductsofarangeofglobalconditions,ofwhich
developmentdiscourseisonlyonepart.Internationaltrade,war,politicaloppressionandsoonareallofcentralimportance.Anthropologiststraditionallyhavehad
littletosayaboutthese:whiletheymaycommentupontheirsocialandculturalconsequences,withafewexceptionstheyarelesspractisedinanalysingthemas
interconnectedphenomena.Instead,theytendtoconcentrateonthe'microlevel'andonfacetofacerelations.
Anthropology'scontributiontopositivepostdevelopmentalchangeisthereforepartofalargereffort.Butthisdoesnotmeanthatitisnotworthwhile.Aswehave
arguedthroughoutthebook,developmentdiscourseiscentraltohowtheworldisrepresentedandcontrolledbythosewiththemostpower,andanthropologyhas
muchtosayaboutit.Aswehaveseen,ittellsusthatanycausal,engineeringmodelofsocialchangeisboundtoexcludeandindeedrepresstherichnessanddiversity
ofpeople'slives.Wehavearguedthatanthropologyoffersnosimpleformulaforbringingaboutpositivechange.Anthropologycannotbringtobearasetofpractical
toolstobeappliedas'meanstoends'.
Instead,anthropologypromotesanattitudeandanoutlook:astancewhichencouragesthoseworkingindevelopmenttolistentootherpeople'sstories,topay
attentiontoalternativepointsofviewandtonewwaysofseeinganddoing.Thisoutlookcontinually
Page168
questionsgeneralisedassumptionsthatwemightdrawfromourowncultureandseektoapplyelsewhere,andcallsattentiontothevariousalternativesthatexistin
othercultures.Suchaperspectivehelpstohighlighttherichnessandthediversityofhumanexistenceasexpressedthroughdifferentlanguages,beliefsandother
aspectsofculture.Anthropologytriestoshowtheinterconnectednessofsocialandeconomiclifeandthecomplexrelationshipswhichexistbetweenpeopleunder
conditionsofchange.Finally,anthropologyencouragesustodigasdeeplyaspossible,togobeyondwhatisimmediatelyapparent,andtouncoverasmuchofthe
complexityofsocialandeconomiclifethatwecan.
Therelationshipbetweenanthropologyanddevelopmentwillneverbeastraightforwardone.Anthropologycannotsimplybeputattheserviceofdevelopmentorof
'thepeople',whoevertheymightbe.Whatanthropologyhastoofferisacontinuousquestioningoftheprocesses,assumptionsandagenciesinvolvedindevelopment.
Butwhiletheydothis,andwhiletheystimulateotherstodothesame,anthropologistshavearoletoplayinunpicking,analysingandchangingdevelopmentpractice
overtime.Thereisthereforescopeforanthropologytotakepartinthis'gradualist'challenge,becausetheproblemswhichdevelopmenthasthrownup,aswellasthe
problemswhichdevelopmentseekstosolve,willnotbechangedordisappearovernight.Wedonotseethepointofsimplywishingthemawayorrejectingthemas
invalid.
Clearlyanthropologistshaveachoice.Wehavetriedtoshowinthisbookthewaysinwhichanthropologyexposesthelimitationsofsomuchwhichisdoneinthe
nameofdevelopmentitsethnocentricassumptions,itsexpressionoftheimbalanceofpower,itsselfdelusion,itseconomicbiaseswhileatthesametimeoffering
ideasforchallengingconstructivelytheworldofdevelopmentandsuggestinghowthiscanbechanged.Arethesechangespossible,orisaninvolvedanthropologyonly
evergoingtoreproduceneocolonialdiscourses?Shouldwerejecttheprojectofdevelopmentaltogether?Wearelesspessimisticthanthisrejectionistpositionallows,
andcanseeimportantrolesfortheanthropologistinreconstructingideasandpracticeinordertoovercomepovertyandimprovethequalityoflifeacrosstheworld.
Page169
NotesAndReferences
Chapter1
Anthropology,DevelopmentandtheCrisisofModernity
1.Inthisperspectivedevelopmentdiscourseiscomparableto'orientalism'thetermusedbyEdwardSaidtodescribetheWest'sideologicalcontroloverEastern
'others'byrepresentingtheminparticularways(Said,1978).Thisisdiscussedinmoredetaillaterinthechapter.
2.By'Western'werefertoideologiesprimarilygeneratedinEuropeandthe'NewWorld':NorthAmerica,AustraliaandNewZealand.Westernthoughtisnot,
however,confinedtothesegeographicalareasalone.
3.Seeglossary.
4.Escobararguesthateconomicshasbeenkeytodevelopmentdiscourse.Thistoocanbeunderstoodastheproductofcultureandwithindevelopmentfunctions
hegemonically(1995:62).
5.Forfurtherdiscussionoftheprocessoflabellingandtargeting,seeEscobar,1995:15492.
6.Nevertheless,therecentPergauDamscandalinMalaysiahaskeptmanyoftheseissuesinthepublicarenaandremindsusthattheyarestillinmanywaysopen
questions.TheUKgovernmentallegedlyprovidedaidforalargeinfrastructuralprojectwhichcontradictedtheODA'spovertyfocusedaidobjectivesandledtothe
transferofdevelopmentassistancetoacountrygenerallyconsiderednotpoorenoughtoqualify.ThereasonseemstohavebeentopromotesalesofBritishmade
militaryequipment.
7.TextswhichexplorethesedebatesareMosley,1987Madeley,1991andCassenetal.,1986.
8.SeeHoogvelt,1982Larrain,1989Long,1977.
9.ForadetailedanalysisoftheGroundnutScheme,seeMorgan,1980:226319.
10.OthercentraltheoristsincludeCardosaandImmanuelWallerstein(fordetaileddiscussionoftheseideas,seeLarrain,1989:11133).
11.Thisreferstoattemptstoexplaintheworldthroughallencompassingtheoriesorparadigms,suchasmodernity,structuralismorMarxism.Lyotard,forexample,
speaksofthereplacementofgrandnarrativesby
Page170
morelocalisedaccountsofreality,thuscentrallyrecognisingdifferenceofexperienceratherthanhomogeneity(Lyotard,1984).
12.Forfurtherdiscussion,seeMcGrew,1992.
13.Asnotedabove,thesecategoriesareinthemselvesproblematic.
14.See,forexample,theUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP)HumanDevelopmentReport,1990.
15.Seeglossaryforamoredetaileddiscussion,seeKuper,1983.
16.ProvokedbytextssuchasAsad'seditedwork,AnthropologyandtheColonialEncounter(1973).
Chapter2
ApplyingAnthropologyanHistoricalBackground
1.Someofthemorerecentliteraturehasthereforeusedtheterm'developmentanthropology'todescribethistypeofwork(Hoben,1982EpsteinandAhmed,
1984).However,weconsiderdevelopmentanthropologytobearatherwidercategorywhichincludesatheoreticalcritiqueofdevelopmentissueswediscussthese
inthenextchapter.
2.However,evolutionistideasagainbecamepopularinUSanthropologyaftertheSecondWorldWarand,aswehaveseen,livedoninthemodernisationtheoriesof
economicdevelopmentandculturalchangepropagatedbyRostow(1960b)andothers,whotalkedof'stagesofgrowth'.
3.Kuperquotesacolonialadministrator,SirPhilipMitchell,whowrotethatanthropologistsassertedthat'theyonlyweregiftedwithunderstanding,busiedthemselves
withenthusiasmaboutalltheminutiaeofobscuretribalandpersonalpractices[fromwhichstudies]resultedanumberofpainstakingandoftenaccuraterecords...of
suchlengththatnoonehadtimetoreadthemandoften,inanycase,irrelevant,bythetimetheybecameavailable,tothedaytodaybusinessofgovernment'(Kuper,
1983:107).Suchacommentisnottoodissimilarfromthosesometimesstillheardtodayfromnonanthropologistpractitionersworkingindevelopment.
4.Thiswasnotalwaysthecase,however.M.Harris(1991:336)recountshowthefounderofMozambique'sliberationmovement,DrEduardoMondlane,received
aPhDinsociologyandanthropologyfromNorthwesternUniversity,Illinois,andwasinfluencedbytheideaofcombiningsocialscienceandpoliticalaction.
5.AngelaCheater's(1986)introductiontoanthropologyisagoodexampleofanewpracticalapproachdevelopedintheZimbabweancontext.
6.Thisremainsanareaofconcerninanydicussionofanthropologyanddevelopment:whoispayingforresearchandwhy?TheissueisreturnedtoinChapter5.
7.OneexampleistheAnthropologyinActionWorkshop,partoftheBritishAssociationforSocialAnthropologyinPolicyandPractice(BASAPP).
Page171
8.Thisdistinctionisnowregardedasbeingproblematicbymanyanthropologiststoday.Forexample,categoriesoncebelievedtobescientificorobjectivecanoften
beshowntobegovernedbymorearbitrarydefinitions(seeCliffordandMarcus,1986:180).
9.WhileworkingrecentlyonanAsiawideresearchprojectonagriculturaltechnologyandNGOs,aseriesofparticipatoryworkshopsatwhichDavidLewiswas
oneofthefacilitatorscreatedopportunitiesforNGOworkers(someofwhomwerethemselvesfarmers)todiscusstheiragendaswithseniorgovernmentofficials
awayfromhomewithinarelativelyneutralenvironment.
Chapter3
TheAnthropologyofDevelopment
1.ForanaccountofstructuralisminBritishsocialanthropology,seeKuper,1983.
2.In,forexample,hisPoliticalSystemsofHighlandBurma(1954).
3.SeeBloch,1983.
4.SeealsoVatuk,1972Breman,1974.
5.AnearlyexampleofsuchanapproachisPeterWorsley'sTheTrumpetShallSound,ananalysisofMelanesiancargocults,whichWorsleyarguesdevelopedasa
reactiontowhitecolonisationduringtheSecondWorldWar(Worsley,1957).
6.SeeMangin,1967Turner,1969.
7.Forasummary,seeMoore,1988.
8.SuchasWeiner'sreevaluationofMalinowski'sworkontheTrobriandislanders(1976).
9.Forexample,RosaldoandLamphere,1974Reiter,1975OrtnerandWhitehead,1981.
10.See,forexample,Afshar,1991.
11.Forawiderdiscussionofthisliterature,seeKabeer,1994.
12.WhileWIDreferstowomen'sroleindevelopment,GADreferstotherelationshipbetweendevelopmentandsociallyconstructedgenderrelations,thus
recognisinghistoricalandculturalparticularitiesofwomen's(andmen's)socialrolesandstatuses.
13.Forasummaryofpoliciesaimedatgenderrelationswithindevelopment,togetherwithadiscussionofgendertraining,seeMoser,1993andKabeer,1994.
14.WhichEscobarcallsan'exemplarofdevelopment'(1995:163).
15.ForacritiqueofdiscoursesofWID,seeKabeer,1994Phillips,1994.
Chapter4
SubvertingtheDiscourseKnowledgeandPractice
1.Examplesmightbethereductionofanthropologicalknowledgeofgenderrelationsintotrainingpackagessuchasthe'triplerolesframework'(Kabeer,1994:294
8),orthesolidificationintobureaucraticallymanageable'indigenousknowledgesystems'ofcomplexculturaldifferencesinwaysofseeingandunderstanding.
Page172
2.Forexample,Wolf,1982Worsley,1984.
3.AdaptedfromLewisandMcGregor,1992.
4.AdaptedfromMadeley,1991:338.
5.AsSen(1981)hasargued,famineisnottheresultofobjectivescarcity,butafailureinpeople'sentitlementtofood,whichisalwaysmediatedthroughsocialand
politicalrelationships.
6.AdaptedfromM.Foster,1989.
7.AdaptedfromRozario,1992.
8.1=approximately50takain1995.
9.AdaptedfromMair,1984:11013.
10.AdaptedfromITDG,1992.
11.WeshallbediscussingnotionsofparticipationindetailinChapter5.
12.PersonalcommunicationfromProshikaworkerstoKatyGardner,March1993.
13.NGOsarediscussedinmoredetailinChapter5.
14.Bilateralaidreferstosituationswherethereisonlyonedonorcountryinvolved.Multilateralaidinvolvesmorethanonecountryandisimplementedbymultilateral
agenciessuchastheWorldBank.
15.AdaptedfromK.Gardner,forthcoming.
16.Suchcriteriatendtobequantitative:i.e.,somanyhospitalsbuilt,somanynursesemployed.Measuringthesuccessofsocialpoliciessuchas'empowerment'is
extremelydifficult,however.
17.Asweshallalsosuggest,suchtermsneedtobetreatedwithsomecaution.
Chapter5
NewDirectionsPracticeandChange
1.ThisdiscussionrefersprimarilytonationalorlocalNGOsintheSouthratherthan'Northern'NGOsworkingindevelopmentbutbasedinEuropeorNorth
America.
2.SeeFarringtonandLewis(1993),BebbingtonandThiel(1993),andWellardandCopestake(1993)fordiscussionandcasestudiesofNGOsandagriculturein
Asia,LatinAmericaandAfricarespectively.
3.AdaptedfromRahman,1993.
4.SomeoftheseissuesarediscussedintheGuatemalancontextinaninterestingpaperbyTurbyneandMcGregor(1994).
5.AdaptedfromJennings,1990.
Chapter6
AnthropologistswithinDevelopment
1.Thisisquiteironicwhenoneconsiderstheambivalencewithwhichappliedanthropologistsareoftenlookeduponbytheirmore'academic'colleagues.
2.AconversationafewyearsagoinBangladeshillustratesquitewelltheconfusionwhichsometimesexistsaboutanthropologistsandtheirrole.Aseniorconsultant
hadbeenflownoutforafewweeksinorderto
Page173
recruitpersonnelforquitealargeinterdisciplinaryresearchprojectandproducedacomplexorganogramshowingabout20differentresearchpostsfromnutritionists
towaterengineers,withasocialanthropologistapparentlyinchargeofthewholeteam.Whenhewasaskedwhatexactlytheanthropologistwouldbedoing,he
thoughtforawhileandsaid,'Youknow,I'veoftenwonderedthis,butwhatexactlydoesasocialanthropologistdo?'Heseemedtoholdanopinionofthe
anthropologistasageneralmanagerwhowouldkeeptheprojecttogether.Althoughwereportthisasanexampleofthehazinesssurroundingperceptionsof
anthropologists'preciseskillsandpotentialrolesindevelopment,onreflectionperhapsthisconsultantdidhavetherightideaaboutthebestplaceforananthropologist
afterall...
3.ODAjargoniscuriouslyfullofsportingmetaphors,areflectionperhapsofthepublicschoolbackgroundsofmanyofitsemployees:'upandrunning',and'atclose
ofplay'aretwootherexamples.
4.Conversely,someanthropologistshavecomplainedthatdevelopmentadministratorshaveignoredfreelyavailableworkwhichhaspotentialprojectrelevance.An
anthropologistworkinginNepalrecentlytoldusthat,asfarasheknew,alargeUKprojectnearhisfieldworklocationhadpaidnoattentiontohiswork,which
containeddiscussionsofseveralhighlyrelevantissues.
Chapter7
BeyondDevelopment?
1.Whateverthecriteriaforthisare.Itshouldberecognisedthatpeople'spositioningas'Northern'or'Southern'isoftenfarfromfixed.
2.Foracritique,seeKabeer,1994:264305.
Page174
Bibliography
Adnan,S.,ed.(1992)People'sParticipation,NGOsandtheFloodActionPlan:AnIndependentReview.Dhaka:Oxfam.
Afshar,H.,ed.(1991)Women,DevelopmentandSurvivalintheThirdWorld.Harlow:Longman.
Ahmed,A.(1992)PostmodernismandIslam:PredicamentandPromise.London:Routledge.
ArellanoLopez,S.andPetras,J.F.(1994)'NongovernmentalorganisationsandpovertyalleviationinBolivia',DevelopmentandChangevol.25,no.3,pp.555
68.
Asad,T.,ed.(1973)AnthropologyandtheColonialEncounter.London:Ithaca.
Asad,T.(1987)'AretherehistoriesofpeoplewithoutEurope?Areviewarticle',SocietyforComparativeSocietyandHistorypp.59497.
Bailey,F.G.(1958)CasteandtheEconomicFrontier:AVillageinHighlandOrissa.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
BangladeshRuralAdvancementCommittee(BRAC)(1979)TheNet:PowerStructureinTenVillages.Dhaka:BangladeshRuralAdvancementCommittee.
Barnett,H.G.(1956)AnthropologyinAdministration.Evanston,IL:Row,PetersonandCompany.
Barnett,T.(1977)TheGeziraScheme:AnIllusionofDevelopment.London:FrankCass.
BarriosdelaChungara,D.(1983)'Womenandorganisation'inDavies,M.,ed.ThirdWorld:SecondSex.London:Zed,pp.3961.
Bastide,R.(1973)AppliedAnthropology.London:CroomHelm.
Beattie,J.(1964)OtherCultures:Aims,MethodsandAchievementsinSocialAnthropology.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.
Bebbington,A.(1991)'Sharecroppingagriculturaldevelopment:thepotentialforGSOgovemmentcooperation',GrassrootsDevelopmentvol.15,no.2,pp.21
30.
Bebbington,A.andFarrington,J.(1993)'Governments,NGOsandagriculturaldevelopment:perspectivesonchanginginterorganisationalrelationships',Journalof
DevelopmentStudiesvol.29,no.2,pp.199219.
Page175
Bebbington,A.andThiele,G.(1993)NongovernmentalorganisationsandtheStateinLatinAmerica:RethinkingRolesinSustainableAgricultural
Development.London:Routledge.
Belshaw,C.(1976)TheSorceror'sApprentice:AnAnthropologyofPublicPolicy.NewYork:Pergamon.
Benedict,R.(1934)PatternsofCulture.Boston,MA:HoughtonMifflin.
Black,J.K.(1991)DevelopmentinTheoryandPractice:BridgingtheGap.Boulder,CO:Westview.
Blanchard,D.(1979)'Beyondempathy:theemergenceofanactionanthropologyinthelifeandcareerofSolTax'inHinshaw,R.,ed.CurrentsinAnthropology:
EssaysinHonorofSolTax.NewYork:Mouton,pp.41943.
Bloch,J.andBloch,M.(1980)'WomenandthedialecticsofnatureineighteenthcenturyFrenchthought'inMacCormack,C.andStrathem,M.,eds.Nature,
CultureandGender.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.2542.
Bloch,M.(1983)MarxismandAnthropology:TheHistoryofaRelationship.Oxford:Clarendon.
Bordo,S.(1990)'Feminism,postmodernismandgenderscepticism'inNicholson,L.,ed.Feminism/PostModernism.London:Routledge,pp.13353.
Boserup,E.(1970)Woman'sRoleinEconomicDevelopment.London:AllenandUnwin.
Brandtetal.(1980)NorthSouth:AProgrammeforSurvival.TheReportoftheIndependentCommissiononInternationalDevelopmentIssues.London:
Pan.Breman,J.(1974)PatronageandExploitation:ChangingAgrarianRelationsinSouthGujarat.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Briody,E.andChrisman,J.B.(1992)'Culturaladaptationonoverseasassignments',HumanOrganisationvol.50,no.3,pp.26482.
Brokensha,D.(1966)AppliedAnthropologyinEnglishspeakingAfrica.Ithaca,NY:SocietyforAppliedAnthropologyMonographno.8.
Burghart,R.(1993)'Hislordshipatthecobblers'well'inHobart,M.,ed.AnAnthropologicalCritiqueofDevelopment:TheGrowthofIgnorance.London:
Routledge,pp.79100.
Carroll,T.(1992)IntermediaryNGOs:TheSupportingLinkinGrassrootsDevelopment.WestHartford,CN:Kumarian.
Cassen,R.H.(1978)India:Population,EconomyandSociety.London:Macmillan.
Cassen,R.etal.(1986)DoesAidWork?Oxford:Clarendon.
Cerna,L.andMiclatTeves,A.(1993)'MaguugmadFoundation's(MFI)experienceofuplandtechnologydevelopmentinthePhilippines:soilandwater
conservationstrategies'inFarrington,J.andLewis,D.J.,edsNongovernmentOrganisationsandtheStateinAsia:RethinkingRolesinAgricultural
Development.London:Routledge,pp.24854.
Chambers,R.(1983)RuralDevelopment:PuttingtheLastFirst.Harlow:Longman.
Page176
Chambers,R.(1992)RuralAppraisal:Rapid,RelaxedandParticipatory.IDSDiscussionPaper311.Brighton:InstituteofDevelopmentStudies,Universityof
Sussex.
Chambers,R.(1993)ChallengingtheProfessions:FrontiersforRuralDevelopment.London:IntermediateTechnologyPublications.
Chambers,R.,Pacey,A.andThrupp,L.A.,eds.(1989)FarmerFirst:FarmerInnovationandAgriculturalResearch.London:IntermediateTechnology
Publications.
Cheater,A.(1986)SocialAnthropology:anAlternativeIntroduction.London:Routledge.
Chenery,H.B.,Duloy,J.andJolly,R.,eds(1974)RedistributionwithGrowth:AnApproachtoPolicy.Washington,DC:WorldBank.
Clark,J.(1990)DemocratisingDevelopment:TheRoleofVoluntaryOrganisations.London:Earthscan.
Clifford,J.(1988)ThePredicamentofCulture:TwentiethCenturyEthnography,LiteratureandArt.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Clifford,J.andMarcus,G.,eds.(1986)WritingCulture:ThePoeticsandPoliticsofEthnography.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Cochrane,G.,ed.(1976)WhatWeCanDoforEachOther?AnInterdisciplinaryApproachtoDevelopmentAnthropology.Amsterdam:B.R.Gruner.
Cochrane,G.(1971)DevelopmentAnthropology.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Cohen,A.(1969)CustomandPoliticsinUrbanAfrica.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.
Conlin,S.(1985)'Anthropologicaladviceinagovernmentcontext'inGrillo,R.andRew,A.,eds.SocialAnthropologyandDevelopmentPolicy(ASA
Monographs23).London:Tavistock,pp7388.
Comaroff,J.(1985)BodyofPower,SpiritofResistance:TheCultureandHistoryofaSouthAfricanPeople.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Conway,G.(1986)AgrosystemAnalysisforResearchandDevelopment.Bangkok:WinrockInternational.
Cornwall,A.andLindisfarne,N.,eds.(1994)DislocatingMasculinity:ComparativeEthnographies.London:Routledge.
Darwin,C.(1956[firstpublished1859])TheOriginofSpecies.London:Dent.
Dembo,R.,Hughes,P.,Jackson,L.andMieczkowski,T.(1993)'Crackcocainedealingbyadolescentsintwopublichousingprojects:apilotstudy',Human
Organisationvol.52,no.1,Spring,pp.8998.
Deshen,S.(1992)'Appliedanthropologyininternationalconflictresolution:thecaseoftheIsraelidebateonMiddleEasternsettlementproposals',Human
Organisation,vol.51,no.2,pp.1804.
DeWet,C.(1991)'Recentdeliberationsonthestateandfutureofresettlementanthropology',HumanOrganisation,vol.50.no.1,pp.1049.
Dey,J.(1981)'Gambianwomen:unequalpartnersinricedevelopmentprojects?'inNelson,N.,ed.AfricanWomenintheDevelopmentProcess.London:Frank
Cass,pp.10922.
DiLeonardo,M.(1991)GenderattheCrossroadsofKnowledge:FeministAnthropologyinthePostmodernEra.London:Macmillan.
Page177
DosSantos,T.(1973)'ThecrisisofdevelopmenttheoryandtheproblemofdependenceinLatinAmerica'inBernstein,H.,ed.,pp.5780.Underdevelopmentand
Development.Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Durkheim,E.(1947[firstpublished1893])TheDivisionofLabourinSociety.NewYork:FreePress.
Eades,J.,ed.(1987)Migrants,WorkersandtheSocialOrder(ASAMonograph26).London:Tavistock.
Edwards,M.andHulme,D.(1992)MakingaDifference:NGOsandDevelopmentinaChangingWorld.London:Earthscan.
Engels,F.(1972[firstpublished1884])TheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState.NewYork:InternationalPublishers.
Epstein,A.(1958)PoliticsinanUrbanAfricanCommunity.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
Epstein,T.S.(1962)EconomicDevelopmentandSocialChangeinSouthIndia.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
Epstein,T.S.(1973)SouthIndia:Yesterday,Today,andTomorrow.London:Macmillan.
Epstein,T.S.andAhmed,A.(1984)'Developmentanthropologyinprojectimplementation'inPartridge,W.L.,ed.,TrainingManualinDevelopment
Anthropology.Washington,DC:AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,pp.3141.
Escobar,A.(1988)'Powerandvisibility:developmentandtheinterventionandmanagementoftheThirdWorld',CulturalAnthropologyvol.3,no.4,pp.42843.
Escobar,A.(1991)'Anthropologyandthedevelopmentencounter:themakingandmarketingofdevelopmentanthropology',AmericanEthnologistvol.18,no.4,
pp.65881.
Escobar,A.(1992)'Culture,practiceandpolitics:anthropologyandthestudyofsocialmovements',CritiqueofAnthropologyvol.12,no.4,pp.395432.
Escobar,A.(1995)EncounteringDevelopment:TheMakingandUnmakingoftheThirdWorld.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Esteva,G(1993)'Development'inSachs,W.,ed.TheDevelopmentDictionary:AGuidetoKnowledgeasPower.London:Zed,pp.626.
EvansPritchard,E.(1940)TheNuer:ADescriptionoftheModesofLivelihoodandthePoliticalInstitutionsofaNiloticPeople.Oxford:Clarendon.
Eyben,R.(1994)'Whatcanaiddoforsocialdevelopment?',SocialDevelopmentNewslettervol.2,January.
Farmer,B.H.,ed.(1977)GreenRevolution?TechnologyandChangeinRiceGrowingAreasofTamilNaduandSriLanka.London:Macmillan.
Farrington,J.andLewis,D.J.,eds(1993)NongovernmentOrganisationsandtheStateinAsia:RethinkingRolesinAgriculturalDevelopment.London:
Routledge.
Featherstone,M.,ed.(1990)GlobalCulture:Nationalism,GlobalisationandModernity.London:Sage.
Page178
Ferguson,J.(1990)TheAntiPoliticsMachine:'Development',Depoliticisation,andBureaucraticPowerinLesotho.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Firth,R.(1981)'Engagementanddetachment:reflectionsonapplyingsocialanthropologytosocialaffairs',HumanOrganisation,40(3):193201.
Folbre,N.(1986)'Heartsandspades:paradigmsofhouseholdeconomics',WorldDevelopmentvol.14,no.2,24555.
FoodandAgricultureOrganisation(FAO)(1987)Sociocultural,socioeconomic,bioenvironmentalandbiotechnicalaspectsofaquacultureinrural
development.Rome:ReportspreparedfortheAquacultureforLocalCommunityDevelopmentProgramme.
Foster,G.(1962)TraditionalCulturesandtheImpactofTechnologicalChange.Evanston,IL:HarperandRow.
Foster,M.(1989)'EnvironmentalupgradingandintraurbanmigrationinCalcutta'.UnpublishedPhDthesis,UniversityofNottingham.
Foucault,M.(1970)TheOrderofThings:AnArchaeologyoftheHumanSciences(translatedbyA.SheridanSmith).NewYork:RandomHouse.
Foucault,M.(1971)'Theorderofdiscourse'inR.Young,ed.UntyingtheText:APoststructuralistReader.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.
Fowler,A.(1990)'Doingitbetter?WhereandhowNGOshaveacomparativeadvantageinfacilitatingdevelopment',AERDDBulletin28,February,pp.1120.
Frank,A.G.(1967)CapitalismandUnderdevelopmentinLatinAmerica.London:MonthlyReview.
Freeman,D.(1983)MargaretMeadandSamoa:TheMakingandUnmakingofanAnthropologicalMyth.Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Friedmann,J.(1992)Empowerment:ThePoliticsofAlternativeDevelopment.Oxford:Blackwell.
Friere,P.(1968)ThePedagogyoftheOppressed.NewYork:Seabury.
Garber,B.,andJenden,P.(1993)'Anthropologistsoranthropology?TheBandAidperspective'inPottier,J.,ed.PractisingDeveloping:SocialScience
Perspectives.London:Routledge,pp.5071.
Gardner,K.(1991)SongsattheRiver'sEdge:StoriesfromaBangladeshiVillage.London:Virago.
Gardner,K.(1995)GlobalMigrants,LocalLives:TravelandTransformationinRuralBangladesh.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Gardner,K.(unpublished)'Mixedmessages:contesteddevelopmentandthePlantationRehabilitationProject'.
Gatter,P.(1993)'Anthropologyinfarmingsystemsresearch:aparticipantobserverinZambia'inPottier,J.,ed.,PractisingDevelopment:SocialScience
Perspectives.London:Routledge,pp.15387.
Geertz,C.(1963a)AgriculturalInvolution:TheProcessesofChangeinIndonesia.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Geertz,C.(1963b)PeddlersandPrinces:SocialChangeandEconomicModernisationinTwoIndonesianTowns.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Page179
Giddens,A.(1971)CapitalismandModernSocialTheory:AnAnalysisoftheWritingsofMarx,Durkheim,andWeber.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Goetz,A.M.(1994)'Whogetsthecredit?Gender,powerandcontroloverloanuseinruralcreditprogrammesinBangladesh'.IDSWorkingPaperno.8.Brighton:
UniversityofSussex.
Goldschmidt,W.,ed.(1979)TheUsesofAnthropology.Washington,DC:AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation.
Grillo,R.(1985)'Appliedanthropologyinthe1980s:retrospectandprospect'inGrillo,R.andRew,A.,eds.SocialAnthropologyandDevelopmentPolicy(ASA
Monographs23).London:Tavistock.pp.136.
Grimshaw,A.andHart,K.(1993)AnthropologyandtheCrisisoftheIntellectuals(PricklyPearPamphletno.1).Cambridge:PricklyPearPress.
Gulliver,P.(1985)'AnappliedanthropologistinEastAfricaduringthecolonialera'inGrillo,R.andRew,A.eds.SocialAnthropologyandDevelopmentPolicy
(ASAMonographs23).London:Tavistock.pp.3757.
Hancock,G.(1989)LordsofPoverty.London:Macmillan.
Hannerz,U.(1980)ExploringtheCity:EnquiriestowardsUrbanAnthropology.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Hannerz,U(1992)CulturalComplexity:StudiesintheSocialOrganisationofMeaning.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Harris,M.(1991)CulturalAnthropology,3rdedn.NewYork:HarperCollins.
Harris,O.(1984)'Householdsasnaturalunits'inYoung,K.,Wolkowitz,C.andMcCullagh,R.,eds.,2ndedn.OfMarriageandtheMarket:Women's
SubordinationInternationallyanditsLessons.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,pp.13657.
Harriss,J.(1977)'Implicationsofchangesinagricultureforsocialrelationshipsatthevillagelevel:thecaseofRandam'inFarmer,B.H.,ed.GreenRevolution?
TechnologyandChangeinRiceGrowingAreasofTamilNaduandSriLanka.London:Macmillan,pp.22545.
Hashemi,S.M.(1989)'NGOsinBangladesh:alternativedevelopmentoralternativerhetoric?'Dhaka,mimeo.InstituteofDevelopmentPolicyandManagement,
UniversityofManchester.
Haviland,W.A.(1975)CulturalAnthropology.NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston.
Hayter,T.(1971)AidasImperialism.Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Hill,P.(1986)DevelopmentEconomicsonTrial:TheAnthropologicalCaseforaProsecution.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Hobart,M.,ed.(1993)AnAnthropologicalCritiqueofDevelopment:TheGrowthofIgnorance.London:Routledge.
Hoben,A.(1982)'Anthropologistsanddevelopment',AnnualReviewofAnthropology11,pp.34975.
Holcombe,S.(1995)ManagingtoEmpower:TheGrameenBank'sExperienceofPovertyAlleviation.London:Zed.
Hoogvelt,A(1982)TheThirdWorldinGlobalDevelopment.London:Macmillan.
Page180
Howard,M.C.(1993)ContemporaryCulturalAnthropology,4thedn.NewYork:HarperCollins.
IntermediateTechnologyandDevelopmentGroup(ITDG)(1992)WorkingwithWomeninKenya.London:ITDG.
James,W.(1973)'TheAnthropologistasreluctantimperialist'inAsad,T.,ed.AnthropologyandtheColonialEncounter.London:Ithaca,pp.4169.
Jennings,J.(1990)AdultLiteracy:MasterorServant?ACaseStudyfromRuralBangladesh.Dhaka:DhakaUniversityPress.
Johannsen,A.M.(1992)'Appliedanthropologyandpostmodernistethnography',HumanOrganisationvol.51,no.1,pp.7181.
Jordanova,L.J.(1980)'Naturalfacts:ahistoricalperspectiveonscienceandsexuality'inMacCormack,C.andStrathern,M.,eds.Nature,CultureandGender.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.4270.
Kabeer,N.(1994)ReversedRealities:GenderHierarchiesinDevelopmentThought.London:Verso.
Kerr,C.etal.(1973)IndustrialisationandIndustrialMan:TheProblemsofLabourandManagementinIndustrialGrowth.Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Khan,M.,Lewis,D.J.,Sabri,A.A.andShahabuddin,M.(1993)'Proshika'slivestockandsocialforestryprogrammes'inFarrington,J.andLewis,D.J.,edsNon
governmentOrganisationsandtheStateinAsia:RethinkingRolesinAgriculturalDevelopment.London:Routledge,pp.5966.
Korten,D.(1990)Gettingtothe21stCentury:VoluntaryActionandtheGlobalAgenda.WestHartford,CN:Kumarian.
Kramsjo,B.andWood,G.(1992)BreakingtheChains:CollectiveActionforSocialJusticeamongtheRuralPoorinBangladesh.London:Intermediate
Technology.
Kuper,A.(1983)AnthropologyandAnthropologists:TheModernBritishSchool.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.
Lan,D.(1985)GunsandRain:GuerrillasandSpiritMediumsinZimbabwe.London:JamesCurrey.
Larrain,J.(1989)TheoriesofDevelopment:Capitalism,ColonialismandDependency.Cambridge:Polity.
Leacock,E.(1972)'Introduction'toEngels,F.TheOriginoftheFamily,PrivatePropertyandtheState.NewYork:InternationalPublishers.
Leach,E.(1954)ThePoliticalSystemsofHighlandBurma:AStudyofKachinSocialOrganisation.London:G.BellandSons.
Lewis,D.J.(1991)TechnologiesandTransactions:AStudyoftheInteractionBetweenAgrarianStructureandNewTechnologyinBangladesh.Dhaka:
CentreforSocialStudies.
Lewis,D.J.(1992)AReviewoftheLiteratureonCorruption.Consultancyreport,SwedishInternationalDevelopmentAuthority(SIDA),Dhaka,Bangladesh.
Lewis,D.J.(1993)'GoingitAlone:FemaleHeadedHouseholds,RightsandResourcesinRuralBangladesh',EuropeanJournalofDevelopmentResearchvol.5,
no.2,pp.2342.
Page181
Lewis,D.J.andMcGregor,J.A.(1992)ChangeandImpoverishmentinAlbania:AReportforOxfam.CentreforDevelopmentStudiesReportSeriesno.1,
UniversityofBath.
Lewis,D.J.etal.(1993)'Indigenisingextension:farmers,fishseedtradersandpovertyfocusedaquacultureinBangladesh',DevelopmentPolicyReview,vol.11,pp.
18594.
Lewis,O.(1961)TheChildrenofSanchez:AnAutobiographyofaMexicanFamily.NewYork:RandomHouse.
Lloyd,P.(1979)SlumsofHope?ShantyTownsoftheThirdWorld.Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Long,N.(1977)AnIntroductiontotheSociologyofDevelopingSocieties.London:Tavistock.
Long,N.andLong,A.(1992)BattlefieldsofKnowledge:TheInterlockingofTheoryandPracticeinSocialResearchandDevelopment.London:Routledge.
Lyotard,J.(1984)ThePostModernCondition.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
McGrew,A.(1992)'TheThirdWorldintheNewGlobalOrder'inAllen,T.andThomas,A.eds,PovertyandDevelopmentinthe1990s.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress,pp.2567.
Madeley,J.(1991)WhenAidisNoHelp:HowProjectsFail,andHowTheyCouldSucceed.London:IntermediateTechnologyPublications.
Mair,L.(1969)AnthropologyandSocialChange.(LSEMonographsonSocialAnthropology38)London:AthlonePress.
Mair,L.(1984)AnthropologyandDevelopment.London:Macmillan.
Malinoswki,B.(1922)ArgonautsoftheWesternPacific.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.
Malinowski,B.(1929)'Practicalanthropology',inAfricavol.2,no.1,pp.2838.
Mamdani,M.(1972)TheMythofPopulationControl:Family,CasteandClassinanIndianVillage.NewYork:MonthlyReview.
Mangin,W.(1967)'LatinAmericansquattersettlements:aproblemandasolution',inLatinAmericanResearchReview2,pp.6598.
Marcus,G.andFischer,M.(1986)AnthropologyasCulturalCritique:AnExperimentalMomentintheHumanSciences.Chicago:UniversityofChicago
Press.
Mathur,H.M.(1989)AnthropologyandDevelopmentinTraditionalSocieties.NewDelhi:Vikas.
Mead,M.(1977)LettersfromtheField:192575.NewYork:HarperandRow.
Midgley,J.(1995)SocialDevelopment:TheDevelopmentalPerspectiveinSocialWelfare.London:Sage.
Miller,M.(1995)StateofthePeoples:AGlobalHumanRightsReportonSocietiesinDanger.Boston,MA:BeaconPressandCulturalSurvivalInc.
Mintz,S.(1985)SweetnessandPower:ThePlaceofSugarinModernHistory.NewYork:Viking.
Mitchell,C.(1956)TheKalelaDance(RhodesLivingstonePapersno.27).Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
Page182
Montgomery,E.andBennett,J.W.(1979)'Anthropologicalstudiesoffoodandnutrition:the1940sandthe1970s'inGoldschmidt,W.,ed.TheUsesof
Anthropology.Washington,DC:AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation,pp.12534.
Mohanty,C.(1988)'UnderWesterneyes:feministscholarshipandcolonialdiscourses',FeministReviewno.30,pp.6188.
Moore,H.(1988)FeminismandAnthropology.Cambridge:Polity.
Morgan,D.J(1980)TheOfficialHistoryofColonialDevelopment:TheOriginsofBritishAidPolicy19241945.Volume2:DevelopingBritishColonial
Resources194551.London:Macmillan.
Moser,C.(1989)'GenderplanningintheThirdWorld:meetingpracticalandstrategicgenderneeds',inWorldDevelopmentvol.17,no.11,pp.1799825.
Moser,C.(1993)GenderPlanningandDevelopment:Theory,PracticeandTraining.London:Routledge.
Mosley,P.(1987)OverseasAid:ItsDefenceandReform.Brighton:Wheatsheaf.
Murray,C.(1981)FamiliesDivided:TheImpactofMigrantLabourinLesotho.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Nash,J.(1979)WeEattheMinesandtheMinesEatUs:DependencyandExploitationinBolivianTinMines.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Ng,C.(1991)'MalaywomenandriceproductioninwestMalaysia'inAfshar,H.,ed.Women,DevelopmentandSurvivalintheThirdWorld.Harlow:Longman,
pp.188210.
Nicholson,L.,ed.(1990)Feminism/PostModernism.London:Routledge.
Ortner,S.andWhitehead,H.,eds.(1981)SexualMeanings:TheCulturalConstructionofGenderandSexuality.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Ostergaard,L.,ed.(1992)GenderandDevelopment:APracticalGuide.London:Routledge.
OxfordDictionaryofCurrentEnglish(ed.Allen,R.E)(1988)Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Parsons,T.(1949)'TheSocialStructureoftheFamily'inAnshen,R.,ed.TheFamily:ItsFunctionandDestiny.NewYork:HarperandRow,pp.173201.
Paul,S.(1991)'NongovernmentalorganisationsandtheWorldBank:anoverview'inPaul,S.andIsrael,A.edsNongovernmentalOrganisationsandtheWorld
Bank:CooperationforDevelopment.Washington,DC:WorldBank,pp.119.
Pearse,A.(1980)SeedsofPlenty,SeedsofWant:SocialandEconomicImplicationsoftheGreenRevolution.Oxford:Clarendon.
Perlman,J.(1976)TheMythofMarginality:UrbanPovertyandPoliticsinRiodeJaneiro.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Phillips,S.(1994)'Anthropologyofdevelopment:howcurrenttheorycaninformsocialdevelopmentpractice',SocialDevelopmentNewslettervol.2,January.
Polgar,S.(1979)'Applied,action,radical,andcommittedanthropology'inHinshaw,R.,ed.CurrentsinAnthropology:EssaysinHonorofSolTax.NewYork:
Mouton,pp.40918.
Page183
Pottier,J.,ed.(1993)PractisingDevelopment:SocialSciencePerspectives.London:Routledge.
Rabinow,P.(1986)'Representationsaresocialfacts:modernityandpostmodernityinanthropology'inClifford,J.andMarcus,G.,eds.WritingCulture:The
PoeticsandPoliticsofEthnography.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,pp.23462.
Rahman,A.(1993)People'sSelfdevelopment:PerspectivesonParticipatoryActionResearch.London:Zed.
Rahnema,M.(1992)'Participation'inSachs,W.,ed.TheDevelopmentDictionary:AGuidetoKnowledgeasPower.London:Zed,pp.11632.
Reiter,R.,ed.(1975)TowardanAnthropologyofWomen.NewYork:MonthlyReview.
Rew,A.(1985)'Theorganizationalconnection:multidisciplinarypracticeandanthropologicaltheory'inGrillo,R.andRew,A.,eds.SocialAnthropologyand
DevelopmentPolicy(ASAMonographs23).London:Tavistock,pp.18598.
Rhoades,R.E.(1984)BreakingNewGround:AgriculturalAnthropology.Lima:InternationalPotatoCenter.
Richards,A.(1939)Land,LabourandDietinNorthernRhodesia.London:OxfordUniversityPress.
Richards,P.(1993)'Cultivation:knowledgeorperformance?'inHobart,M.,ed.AnAnthropologicalCritiqueofDevelopment:TheGrowthofIgnorance.
London:Routledge,pp.6179.
Riddell,R.andBebbington,A.(1995)DevelopingCountryNGOsandDonorGovernments:ReporttotheOverseasDevelopmentAdministration.London:
OverseasDevelopmentInstitute.
Robertson,A.F.(1984)ThePeopleandtheState:AnAnthropologyofPlannedDevelopment.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Rogers,B.(1980)TheDomesticationofWomen:DiscriminationinDevelopingSocieties.London:KoganPage.
Rosaldo,M.andLamphere,L.,eds.(1974)Woman,CultureandSociety.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.
Rostow,W.W.(1960a)TheProcessofEconomicGrowth,2ndedn.London:Clarendon.
Rostow,W.W.(1960b)TheStagesofEconomicGrowth:ANoncommunistManifesto.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Rozario,S.(1992)PurityandCommunalBoundaries:WomenandSocialChangeinaBangladeshiVillage.London:Zed.
Sachs,W.ed.(1992)TheDevelopmentDictionary:AGuidetoKnowledgeasPower.London:Zed.
Sacks,K.(1975)'Engelsrevisited:women,theorganisationofproductionandprivateproperty'inReiter,R.,ed.TowardanAnthropologyofWomen.NewYork
MonthlyReview,pp.21135.
Said,E.(1978)Orientalism.Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Schapera,I.(1947)MigrationandTribalLife.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Schumacher,E.F.(1973)SmallisBeautiful.London:BlondandBriggs.
Page184
Scoones,I.andThompson,J.(1993)ChallengingthePopulistPerspective:RuralPeoples'Knowledge,AgriculturalResearchandExtensionPractice.
InstituteofDevelopmentStudiesDiscussionPaper332.Sussex:InstituteofDevelopmentStudies.
Scoones,I.andThompson,J.(1994)BeyondFarmerFirst:RuralPeoples'Knowledge,AgriculturalResearchandExtensionPractice.London:Intermediate
TechnologyPublications.
Scudder,T.(1980)'Policyimplicationsofcomplusoryrelocationinriverbasindevelopmentprojects',inCernea,M.andHammond,P.B.,eds.ProjectsforRural
Development:TheHumanDimension.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
Seddon,D.(1993)'Anthropologyandappraisal:thepreparationoftwoIFADpastoraldevelopmentprojectsinNigerandMali'inPottier,J.,ed.Practising
Development:SocialSciencePerspectives.London:Routledge,pp.71110.
Sen,A.(1981)PovertyandFamines:anEssayonEntitlementandDeprivation.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Sen,G.andGrown,C.(1987)DevelopmentCrisesandAlternativeVisions:ThirdWorldWomen'sPerspectives.NewYork:MonthlyReview.
Shiva,V.(1988)StayingAlive:Women,EcologyandSurvivalinIndia.London:Zed.
Sobhan,R.(1989)'Bangladeshandtheworldeconomicsystem:thecrisisofexternaldependence'inAlavi,H.andHarriss,J.,eds.Sociologyof'Developing
Societies':SouthAsia.London:Macmillan.
Spencer,J.(1989)'Anthropologyasakindofwriting',Man:TheJournaloftheRoyalAnthropologicalInstitutevol.24,no.1,pp.14564.
Sponsel,L.E.(1992)'Informationasymmetryandthedemocratisationofanthropology',HumanOrganisationvol.51,no.3,pp.299301.
Staudt,K.,ed.(1990)Women,InternationalDevelopmentandPolitics:TheBureaucraticMire.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.
Staudt,K.(1991)ManagingDevelopment:State,Society,andInternationalContexts.NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
Stavenhagen,R.(1971)'Decolonisingappliedsocialsciences',HumanOrganisationno.30,pp.33344.
Strathern,A.(1993)Landmarks:ReflectionsonAnthropology.Kent,Ohio:KentStateUniversityPress.
Taussig,M.(1980)TheDevilandCommodityFetishisminSouthAmerica.ChapelHill,SC:SouthCarolinaPress.
Tendler,J.(1982)TurningPrivateVoluntaryOrganisationsintoDevelopmentAgencies:QuestionsforEvaluation.Washington,DC:UnitedStatesAgencyfor
InternationalDevelopment.
Turbyne,J.andMcGregor,J.A.(1994)'Timeandmoney:acriticalreviewofparticipatoryruralappraisal',AnthropologyinActionConferencepaper(unpublished).
Turner,J.(1969)'Uncontrolledurbansettlements:problemsandpolicies'inBreese,G.,ed.TheCityinNewlyDevelopingCountries:ReadingsonUrbanismand
Urbanisation.NewYork:PrenticeHall,pp.50731.
Page185
Tvedt,T.(1995)NonGovernmentalOrganisationsasaChannelinDevelopmentAssistance:TheNorwegianSystem.ReporttoNorwegianDevelopment
AgencybytheCentreforDevelopmentStudies,UniversityofBergen(mimeo).
UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP)(1990),HumanDevelopmentReport.NewYork:UNDP.
Vatuk,S.(1972)KinshipandUrbanisation:WhiteCollarMigrantsinNorthIndia.London:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Vincke,J.,Mak,R.,Bolton,R.andJurica,P.(1993)'FactorsaffectingAIDSrelatedsexualbehaviourchangeamongFlemishgaymen',HumanOrganisationvol.
52,no.3,pp.26071.
Wallerstein,I.(1974)TheModernWorldSystem:CapitalistAgricultureandtheOriginsoftheEuropeanWorldEconomyintheSixteenthCentury.New
York:AcademicPress.
Warry,W.(1992)'Theelevenththesis:appliedanthropologyaspraxis',HumanOrganisationvol.51,no.2,pp.15363.
Weiner,A.(1976)WomenofValue,MenofRenown.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.
Wellard,K.andCopestake,J.,eds(1993)NGOsandtheStateinAfrica:RethinkingRolesinSustainableAgriculturalDevelopment.London:Routledge.
White,S.(1992)ArguingwiththeCrocodile:GenderandClassinBangladesh.London:Zed.
Whitehead,A.(1981)'I'mhungryMum:thepoliticsofdomesticbudgeting',inYoung,K.,Wolkowitz,C.andMcCullagh,R.,eds.OfMarriageandtheMarket:
Women'sSubordinationInternationallyanditsLessons.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,pp.93117.
Wilson,G.(1941)AnEssayontheEconomicsofDetribalisationofNorthernRhodesia.PartI.RhodesLivingstonePapers,no.5.Livingstone:Rhodes
LivingstoneInstitute.
Wilson,G.(1942)AnEssayontheEconomicsofDetribalisationofNorthernRhodesia.PartII.RhodesLivingstonePapers,no.6.Livingstone:Rhodes
LivingstoneInstitute.
Wolf,E.(1964)Anthropology.London:PrenticeHall.
Wolf,E.(1982)EuropeandthePeoplewithoutHistory.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Wood,A.(1950)TheGroundNutAffair.London:BodleyHead.
Wood,G.D(1985)LabellinginDevelopmentPolicy.London:Sage.
Wood,G.D.andPalmerJones,R.(1990)TheWaterSellers.London:IntermediateTechnologyPublications.
Worby,E.(1984)'Thepoliticsofdispossession:livestockdevelopmentpolicyandthetransformationofpropertyrelationsinBotswana'.UnpublishedMAthesis,
DepartmentofAnthropology,McGillUniversity,Montreal.
Worsley,P.(1957)TheTrumpetShallSound:astudyof'cargocults'inMelanesia.London:Macgibbon.
Worsley,P.(1984)TheThreeWorlds:CultureandWorldDevelopment.London:WeidenfeldandNicholson.
Page186
Index
accesstodevelopmentalresources7986
accountabilityandethicsofanthropology135
acculturation312
advocacyrole
ofappliedanthropology468
ofNGOs48,110
Africa
appliedanthropologyincolonial26,2930
ruraltourbanmigrationin534
statusofanthropologyin36
agriculture
Albanianruralresources801
anthropologicalinvolvementin37
changeandpolarisationinAsia547
farmingsystemsresearch(FSR)11920,130
involvementofNGOsin109
MaliSudRuralDevelopmentProject813
marginalisationofwomenin60,61,656
ruralcooperativetrainingproject13641
aid
beginningsof89
bilateralandmultilateral9
ascontinuationofcolonialrelations8
expansionofaidprogrammesin1960s10
objectivesforgiving1011
Albania,accesstoruralresourcesin801
AmericanSocietyforAppliedAnthropology31
anthropologists
consultancyroleof12832
contributionsandinfluenceondevelopment1512,1579
ethicsandnatureofdevelopmentwork77,1467,1556,1612
involvementandroleindevelopmentprojects446,15960,165
relationshipswithpolicymakers35,39,134
roleindevelopmentagencies778,1302
varyingrolesof48,1345
anthropology
actionanthropology38,41
appliedanthropologyseeappliedanthropology
cooptionandneutralisationof
anthropologicalconcepts76,77,111,11213,11819,120,124,126,1624
reradicalisingof1645
criticismsof23,24
cutbacksinresearchandacademicwork3940
debateandanalysisofsocialchange278,512
debateonculturalrelativism289
deconstructionofdevelopmentdiscoursesby1545
influenceofpostmodernismon224,401
involvementinandchallengestodevelopmentdiscourse756,15860
powerrelationswithin34
reflexivityin23,401
relationshipbetweenappliedandacademic356,40,1323,1345,1601
relationshiptodevelopment2,245,501,153,167,168
Page187
researchondevelopmentagenciesandideology6875
roleof78,101,1678
themesofdevelopmentanthropology52
wideraccessibilitytoandusesof1657
appliedanthropology
advocacyroleof468
consultationwork12832
cyclonesheltersproject1417
definitionandnatureof267,48,1323
ethicsof1356,151,1612
fishfarmproject14751
influenceof35,1335
involvementwithdevelopmentprojects446
originsinUKandUSA2932
andpostmodernism401
inpostwarperiod3441
andproblemofculturalrelativism28
researchmethodology413,160
roleincolonialadministrations324
roleinfieldofdevelopment434,1534
ruralcooperativetrainingproject13641
statusof356,40,135
Asad,Talal32
Asia,agriculturalchangeandpolarisationin547
Bangladesh
empowermentin118
literacyanddevelopmentin117
localresearchin162,165
NGOsin95,1078,109,118
women'screditgroupsin846
Barnett,H.G.35,69
Barnett,Tony634
Bastide,R.133
Beattie,J.39
Belshaw,Cyril39,69,151
beneficiariesseecommunities
Bloch,M.30
Boas,Franz30
Boserup,Ester60
Burghart,R.74
Calcutta,slumimprovementin834
capitalism
asexploitiveinneoMarxistdependencytheory7,1617,579
genderedeffectsof601
inequalitiesresultingfrom79
androotsofdevelopmenttheory34,5
Chambers,Robert63,113
Chenery,H.B.104
Cochrane,G.69,129
colonialadministrations
aidascontinuationof8
roleofappliedanthropologyin26,2930,324
androotsofdevelopmenttheory56
studyofeconomicandpoliticalchangeinAfrican534
Comaroff,J.58
communication
betweenanthropologistsandpolicymakers35,134
andcontrolofdevelopment99100
participatoryruralappraisal(PRA)11314
communities
andadvocacyroleofanthropology468
diversityof112,121
knowledgeofseeindigenousknowledge
participationindevelopmentseeparticipation
communitydevelopment121,141,145
communitybasedgroups935,967,109,120
consultancywork,anthropologists'involvementin12832
controlofdevelopment93100
creditandsavingsgroups846,105
culturalrelativism23,289,30,1567
cyclonesheltersproject1417
dependencytheory1617
anthropologicalstudiesbasedon578
andappliedanthropology38,39,48
Page188
criticismsof18,589
influenceondevelopment1820
similaritieswithmodernisationtheory19
solutionstounderdevelopment1718
development
accessto7987
conceptof12,25
controlof93100
dependencytheoryof1620
historicalcontextandmeaningsof38
influenceofpostmodernismonapproachesto212
modemisationtheoryof1216,19
relationshiptoanthropology2,245,501,153,167,168
roleandinfluenceofappliedanthropology434,478,78,1334
rootsoftheory34,56
socialandculturaleffectsof8793
seealsoeconomicchangeanddevelopment
developmentagencies
anthropologicalresearchonideologyof6875
gendertrainingin125,1634
growinginfluenceofpostwaranthropologyin389
andproblemsofcyclonesheltersproject1436
roleofanthropologistsin77,1302,13741,1467
staffcompositionandideologyof126
developmentdiscourse
anthropologicaldeconstructionsof1545
anthropologicalstudiesof704,99
challengestoandtransformationof756,1034,1257,1312,1567,15860
cooptionandneutralisationofconceptsby76,77,111,11213,11819,120,124,126,1624
reradicalisingofconcepts1645
developmentprojects
criticismsof'topdown'planning634,93,978
cyclonesheltersproject1417
fishfarmproject14751
involvementandroleofanthropologistsin446,101,12930,1356,1467,15962,165
neglectoflocalknowledgeinplanning678,148,149
organisationalstructuresandplanningof979
recognitionofgenderinplanning647,142
recognitionofinequalityinplanning7980,867,1045,158
ruralcooperativetrainingproject13641
socialandculturaleffectsof628
Dey,J.65
diffusionism,andsocialchange27
discourseseedevelopmentdiscourse
Durkheim,E.45
economicchangeanddevelopment
developmentdefinedintermsofeconomicgrowth67
economicgrowthaspremiseofmodernisationtheory13,15
genderedeffectsof602
problemsofpoliciesbasedoneconomicgrowth79
socialeffectsofagriculturalchangeinAsia547
socialeffectsofglobalpoliticaleconomy5760
socialeffectsofindustryandmigration534
EconomicCommissionofLatinAmerica(ECLA)16
economics,applicationof367
empowerment1920,11619
Engels,F.60
Epstein,Scarlett556
Escobar,Arturo3,6,24,72,75,77,1034,1556
ethics,ofappliedanthropology1356,1612
Page189
ethnicity,detribalisationcausedbymigration54
EvansPritchard,E.33,53
evolutionism
andoriginsofappliedanthropologyinUSA30
andsocialchange27
'farmerfirst'approach70,74,120
farming
fishfarmproject14751
seealsoagriculture
farmingsystemsresearch(FSR)11920,130
feminism
andpostmodernism157
researchondevelopmentandgender13,602
Ferguson,James11,723,154
Firth,R.43
fishfarmproject14751
FoodandAgriculturalOrganisation(FAO)89,19
Foster,M.834
Foucault,M.21,71
Freeman,Derek42
Friedmann,John11718
Friere,P.20,116
functionalism,andsocialchange278,51
Geertz,Clifford37,55
gender
anddifferentialaccesstodevelopmentalresources846
andeffectsofeconomicchange602
feministresearchon13,62
marginalisationofwomenindevelopmentprojects646,142
recognitionindevelopmentdiscourseandpolicy667,1214,1634
andsocialeffectsofMaasaihousingproject903
GenderandDevelopment(GAD)66,1223
gendertraining125,1634
Gezirascheme634
globalisation
androleofanthropologyinanalysing156,167
socialeffectsofglobalpoliticaleconomy5760
andstudyofdevelopmentagencies71
'GreenRevolution'15,55,56
GroundnutScheme14
Gulliver,P.H.33
Harriss,J.56
Hobart,M.154
housing,socialeffectsofMaasaihousingproject903
HumanOrganisation31,40
incomegenerationprojects989,105
India
slumimprovementprogrammesin834,121
socialeffectsofagriculturalchangein556
statusofanthropologyin36
indigenousknowledge74,119,120,154
andimportanceofcommunication99,100
andlocalresearch162,165
neglectedindevelopmentprojects678,148,149
participatoryruralappraisal(PRA)11314
indigenouspeople
andadvocacyroleofanthropologists468
involvementindevelopmentseeparticipation
NGOsapproachandworkwith109
seealsocommunities
Indonesia,Geertz'sworkin37,55
inequality
andaccesstoruralresourcesinAlbania81
developmentasprocessof16
andMaliSudRuralDevelopmentProject813
needtorecogniseindevelopmentpolicy79,1045,158
Page190
andslumimprovementprojectsinCalcutta834
andwomen'screditgroups846
InternationalBankforReconstructionandDevelopment(IBRD)(laterWorldBank)6,8
InternationalCooperationAdministration(ICA)35
Johannsen,A.M.41
KaribaDamproject8890
Khannastudy678
knowledge
developmentalandlocal734,99,100,1545
Foucault'stheoryof71
seealsodevelopmentdiscourseindigenousknowledge
Korten,D.11819
Kuper,A.334
Kusaipeople612
labourforce
labourers'controlofwelfareresources957
migrationinAfrica534
women'sparticipationin65,66
Larrain,J.34
LatinAmerica,effectsofglobalpoliticaleconomyin589
Lewis,Oscar46
literacyanddevelopment100,117
loans,andcreditgroups846,105
Long,Norman12,15,50,589
Maasaihousingproject903
MaguumadFoundationInc(MFI)120
Mair,Lucy434,46,88,1589
MaliSudRuralDevelopmentProject813
Malinowski,Bronislaw27,53,71
Mamdani,M.678
Marx,K.5
MarxismseeneoMarxism
Mead,Margaret42
methodologiesseeresearchmethodologies
microentrepreneurshipseeincomegenerationprojects
migration534
seealsoresettlementissues
modernisationtheory1216
inadequaciesandcriticismsofstrategies1416,55,56
influenceondevelopment19
similaritieswithdependencytheory19
Moser,Caroline123
Nash,June58
NativeAmericans,anthropologicalstudiesof301
neoimperialism,aidas1011
neoMarxism7
seealsodependencytheory
Ng,C.66
nongovernmentalorganisations(NGOs)10710
aschallengetoorpartofdevelopmentdiscourse107,110,126
involvementincyclonesheltersproject143,1446
nature,roleandadvantagesof48,107,10810,120
participatoryresearchmethodologiesusedby95,116,166
orientalism21
OverseasDevelopmentAdministration(ODA)(UK)9,39,112,129,1312
participation11013
ofcommunityandcontrolofdevelopment44,47,93,945,112,145
cooptionoftermintodevelopmentdiscourse111,11213,163
meaningof11112
needforappropriatecommunication99100
needforappropriateorganisationalstructures979
participatoryresearchmethodologies11316
participantobservation412,43
Page191
participatoryactionresearch(PAR)>115,116
participatoryruralappraisal(PRA)11316,130,166
Philippines,NGOsin108,120
policymakers,relationshipswithanthropologists35,39,1334
politicalcontextofdevelopmentdiscourse723
politicaleconomies,linkwithdevelopmenttheories4,1213
politicisationofdevelopment18
depoliticisationasresultofdeconstruction157
populationprogrammes,problemsof'topdown'approachesto678
postmodernism
andanthropologicalstudiesofdevelopmentdiscourse704
emergenceandnatureof201
influenceonanthropology224,401
influenceondevelopmenttheory212
andproblemsofculturalrelativism1567
poverty
antipovertyapproachandgender1045,123
'basicneeds'approachto7,123
definitionsof25,117
needfordevelopmenttofocuson158
andpolarisationeffectsofagriculturalchange55,56
power
andanthropologicaldiscourse34
anddevelopmentdiscourse72,73
seealsoempowerment
ProjectCamelot35
projectframeworks97,164
projectreports978,135
Proshika95,109,116,118
quality,andethicsinanthropology135
Rabinow,P.24
racerelations,anthropologicalworkon39
RadcliffeBrown,A.R.27,2930
rationality,andconceptsofdevelopment4,12
reflexivityinanthropology23,401
reportsseeprojectreports
research,ownershipanddisseminationof136
researchmethodologies
participatory412,43,11316,130,166
potentialinfluenceonpolicy134
andproblemsofgaininginformation1012
useofanthropological413,130,160,1656
resettlementissues
roleofanthropology47
socialaffectsofKaribaDamproject8890
seealsomigration
responsibility,andethicsofanthropology135
RhodesLivingstoneInstitute53
Robertson,A.F.39,69
Rogers,Barbara645
Rostow,W.W.13
Rozario,S.85
ruralareas
effectofmigrationinAfrica534
participatoryruralappraisal11316,130,166
seealsoagriculture
ruralcooperativetrainingproject13641
Said,Edward21
savingsgroups105
seealsowomen'screditgroups
schools,andcyclonesheltersproject1436
Scudder,Thayer47
slums
slumimprovementprojects834,121
squattersettlements59
socialchange
Page192
anthropologicaldebatesandanalysisof278,512,134
anthropologists'activeinvolvementin1578
notionofacculturation312
seealsoeconomicchangeanddevelopment
socialclass,andgenderinequalities66,856
socialdevelopmentadvisors(SDAs)>129,1312
socialeffectsofdevelopment87
andeconomicchange5362
KaribaDamproject8890
Maasaihousingproject903
socialism,assolutiontounderdevelopment1718
squattersettlements59
Strathern,A.134
structuralfunctionalism51,62
structuralism51
SwedishInternationalDevelopmentAuthority(SIDA)104,122
targetgroups1056
Taussig,Michael58
Tax,Sol38
technologicalchange
fishfarmproject14750
problemsof78
andsocialeffectsofMaasaihousingproject903
ThirdWorld
alliancesofcountriesof18
conceptof17
'topdown'approachestogenderissues123
'topdown'planningofdevelopmentprojects93,978
criticismsof634
andneglectoflocalknowledge678,148,149
training
gendertraining125,1634
ruralcooperativetrainingproject13641
'trickledowneffect'7
criticismsof15
underdevelopment,dependencytheorists'conceptof1617
UnitedKingdom(UK)
originsofappliedanthropologyin2930
postwaranthropologyin35,39
UnitedNationsDecadeforWomen122
UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment(USAID)9,38,122
UnitedStatesofAmerica(USA)
originsofappliedanthropologyin302
postwaranthropologyin35,36,38
urbanmigration53
Wallerstein,I.17,57
Warren,Bill18
Whitehead,Ann61
Wilson,Godfrey53
Wolf,Eric57
women
accesstodevelopmentalresources846
criticismsofdevelopmentapproachesto1234
effectsofeconomicchangeon602
marginalisedindevelopmentprojects646,142
participationindevelopment95,98
recognitionofgenderindevelopmentpolicy667,106,1214
socialeffectsofMaasaihousingprojecton903
WomeninDevelopment(WID)667,122,1234,163
women'screditgroups846
WorldBank(formerlyIBRD)9,10,66,723,163
Worsley,P.17,578
IndexbyJudithLavender