Anda di halaman 1dari 209

Pagei

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