Thesis/Dissertation Sheet
Surname/Family Name : Ravuvu Given Name/s : Amerita Leilani Ana Abbreviation for degree as give in the University calendar : PhD Faculty : UNSW, Canberra School : School of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences (PEMS) Governing rural development: Discourses and practices of State and Donor Thesis Title : sponsored programs for rural development in Fiji
Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE) Amidst global aid debates about the effectiveness of aid and its impact on poverty reduction and achieving improved quality of life, the principle of 'country ownership' has been reiterated at several international conventions. It has committed development partners to the use of country systems as the default approach to the provision of development assistance. Drawing on 'country ownership', this thesis focussed on the country ownership process in Fiji's rural development machinery (rural development administration structure) from an analytics of government perspective. Development programmes with a rural community focus have acquired a major importance in Fiji. They involve a variety of institutional arrangements, programmes and projects for accelerating national development. Fiji's rural development strategies are based upon notions of integrated rural development, which encourage local contributions and empowering rural communities with access to development opportunities. It is argued that an integrated approach can minimise the heavy-handed backing of government. While integrated rural development is not entirely new to Fiji, it has been inadequately theorised to date, with the misconception that it encourages and maximises the participation of rural communities in driving their own development. Using Foucault's 'governmentality' perspective, this thesis explores government and 'expert' discourses of rural development in Fiji and suggests, instead, that the discourses inherent in the ideas and practices adopted for rural development perpetuate the misconception of empowering rural communities. Drawing on a Fiji case study using qualitative methods, the thesis shows how the centralised control of rural development shape the discourses of rural development and normalise the discursive conditions under which rural people operate. These wield very specific rationalities (specific ends) that define the parameters of rural development and the boundaries of action of rural communities and how they organise themselves for their own development.
Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation
I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.
I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).
The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award: Governing rural development: Discourses and practices of State and Donor sponsored programs for rural development in Fiji
Amerita Ravuvu
A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences (PEMS) UNSW Canberra
2018 ORIGINALITY STATEMENT ‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’
i COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'
AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT
‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’
ii Acknowledgements
This thesis culminates the journey my research has taken me on over the past three and a half years. It therefore owes a great deal to the guidance and protection of my Heavenly Father who has granted good health and frame of mind being the source of all things. It has also been enabled by the support of many people with whom I have worked and lived during that time. In particular, I acknowledge the privilege I have experienced through association with my supervisors Dr Alec Thornton and Dr Scott Sharpe who encouraged me on this journey from the get-go and from whom I received much appreciated guidance, as well as valuable suggestions. This research was funded through a Tuition Fee Scholarship from the University and their avid support towards my scholarship application process must be particularly acknowledged. My special thanks to the individuals who gave their time and experience to assist me in this research. To protect key informants’ identities, I will not name the people who agreed to be interviewed but I thank them for their willingness to share experiences, understandings and ideas which provided a valued contribution to the development of knowledge about practices of governing rural development in Fiji. My fellow kinsmen of Nakorosule village in the province of Naitasiri in Fiji, who allowed me to interview them and disrupt their daily schedules deserve the greatest praise and appreciation. A big Vinaka Vakalevu to each of them for telling their stories, sharing their life experiences and extending their generous hospitality to ensure that my fieldwork was enjoyable and this thesis possible. My late grandfather, Professor Asesela Ravuvu, who paved the way for me and whose exemplary leadership, academic track record, values for hard work and determination has left behind a legacy from which I continually draw strength and motivation to go above and beyond. To my parents, Mr Josese and Mrs Asenaca Ravuvu, my fiancé Mr Jekope Qoro and my whole family thank you for the continual encouragement, periodic nudging and cheerful support in ensuring the completion of this thesis. Needless to say, responsibility for any shortcomings in this research remains mine alone.
iii
Publications and presentations by the candidate relevant to the thesis
Ravuvu A; Thornton A, 2015, 'Beyond Aid Distribution: Aid Effectiveness, Neoliberal and Neostructural Reforms in Pacific Island Countries', in Assessing the Impact of Foreign Aid: Value for Money and Aid for Trade, pp. 79 - 93, 10.1016/B978-0-12- 803660-0.00006-4
Ravuvu, A, 2017, 'Rural Development in Fiji: A Governmentality Perspective', Conference Paper presented at the 16th East-West Center International Graduate Student Conference on the Asia-Pacific Region, Feb 16-18, 2017, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Additional publications during candidature not based on thesis
Ravuvu, A; Friel, S; Thow, A-M; Snowdon, W; Wate, J, 2017, 'Protocol to Monitor Trade Agreement Food-Related Aspects: The Fiji Case Study', Health Promotion International, vol.online, pp.1-14pp.
Ravuvu, A; Friel, S; Thow, A-M; Snowdon, W; Wate, J, 2017, 'Monitoring the impact of trade agreements on national food environments: trade imports and population nutrition risks in Fiji', Globalization and Health, vol.13, no.33, pp.1-17pp.
iv
Abstract
There is considered reflection in aid debates about alternatives that might remedy the shortcomings of past approaches to governing development aid and responding to particular circumstances and demands of the time, and indeed, entering the new millennium with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and now the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). As part of the visions culminated in these goals coupled with several international agreements concerning the aid effectiveness agenda is the push for ‘country ownership’ as a principle of aid effectiveness that is vital to ensuring the success of development efforts. However, this principle of ‘country ownership’ has proven controversial in several ways particularly with the discontent over the continuing domination characterised in donor-recipient relationships. More recently, research is shifting its focus away from perceiving these relationships as one merely based on domination by donors towards a ‘country-owned’ configuration that is based on more subtle interactions where both donors and states (as the actors of ‘country ownership’) seek to modify subjects (users/citizens/beneficiaries) through structured fields of action (calculated programs of intervention). These fields of action promote specific norms of conduct that pervade every aspect of life and ultimately shape the aspirations of subjects. Drawing on a case study of rural development in Fiji, this research seeks to identify characteristics and institutional form of rural development governance, the delivery of aid for rural areas within this mode of governance and explore the ideas about ‘power’ of the ‘government’ type embodied in this ‘country owned’ arrangement. Diverse literatures on power relations in the aid discourse and other power formations of the ‘government’ type, biopolitics and sovereignty infiltrating the crisis of development and occurring collectively in international aid practice focus on reconciling the power effects of the current aid architecture as they relate to contemporary challenges of aid effectiveness. The investigation of aid effectiveness in Fiji’s rural development program, as reported in this thesis, was theoretically informed by such literature. It positions the ineffectiveness of Fiji’s rural development program as owing to a weak country-owned process rooted in a complex system of governance. Using the Foucauldian concept of governmentality, it also draws on the ‘analytics of government’ framework to critically analyse how rural development in Fiji has been governed. This provides an understanding of the complexities and multiple dimensions
v
of contemporary discourses of governing. Specifically, it examines three elements: the problematizing that authorities create about the task of governing; the practices used to govern; and the rationales and justification for these. This framework provides an ideal analytical tool for this research with its aim of critically analysing how rural development in Fiji is governed, its purpose and operations, the form development aid takes in this mode of governance, and how it is delivered in Fiji’s rural areas. Using a qualitative research methodology, this thesis has three findings. First, it established that a highly centralised and hierarchical mentality of rule is inherent in Fiji’s rural development machinery (RDM) shaping the form of rural development governance practiced there. Second, the research challenges notions of the RDM being the locus of political activity and supports findings of a centralised operation of governmental power that does not augur well for the proper assessment, approval and prioritisation of rural development projects and programs. Finally, the study highlights the ineffectiveness of aid channelled through rural development programs for rural dwellers using a limited ethnographic study. It illustrates how relations of rule rooted in the governance of rural development shape rural development schemes at the local level and ultimately the aspirations of the rural citizens as governable subjects. It highlights how the mode of governing rural development in Fiji has created a mindset of dependence amongst rural citizens, and examines the contribution that aid makes to this. The thesis concludes that the reality of governing rural development in Fiji touts good governance principles that are constrained by the persistence of entrenched, contradictory, discursive practices associated with its highly centralised and hierarchical mentality of rule.
vi
Table of Contents Chapter 1 Rethinking Rural Development in Fiji: A ‘better way of governing’ development aid ...... 1 1.1. Understanding the ‘Great Aid Debate’ in the context of the study ...... 2 1.1.1 Understanding Official Development Assistance and the evolving aid architecture ...... 6 1.1.2 The debate on ODA allocation ...... 9 1.1.3 The debate on aid effectiveness ...... 10 1.1.4 Aid effectiveness for SIDS ...... 12 1.2. Overview of aid in Pacific Island countries ...... 13 1.3. Development aid and rural development ...... 14 1.4. A study of a ‘better way of governing’ rural development in Fiji ...... 19 1.5. Aims, objectives, research questions ...... 21 1.5.1 Specific objectives ...... 21 1.5.2 Research Questions...... 22 1.6 Conceptual framework: Theories informing the research ...... 23 1.7 Justification for the selection of this research and expected outcomes ...... 27 1.8 Methodology (summary, to be elaborated in Ch3) ...... 30 1.9 Thesis outline ...... 32 Chapter 2 Improving aid effectiveness: Bringing country ownership and governmentality analyses back to the fore ...... 35 2.1 What’s wrong with ODA? ...... 36 2.1.1 Institutions and aid effectiveness ...... 37 2.1.2 Geography and aid effectiveness ...... 40 2.2 The meaning of aid effectiveness: An evolving agenda ...... 43 2.2.1 The emergence of the participatory discourse amidst development alternatives 43 2.2.2 The Paris-style approach to using country systems ...... 46 2.2.3 From Accra to Busan: Aid effectiveness to development effectiveness ...... 49 2.2.4 Value for money: The answer to a different question on aid effectiveness ... 51 2.2.5 Sectoral issues...... 53 2.2.6 Development Effectiveness at the 2011 Busan High Level Forum ...... 56 2.3 Power: A symbolic charge of foreign aid ...... 60 2.3.1 Michel Foucault: ‘Power is everywhere’ ...... 65
vii
2.3.2 Governmentality ...... 67 2.3.3 Foucault’s governmentality in the development and aid discourse ...... 71 2.4 Poverty reduction: What role for development aid in today’s deepening poverty? ...... 75 2.4.1 The multidimensionality of poverty ...... 76 2.5 Summary ...... 80 Chapter 3 Methodology ...... 81 3.1 Understanding research practices – a poststructuralist paradigm ...... 81 3.2 Foucault, poststructuralism and governmentality analytics ...... 86 3.2.1 Poststructuralism and governmentality analytics ...... 87 3.2.2 Limits of using governmentality analytics ...... 91 3.3 Positionality: Reflecting on the research process and the use of governmentality ...... 93 3.3.1 Positionality ...... 94 3.3.2 Power ...... 96 3.3.3 Representation ...... 99 3.4 Research methods and ethical considerations ...... 101 3.4.1 Toward an ethnographic method ...... 102 3.4.1.1 Research Process ...... 103 3.4.2 Field site and the use of ‘talanoa’ as the main ethnographic method of data collection ...... 106 3.4.2.1 Nakorosule Village...... 107 3.4.2.2 Case Studies ...... 109 3.4.2.3 Indigenous research methodologies and the use of the Vanua Research Framework ...... 112 3.4.2.4 Talanoa as an interview method ...... 118 3.4.3 Data management and analysis...... 119 3.4.3.1 Data Management ...... 120 3.4.3.2 Data Analysis ...... 122 3.5 Transferability, validity and reliability of a single case study ...... 125 3.6 Ethical considerations ...... 127 3.7 Summary ...... 128 Chapter 4 Multiple Governmentalities for Rural Development in Fiji: The Crown Colony, the Fijian Administration and the State Apparatus ...... 130
viii
4.1 The Crown Colony and the problematizing of Fiji’s so-called “rural-poor”...... 133 4.1.1 Institutionalisation of capitalist rural development in the colony of Fiji in its formative years: 1874 – 1939 ...... 135 4.1.2 Rural development in Fiji: 1940 – 1969 ...... 138 4.2 The State and the rural development administration structure ...... 141 4.2.1 Rural development organisation and decision-making process: 1970-1986 144 4.2.2 Rural development re-organisation and decision-making process: 1987- 2006… ...... 147 4.2.3 Rural development re-organisation and decision-making process: 2007 to Present ...... 152 4.3 Centralised rural development after independence ...... 156 4.3.1 Rural development 1971 to 1979...... 156 4.3.2 Decentralised regional rural development 1980 to 1989 ...... 158 4.3.3 Rural development via Sectoral Planning from 1990 to 1999...... 159 4.3.4 Rural development in the new millennium: 2000 to 2006 ...... 161 4.3.5 Integrated rural development under the People’s Charter for Change: Post 2006 to Present ...... 164 4.4 The iTaukei Fijian Administration: An instrument of government for the iTaukei rural Fijians ...... 171 4.4.1 The Fijian provincial administration as an approach to ‘government’ ...... 172 4.4.2 Fijian provincial administration reorganised following independence in the 1984 and 2000 Reviews ...... 174 4.4.3 The role of the Provincial Administration in rural development...... 176 4.5 Multiple governmentalities redefining the rural as an object and a subject of government ...... 177 4.6 Summary ...... 179 Chapter 5 Discourses and practices of rural development in Fiji: a governmentality perspective ...... 180 5.1 Policy as technology for putting governmental ambitions into effect ...... 181 5.1.1 Integrated Rural Development Framework as a new policy for planning and implementing rural development ...... 185 5.1.2 Using knowledge and expertise to plan for rural development ...... 188 5.2 Concepts of development ...... 195 5.2.1 The rhetoric – sustainable development ...... 196 5.2.2 Social development...... 198 ix
5.3 Discourses of participatory action: contrasting actors and technologies ...... 203 5.3.1 The rhetoric – deliberative democracy ...... 205 5.3.2 Liberal democracy ...... 207 5.4 Discourses of participatory planning: the agency of experts ...... 209 5.4.1 Participatory planning as discursive practice ...... 210 5.4.2 Modernist and neoliberal modes of governing for rural development in Fiji…...... 216 5.4.2.1 Paradigm One: Advancing economic growth for rural Fiji ...... 219 5.4.2.2 Paradigm Two: Accountable institutions and people-centred development ...... 222 5.5 Rural development as discursive practice ...... 224 5.6 Summary: Using an ‘analytics of government’ approach to understand trends of rural development and how governmental practices work for Fiji’s rural programme ...... 226 Chapter 6 Relations of rule: A case study of micro-practices of Power for Rural Development in Nakorosule ...... 228 6.1 Nakorosule ...... 229 6.1.1 Houses and households ...... 230 6.1.2 Social Organisation...... 230 6.2 Relations of rule and channels of social action ...... 232 6.2.1 Nakorosule Village Council (Bose vanua Koro) ...... 233 6.2.2 District Council of Nagonenicolo (Bose va Tikina) ...... 236 6.3 Representing the Rural: The Naitasiri Provincial Council ...... 238 6.4 Governing through community ...... 243 6.4.1 Self-Help Scheme ...... 244 6.4.2 Small Grants Scheme...... 251 6.5 Summary ...... 253 Chapter 7 Conclusion – Rural development as ‘country-owned’ and sustaining good governance in Fiji ...... 254 7.1 Reviewing the research framework ...... 255 7.2. Reflections on the Findings ...... 256 7.3 Development experiences of the governed: the interplay of discourses and technologies of governing in Fiji’s RDM ...... 259 7.4 Key thesis contributions and implications for rural development in Fiji and Pacific Island Countries (PICs) ...... 263
x
7.4.1 Thesis contributions ...... 264 7.5 Future directions and opportunities ...... 266 List of References ...... 268 Appendices ...... 300
xi
List of Tables Table 3.1 Summary of field trips ...... 102 Table 4.1 Major Rural & Outer Island Development Programs: 2007-2010 ...... 165 Table 4.2 Major Rural Development Initiatives funded by Development Partners 2008- 2010 ...... 167 Table 4.3 Major Rural and Outer Island Developments: 2011-2016 ...... 170 Table 6.1 Population by Gender and Age Group ...... 230 Table 6.2 Cultural norms defining boundaries of action in Nakorosule (Yavu ni bula va koro) ...... 232
List of Boxes Box 1: Progress indicators in implementing aid commitments adapted from OECD (2008) ...... 47 Box 2: Progress indicators in implementing the monitoring framework of the Busan Global Partnership outcome document adapted from Global Partnership (2015): ...... 58
List of Figures Figure 3.1: Extensive inland river system connecting Wainimala River to the Rewa River (widest river in Fiji) on Viti Levu and the location of Nakorosule village ...... 109 Figure 3.2: Predefined patterns, sub patterns and units for rural development in Fiji .. 122 Figure 5.1 Rural Development Decision Making-Machinery ...... 188
List of Maps Map 3.1: Spatial distribution of the poor at tikina (district) level as a proportion of the total poor ...... 106 Map 3.2: Ethnographic study area ...... 108
xii
Chapter 1 Rethinking Rural Development in Fiji: A ‘better way of governing’ development aid
The exercise of power is not simply a relationship between partners, individual or collective; it is a way in which certain actions modify others. Power exists only when it is put into action, even if, of course, it is integrated into a disparate field of possibilities brought to bear upon permanent structures. (Foucault, 1982, p. 788)
In the myriad of global activities carried out in the name of development aid and amidst the contested criticisms and controversial debates surrounding aid effectiveness (Houerou, Nishio, & Tata, 2008; Miller, 2011), the subtle interactions between donors and recipients have often been perceived and criticised as power relationships based on domination serving broader strategic policies of donor states (Severino, 2012; Severino & Ray, 2009). Much of the aid relationship has been characterised as ‘aid donor and recipient’, whereby development assistance is based on donors’ requirements. The domination inherent in these relationships are characterised by donors’ actions to impose policies and to prescribe development approaches they deem most suitable for states to adhere to and adopt (Lindemann & Denzer, 2013). Developing countries, as recipients of development assistance, have been at the receiving end of this exercise of power, including Pacific island countries (Utoikamanu, 2012). For more than 60 years, the challenges concerning the effective delivery of development aid within these power relationships have been no less than a conception of a better way of governing. Given the wide range of objectives that development aid continues to strive to meet (Overton, Murray, & McGregor, 2013; Severino & Ray, 2009), there is considered reflection in aid debates (Engel, 2014; Gulrajani, 2011) about alternatives that might remedy the shortcomings of past approaches to governing development aid and responding to particular circumstances and demands of the time, and, indeed, entering the new millennium with the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and now the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The visions culminated in these goals, coupled with several international agreements concerning the aid effectiveness agenda, prioritise ‘country ownership’ as one of five principles vital to ensuring the success of development efforts and to achieving the central goal of eradicating global poverty
1
(Dabelstein & Patton, 2013). However, this principle of ‘country ownership’ has proven controversial in several ways (Droop, Isenman, & Mlalazi, 2008), particularly with the discontent over the continuing domination characterised in donor-recipient relationships. There is now a shift away from perceiving the relationship as one merely based on domination by donors, towards a new ‘country-owned’ configuration that is based on more subtle interactions where both donors and states seek to modify subjects (target population who are beneficiaries of development assistance) through structured possible fields of action. These fields of action promote specific norms of conduct and ultimately shape beneficiaries’ aspirations. This thesis explores ‘country ownership’ through the Foucauldian concept of ‘governmentality’, to analyse how rural development in Fiji has been governed. In doing this, it argues that this ‘country-owned configuration’ can be seen as a shift away from relationships based on domination, with donors attempting to impose policies and prescriptive approaches, towards more subtle interactions embedded in a plurality of actors seeking to problematize the rural as subjects to be governed. The thesis seeks to increase understanding of a better way of governing development aid through a critical analysis of Fiji’s national development processes and its system of aid delivery, for both foreign aid and government/state- sponsored aid, to show how these processes effectively encouraged the transformation of rural dwellers into self-disciplined neoliberal subjects by shaping their aspirations and promoting specific norms of conduct.
1.1. Understanding the ‘Great Aid Debate’ in the context of the study The critique of international development aid is founded on a belief that notions of development should be conceptualised as a creative space critically engaging the structural concerns and obstacles to development. It is also founded on promoting and prioritising the multiple, lived experiences, needs and rights of ordinary people affected by development planning, policy and practice (Grugel & Hammett, 2016). This thesis seeks to contribute towards an understanding of the latter and how development assistance is grounded in the daily realities and contextual experiences of individuals problematized as beneficiaries and subjects of rural development. The world of international development aid has always served a wide range of economic, political, social and cultural objectives (Severino & Ray, 2009). While there is strong argument that its original objective has been to deliver on the promise of
2
development that promotes wider economic and social outcomes (Overton et al., 2013), the main driving force and greater share of its existence has been geopolitical, to serve broader strategic policies of donor states. During the Cold War Period (1947-1990), these policies were largely targeted at purchasing influence where vast sums of aid were disbursed as “competition raged between the capitalist and communist alliances over the Third World” (Severino & Ray, 2009, p. 2). The performance of aid during this era was “not all that important and whether aid was effective or not was secondary, so long as it helped to shore up friendly regimes” (Severino, 2012, p. 39). It was not until the end of the Cold War that aid was being increasingly driven by “compassionate ethics” focussing on people-centred development that addressed livelihood and poverty issues rather than growth-oriented development of the earlier decades (Severino & Ray, 2009, p. 3). Foreign aid, understood as the transfer of concessional resources from one country to another, has been largely presented and assessed as a mechanism for addressing a variety of developmental purposes (Engel, 2014). For the last 60 years, the basic objective of foreign aid programs in recipient countries was directed towards development of gross domestic product (GDP) (Mosley, Hudson, & Verschoor, 2004). At the turn of the millennium, this has been replaced with the objective of poverty reduction (Feeny, 2007; Mosley et al., 2004). Besides poverty reduction, it is recognised that donors give aid for a number of other different purposes including political, strategic and commercial reasons (Baulch, 2006; Collier & Dollar, 2001). Broadly speaking, foreign aid can be classified into three separate categories: humanitarian or emergency aid, charity-based aid and systematic aid (Moyo, 2009), conventionally known as ‘development aid’. Where foreign aid is discussed in this thesis, the focus is on the largest single component of development aid (OECD, 2012), understood as ‘official development assistance’ (ODA). The current definition of ODA comprises a concessional flow of aid, with terms stipulated by member states of the main organisation of donors - the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC). ODA is provided for the purposes of economic development and the welfare of developing countries (OECD, 2009). As defined by OECD (2009, p. 180), development aid also includes ‘Other Official Flows’ (OOF) described as “…loans from the government sector which
3
are for development and welfare, but which are not sufficiently concessional to qualify as ODA”. In terms of foreign aid funding, there are currently four main channels through which aid is sourced. The traditional funding channels involve DAC-bilateral aid and multilateral aid (Overton et al., 2013). DAC-bilateral aid comprises government to government funding where aid resources are transferred from DAC governments to developing country governments. In terms of multilateral funding, this involves DAC governments giving aid to specialised institutions that then mobilise aid funding. Examples of multilateral institutions include the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank (WB) and United Nation agencies. Within the multilateral funding framework, aid funds can either be marked as ‘core’ funds or ‘non-core’ funds (Tortora & Steensen, 2014). In the case of ‘core’ funds, multilateral institutions decide on how aid funding is used and there is no interference from donor states on how funds are utilised. In terms of ‘non-core’ funds, these are special funds given by DAC governments and are earmarked for specific themes, sectors, regions or countries. Under ‘non-core’ funds, there are two new funding mechanisms namely ‘vertical’ funds providing greater sectoral focus, such as the ‘Global Funds to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and ‘trust funds’ that multilateral agencies use to target specific sectors, areas or countries of interest (Kharas, 2010). The third funding channel of aid comes through emerging non-traditional donors who are non-DAC members and have been previously aid recipients or who continue to be. There are now approximately 22 non- DAC donors (Smith, 2011). Prominent non-DAC donors providing aid to developing countries include the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, South America, the Arab countries of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The fourth funding channel of aid is sourced through private enterprises, Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and philanthropies (Overton et al., 2013). Examples of these include NGOs such as Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and World Vision, and private philanthropies such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. For the last 60 years, criticisms of development aid have been largely rendered by three ideological schools of thought: neo-Marxist, populist and neo-liberal (Carbonnier, 2010a). The neo-Marxist critique denounced ODA as a mechanism of imperialism, where the underdevelopment of the ‘periphery’ (the Global South) is a precondition of development in the ‘capitalist core’ of industrialised countries in the
4
North (Hayter, 1971). According to the neo-Marxist critiques, aid contributed to entrenching a dependent relationship where poor countries became heavily reliant on the capitalist North (Charnoz et Severino (2007) in Carbonnier, 2010a). These criticisms were advanced by development theorists Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein, according to whom the global capitalist system can be divided into a highly developed capitalist core and an underdeveloped and neglected periphery (Lindemann & Denzer, 2013). Unlike left-wing neo-Marxist critics, populist criticism originating at the end of the colonial era in the 1950s and 1960s, focussed on the interests of the population of donor countries (Lindemann & Denzer, 2013). For right-wing populist critics, the central argument runs that tax revenues are better spent on domestic economic and social priorities of donor countries rather than “wasting money on trying to provide ineffective aid to corrupt leaders of distant lands” (Carbonnier, 2010b, p. 138). A leading pioneer of this school of thought was the Frenchman Raymond Cartier, who repeatedly criticised that France’s economic backwardness was a result of its aid investments squandered in its African colonies (Lindemann & Denzer, 2013). Today, the majority of those who critique development aid take on the neo-liberal critique emphasising “the perverse impacts of aid” (Carbonnier, 2010a, p. 138). Neoliberal critics see development aid as a continuation of colonialism imposing western-type led development on beneficiary countries with little to contribute towards the fight against poverty or to improve the well-being of populations. According to this school of thought, development aid “contributes to swelling the staff of myriad and ineffective public administrations in recipient countries…supporting corrupt and non-democratic leaders…[and] distorting markets, stifling entrepreneurialism and creating dependence among the beneficiaries when given in the form of donations” (Carbonnier, 2010a, p. 138).
The criticisms of development assistance inspired by these ideological schools of thought has incited a ‘great aid debate’ about the underlying reasons of aid, its faith in progress and its failure to effectively address development issues, especially basic human welfare. In recent years, there has been a mainstreaming of this debate representing opposing views on the approaches to aid, the value of aid and its impact on development (Engel, 2014). This debate represents opposing views between ‘aid
5
radicals’ who are sceptical or dismissive of aid as a means to solving development problems and ‘aid reformers’ (Gulrajani, 2011), who “perpetuate a reframed modernisation theory approach to development”, which is based on the premise that more aid can spur western linear pathways (or a ‘blueprint’) to ‘develop’ the ‘underdeveloped’ (Engel, 2014, p. 1381). This debate has persisted for decades and the fundamental contested issue currently involves “the inconclusiveness and lack of consensus around aid effectiveness” (Miller, 2011, p. 73). The incoherence of definitions concerned with aid effectiveness and appropriate objectives to measure it are highly contested and controversial (Houerou et al., 2008). Issues associated with ODA financing for development, measurements of aid effectiveness and criticisms of aid offered by ‘aid reformers’ and ‘aid radicals’ have been long-standing areas of concern for studies of aid. The next three subsections provide an overview of these aspects of aid and how they affect the development process. Following this discussion, this chapter then highlights the aid environment in the Pacific islands region. This is followed by a discussion on the global shifts and direction of development aid in addressing rural development. The chapter then goes on to identify the purpose, aims, objectives, theories informing the research, and the methodology used in the study. The chapter concludes by providing an outline of the study. 1.1.1 Understanding Official Development Assistance and the evolving aid architecture The success of the post-WWII Marshall Plan, initiated by the United States, in promoting the economic recovery of Western Europe in the immediate post-war period, is presumed as the best known and perhaps the most successful international aid program (Mavrotas, 2009). It has also been alluded to as the birth of the age of development (Esteva, 1992) and official development assistance (ODA) (Kharas, 2014; Lancaster, 2009). The aid architecture comprised of the foreign aid agenda, its actors, its financing frameworks and recipients has changed many times since the post-war years under the Marshall Plan. Discussed below, key decadal events shaping these changes have led to varying dimensions of development itself. Firstly, the close of the Marshall Plan programs in the early 1950s strengthened Western Europe’s capacity to provide foreign aid assistance to so-called ‘Third World’ or developing countries (Ludwig, 2005). By 1960, the United States and the successful
6
nations of Western Europe established the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is geared towards facilitating bilateral aid to developing countries (Ludwig, 2005). During this time, geopolitical interests were cited as the main driver behind ODA and development aid served to purchase influence (Severino & Ray, 2009). The types of aid projects funded during the Post-War period were largely industrial, including the construction of roads and railways. The next decade, 1970s, shifted the focus of aid to recognise “all spheres of economic and social life” (Esteva, 1992, p. 14). The launch of the International Development Strategy by the United Nations in 1970 opened up and shifted the focus of the development debate. Human- centred development became the emphasis of aid policies and programs (Esteva, 1992). During the years that followed, the Basic Needs Approach launched by the International Labour Organisation in 1976 offered a more effective answer to development emphasising that government and aid policies should be focussing on providing for the basic human needs of the world’s poorest (Willis, 2005). The fourth development decade of the 1980s, coined as the ‘lost decade of development’ (Adebajo, 2014), represented a neoliberal development agenda largely focussing and directing aid to structural adjustment programmes (SAP) and neoliberal reforms (Overton et al., 2013). Aid budgets and conditionalities promoting these reforms were also evident in the early 1990s, where global financial institutions, primarily the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB), dictated neoliberal restructuring through the ‘Washington Consensus’ - a list of 10 policy recommendations for countries wishing to reform their economies (Williamson, 1990). The Washington Consensus “set a strong economic policy tone” (Overton et al., 2013, p. 118). In spite of the prevailing neoliberal restructuring that was occurring, the late 1980s and early 1990s saw the emergence of a new development ethos criticising the notion of modernisation and development termed ‘post-development’ (Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997). Post-development ideas of challenging development from grassroots levels have impacted on practices of development, the directions and delivery of aid and the ways in which development agencies should interact with people and communities that are being ‘developed’. From the mid-1990s onwards, there has been a revival of interest in the social and human dimensions of development focussing on sustainable development, democracy and improved governance and the funding of social sector activities (Stokke, 2009). In the current aid strategy, a range of development
7
programmes and agencies “draw explicitly upon a set of principles that are enshrined in notions of sustainable development” (Raco, 2005) and sustainable development initiatives impinge on the success of development aid (Gibson, Andersson, Ostrom, & Shivakumar, 2005). Donor governments generally adopt the broad definition of sustainable development, as given in the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), or ‘Brundtland Report’, “Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future” (WCED, 1987). At the turn of the millennium, dramatic changes in the aid landscape have continued to unfold. According to Overton et al. (2013), these changes have been shaped by a series of events beginning with an international consensus rooted in the launching of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the United Nations in 2000. The MDGs reinforced the poverty agenda focussing specifically on poverty alleviation and how its impacts should be measured. With the MDGs expiring at the end of 2015, the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has replaced this framing the development agendas and policies of countries for the next 15 years.1 Overton et al. (2013) also highlight that the ‘securitisation of aid’, as a direct response to the ‘Global War on Terror’ following the events of September 9/11, is another key element boosting aid volumes and justifying aid budgets. The third element, they point out, consists of a series of agreements on aid effectiveness, which has been previously described by Murray and Overton (2011) as a ‘neostructural’ turn. These agreements include the Monterrey Consensus of 2002 endorsed in Rome, the Paris Declaration of Aid Effectiveness signed in Paris in 2005, the Accra Agenda for Action endorsed in Ghana in 2008, and the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation Agreement endorsed in Korea in 2011. All of these agreements have put in place a series of principles that guide aid delivery and have brought about significant changes to the volume, direction and delivery of aid. These agreements, according to Overton et al. (2013) have also brought about institutional shifts and the restructuring of their relationships.
1 The process of developing the SDGs was launched at the Rio+20 Summit that took place in Brazil in 2012 and are a new, universal set of goals, targets and indicators drawn up by the United Nations through a worldwide consultation programme with 70 countries. The SDG’s go beyond the symptoms of poverty, to address issues of peace, stability, human rights and good governance as well (Ford, 2015). 8
It is apparent from the past six decades of development that the concept of official development assistance (ODA) has undergone rapid transformations serving a broad range of purposes. It has evolved from institutional shifts characterised by donor dominance and its corresponding aid conditionalities to mutual accountability under the Paris Declaration, and most recently, to a newly forged global partnership negotiated in Busan (Kharas, 2014). Additionally, strategic priorities in the wider-aid system continue to evolve, which include aid allocation, aid sector prioritisation and value-for-money in terms of poverty reduction (Kharas, 2014). Yet even as the aid architecture is evolving, there are also polarised views between development economists, aid optimists who broadly defend aid and aid pessimists who are sceptical, critical or dismissive of aid. Discussed in the following section, views diverge on the allocation of ODA, the impacts that it yields and whether there should be a continued effort of delivering ODA at all. 1.1.2 The debate on ODA allocation The allocation of development aid has been debated extensively for several decades, emphasis increasingly placed on its effectiveness (Cogneau & Naudet, 2007). Since its inception, the allocation of aid has been largely criticised with the view that allocation does not correspond to the level of need in recipient countries. A plethora of influential and ground-breaking empirical studies have investigated factors that bear on aid effectiveness and these studies have deduced that allocation involves more than the level of need in recipient countries. The real determinants of aid allocation according to McKinlay and Little (1977) are embedded in donors’ strategic interests and the influence of the humanitarian needs of beneficiary countries. Since their ground- breaking work, there has been extensive literature examining donor motivations as a key criterion for aid allocation (White & McGillivray, 1995). White and McGillivray (1995, p. 164) consider the ‘allocative performance of donors’ that, based on their assessments, recognise several factors impacting the geographical allocation of aid, while also making the case that donors do not necessarily favour poorer countries. Development economists also argue that the allocation of aid is influenced by policy quality and conclude that good policies are necessary in transforming aid into economic growth (Burnside & Dollar, 2000; Collier & Dollar, 2001, 2002). Along the same lines, Llavador and Roemer (2001) stress that the allocation of aid should be determined by macroeconomic performance and those countries with the best macroeconomic performance would transform aid into economic growth as well. Other studies introduce
9
climate-related variables influencing the effectiveness of aid such as Dalgaard, Hansen, and Tarp (2004), who point to the declining effectiveness of aid in tropical regions. In the myriad of activities carried out in the name of development assistance, there have also been calls to end ODA allocation given that “the club of 22 traditional sovereign donors that form the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) can no longer claim to speak for the world’s donor community” (Severino & Ray, 2009, p. 19). This call emerges from the increasing prominence of non-DAC donors such as China and India in the aid landscape, as well as aid funding that is increasingly sourced from private philanthropies and private companies. There has also been criticism that OECD countries have not all been able to achieve their 0.7% targets. This target was set by the United Nations General Assembly in a 1970 resolution in which these countries agreed to give 0.7% of their gross national product (GNP) in the form of ODA to developing countries. Between 1960 and 2013, only seven out of these 22 countries were reported to meet the 0.7% target (Qian, 2014). 1.1.3 The debate on aid effectiveness Besides ODA allocation, controversial debates persist on the effectiveness of foreign aid for economic growth, improving the quality of life and reducing poverty (Kenny, 2008; Qian, 2014). Although ‘aid effectiveness’ is simply described as aid that “achieves an objective” (Morrissey, 2002, p. 1), it has been more broadly defined as an, “arrangement for the planning, management and deployment of aid that is efficient, reduces transaction costs and is targeted towards development outcomes including poverty reduction” (Stern et al., 2008, p. 20).
The past fifty years presented an array of research assessing the economics of aid effectiveness with a focus on the aid-growth relationships (Ravuvu & Thornton, 2016). The results of these have been contradictory and inconclusive. Critics of aid, such as economists Friedman (1958), Bauer (1971) and Boone (1996) have argued that foreign aid is not a necessary condition of economic development. Rather, they conclude that aid is a mechanism used by regimes to introduce policies that end up benefitting political elites. Countering these, another set of studies have found a positive relationship between aid and growth (Gupta & Islam, 1983; Levy, 1988; Papanek, 1973) and a larger group of studies (Radelet, 2006) found a positive relationship between aid and growth but with diminishing returns. Other empirical studies have
10
reached the conclusion that aid has no effect on growth and may serve to undermine it (Boone, 1994; Cochrane & Thornton, 2016; Mosley, Hudson, & Horrell, 1987; Rajan & Subramanian, 2005). There have also been studies arguing that aid works contingent on other variables such as policy regime and good governance, to the extent that without aid, growth would be lower (Burnside & Dollar, 2000; Collier & Dollar, 2002; Dollar & Pritchett, 1998). At the same time, the last decade has seen a growing polarised debate where contemporary economists continue to dispute the impacts of development aid on economic growth and poverty reduction (Gulrajani, 2011). Divergent views are split between what McGillivray et al. (2006) call the ‘aid works camp’ and ‘aid doesn’t work camp’. Outspoken proponents of the latter camp have included critics such as Dambisa Moyo (2009), who denounces the relationship of dependence created by aid flows in the African context. She also critically argues that aid crowds out private sector development and reinforces corruption with non-democratic state leaders who continue to embezzle large sums of public revenue. Another prominent proponent in this camp includes William Easterly (2006), who argues that aid does not effectively promote development, given that aid amounting to $2.3 trillion has already been disbursed to developing countries without successfully addressing extreme or chronic poverty (defined by the World Bank as surviving on less than $1.25 per day). Countering these, the evidence of development assistance working has been applauded by advocates in the ‘aid works camp’ who acknowledge the contributions of aid to dramatic improvements in health and education (Sachs, 2005). Sachs (2005) contends that development aid has enabled developing countries to escape from ‘development traps’. These traps include, but are not limited to poor health, poor infrastructure and overpopulation. Supporters of aid have also pointed out that although aid has failed in some contexts; it has reduced poverty, spurred growth and elevated countries to a better-off position than they would be without aid (Banerjee, 2007; Collier, 2007; Stiglitz, 2002). Others highlight the advance of successful economies assisted by foreign aid such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore (Kim, 2011; Soesastro, 2006). In a field where much is contested, there is consensus in principle that the ultimate measure of aid effectiveness should be hinged on how aid affects the lives of poor people in developing countries (Mavrotas, 2009). However, the debates on aid
11
allocation and effectiveness previously mentioned have largely focussed on macroeconomic issues, as critiqued by Mavrotas (2009, p. 375), “voluminous literature on aid’s macroeconomic impact has remarkably little to say on [how aid affects the lives of the poor], and less still in terms of practical advice…on how to improve the effectiveness of development aid”.
1.1.4 Aid effectiveness for SIDS This also echoes true for small island developing states (SIDS), particularly in the Pacific region. As discussed in the next section, aid studies concerning the Pacific have also been largely macroeconomic. Mavrotas (2009) insists that more impact evaluation studies are needed, for the purposes of practical and policy-focused research in the area of aid effectiveness. For the purpose of this thesis, I critically analyse the implications of foreign aid and state-sponsored programmes for rural development in Fiji, a politically and economically influential small island developing state in the South Pacific. Many small island developing states (SIDS) face special challenges in pursuing sustainable development associated with the small size of their economy, geographical size, ecological nature, insularity, fragility, proneness to natural disasters, and remoteness (Briguglio, 1995, 2003; Easter, 1999; Ghina, 2003; Kerr, 2005). These characteristics constitute their overall vulnerability and make it particularly challenging for SIDS to achieve higher living standards (Feeny & McGillivray, 2010). Although aid flows to SIDS are “enormous by international standards” given that these countries “currently receive some of the highest levels of aid in the world relative to the size of their economies and populations” (p.897), SIDS are “largely absent” from aid effectiveness studies (Bah & Ward, 2011). Many of these countries continue to experience declines in living standards (Feeny & McGillivray, 2010). Development challenges of small island states have been on the international agenda since the UN Earth Summit on Environment and Development in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro, the Global Conference on Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States in 1994 at Barbados and the World Summit on Sustainable Development held at Johannesburg in 2002 (Ghina, 2003). These international forums shaped the establishment of coalitions and alliances of island states such as the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) (Hussain, 2008). Most recently, the Pacific Small
12
Island Developing States (PSIDS) has been established to specifically address SIDS issues in the Pacific region (Manoa, 2015). Even though the vulnerability of SIDS calls for the provision of greater international assistance, Feeny and McGillivray (2010, p. 897) stress that “this raises important questions over the effectiveness of foreign aid to SIDS in promoting higher living standards”. According to them, an evaluation of aid effectiveness in SIDS is therefore “timely and pertinent” (p.897).
1.2. Overview of aid in Pacific Island countries Pacific Island Countries (PIC), as a region, is comprised of 22 island countries and territories and it is the highest per capita recipient of development aid, globally (Gani, 2009). This is nearly ten times more than the global average of US$24 per capita to all developing countries, combined (Rodgers, 2013). The aid boom in the last decade, coupled with a cycle of dependency and underdevelopment, has become an increasingly contested subject in current aid discussions; on the one hand insisting on the notion of increased external dependence, albeit counter-intuitively, advocating for the indefinite continuation of ‘effective’ aid in the region (Hughes, 2003). Within the PIC region, for the 22 SIDS of the South Pacific, there is voluminous literature on macro (Bertram, 1986, 1993; Feeny, 2007) and micro-economies studies (Dornan & Newton, 2014; Farran, 2014; Tisdell, 2002) highlighting the negligible impacts of foreign aid to the Pacific island economies. Global studies alluding to aid effectiveness at the micro-level, particularly those concerning community well-being have been limited - though this is a growing area of interest with an emphasis on traditional economies, indigenous alternatives and community partnering for local development (Curry, 2003; Gegeo, 1998; Gibson-Graham, Cameron, & Healy, 2013). Aid to the Pacific has, at times, been viewed as a type of ‘return’ for geo- strategic services (Fraenkel, 2006), which raises a legitimate question on the motives of bilateral aid to SIDS and why they receive more aid per capita than do other countries. Poirine (1998, p. 89) argues that the key reason for this lies in the fact that: “islands have more strategic importance than continental countries of equivalent land area as they cover huge exclusive economic zones, and great surfaces of ocean that are ideal for aircraft carriers, missile bases, or radar bases in case of war.”
13
In the case of Melanesia – the region consisting of Fiji, the vast mineral, timber and fishing endowments has been cited as the key reason for large flows of aid (Brant, 2013; Kabutaulaka, 2006). Much of the aid relationship in PICs has been characterised as ‘aid donor and recipient’, where aid is based on donors’ requirements and are not aligned with national development priorities (Utoikamanu, 2012). Aid policies that do exist are strongly influenced by international understandings of ‘what counts’ as sound development policy (Ravuvu & Thornton, 2016). A recent symposium on Pacific development policy, hosted by the University of the South Pacific2 (USP) in Fiji explored the various forms of foreign development aid to this region and criticised the evidence and magnitude of its effects as questionable. Salient issues in these discussions concerned transfer of donors’ development policies and theories to the PIC setting, with little regard of their relevance, the lack of ownership in aid programme and project designs, the existing power structures in PICs that influence national policy and aid resource distribution, and the issue of good governance in aid delivery. In recent years, debates have emerged regarding the appropriateness of certain reform strategies that aid supports and the extent of contributions that development assistance provided for the sustainability of livelihoods of people in the region (Pollard, 2013).
1.3. Development aid and rural development It is widely accepted that the term ‘rural’ is ambiguous (Ashley & Maxwell, 2001; Corbridge & Jones, 2008) but the definitions of ‘rural areas’ or ‘rural development’ is clearly recognisable. In this dissertation, the term ‘rural development’ assumed is twofold. Firstly, using John Harriss’s (1982, pp. 14-15) definition, it is: “a distinct approach to interventions by the state…in the development of the economy of underdeveloped countries as a whole [entailing] much more than the development of agricultural production…[It is multi-sectoral] focussing (in its rhetoric and in principle) particularly on poverty and inequality. [It can also be defined as] processes of change in rural societies, not all of which involve actions by governments”.
2 What Can We Learn Project (WCWL). (2012, November). Report: What we’ve learned about development in Pacific Island Countries. Symposium conducted for the What Can We Learn Project, The University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji. Retrieved from http://devpolicy.org/pdf/What-we've- learned-about-development-in-Pacific-island-countries-volume-2.pdf
14
Secondly and more profoundly, it is “a process of growth springing from within rural society that involves learning and adapting introduced and new locally created knowledge toward positive change that supports life and affects villagers’ world-views and systems of knowing, understanding and reasoning” (Gegeo, 1998, pp. 291, 297).
Rural development emerged as a distinct field of policy and practice in the post-war period. It is a term that has become central to the development effort where development agencies and developing country governments have extensively approached it with a strong poverty focus (Ashley & Maxwell, 2001). Since its recognised inception, rural development interventions have taken many forms and as elucidated here, it is a development approach that has been widely recognised on the global development aid agenda (Allen, 2013). The first development decade of the 1950s was dominated by a rapid expansion of community development through the “top-down or blue-print approach to rural development, characterised by external technologies and national-level policies” (Ellis & Biggs, 2001). Community development became a major focus of development assistance (Ruttan, 1984). Leaders of developing countries and donors alike viewed it as “the means to mobilize rural people as a resource for and the objective of economic, social and political development” (Holdcroft, 1978, p. 2). The term ‘community development’ was first used at the British Colonial Office’s Cambridge Conference on the Development of African Initiative (DAI) in 1948. This initiative was designed to prepare the British African colonies for independence through “state-sponsored welfare initiatives” or “mass education” and was broadly defined as a process “involving people in a community in educating themselves to improve the circumstances of their lives through health, agriculture, civic education and mass literacy schemes” (Smyth, 2004, p. 419). A number of community development efforts emerging from this initiative in African territories and a community project initiated in India in 1948 (the Etawah project) spurred its prominence and expansion at the international level (Holdcroft, 1978; Ruttan, 1984). By 1960, the United Nations estimated that more than sixty developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America had launched these programmes (Korten, 1980).
15
Although proving popular in the 1950s, there was a decline in support of these programs in the 1960s. Rural development practice switched to small-farm agriculture as the engine of growth and development (Ellis & Biggs, 2001). This paradigm shift was embodied in the dual-economy theories of development, a strand of thinking inspired largely by Arthur Lewis (Gollin, 2014). According to these theories, the rural sector could only supply resources such as labour, capital and food to the modern capitalist sector, but it had a negligible role for increasing productivity or overall economic growth. In its simplest form, “growth consisted of expanding the capitalist sector” (Gollin, 2014, p. 72). The priority of urban industrialisation embodied in the modernisation theories of development (Rostow, 1971) also contributed to the decline in support of community development programs, as these focussed on industrial investment in urban centres as a western development pathway and argued that there would be an eventual ‘trickle down’ of development benefits to the rural setting. These theories exerted a powerful influence on rural development policies (Ellis & Biggs, 2001) manifested in the consequent disinvestment in rural areas and, by 1965, community development programs were no longer considered by both development agencies and national governments as a major rural development effort. There were also criticisms that they failed to improve the social and economic well-being of rural people (Ruttan, 1984) and that the rural elites or the “better-off rural inhabitants” were capturing most of the gains generated by these programmes (Korten, 1980, p. 481). After a decade of relative neglect, rural development picked up momentum again in the 1970s and featured strongly in the development policy agenda. This time, state-led rural development initiatives such as the ‘integrated rural development approach’ (born out of the FAO Agricultural Institutions for Integrated Rural Development symposium in Rome in 1971) and the ‘basic needs approach’ (outlined in the ILO World Employment Conference in 1976) renewed the focus of rural development efforts in bilateral and multilateral development assistance programmes (Ruttan, 1984). By the fourth development decade, both these approaches were coming under scrutiny. In the 1980s, the neoliberal development agenda largely focussing and redirecting aid to structural adjustment programmes (Overton et al., 2013) and market liberalisation affected rural development practice and contributed to even more disinvestment in the rural sector (Bryceson, 2002). Neoliberal restructuring led to the withdrawal of governments from earlier large-scale management of the agricultural
16
sector and heavy-handed involvement in the rural sector (Ellis & Biggs, 2001). There were also a range of criticisms and implementation problems for projects and programmes under the ‘basic needs’ and ‘integrated’ approaches of the 1970s that further embedded neoliberalism and its focus on the capitalist/industrial sector in aid and development programmes. While it was recognised that the concern towards the rural poor and their participation in the development process impacted national and donor funding priorities, the reallocation of funds to improve the quality of life in rural areas was not enough. It was argued that the solutions to problems presented by many of the projects and programmes under these approaches were “inhibited by programming procedures better suited to large-capital development projects rather than people-centred rural development” (Korten, 1980, p. 482). It was also argued that these approaches hindered rapid economic growth as they focussed on small scale agricultural production and informal sector activities (Willis, 2005). Furthermore, the rural development experience from the 1970s and early 1980s, as pointed out by Ruttan (1984), illustrated three key factors that would continue to prevent most rural communities from accessing development opportunities. Firstly, rural development programmes may not be able to mobilise the political and economic resources needed for their structural reform. Secondly, rural development programmes may not be able to mobilise the bureaucratic resources necessary to make rural development effective. Thirdly, rural development would continue to be characterised by unequal rates of development between urban and rural areas, among rural areas, and between economic and social classes in rural areas. During this period, a growing concern on the lack of understanding of rural poverty was also becoming apparent (Chambers, 2014). Robert Chambers who was a pioneering voice of the concept of sustainable rural livelihoods, began advocating for this since 1983, contending that there is a richness and validity in rural people’s views and knowledge that is under appreciated and prioritised by policy makers, researchers, scientists and administrators in development practice. By the 1990s, a variety of paradigms including decentralisation, the grassroots approaches, sustainable development approaches, livelihood approaches and the rise of non-governmental organisations as the panacea to development problems were all scrambling for policy space (Ellis & Biggs, 2001). There was a new direction of programmes for rural development policy and budget priorities of donors were shifting their focus to grassroots development required by sustainable development and poverty
17
reduction programmes. Non-governmental organisations became prominent as agents for rural development (Ellis & Biggs, 2001) and huge amounts of multilateral and bilateral aid were channelled through them. It is estimated that at least US$1 billion of ODA went straight to NGOs in the mid-1990s, rather than through development country governments’ aid budgets (Willis, 2005). After five decades of unremitting debates and action, rural development in the 2000s was in a “troubled state” (Ashley & Maxwell, 2001, p. 395). This was evident in the persistence of rural poverty, the declining flows of development funds to the rural sector, particularly for agriculture and the call by both development agencies and developing country governments to rethink policy (Ashley & Maxwell, 2002). While it was recognised that poverty was widespread in rural areas, that most of the poor were rural and that a concerted effort be made to ensure that rural development was central to poverty reduction (Ashley & Maxwell, 2002; Lipton, 2001), there was also a growing concern for urban poverty and the impact of urbanisation resulting from rural-urban migration. New priorities, policies and the direction of aid concerning rural-biased and urban-biased development were being debated (Satterthwaite, 2002) and these debates have continued (Jones & Corbridge, 2010). These debates have been guided by Michael Lipton’s urban bias thesis, arguing that development processes have been at the expense of the rural sector (Lipton, 1977). Four key elements have sharpened these debates significantly. These include the rapid growth of urban poverty resulting from rural- urban migration. The second is rural poverty resulting from urban biased policies that have led to an unfair allocation of resources in favour of the urban sector. Thirdly, definitions on what counts as urban or rural given intra-sectoral differences, conceptions of class and livelihood diversification; and lastly, the causes and consequences of urban growth (Corbridge & Jones, 2008; Jones & Corbridge, 2010). With the renewed focus of development policy to reduce extreme poverty, critiques of the urban-bias thesis have argued that acceptance of this concept has, in the past, relatively ignored the extent of urban poverty (Mitlin, 2002). While this is now being paid more attention in development policy circles particularly through mainstreaming rural development in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)3 (Corbridge & Jones, 2008; Mitlin, 2002), there are continuing debates that leading
3 These PRSPs are a “professedly comprehensive country-driven approach to poverty [outlining efforts on how to reduce poverty and monitor progress of these in developing countries through a combination of] macroeconomic, structural and social policies and programs (Craig & Porter, 2003, p. 53). 18
development agencies are guided by a version of the urban bias thesis. It is argued that key donor documents give little scope to urban issues. A summary of these is presented by Corbridge and Jones (2008) and Jones and Corbridge (2010) including the promotion of sustainable development for ‘Our Common Future’, prescribed by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) that devoted only one chapter to cities; a 2001 World Bank Development Report on ‘attacking poverty’ where references to urban issues were negligible; criticism from development economists on the PRSPs as either disregarding urban areas entirely or placing more priority on rural development and the rural poor and a World Bank review noting that the proportion of resources for some MDG goals allocated to rural space has been higher than its urban counterparts. Arguably, Lipton (2001, p. 1) maintains that the bias against rural areas is still evident in the policies of leading development agencies. He claims that “most of the rural are poor, most-developing country poverty reduction strategies are macroeconomic, and developed-country aid to agriculture has collapsed [from over one-third of total aid in the 1980s to just 12% in 2001]”. Although poverty, along with the global population, is increasing in urban areas, extreme poverty remains rural in nature for the majority (70%) of the developing world (IFAD, 2010).
1.4. A study of a ‘better way of governing’ rural development in Fiji From the outset, rural development has always been on the global development aid agenda. While there have been decades of neglect, the turn of the 21st century has witnessed a revival of donor interest and contemporary aid programming with a strong focus (at least in principle) on rural development (Allen, 2013). In this research, I intend to describe and analyse the form development aid takes and exactly how it is delivered for rural development. It focuses on increasing understanding of the way development aid delivery is controlled, organised and redistributed in the rural development discourse evident in the Fiji context. To do this, the thesis explores how ‘country ownership’ embedded in multiple governmentalities drive the policy direction and implementation of rural development efforts targeted at poverty reduction in the Fiji context. Given that ‘country ownership’ already exists in the plurality of local actors involved in aid delivery, the research attempts to increase understanding on a ‘better way of governing’ by answering a significantly different question that Booth (2011a)
19
proposes, delving into how development aid can avoid weakening the country ownership that already exists. In this thesis, analyses of aid effectiveness remain primarily at the micro-level focussing on development assistance towards poverty reduction efforts for the rural sector and how development aid has stimulated the rural economy. Although Fiji has the second largest economy in the South Pacific, poverty has been identified as a critical development challenge (Bryant-Tokalau, 2012). Like in many other parts of the developing world, since Fiji’s independence in 1970, state-led intervention in rural development has been subsidised by foreign aid (Mausio, 2006). In Fiji, rural development has been regarded as a series of integrated measures aimed at improving the productive capacity and living standards of people who reside outside urban areas and who depend largely on the land for sustenance (Lasaqa, 1984). These include people engaged in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and rural industries and handicrafts as well as trade, commerce and services in rural areas. While foreign aid assistance for rural development throughout the past four decades has been backed by the heavy- handed involvement of the government in the rural economy and the subsequent influence of external financial institutions under the structural adjustment programmes, poverty in Fiji remains largely a rural phenomenon (Raghbhendra, Dang, & Sharma, 2009). According to the most recent national household survey, poverty in Fiji has increased and in terms of rural areas, standards of living continue to decline (Narsey, Raikoti, & Waqavonovono, 2010). A sum of approximately $198m has been allocated to rural development in the state’s annual budgets (both from foreign aid and state funds) since independence, but the significant impact of these funds has been negligible. This is evident from the visible signs of development in the rural areas and the number of people living below the poverty line (Fiji Government, 2014). The rural sector in Fiji comprises a population size of 412,425 (Fiji Bureau of Statistics, 2007). This is 49 per cent of the total population of the country. Over 70 per cent of the state’s natural resource base is found in this sector and this contributes to more than 30 per cent of the country’s GDP (Fiji Bureau of Statistics, 2007). Despite the concentration of state efforts on rural development during the colonial period and post-independent period, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, rural development in Fiji has fallen behind other competing national development priorities largely because it was neglected in the 1990s. While momentum towards rural development priorities
20
have picked up again in the mid-2000s to present, the significant impact of aid disbursements to reduce poverty by bridging the rural-urban divide has been minimal. It is the aim of this thesis to understand why resource gaps between the rural and urban continue to widen by critically analysing how rural development is governed. To understand how government sponsored programmes and foreign aid funded programmes filter through the national public financial management system down to the local level, and to contribute to the knowledge of more effective institutional changes that pave for a ‘better way of governing’ development aid, there is a need to critically examine the historical constructions shaping rural development discourse in Fiji and the actors and regimes of practices involved, therein.
1.5. Aims, objectives, research questions This study aims to conduct in depth analyses of how rural development in Fiji is governed, the form development aid takes, and how it is delivered in Fiji’s rural areas. To do this, a detailed analysis is undertaken, to identify the plurality of actors that participate in the governance of development aid, how they envisage and plan for rural development and what they accomplish in the process. 1.5.1 Specific objectives In meeting the broad aims of this study, the following specific objectives of this research are to: 1) Provide a critical analysis of the evolution of rural development in Fiji and how it has been problematized; 2) Provide a critical evaluation of how Fiji allocates and uses development funds in service delivery in the rural sector, paying particular attention to the approval process of development assistance expenditure via the national public financial management system right down to provincial and district levels; 3) Conduct a case study in Fiji using an ethnographic approach to identify issues and challenges that rural dwellers are faced with as subjects to be governed in rural development; and 4) To explore a way forward towards a ‘better way of governing’ rural development by assessing the role of the state and donors in meeting immediate objectives of development aid for rural development in Fiji.
21
1.5.2 Research Questions The study argues that increasing poverty in rural communities is not only a result of limitations in funding or rural development foci. Rather, the problematizing of the rural as ‘subjects’ to be governed, driven by a plurality of actors and subtle power relations of the ‘government’-type in a weak4 country-owned development process has influenced rural development practice and outcomes. From this perspective, the mechanisms of governing ‘country ownership’ in rural development is not based on force, nor is it to be understood simply as the overt imposition of donors or state will in enabling rural transformation. Rather it is to be viewed as a practice of government – a discursive practice that manifests itself in specific norms of conduct to shape, guide, or affect the aspirations of rural citizens. The mechanisms for governing the conduct of rural development in this instance rely upon discursive and practical techniques of discipline and regulation that seek to create self-governing individuals and communities that ‘freely’ align their conduct with the socio-political objectives of those in authority. The objectives of this thesis are therefore pursued through an investigation of the following research questions: 1. How is rural development problematized and governed? (Objective 1) 2. How is power exercised by donors and the state to shape rural development strategies by ensuring that certain (politically desirable) outcomes are more likely to ensue than others? (Objective 2) 3. To what ends are contemporary strategies directed in the context of rural development? (Objective 2 and 3) 4. By what means does this act of government take place? (Objective 3) 5. What forms of conduct in traditional structures render particular issues, domains and problems governable in the governance of community wellbeing? (Objective 3) 6. How can development aid avoid weakening country-owned development processes, as embodied in the specific arrangements and practices of Fiji’s RDM, when it already exists? (Objective 4)
4 In this thesis, weak country-owned processes are defined as subjective decision-making processes that do not augur well for the proper assessment, prioritisation, approval and implementation of rural development programs and projects, and the lack of fiduciary standards within the government system to ensure that rural development processes are governed effectively. 22
1.6 Conceptual framework: Theories informing the research To locate my research and the approach that I have taken within the development studies literature, this section delves briefly into the successive phases and perspectives in development theory that have chartered the development processes of developing countries. It then draws on the key theory underpinning this research, Michel Foucault’s ‘Power Theory’. Earlier thinking on so-called ‘Third World’ (developing countries of the ‘global south’) development and the implementation of intervention through aid programmes largely followed on from economic growth theories namely modernisation, structuralist and dependency theories (Preston, 1996). These theories have been influential in shaping and defining the ‘world capitalist system’, in developing frameworks for studying development economics and have been the basis of much of the ‘First World’ or western-led (‘global north’) theorising on development (Preston, 1996; Tignor, 2006). In development theory, modernisation, in particular, has dominated the discourse of modernity and development in the decolonisation processes of developing countries (Engel, 2014; Gibson-Graham, 2010). One of the most influential modernisation theories that has characterised western-led development has been Walt Rostow’s (1956) ‘five stages of economic growth’, which advanced a linear model that all societies go through: traditional society, preconditions for take-off, take off, road to maturity and the period of high mass consumption (Rostow, 1971). Rostow’s theory has been criticised as offering a ‘blueprint’ for developing countries to follow on their way to western development. It held the belief that countries progressed in this linear fashion regardless of their state of affairs (Rapley, 1996). Contesting modernisation theory, structuralism encompassing the dependency theory and world-system theory emerged. Structuralist social scientists from Latin America, namely Prebisch (1949 & 1950), Furtado (1964) and Cardoso and Faletto (1979) theorised that ‘underdeveloped’ countries occupy a position of secondary class in the global economic system. While their works specifically addressed the economies of countries in Latin America and the impacts of the Great Depression of the 1930s on these economies, the essence of dependency theory argues that the strategic interests of developed countries have significantly altered the social structures of developing countries. These strategic interests have ultimately impoverished many of these countries through acts of colonialism, imperialism and extractive terms of trade. As
23
modernisation theorists (Rostow and Lewis) focussed on economic transformations to assist developing countries in making informed choices about development, dependency theorists emphasise that ‘underdevelopment’ is a condition created by western development. Their core-periphery model regards global capitalism as heralded by growth and modernisation theorists as the actual cause of impoverishment in developing countries. The core-periphery model espoused by John Friedman’s doctrine of core- periphery dependency theory (Friedmann, 1966) conceptualises the world structure as comprising two distinct development patterns. The model distinguishes between the uneven development in the core – representing wealthy nations who continue to benefit from global capitalism, and the periphery – representing newly industrialised (developing) countries that continue to be impoverished by their participation in the global economy (Moore, 1994). This model is not limited to the global scale. It is also applicable at the national level where a country is differentiated by its ‘industrialised’ or urbanised core and ‘agricultural’ or rural periphery (Krugman, 1991). The economic basis of progress through the implementation of aid programmes founded on these economic growth theories – be it classical economic theories of Rostow’s model, Keynesian theories, and structuralist theories, or the dependency theories of the 1950s and 1960s, their definition of development focussed on economic growth addressed by industrialisation and exports (Willis, 2005). These theories have all assumed that social progress must follow economic progress. However, the unanimous support for these theories seemed to be introducing ‘gaps’ in the societies they were being introduced to. Criticisms of aid programmes that have come to the aid of economic development in developing countries have shown how defective economic progress can be. In many instances, economic progress has brought forth social degeneration and low quality of life for the masses in developing countries. Aid resources are not reaching the grassroots level where the majority of the suffering populations exist (Mavrotas, 2009). Economic progress in many small island developing countries have reached a certain scale where they have turned out to be what Ronald Wright (2005) terms “progress traps.” These criticisms have been strongly informed by postmodernism and post-development critiques, discussed below. Post-development critiques have argued that “understandings of development reflect power relations and enable some ideas of development to be presented as correct, while others are dismissed” (Willis, 2005, p. 29). They challenge the very idea of
24
development and argue that development as understood in the western context and imposed threaten people’s autonomy, disintegrates culture and undermines traditional societies. Post-developmentalists such as Sachs (1992), Escobar (1995) and Rahnema and Bawtree (1997) have argued this. They provide pragmatic examples where the conventional development path to economic progress experienced by developing countries is based on Eurocentric assumptions. These assumptions, they say, have destroyed indigenous cultures, threatened the sustainability of self-sufficient systems and created a negative stigma where people in developing countries view their ‘own’ development pathways as ‘incorrect’ and inferior to the ideas of development imposed by developed countries. Alongside other post-developmentalists, such as Gibson- Graham (2006), they have pronounced the end of capitalism and argue for a reframing of what it means to be part of an economy. Even as post-development ideas became influential in the development discourse, many contemporary development studies scholars today agree that the foundations of capitalist modernisation and structuralism have not entirely disintegrated traditional societies or undermined their traditional coping strategies (Allen, 2013; Curry, 2003). Rather than exploring questions of whether or not development aid reframed under the western-led neoliberal agenda (founded on both modernization theory and structuralist perspectives of capitalism) has undermined traditional societies and disintegrated indigenous cultures, this thesis seeks to understand the rhetoric in the governance of development aid and its practical implications through a poststructuralist lens. Poststructuralist thought challenges dominant understandings of development and allows me to “see the contours of development in terms of hybridity and syncretism” (Allen, 2013, p. 168). In the context of rural Fiji, the poststructuralist perspective has much to offer. This perspective enables me to understand the cultural and historical constructions shaping local development discourses. It also enables me to consider the impacts of development efforts in the rural sector and how these are created and shaped in relationships with individuals, institutions and broader relations of power. The discussions of ‘country-owned’ poverty reduction efforts for rural development in this thesis are guided by Michel Foucault’s ‘power theory’ and his conceptualisation of what he termed ‘governmentality’ (Foucault, 1980). Linking power of the government type with the failure of development efforts could provide insights
25
into the development dispositif5 and how the operations of power in the development aid agenda is exercised through the state (Brigg, 2002). This research looks to analyse the state’s institutional practices for development funding prioritisation towards rural development - practices being understood here through Foucault’s notion of the ‘regime of practices’ (1991b, p. 75), understood as a set of practices that involve operations of power through the state and its influence on poverty reduction outcomes of development projects. In the development aid context, these practices constitute, for example, the setting where funding commitments and dialogue are carried out, how conditionalities and reasons for funding are justified, the processes involved in the planning and implementation of projects, the assessment, approval and appraisal of funded projects and how these ‘practices’ interconnect. The thesis also seeks an understanding between two opposing discourses (in Foucault’s sense) of traditional culture and modernisation in its various manifestations. This augurs well for discussions on the notion of ‘traditionalism’ and ‘grassroots’ against mainstream development approaches characterising Western economies. In the Pacific, it is recognised that state policies supported through aid programs concerning land modernisation, engagement of communities in various new cash economies, the wider integration of the Pacific into the world economy through trade liberalising agreements, and the constant focus on formal markets have all had a damaging impact on rural livelihoods by undervaluing sustainable informal economic activities (Anderson, 2011; Ravuvu, 1988). They have underwritten the autonomy that comes from the strength of traditional (non-market) economies (Regenvanu, 2009). For Melanesia, the economic development mindset and related expectations of trickle-down effects has widened rural-urban disparities. Many of the social outcomes such as life expectancy, health and education, to name a few, do not necessarily come from economic growth alone. Many of these social outcomes are realised in the traditional economy in which 80 per cent of people in Melanesia live (Anderson, 2011). The traditional economy, which involves traditional coping strategies, includes resource access through customary land tenure, forest and marine resources. Additionally, cultural practice through languages, traditional knowledge, traditional wisdom,
5 (Foucault, 1980: 194): A group of “material elements – for example, ‘discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions and so on – and the system of relations established between these elements.” 26
traditional wealth items and traditional production skills and community vitality including traditional authorities and social organisation of units in the communal setting, have sustained Pacific island communities for thousands of years (VNSO, 2012). Yet modernisation and the focus of state policies on mainstream economic development have often undermined and served to “distract attention from the promising potential of emerging hybrid livelihoods” (Anderson, 2011, p. 86), whereby rural communities can incorporate elements of the traditional and formal economies to develop hybrid livelihoods. Using Fiji as a case study, the theoretical and applied outcomes of this thesis also test the conceptual hypothesis that urban-based practices and prioritisation of rural development projects (governing from a distance) contribute to the failure of development efforts and negatively impact traditional coping strategies in the process. These coping strategies involve local participation, empowerment and strategies that hinge on the improvement of social conditions and well-being in rural communities.
1.7 Justification for the selection of this research and expected outcomes The selection of this research topic stems from ethnographic observations and participation in rural development projects that I have experienced in my personal (as an iTaukei or indigenous Fijian) and professional capacity. Other factors influencing the selection of this topic come from a long-held interest in the subject matter, the value I place on the need to understand social problems associated with rural development and the “familiarity” that I have with the subject area (Berg, 2009). This research is topical, in view of global debates on measuring or determining ‘aid effectiveness’ (Blunt, Turner, & Hertz, 2011; Brown & Swiss, 2013; Hansen & Tarp, 2000; Riddell, 2014). More so, it is topical in view of global debates concerning the focus of development efforts between rural versus urban poverty (Allen, 2013; Ashley & Maxwell, 2002; Corbridge & Jones, 2008; Jones & Corbridge, 2010). As discussed in earlier sections, the “specific purposes which aid is meant to serve, according to the policy statements of donors – including poverty alleviation through better education and health as well as institutional and participatory development” (Mavrotas, 2009, p. 375) tends to escape analyses amongst the voluminous literature focussing on macroeconomic issues. There is a need to “delve deeper into the mechanisms through which the various types of aid operate” (Mavrotas &
27
Nunnenkamp, 2007, p. 585) and this is timely as well as an important issue in view of recent calls and concerns in Pacific development policy, mentioned earlier in this chapter. Recent data and analyses show that poverty in PICs is not only increasing, but it is most prevalent in rural areas (Bryant-Tokalau, 2012, p. 198; Narsey, 2008; UNDP, 2014). Their livelihoods often depend on natural resources, family remittances and development assistance provided by their governments through ODA or state funding (Bertram, 1999; Thornton, Binns, & Kerslake, 2013; Thornton, Kerslake, & Binns, 2010; Tisdell, 2014). While these people are equipped with local knowledge of their micro-environments and traditional ways of living that have provided resilience to their populations for thousands of years, they are usually neglected in academic, policy and public discourses on capacity development and program design in the context of aid activities, aid effectiveness and its monitoring and evaluation frameworks (Pollard, 2013). The flow of development projects to traditional settings is continuous; however the effectiveness of these is a major challenge in indigenous communities (Pollard, 2013). On average, one in four people in the Pacific islands are living below the basic- needs poverty line – where people lack income to meet their daily needs (UNDP, 2014). In terms of research site selection, Fiji was identified as a valuable location for this research for several reasons. Fiji has historically been the recipient of high levels of donor funding post-independence (Mausio, 2006) like the rest of the Melanesian group which includes New Caledonia, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Vanuatu. Nonetheless, Fiji suffers from increasing rates of poverty with rural poverty showing no discernible improvement (DFAT, 2013) and records the largest percentage of urban poverty in the Pacific region despite the overall level of development and the moderately high average incomes (ADB, 2014). The consideration of Fiji as the case study location also stems from recent data analyses acknowledging the existence of absolute poverty in Fiji (UNDP, 2014). According to UNDP Pacific’s 2014 Human Development Report, the only other PIC where this has been acknowledged is PNG. In addition to these, Fiji resembles differences that also allow for a valuable study. Fiji is a politically and economically influential South Pacific nation (Thornton, 2009), second to PNG, and is home to many global institutions and organisations involved in development work thereby benefitting from their programs in many ways (Mausio, 2006). Its capital, Suva, is also the largest metropolis besides Port Moresby in PNG
28
(Bryant-Tokalau, 2012). Nonetheless, poverty has been identified as a critical development challenge (Bryant-Tokalau, 2012). These reasons warrant concern for research to explore how development aid has impacted and stimulated the rural economy and whether it has effectively addressed issues of underdevelopment concerning rural living. Based on the third objective of this research (see page 21), the research aimed to identify issues and challenges that rural dwellers are faced with as subjects of rural development. To select the ethnographic study area of Nakorosule village of the Naitasiri Province, this was guided by two previous studies carried out in this village by Nayacakalou (1978) and Ravuvu (1988) critiquing the pattern of change introduced by the formal economy under the banner of rural development and its impacts on various aspects of subsistence living. The existence of these earlier studies makes Nakorosule a particularly useful location to study rural development. These studies were used as baseline studies against which my findings were compared, to measure the ‘impacts’ of rural development and to delve into the varied perspectives and experiences that the different participants (villagers as subjects of rural development) cope with in terms of rural development practice in their settings. The selection of Nakorosule village also stemmed out from an information-oriented approach – a non-random sampling technique using predetermined criteria to select the case study (Babbie, 2015; Liamputtong, 2013). These criteria, detailed further on page 111, apply that the site should be an indigenous rural village meeting the definition of rural outlined earlier on page 14, that it should be from a province where poverty is concentrated in Fiji as marked by Map 3.1 on page 106 and the site should be accessible and relatively of close proximity to allow for multiple visits to the site given the limited research budget and time allocated to the research. In terms of its theoretical approach, this thesis contributes to knowledge in the area of governing aid effectiveness, specifically in critical discourses of aid that challenge hegemonic (western) development strategies and projects subject to the notion of social progress, which is widely-promoted but with negligible benefits when applied in practice (Abbott & Pollard, 2004). For Pacific island economies, “repeated attempts by aid donors and local governments to trigger industrialisation and export-led growth have produced boom-bust cycles of investment, but not sustainable industrial economies” (Bertram, 2011, p. 963). The research discussed in this thesis is also
29
significant for multilateral and bilateral donors and development institutions, such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, of which are not necessarily traditionally very active in the bottom end of the aid delivery structure. This research seeks to increase engagement of these institutions and recognition of not only the magnitude of the problems or failures, but also the relevance of ‘lessons learned’ to improve the governance of aid effectiveness in Fiji, Melanesia and the wider region.
1.8 Methodology (summary, to be elaborated in Ch3) This research frames the analysis of development aid effectiveness through the lens of a governmentality analytic, as a critical social theory, and the Fijian Vanua Research Framework – an indigenous methodological approach (Nabobo-Baba, 2008) that borrows from critical social theory and the Kaupapa Māori Theorising (Smith, 1997). The Vanua Research Framework and the Kaupapa Māori Theorising Praxis are indigenous research methodologies that appropriately ground and recognise Pacific research through their indigenous world views, cultural knowledge and epistemologies (Nabobo-Baba, 2008; Smith, 1997). These multiple methodologies enable a historical critique of the social impacts of aid and assist in framing the terms of debate surrounding broad contemporary issues on sustainable development. These issues are explored in this thesis case study of governing development aid in Fiji. The paradigm position of critical theory in providing more informed insights into the existing state of affairs, allows for some generalisations across case studies (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This approach, when combined with the principles of the Vanua Research Framework, can benefit research exploring the needs of Pacific islanders (Nabobo-Baba, 2008). These approaches, in focusing on tradition, protocols and practice were identified as most suitable as a guiding framework for this thesis. In drawing on governmentality analytic as a critical social theory and vanua research framework approaches, this research explores some of the main assumptions surrounding concepts of development theory, such as neoliberalism and neostructuralism, livelihood perspectives and progress and the specific circumstances in which they have been articulated in the development paradigm in Fiji and the wider Pacific. Foucault’s power theory of the government type has been taken as a guide to explore the relationship between power and institutional practices.
30
Given that this thesis is concerned with the consequences of ‘regime practices’ for country-owned poverty reduction outcomes (access to basic needs, raising the standard of basic and essential services such as health care, sanitation, living conditions and education, employment opportunities, access to social support and other opportunities, and support for sustainable development in rural communities), some assessment of these outcomes were required. Therefore, this research is largely case- driven to assess these outcomes. For this thesis, the selection of the case study method stems from the standpoint that a large volume of widely read texts on aid effectiveness use case studies from individual countries, as a basis for debates on the effectiveness of aid (Stuckler, McKee, & Basu, 2013). The selection of the type of case study method, i.e. instrumental case study is based on Stake’s (1994, p. 237) description of the term to denote the in-depth and detailed study of a particular case(s) so as “to provide insight into an issue or refinement of theory.” The selected case study site of Nakorosule village as alluded to in the previous section has been derived from two earlier studies, with the last one being 30 years ago documenting the patterns of change emerging from the introduction of the market economy and the introduction of development under the banner of rural development in two different time periods. One of the key objectives of this research seeks to look at the challenges of rural development efforts from a local-level perspective. Scoones (2009) argues that livelihood perspectives have been central to rural development thinking and therefore offers an important lens for looking at rural development questions. The local-level perspective enables us to “make links from the micro-level and to situate particularities of poor people’s livelihoods to wider-level institutional and policy framings at district, provincial, national and even international levels. [It also puts] into sharp relief the importance of complex institutional and governance arrangements, and the key relationships between livelihoods, power and politics” (Scoones & Wolmer, 2003, p. 5).
This thesis focussed on personal stories and experiences of people and communities as the primary unit of analysis. In doing so, in-depth interviews or talanoa, in the Fijian cultural context, “where one person is the storyteller and has an audience who are largely listeners” (Nabobo-Baba, 2008, p. 148), was the main method of data collection.
31
Forty intensive interviews involving talanoa sessions were conducted with men and women across three generations on their development perspectives and experiences. These interviews were held in Nakorosule village of the Naitasiri Province to collate their views on rural development and how they coped with the implementation of selected projects. Where it was required, key informant interviews were carried out with government officials’ in-country and local government officers for the Naitasiri province. In assessing the effectiveness of country-owned poverty reduction efforts for rural development, the qualifier ‘effective’ is defined in this research as development efforts which has addressed the Pacific definition of poverty. Pacific poverty is defined as “an inadequate level of sustainable human development manifested by a lack of access to basic services, a lack of opportunities to participate fully in the socio- economic life of the community and a lack of adequate resources to meet basic household needs and customary obligations” (Abbott & Pollard, 2004; UNDP, 2014, p. 1). A discussion on the definitions and dimensions of poverty is further elaborated in Chapter 2.
1.9 Thesis outline This thesis is organised into seven chapters.
Chapter 1 has provided an overview of the study and described the scope and nature of foreign aid and the key debates surrounding it. Following this, the chapter provided an overview of aid for development in the Pacific islands context and the role of aid for rural development. The chapter also detailed the conceptual framework, aims, objectives and research questions of this thesis. The chapter has also discussed definitions of key terms that will be used throughout the thesis, the intended coverage and significance of the research undertaken and a summary of the methodological approach of this research.
Chapter 2 provides a historical background of aid and aid effectiveness in the development context through a literature review. It also provides a critical review of the literature on the contemporary paradigms and impacts of aid and its prioritisation for rural development in the Pacific islands context, and eventually to the Fiji context. It
32
then examines literature linking power structures and state practices (in the Foucault sense) exercised in the wider aid process. This chapter engaged with Michel Foucault’s power theory and his conceptualisation of the governmentality approach to demonstrate how the operations of power in the development aid agenda are exercised through the idea of governmentality. It also explores the role of aid as an instrument of poverty reduction and discusses the multidimensional nature of poverty.
Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology and methods. The chapter considers the strengths and criticisms of various social theories for qualitative research and the reason for adopting the various methods of secondary data collection, intensive talanoa (in- depth) discussions, key-informant interviews and limited ethnographic observations. The chapter also outlines the case study and articulates why an instrumental qualitative study was selected and provides rationale for the selected case. It then discusses the analysis of data collected, research limitations and ethical issues surrounding the research.
Chapter 4 provides a historical overview of Fiji’s rural development machinery (RDM) and the context in which the process of rural development has been carried out within Fiji. This term (RDM) was coined by the Fiji government, and this thesis will refer to it in discussions of how rural development in Fiji is operationalised. RDM includes the administration structure, the practices, planning and decision-making processes, and the plurality of actors involved in the delivery of rural development in Fiji. This chapter contextualises the problematization of rural development as a direct consequence of modernisation manifested through colonisation and capitalist transformation which has been driven by a plurality of actors and their prioritisation of large state development projects. The remainder of the chapter focuses on an extensive discussion of the consequent restructuring of relationships amongst various levels of the rural development consultative machinery and how these have articulated rural development priorities.
Chapter 5 outlines how the state allocates and uses state and donor sponsored aid funds and critically analyses how this contributes to weakening ‘country ownership’ that already exists. It also highlights how the continued disbursements of funds within a
33
highly centralised and ‘weak’ country-owned system has further weakened governance and accountability mechanisms within Fiji’s RDM and the state’s public financial management system in governing aid budgets.
Chapter 6 examines a case study on rural development in Nakorosule village and how the relations of rule have ‘enabled’, but also shaped, rural development schemes at the local level and ultimately the aspirations of the rural citizens as governable subjects. The chapter concludes with an extensive discussion focussing on the voices of the case study participants and how the relations of rule shaping aid practices has impacted their livelihood systems and their own development pathways.
Finally, Chapter 7 recapitulates the main arguments and discusses the main findings of the research. It highlights how rural development has been problematised in Fiji and howt his has created a mindset of dependence amongst rural dwellers. It shows that the underlying technologies of government fashioning the subjectivities of the rural have normalised discursive conditions under which rural people operate. The findings pointed towards a new way of governing rural development where the delivery of development services needs to move away from the current governance framework under the rhetoric of traditions, custom and culture and emphasised that what people perceive as the norm and accept without questioning needs to be changed.
34
Chapter 2 Improving aid effectiveness: Bringing country ownership and governmentality analyses back to the fore
With the review of the 15-year development indicators mapped out by the MDGs and its renewal in the reframed post-2015 SDGs – amplified by the growing urgency of sustainable development worldwide, the effectiveness of development aid continues to be at the centre of international debates concerning development aid practices. Development priorities articulated in these poverty-related goals have reinforced the role of aid in all its forms towards the provision of social services, either via direct intervention or through the support of domestic policies and their institutions in recipient countries (Higgins, 2013). While the impact of the MDGs is difficult to determine, its ambitious targets have been credited with shaping international development discourse and debates, generating popular awareness for ending poverty, and supporting increases in aid (Higgins, 2013; Overton & Murray, 2016). With the SDGs retaining the goals, targets and indicator format of MDGs, an important debate is underway about how the SDGs will be financed and the role of development assistance (Addison, Niño-Zarazúa, & Tarp, 2015; McCloskey, 2015). More importantly, however, the question of whether development aid makes a positive contribution to the development of developing countries remains both controversial and unsettled. In recent developments addressing aid effectiveness through MDGs, the failings of aid have been attributed to “basic systematic failings” (Marren, 2015, p. 73). To ensure that the post-2015 SDG development framework does not repeat the failings of the MDG framework in meeting its targets, a proposed mechanism to ensuring its success is the need to consider integrating three aspects of governance into the SDGs (Biermann et al., 2015). These are ‘good governance’, broadly defined as a set of qualitative characteristics relating to processes of rule and their institutional form; ‘effective governance’ which is focused on the capacity of institutions to resolve problems of public policy and implement effective rules; and ‘equitable governance’ which concerns the equitable application of the rule of law and distribution of wealth and opportunity within society (Biermann et al., 2015). For the purpose of this study, the focus is on the ownership principle, how it is governed as defined by the ‘good governance’ aspect and what it really means for the scale, content and mode of delivery of development assistance for rural development in Fiji.
35
This chapter draws on a review of previous literature and recent research relevant to ‘aid effectiveness’ issues that are now central to discussions in the aid effectiveness agenda. The starting assumption of this chapter is that aid can contribute positively to the development of developing countries, and it may be a necessary condition for accelerating progress in very low-income countries. Conversely, it is also accepted that aid can bring more harm than good because of the way it affects domestic political incentives and institutions. The chapter presents arguments on two major key determinants of aid effectiveness supporting these propositions (see sub-section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2). It then considers what is important and what is doubtfully relevant or unhelpful in the dominant themes (see sub-sections 2.2.2 through to 2.2.6) surrounding aid effectiveness in the Paris/Accra/Busan aid effectiveness agenda. Then the chapter makes the case for addressing the governance of ownership more directly, distinguishing between literatures depicting the operations of power in the development agenda, highlighting examples of how these impinge on country-owned development processes. Finally, the chapter discusses the trajectory of poverty reduction efforts underpinned by international development assistance and concludes by surveying empirical literature examining the multidimensional nature of poverty.
2.1 What’s wrong with ODA? Official Development Assistance (ODA), the largest single component of development aid, is defined and reported by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC). Currently, there are 29 DAC member countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States (OECD, 2015). Since 1960, data for ODA are being reported annually. Total net ODA disbursements have increased dramatically from approximately 37.62 billion USD in 1960 to an all-time high of 135.07 billion USD in 2013, marked by a slight decline in 2014 to 134.38 billion USD (OECD, 2014). By contrast, when aid is viewed as a percentage of gross national income (GNI), across the forty years of ODA’s existence since the minimum net ODA level of 0.7% was set by the United Nations in 1970, total aid from DAC member countries have only been around 0.25% to 0.4% of their combined GNI (Qian, 2014; Shah, 2014). Based on
36
OECD’s reported ODA data, the poorest countries have only received a quarter of this aid (Shah, 2014). Despite its commitment to end global poverty, the aid system has been criticised as “ill-equipped in translating its commitments into lasting improvements in the lives of people in poverty” (AAI, 2005, p. 3), with concerns that poverty reduction results have been limited and slow (Glennie, Ali, King, McKechnie, & Rabinowitz, 2012). There is a diversity of perspectives on ODA and, not surprisingly, controversies about aid effectiveness in developing countries persist. As highlighted in Chapter One, these controversies go back several decades and have intensified more recently. Critics such as Milton Friedman (1958), Peter Bauer (1971), William Easterly (2006) and Dambisa Moyo (2009) have levelled critiques charging that aid is too focussed on the needs of government and enlarged government bureaucracies, has been self-serving and enriching elites in developing countries, reinforced bad governments, or has simply been wasted. They cite the failings of three-decades of aid, to address widespread poverty in low-income countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa (Moyo, 2009), South Asia and the South Pacific (Easterly, 2006). For these critics, aid programs should be radically reformed, substantially reduced or eliminated altogether. Contrary to this, in the ‘aid works camp’, supporters of aid such as Joseph Stiglitz (2002), Jeffrey Sachs (2005), Paul Collier (2007) and Roger Riddell (2014) counter these arguments, charging that aid has brought more good than harm. They provide pragmatic examples where aid is not only needed but has also been effective. They cite countries that have received substantial aid with successful track records such as Botswana, South Korea, Indonesia and Mozambique. While these aid supporters acknowledge that aid has failed in some contexts, they argue that aid should not be reduced or abandoned altogether but that the debate on aid should focus on how to increase aid effectiveness and transparency, to ensure that it reaches those that need it most. From these unsettled controversies, the quality of aid that eventually became the aid effectiveness agenda has been brought to the fore and raised serious questions about the impact of aid in enhancing well-being for developing countries. 2.1.1 Institutions and aid effectiveness Much of the debate on aid effectiveness presented in Chapter One is centred on the relationship between aid and growth. The criticisms of development aid informing this debate have been largely rendered and inspired by the neo-Marxist, populist and
37
neoliberal critique (see section 1.1 of Ch.1). These critiques of aid effectiveness tend to vary by subject discipline. For instance, neoliberal economists such as Bauer (1971), Easterly (2006) and Moyo (2009) are convinced of the necessity of market solutions to increase economic growth and alleviate poverty and dismiss the notion of aid as an effective instrument for these. Development economists and specialists such as Riddell (2014), Sachs (2005), and Collier (2007) proceed from a predominantly liberal perspective arguing that aid has been effective within the context of human development today. Anthropologists and development anthropologists, such as Mosse (2006) and Eyben (2010a), share a progressive perspective, arguing that aid effectiveness comes from a widespread collective action of ethnographic objects in the aid system, which include people, policies and organisations of international development. While there is little consensus by disciplines on whether foreign aid can reliably address poverty issues and increase economic growth in recipient countries, this section specifically highlights several studies investigating institutions and geographical characteristics as key determinants of aid effectiveness in the aid-growth relationship. Previous assessments of aid effectiveness had concluded that aid is more effective with sound institutions and policies. For instance, an assessment by Dollar and Pritchett (1998) argued that the allocation of aid would effectively address poverty reduction if it corresponded with the level of need in the poorest countries and if it favoured those poor countries with strong economic institutions and policies. Similarly, Burnside and Dollar (2000) found evidence suggesting that aid would be more effective if it were systematically conditioned on good fiscal, monetary and trade policies. Both these studies stimulated a suite of studies linking aid project successes and successful development to institutional quality (Acemoglu, Johnson, & Robinson, 2001; Hall & Jones, 1999; Rodrik, Subramanian, & Trebbi, 2002) and good policy environments (Alesina & Dollar, 2000; Collier & Dollar, 2002; Collier & Hoeffler, 2002). Most of these studies have been drawn from macro-econometric results. One exception to this has been Dollar and Levin (2005), who provide a microeconomic case-study and statistical evidence of a strong relationship between institutional quality and project successes. Their findings provide further support to the hypothesis that aid effectiveness is conditioned on good policies and institutions, concluding that “aid resources have the greatest impact on development when they are channelled to those poor countries with sound institutions” (Dollar & Levin, 2005, p. 13). The corollary conclusion drawn from
38
these studies was that effectiveness was dependent on performance and good governance within institutions, therefore aid donors should take these into consideration as prerequisites for aid. This was aligned with the ‘good governance’ narrative emerging among major international development institutions in the 1990s (Winters & Martinez, 2015), due in part to the poor performance of developing countries despite the aid they were receiving (Aubut, 2004). Another important element, which is seen to complement the correlation between aid success and good policies, is the type of political regimes that are setup in developing countries. Boone (1996) argues that aid programs targeted at supporting liberal regimes with good policies and reforms may be more effective in promoting sustainable development and reducing poverty. There have also been strong policy recommendations drawn from these studies giving rationale to specific policies for development aid adopted by the international community. A clear instance of this has been the setup of the Monterrey Consensus in 2002, a document embodying actions pursuant to global policy financing for development. In order for any country to achieve the common goals of eradicating poverty, environmental sustainability and sustained economic growth, the Monterrey Consensus (UN, 2002, pp. 6-14) recognises that good governance is necessary to ensure ODA effectiveness. The Consensus also acknowledges that good governance in aid financing is essential for sustainable development and the implementation of sound economic policies. Considering the need for including good governance in ODA activities also offers opportunities to build from existing policy experience about how different governance arrangements shape institutions and relevant outcomes. These outcomes include an enabling domestic environment for the mobilisation of domestic resources, solid democratic institutions responsive to the needs of the people and improved infrastructure that would complement development indicators and targets of global commitments guided by the MDGs. The view that aid works better in countries with sound institutions and policies has appealed to many aid stakeholders and it has become the conventional wisdom among donors and development practitioners (Radelet, 2006). In a recent USAID analysis (USAID, 2011 in Glennie et al., 2012, p. ix), they acknowledge that sustainable development largely depends on, “efficiency, integrity and effectiveness with which a country raises, manages and expends public resources. Therefore, improving the formal and informal
39
rules and institutions that govern these activities, and strengthening the related human and technological capacities, should be a major component of any development approach.”
Contrary to what may have become popular opinion in the 2000s, much of the findings, during this period, and their implications, have been debated in relation to another frequently invoked influential factor of aid effectiveness, that being geographical characteristics, or ‘endowments’. 2.1.2 Geography and aid effectiveness A strand of macroeconomic literature has focussed on geographic endowments and collectively argues that geography matters in determining well-being and economic development in developing countries. The geography hypothesis dating back to Montesquieu (1750) maintains that geography determines human attitudes, which subsequently determine both economic performance and political systems. This perspective of the environment directly shaping patterns of development and influencing growth has been revitalized by Jared Diamond (1997) and Jeffrey Sachs (2001), who Dollar and Levin (2005) refer to, as the most vocal proponents of the geography theory. Diamond’s (1997) account of human prehistory and his arguments for the different developmental paths of different countries is moulded by characteristics of geography and biogeography. He stresses the importance of geographic and ecological differences in agricultural technology and the availability of crops and animals. He argues that inequality between countries, in terms of development and growth, is driven by differing climatic conditions and resource endowments available to different countries. Likewise, the work surveyed in Sachs (2001) suggests that tropical location leads to underdevelopment due to the poor quality of soils, high prevalence of crop pests and parasites, high transportation costs and the ecological conditions that enable infectious diseases to thrive. In these locations, there is also an unstable water supply given the high evaporation activity occurring and there are unsuitable growth conditions for temperate grain crops due to lack of a dry season or cold temperatures. The tropics hypothesis and the argument that temperate parts of the world are geographically favoured have also been supported by Sachs and Warner (1997), who suggest that tropical and landlocked regions lead to underdevelopment through the above-mentioned mechanisms and Bloom and Sachs (1998) discussion of
40
Africa’s tropical location as an underlying factor for poor economic growth and continued underdevelopment. While it is recognised that not all geographically favoured countries thrive in development terms, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that development is favoured in countries located in temperate zones as opposed to those in the tropics (Gallup, Sachs, & Mellinger, 1999). Against this background, the argument that geography related variables influence aid effectiveness is presented. As is well recognised, the geography hypothesis has stimulated a number of studies highlighting the role of exogenous and external environmental conditions in determining the effectiveness of aid. Examples of such factors include the terms of trade trend, the instability of the real value of exports and other exogenous instabilities such as natural disasters (McGillivray et al., 2006). Guillaumont and Chauvet (2001, p. 66) reassess the conditioning factors of aid effectiveness and endorse the idea that “the worse the environment, the greater the need for aid and the higher its productivity.” They argue that in recipient countries suffering from external and climatic conditions, foreign aid is more effective and stimulates growth. In their empirical findings, they discover no evidence to support the claim that a good policy environment is necessarily a pre-condition to aid effectiveness. Their main finding, however, suggests that aid is more effective for those countries that are confronted with adverse external environment conditions. In their analysis, aid was found to only stimulate growth in countries vulnerable to natural disasters. Corroborating their study, Dalgaard et al. (2004) draw on earlier geographic tropics studies by Bloom and Sachs (1998), Gallup et al. (1999) and Sachs (2001) who all show that geography, in the form of tropical and landlocked regions, significantly impacts economic growth through the various mechanisms previously mentioned. Dalgaard et al. (2004) add a climate-related variable to the Burnside and Dollar (2000) growth model specification. They use a share of a country’s area in the tropics and an interaction term involving aid as variables to evaluate the aid-growth relationship. Their results show a strong positive correlation between aid and growth for countries outside tropical regions, whereas the impact of aid on growth decreases for countries located in the tropics. They conclude that “tropical areas are an exogenous deep determinant of growth” (Roodman, 2004, p. 8). Mirroring these studies, in a review of cross-country aid effectiveness literature, Kenny (2008) also contributes to the discussion on the role of climatic and external conditions in determining aid effectiveness. He alludes to the trend of more robust aid-growth
41
relationships occurring in non-tropical countries, however, also acknowledging the fact that these tend to be countries with stronger institutions. This is a position that developed from Dollar and Levin’s (2005) microeconomic studies of World Bank project outcomes. As far as aid effectiveness is concerned, the two paradigms are not exclusive and can be combined (Guillaumont & Chauvet, 2001). While aid may be more productive in countries with good policy environments, aid can also make a positive contribution in countries where policies are weak (Morrissey, 2002). In a re-examination of empirical cross-country work on aid effectiveness, Hansen and Tarp (2000) conclude that the view of aid only working in an environment of sound policy is an extreme one that does not necessarily hold true all of the time. They recognise that development is a complex process with interactions between economic and non-economic variables such as the diversity of developing countries in their geographical characteristics. From a policy perspective, they also allude to how empirical studies supporting the view of aid effectiveness conditional on policy environments influence the allocation of aid across countries. They emphasise the fact that for those countries where aid contributes positively and works best, are at the same time, among those that need aid the least, while those countries that may not have good policies in place are in fact those that need aid more to help bring them on track. While I have traced some of the major discussions around the key determinants of aid effectiveness, the renewed interest in development emerging around the new millennium has grown out of a learning experience over several decades leading to the conclusion that development is primarily dependent on efforts at the country level, and that aid needs to focus on facilitating country-owned efforts (Booth, 2011a). This has led to a set of prescriptive reforms geared towards improving donor behaviour and the quality of aid that eventually became the aid effectiveness agenda. The focus of this agenda has undergone rapid transformations serving a broad range of purposes dating back to the first ‘development decade’ in the early 1950s (see section 1.1.1 of Ch.1). From this time, in its sixth decade, the most pivotal issue now is the meaning given to the aid effectiveness agenda and whether recipient countries are governed by a plurality of actors for whom national development is a central objective. A number of dominant themes have emerged concerning the role of aid in addressing this important question.
42
2.2 The meaning of aid effectiveness: An evolving agenda The aid architecture, as alluded to in sub-section 1.1.1 of Chapter One, has changed many times since its inception in the immediate post-WWII period. As defined by Brautigam (2010, p. 8), it entails “the system of institutions, rules, norms and practices governing the transfer of concessional resources for development.” With aid volume increasing, the aid architecture is evolving into a very complex system with a proliferation of agencies, special purpose vehicles and financing mechanisms (Burall, Maxwell, & Menocal, 2006; Kharas, 2007; Woods, 2008). In the past decade, there have also been important changes to the aid environment and the increasingly fragmented aid system, particularly with duplication of efforts and the overlapping of country-specific assistance from donors. These have raised anew the perennial issues of aid effectiveness (UNICEF, 2014). Currently, a clear international agenda for aid effectiveness, informed by the 2005 Paris Declaration, the 2003 Rome Declaration on Harmonisation, and the 2002 Monterrey Consensus, has emerged. This agenda focuses on country systems, selectivity of efforts driven by value for money and impact, effective partnerships and cooperation, a results-oriented focus of aid, the call for transparency and accountability and a shift in focus to a partnership discourse amongst aid stakeholders (Hollway, Howes, Reid, Farmer, & Denton, 2011; Jakupec & Kelly, 2016). This section first situates how the aid effectiveness agenda is rooted in a number of alternatives to development since the 1970s, as part of mutations in discourses of development, largely in response to increasingly vocal critiques. The latest incarnation of the aid effectiveness agenda throughout the past decade then informs and draws out the following dominant themes on aid effectiveness. 2.2.1 The emergence of the participatory discourse amidst development alternatives In the wake of development pessimism in the 1980s, where the gap between poor and rich countries continued to widen, the top-down approaches of development were dominated by hegemonic discourses prevalent in earlier decades (modernisation and dependency theories, economic growth). They were increasingly being cited as a major reason for the development impasse (Kothari & Minogue, 2002). Dissatisfaction with mainstream development, particularly in the 1970s, brought about alternative approaches under the heading of ‘basic needs’ and of ‘alternative development’ (Pieterse, 1998; Townsend, 2006). This redefined the development discourse and led to
43
some rethinking of development meanings, agendas, processes and strategies (Willis, 2005). Development sociologists, such as Robert Chambers and Michael Cernea, forged the way for subsequent efforts to introduce alternative approaches to development (Ito, 2009). They brought the attention of development stakeholders to practices and procedures of development such as ‘grassroots’, ‘bottom up’ and ‘participative approaches’. In his seminal book, Rural Development: Putting the Last First, first published in 1983, Chambers (2014) argued that mainstream approaches to development pursued in the earlier decades emphasised top-down development. He challenged the urban-bias common in the development profession and advocated for a grassroots approach. He stressed the importance of considering local context and indigenous knowledge in development program designs. Likewise, Cernea (1991) asserted further that development programs and policy design at the time were guided by technocratic models, a practice, he argued, undermined socio-anthropological knowledge and created social imbalances. Chamber and Cernea’s criticisms paved the way for the integration of local knowledge in many projects and also informed the design and implementation of several international development interventions (Adusei- Asante & Hancock, 2016). Mainstream development, which previously centred on economic growth, has shifted its focus toward participatory and people-centred development (Pieterse, 1998). According to Pieterse (1998), mainstream development in the 1990s incorporated many alternative elements and practices that were part of the 1970s and 1980s packages of alternative approaches to development. He asserts that there is no longer a clear break between mainstream development and alternative development. Instead, he argues that there has been a considerable overlap between the two, where alternative development methods such as equitable, sustainable and participatory development, people-centred development, human scale development; and many features of alternative development including participation, participatory action research, grassroots movement, NGOs, empowerment, cultural diversity and so forth have since entered and been co-opted into the mainstream development discourse. In the modern history of development, Pieterse (1998, p. 369) presents the notion of agency becoming more important with development being increasingly oriented towards local actors and participation becoming “a threshold condition for local development”. Aid agencies have provided and encouraged development finance, targeting participatory development with a focus
44
on local-level and small-scale development under the headings of basic needs, grassroots and sustainable development approaches that were advocated at different times, from the 1970s through to the early 1990s (Willis, 2005). In the 1990s, participatory practices and discourse moved from the “margins to mainstream” and rapidly became part of the professed aims and goals of governments and international development agencies (Williams, 2004, p. 557). The value of participation in the development aid discourse was based on the “premise of moral norms and expectations” (McGregor, 2009, p. 1696) and the perpetuated belief that the greater involvement of local people on development activities would meaningfully address deeply rooted inequalities and unleash latent capacity of communities in the interests of development (Cleaver, 2001). However, as Cleaver (2001) notes, the translation of the participatory development framework into policy and practice is not necessarily consistent with the desired impacts. The participatory discourse has been criticised in a variety of fields as a form of political control (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Cornwall, 2002; Nelson & Wright, 1995) and carries with it the idea that the connotation of power injected from outside is aimed at shifting the balance of forces towards local interests (Long & Villarreal, 1993). As Williams (2004, p. 558) succinctly notes, there have been three interrelated failings of participatory development fleshed out over the previous decade by post-development advocates, development practitioners and academics alike: “the emphasis of personal reform over political struggle, the obscuring of local power differences by uncritically celebrating ‘the community’, and the use of a language of emancipation to incorporate marginalised populations of the Global South within an unreconstructed project of capitalist modernisation.”
These failings shed light on the dilemmas of ‘empowerment’ of local groups to improve aid effectiveness supported by participatory approaches and alternative development strategies from the grassroots. Concerns about aid effectiveness stemming from the likes of ‘alternatives to development’ discussed here and efficiency arguments by donors to ensure that their funds were spent correctly renewed a drive to address weaknesses in how aid functions (Hayman, 2009). It also created a momentum towards a series of new commitments that have given shape to the new framework for aid effectiveness in the new millennium (Hayman, 2009), particularly with the push of
45
‘country ownership’ as a way forward in improving aid effectiveness by demanding accountability from recipients and shifting responsibility away from donors. 2.2.2 The Paris-style approach to using country systems At the start of the new millennium, the aid system was deemed to have matured from its Cold War origins where aid allocation and modalities were primarily determined by geopolitical interests, to a system that was becoming more professional in the way it operated, particularly with its commitment to poverty reduction (Chandy, 2011). The aid effectiveness agenda began to take shape at the international level (Hayman, 2009). In line with the thinking about how to improve the quality of aid, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (PDAE) grew out of a culmination of learning experiences and research over several decades leading to the conclusion that aid depends critically on efforts at the country level and whether or not a country’s leadership is really committed to development (Booth, 2011a; Dabelstein & Patton, 2013). The adoption of eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 20006 coupled with three subsequent international agreements7 set the stage for the aid effectiveness agenda and the principles outlined in the Paris Declaration (Dabelstein & Patton, 2013). The declaration grew out of a consensus on the importance of ‘country ownership’ to ensuring the success of development efforts and has been intended to strengthen the partnership between development partners and recipient countries based on national ownership of development strategies and plans. With the aid effectiveness fatigue and donors declining commitments setting in at the turn of the new millennium, the Paris Agenda reinvigorated the aid effectiveness dialogue when it was endorsed in 2005 (Marandet, 2012). It was expressed on the following five principles: of better ownership of development plans and strategies; of alignment by the donors with those plans and with local systems; of harmonisation among the donors to facilitate development assistance; of management for results to improve development assistance and its effectiveness; and of mutual accountability for the commitments that were made in Paris (Stern et al., 2008). In addition, the Paris Declaration had 56 specific
6 The 8 MDGs are: (i) eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, (ii) achieving universal primary education, (iii) promoting gender equality and empowering women, (iv) reducing child mortality rates, (v) improving maternal health, (vi) combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, (vii) ensuring environmental sustainability, and (viii) developing a global partnership for development (UN, 2000). 7 These were the Monterrey Consensus on financing for development yielded in 2002, the 2003 1st High Level Forum on Harmonisation aimed at applying good country principles at the country level, and the Marrakech Roundtable affirming commitment to the principles of managing for development results in 2004. 46
commitments and coalesced around 12 specific indicators of progress (see Box 1, p.47) corresponding to these five principles (OECD, 2008). The PDAE has proven controversial in several ways: criticisms that it has been largely bureaucratic (Droop et al., 2008); concerns that several recipient governments lack capacity, adequate systems, policies or the will to constantly be in dialogue with donors to drive greater aid effectiveness at the country level (Chandy, 2011; Glennie, 2011a, 2011b); discontent over the measurable targets of aid effectiveness included, such as technocratic targets tenuously linked to real development progress (CARE International & ActionAID, 2006); weak indicators used to measure aid effectiveness and the absence of country context from measurements (Booth, 2005); the failure of donors to change their practices, especially in managing and delivering aid (Dijkstra, 2011; Hayman, 2009; Sen, 2007); the failure to involve non-DAC donors and other fast- growing sources of support (Glennie & Rogerson, 2011); and the limited use of country systems (Hickey, 2009; Menocal & Rogerson, 2006; Wallace, 2009). Despite these criticisms, recipient countries have endorsed the importance of this declaration at every stage (Glennie, 2011a).
Box 1: Progress indicators in implementing aid commitments adapted from OECD (2008)
1. Countries operationalise their development strategies;
2. Procurement and public financial management systems are reliable;
3. Aid flows are aligned on national priorities;
4. Technical cooperation is aligned and coordinated;
5. Donors make use of recipient country public finance management and public
procurement systems;
6. Donors avoid parallel implementation units;
7. Aid disbursements are predictable within the fiscal year it is scheduled;
8. Aid is increasingly untied;
9. Coordinated mechanisms of aid delivery are used by donors;
10. Donors coordinate their country missions and their country studies;
11. Countries develop sound frameworks for monitoring development results;
12. Mechanisms for mutual accountability are established at country level.
47
The most critical analysis of the Paris Declaration has come from two separate studies by Bissio (2007) and Booth (2011a). Bissio (2007) argues that although much of the discourse around the Paris Declaration is about partnership, the declaration only contributes indirectly to the fulfilment of its principles and is not a global partnership for development. According to Bissio, the declaration is not consistent with the right to development and does not reaffirm the Millennium declaration, which emphasises the right to development. He asserts further that this non-binding document, regarding ways to disburse and manage ODA more effectively, does not constitute a partnership that deals with any of the commitments spelled out in Goal 8 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Enshrined in MDG8 is a ‘global partnership for development’, involving trade, finance, debt sustainability and efficient aid delivery. According to Bissio, these are rallying targets that developed countries should carry out to enable developing countries to achieve the other seven MDGs. Booth (2011a), on the other hand, focuses his critique on the principle of ‘country ownership’. He argues that closer attention needs to be given to the issue of country ownership, posing afresh the question of how to improve the relationship between aid and political commitment to development goals at country level. He states that the current concepts of aid alignment, donor harmonisation, management for results and mutual accountability under the PDAE do not provide answers on the role of external actors in assisting the emergence of developmental country leaderships. In Booth’s view, the premise of the PDAE have resulted in an “incoherent package of commitments” (p. 1), although not intended, and are responses to a different set of questions that do not stem from thinking through the conditions under which aid can be effective. His analysis also points clearly to two other issues concerning ‘collective action problems’ and the conception of country- owned development as an outcome to be constructed rather than treating it as an established fact. For the former, these problems include but are not limited to the absence of developmental leaderships in recipient countries, prevailing domestic policies that are not geared to development but to short-term political needs and the façade that country systems are subverted systematically by political leadership for non- or anti-developmental purposes. Given these collective action problems, Booth argues that the effect of aid being aligned to country-owned processes results in its alignment with “the formal products of a largely aid-driven process, not with the reality of policy, leadership and short-termist actions in the country. In terms of the latter, he argues that
48
more attention should be given to how external donors can assist recipient countries in overcoming institution obstacles resulting from unresolved collective action problems and providing them with an enabling environment to adhere to the right sorts of institutional change. While criticisms of the Paris agenda have come from a variety of points of views as discussed here, it is worth noting that the declaration was a “landmark international agreement [that attempted to provide] a practical, action-oriented roadmap with specific targets to be met by 2010” (Dabelstein & Patton, 2013, p. 32). It has also been described as a “significant juncture in the history of development assistance and co-operation”, notably building on previous decades failures of projects and programmes as well as for its emphasis on national ownership (Hyden, 2008, p. 259). With ‘country ownership’ as its central tenet, “the stakes involved in the Paris declaration remain huge [given that billions of dollars committed to addressing poverty reduction and enhancing lives for billions of people] are affected by how development aid is designed, delivered and evaluated” (Dabelstein & Patton, 2013, p. 34). The PDAE has been accompanied by other reforms in the aid effectiveness process, namely the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action (AAA) and the Partnership for Development Cooperation resulting from the Fourth High Level Forum in Aid Effectiveness, which took place in Busan in 2011. Given the failure of the international community in meeting many of the declaration targets in Paris, these reforms have “deepened the global commitment to development aid reform aimed at improving processes and increasing effectiveness” (Dabelstein & Patton, 2013, p. 31). 2.2.3 From Accra to Busan: Aid effectiveness to development effectiveness The platform for the ‘road to Accra’ has resulted from two key challenges namely: (i) the validity of the Paris Agenda given strong convictions from various aid stakeholders that it was not working, nor was it leading to more effective poverty reduction and development; and (ii) the problems encountered with the definition and monitoring of the MDGs (Wallace, 2009). The Accra Agenda for Action (available in Appendix 1 on page 301) was endorsed by 120 donor and recipient-country governments in 2008 in the 3rd High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness to reinforce and review progress on the PDAE. The AAA served as a progress report for Paris (Lawson, 2011) and is widely acknowledged as a continuation and reaffirmation of the aid effectiveness principles launched in Paris (Hayman, 2009; Marandet, 2012). There have been slight adjustments
49
made to the AAA resulting in the 2011 Partnership for Development Cooperation, endorsed in Busan, which is discussed in detail in sub-section 2.2.6. The AAA was a political, ministerial statement with concrete actions to accelerate the implementation of the Paris Declaration. It had 48 commitments for donors and developing countries (OECD, 2008). The AAA identified three actions to accelerate progress and focussed on country ownership, inclusive partnerships and accountability (OECD, 2008). With regards to ownership, the AAA proposed measures to increase ownership and emphasised on the need to engage with and strengthen the capacity of national governments and their country systems, and civil society organisations (Wathne, 2008). As a central tenet to both the PDAE and the AAA, the idea of country ownership stresses the importance of national governments in taking the lead role in driving their development strategies (Hayman, 2009). In terms of inclusive partnerships, the AAA acknowledged the proliferation of new aid agencies and development actors and the issues of concern associated with the coordination of aid efforts as well as the accountability of development partners to each other. On this basis, it was widely agreed in the AAA that a more inclusive partnership was needed to ensure that the impact of aid efforts on poverty reduction is significant (Hopper, Birch, & Hemmingway, 2010). The third foci of the AAA, was concerned with accountability among development partners (donors and aid-recipient countries), for achieving development results. These three principles were regarded in the AAA as having a crucial impact on the future of aid effectiveness (Hopper et al., 2010). The interim 2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration was a global survey to monitor the progress on the Paris goals and feeding initial results back to the Accra forum (Lawson, 2011). This survey reported progress with regard to untying aid, coordinating technical efforts and improvements in the reliability and efficiency of recipient countries’ financial systems (Mawdsley, Savage, & Kim, 2014). The survey data also presented disappointment to many Accra attendees (Lawson, 2011). Research suggests that the Paris Declaration was not radical enough. Rather, it resulted in “exaggerated responses and undue political correctness” (Booth, 2008, p. 1), where country ownership fundamentally rests on the political systems that are operating within aid recipient countries. Despite the recognition that political change is necessary to make country ownership effective, this has not been widely acknowledged by
50
participants in Paris. Additionally, Booth (2008, p. 2) also highlights that the Paris commitments on donor alignment efforts have been compromised by a display of “an unfortunate mix of risk avoidance and ‘political correctness’ with significantly damaging effects.” Lawson (2011) also alludes to the issue of alignment efforts and highlights that between the Paris and Accra forums, some observers at Accra also noted that there was a diminishing role of donors in the coordination of aid efforts, but an increasing focus on alignment with host country priorities. It was also highlighted that recipients were making more of an effort to fulfil their commitments while ‘traditional’ donors were lagging furthest from their commitments (Mawdsley et al., 2014). During the Accra forum, some analysts also alluded to the failure of the Paris agenda in sufficiently dealing with the political nature of development and foreign aid (Hyden, 2008). Others recognised the lack of formal acknowledgement given to the politics of development embedded in the strategic interests of states, sectors and institutions within donor and recipient countries, the underlying disagreements over the nature of development and the mechanisms for achieving it, and the existing inequalities of power and agency (Dijkstra & Komives, 2011). According to Mawdsley et al. (2014), adding to these pressures is an increasingly complex external environment dictated by shifts in global power and the global financial crisis, both of which have stimulated a much stronger discourse of national interest and ‘value for money’. 2.2.4 Value for money: The answer to a different question on aid effectiveness The concept of value for money (VFM) deals with the way of thinking about and assessing how well public funds are used (Barr & Christie, 2015), ensuring the optimal use of resources to deliver the desired impact (ICAI, 2011; NAO, n.d.). It is not a new concept, given discussions on the provisions of aid had centred on efficiency and effectiveness in development circles across the world in the 1980s and 1990s (Emmi, Ozlem, Maja, Ilan, & Florian, 2011; Glynn, 1985). ‘Value for money’ has gained its prominence again in international discourse around aid and aid effectiveness in the 2000s (Davis, 2012), and is now firmly embedded in the development discourse (Jakupec & Kelly, 2016). While stakeholders’ definitions of VFM differ, the rationale for VFM and the basics of what it is, rests on three agreed core elements, which are economy, efficiency and effectiveness, commonly known as the ‘3Es’ (Emmi et al., 2011). DAC defines VFM as a term or a concept, which is about getting the best balance between these ‘3Es’ - where ‘economy’ is concerned with the value of inputs
51
and reducing the cost of resources, ‘efficiency’ is concerned with the aggregate costs of inputs transformed by sets of activities into given outputs, and ‘effectiveness’ is concerned with the successful achievement of intended outcomes in relation to the underlying costs of activities associated with given outputs (Jackson, 2012). This is consistent with the published approaches to VFM by donors such as the Department for International Development (DFID, UK Aid) whose commitments to VFM in its programmes centres around the ‘3Es’ approach and introduces the importance of considering a fourth ‘E’ -equity- as a dimension of effectiveness (Barr & Christie, 2015). A similar approach is taken by the United Kingdom ‘aid watchdog’ – the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) – who promote ‘equity’ as a fourth ‘E’ to ensure that the VFM analysis is embedded in economic justice and includes reaching out to different groups (ICAI, 2011). Literature presents three inter-related reasons reinforcing the re-emergence and growing prominence of ‘value for money’ on the development and aid effectiveness agenda in the last decade. First, with the impacts of the global financial crisis, donors have become more mindful of aid spending with a strong interest in ensuring that “the ‘taxpayer’ money is spent far sightedly and that the aid funds have the desired sustainable impact” (Jakupec & Kelly, 2016, p. 10). Consequently, this also holds aid agencies accountable, in ensuring the responsible use of public funds (Davis, 2012), to demonstrate the value for money of their work to tax payers (Jackson, 2012) and to ensure the transparency of aid spending in addition to the documentation of ODA projects and program impacts which they carry out (Jakupec & Kelly, 2016). Second, it has also been attributed to the development community’s purported effectiveness in the provision of aid that has in the past been driven by performance criteria that is fundamentally different to other areas of public spending. According to Jackson (2012, p. 2), VFM critics have argued that the concept is either “not helpful, or that it dehumanises the beneficiary” where the question of how much is spent sometimes overshadows the more fundamental question of what results the funds achieve. There is also a valid concern that the VFM agenda is a “donor preoccupation” (p. 2) focussed on donors getting value for money for their tax payers. Consequently, Jackson (2012) notes, that this would potentially be at the expense of beneficiaries and recipient governments, where the effectiveness of aid activities are notably reduced because of cost saving strategies. Third, the increasing prominence of the VFM agenda has resulted
52
from the polarised debates and intensified scrutiny of aid (highlighted in section 1.1 and sub-section 1.1.3 of Ch.1 and section 2.1 of Ch.2), by aid radicals who are sceptical or dismissive of aid, arguing that aid does not work, is wasteful and should be downsized or eliminated altogether (Jackson, 2012). With the growing concern amongst donor countries and beneficiaries alike “to make every penny count”, the scope of VFM is about maximising the impact of money spent to improving poor people’s lives, than it is about minimising costs (White, Hodges, & Greenslade, 2013, p. 2). The question of value for money was reinforced again as a central issue at the Busan High-Level Forum on Development Effectiveness (HLF-4) (see sub-section 2.2.6) and is a constantly developing theme in the aid effectiveness agenda (Davis, 2012; ICAI, 2011). 2.2.5 Sectoral issues As official development assistance is rapidly evolving, there is also a plethora of actors working in the same countries and in the same sectors (Frot & Santiso, 2009). From the outset, developed countries have been selective in giving aid to former colonies or developing countries with which it has had strategic, political and economic ties. Consequently, aid was a “tiny club affair” with concentrated efforts reserved for a small number of partnerships (Frot & Santiso, 2009, p. 2). However, as Woods (2008) has demonstrated, the last four decades of aid and development have been characterised by increased fragmentation, a proliferation of aid agencies, partnerships and the emergence of new donors that have evolved from being aid recipients to aid donors (see section 1.1 of Ch.1 for emerging donor examples). It is well documented that the increasing aid fragmentation is hindering efficient aid delivery to sectors that require aid the most. As highlighted by Kharas (2007), both traditional and emerging donors have more than one agency giving aid and private philanthropies are no different. Kharas (2007) adds that multilateral assistance continues to outnumber bilateral assistance and recipients combined, with around 230 multilateral agencies currently operating. He states that the proliferation of aid actors has brought the aid architecture under “severe strain,” made it “more complex” and disbursements have become “more fragmented” where aid is received in many small quantities from numerous donors (p. 4). He notes that this new reality of aid amplifies the pressing need for increased aid efficiency. Similarly, in a detailed comparative analysis of aid fragmentation, Frot and Santiso (2008) show that prior to 1970, fragmentation in terms of donors per recipient
53
was low and there was usually one very large donor for each recipient. After 1980, it was much less the case and after the 1990s and into the new millennium, there has been “pervasive fragmentation due to the multiplication of small actors on the market” (p. 51). Donors now have large portfolios with several small partnerships that are both difficult to monitor and evaluate. On the aid delivery side, they highlight that recipients are increasingly burdened with administration and transaction costs for dealing with several donors and projects, as well as the increasing number of small disbursements that directly corresponds to an increasing amount of small donors resulting from portfolio expansion. According to them, ODA portfolios are much more fragmented than other sources of aid such as private portfolio funds where private investors tend to concentrate their aid efforts on specific countries, unlike aid donors. To put things in perspective, Frot and Santiso (2008) show that if in 1960 the annual average OCED donor disbursement was to an average of 20 countries, in 2006 it did so to more than 100 countries. Against this background, Frot and Santiso (2009) critically analyse fragmentation in sectoral aid. Their study shows that if in 1973 the average number of ODA projects was less than 1000; in 2007 it increased a hundred-fold. Their analyses also show that the large increase in aid projects has been accompanied by a corresponding fall in project size and a multiplication of small projects resulting from an expansion of donor-recipient partnerships. They also highlight the unequal distribution of aid across sectors with an increasing proportion of social projects and a pronounced shifting towards social sectors. Historical data collected by them illustrate a major shift in aid priorities from Production (agriculture, forestry, fishing, industry, mining, construction, trade and tourism) and Economic (transport, communication, energy and banking) sectors to Social (health, education, population, water supply, government and conflict prevention) sectors. Their findings show that the proportion of projects going into the social sectors dramatically increased from 30% in 1970, to more than 60% by 2007. According to them, the social sectors have benefitted the most from the expansion in project numbers and similar conclusions would be yielded if one were to assess this based on quantities committed or disbursed. Academic literature presents a number of reasons for this shift in sector allocations. Easterly (2009) and Frot and Santiso (2009) present reasons based on the two-gap model of Chenery and Strout (1966). This model outlined that aid needed to
54
finance large infrastructure and investment projects, due to the lack of it in developing countries. These scholars observe a shift in donor countries’ sectoral priorities from the production and economic sectors towards the social sectors. Reasons for this shift allude to donors’ realisation of how ineffective large-scale projects were by the early 1990s. This was also reinforced by empirical studies contradicting the predictions of the two- gap model. Second, both Easterly (2009) and Frot and Santiso (2009) underline that in the 1980s, donors favoured an agenda of structural adjustments programs (SAPs) and economic reforms stemming from loan conditions through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). According to them, the poor growth outcomes of this agenda resulted in a backlash against structural adjustment in many developing countries. The blueprint of neoliberal ideas implemented through the SAPs assumed that underdevelopment had one cause only and large cash injections into a country would result in rapid economic development (Pritchett & Woolcock, 2004). However, a backlash resulted as the SAPs ignored the broader macroeconomic implications of aid and the social and economic institutional requirements that were necessary for successful implementation of reforms (Adelman, 1999). As a result, the ‘West’ shifted sectoral emphasis in the 1990s towards the Government and Civil Society sectors stressing systemic reform involving institutions like corruption, democracy and property rights. This shift occurred at the same time as the literature increasingly emphasised institutions as the underlying determinant of development. For instance, literature summarised by North (1991) focussed on the role of institutions, property rights and law and order in the performance of economies, while Acemoglu and Angrist (2001) and Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2005) initiated a vast literature focussing on the differences in economic institutions as the fundamental cause of differences in economic development. Other studies referred to earlier in sub-section 2.1.1 have made the point that aid effectiveness could be substantially improved if aid were better targeted to poor recipient countries with good institutions and good economic policies. Another plausible reason for the shift towards the Social sector stems from the demise of the Cold War, and “donors no longer needing to use aid as enticement to reject communism” (Milner & Tingley, 2013, p. 7) and hence “paying more attention to development criteria in the design and application of aid activities” (McGillivray, 2004, p. 3). It seemed that development aid became less geopolitical and more humanitarian in motive in the post-Cold War era (Tamang, 2009). Fourth, the shift in development
55
economics from macro to micro levels of analysis, and the worldwide increase in implementation of field experiments at the local level that highlight effective poverty reduction efforts resulting from social sector interventions, has increasingly led to social sector aid allocations (Frot & Santiso, 2009). Fifth, the establishment of the MDGs as a means to solving global poverty has also been suggested as a reason inevitably requiring a shift in donors allocation of sector-specific aid to be in line with the MDG- related indicators of need (Thiele, Nunnenkamp, & Dreher, 2007). The literature on sectoral aid allocation, summarised by Thiele et al. (2007), established that a considerable gap between donor rhetoric and actual aid allocation persists. Although some sectoral aid allocation has been conducive to achieving major MDGs, notably the fight against HIV/AIDS, higher aid spending on education, health and population programs, their results suggest that there has been insufficient targeting of aid to needy recipients. They conclude that the sectoral allocation of aid in achieving the various MDGs has been negligible despite the substantial increase of aid. The dominant themes examined to this point demonstrate the complexities involved in the evolving aid effectiveness agenda. Alleviating poverty through this agenda has proved difficult, despite the MDGs and the previously mentioned High Level Forums of Monterrey, Rome, Paris and Accra (Kim & Lee, 2013). This difficulty has been coupled with other complexities in the aid effectiveness agenda pegged to the use of country systems, selectivity of efforts driven by value for money and impact that have been discussed here. Consequently, the effectiveness of development cooperation to reinforce development results has been renewed by an array of stakeholders meeting in Busan. 2.2.6 Development Effectiveness at the 2011 Busan High Level Forum The fourth and final High-Level Forum (HLF-4) was held in Busan, South Korea in 2011. This event was marked as “a pivotal point in global aid governance and the dominant construction of foreign aid” (Mawdsley et al., 2014, p. 27). The goal of the Busan High Level Forum, as outlined in the official Busan Partnership Agreement was to assess aid effectiveness, to debate on the future of development cooperation, and to gather agreement on a new era of development effectiveness (Kim & Lee, 2013; Mawdsley et al., 2014). The dialogue in Busan coalesced around issues of transparency, results management, accountability, fragile state and sustainability (Global Partnership, 2015). The Busan Partnership Agreement was endorsed by 162 donor and recipient-
56
country governments, and 52 international organisations in the 4th High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, with the Busan Global Partnership Document (BPD) officially launched in June 2012 (OECD, 2016). This outcome document agreed to a set of common principles based on local country ownership, alignment of programmes around a country’s development strategy with a focus on results, effective partnerships for development to increase harmonisation and reduce fragmented efforts, and the transparency and accountability of development co-operation to all citizens. In improving the effectiveness and monitoring of development co-operation, the BPD coalesced around 10 global indicators of progress (see Box 2, p. 58) corresponding to these common principles. The Busan HLF-4 paved the way for a broad and inclusive development co- operation landscape bringing together the world’s largest providers of development aid (traditional and emerging donors) and its diverse partners. The issues at stake at Busan were according to Duncan Green (Green, 2011), “aid transparency, tied aid, and the monitoring implementation of the draft Busan Partnership Agreement.” The focus on transparency at Busan concerned the call for implementation of the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). This initiative sought to address two key challenges. The first one concerned the challenge of recipient countries accessing up-to-date information about aid, development and humanitarian flows in order to plan and manage resources effectively. The second concerned the challenge of providing citizens in both recipient and donor countries with information that they needed to hold their governments accountable for the use of aid resources. Regarding tied aid, this concerned the untying of aid and the call for commitments to ensure more aid is spent in recipient countries. According to Green (2011), the issue of tied aid was “among the most controversial issues” discussed at the HLF-4. The third focus relating to the implementation of the draft Busan Partnership Agreement, concerned the establishment of a monitoring framework that would further strengthen country level monitoring and accountability efforts from both donors and recipients alike. There were two major outcomes of Busan that Mawdsley et al. (2014, p. 32) labelled as “success stories”. The first was the implementation of the IATI, which saw improved commitment and endorsement to the principle of transparency from major development donors such as USAID. The second outcome, heralded by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as a “major triumph” of Busan, was the ‘New Deal’ for fragile
57
states achieved by the G7+ countries8. The G7+ countries are amongst the world’s most mineral-rich, yet least developed and low-income economies. According to Mawdsley et al. (2014), the New Deal integrated five peace-building and state-building goals of legitimate politics, security, justice, economic foundations and revenue and services. They also cite the New Deal’s endorsement by over 40 countries and agencies including
Box 2: Progress indicators in implementing the monitoring framework of the Busan Global Partnership outcome document adapted from Global Partnership (2015): 1. Development co-operation meets a country’s priorities using country results frameworks; 2. Civil society actively participate, engage and contribute to development; 3. Increased engagement and contribution of the private sector to development; 4. Mechanisms for transparency of information are established at country level; 5. Development co-operation procurement and financial management systems are reliable and predictable; 6. Aid disbursements scheduled in annual budgets are subject to parliamentary scrutiny; 7. Mechanisms for mutual accountability are strengthened amongst development partners; 8. Countries develop sound systems for allocating resources to gender equality and women’s empowerment, and monitoring their development results. 9. Procurement and public financial management systems are strengthened and donors make use of these; 10. Aid is increasingly untied. the USA and the UN with a focus on the “1.5 billion people who live in the fragile states, and the 30% of aid spent on these states” (p. 32). Other merits of the Busan HLF- 4 have been highlighted in Kindornay and Samy’s (2013) analysis on HLF processes and the post-Busan governance structure. These include Busan’s commitments to a broader range of development issues besides aid such as corruption, aid for trade and engagement with the private sector and climate finance, among others. Busan also acknowledged the growing importance of emerging donors such as the South-South Development Co-operation (SSDC), which includes countries such as Brazil, China, India and the Arab Countries. This was also viewed as a “real breakthrough” by Kim
8 The 20 country members include Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Liberia, South Sudan , Sierra Leone and East Timor , who are the founding members of the g7 + , together with Burundi , Central African Republic , Chad, Comoros, Côte d' Ivoire, Guinea , Guinea -Bissau , Papua New Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe , Solomon Islands , Somalia , Togo and Yemen. 58
and Lee (2013, p. 797), who emphasised that bringing these donors on board to agree on shared principles was no easy feat. Kindornay and Samy (2013) also outlined Busan’s commitments to increasing Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) full participation and engagement as independent development actors. In their view, the reiteration of PDAE principles such as “mutual accountability, transparency, and commitment to the use of country systems as the default approach to the provision of development assistance” (p. 8) were also gains for improved aid and development effectiveness. Conversely, it remains unclear whether Busan’s operationalised new global partnership would produce tangible changes (Kim & Lee, 2013; Zimmermann & Smith, 2011). According to Kim and Lee (2013), while the inclusiveness of diverse development actors has been greatly enhanced in the new international development co- operation system, the efficient functionality and meaningful collective action from such diversity becomes increasingly difficult to achieve. Similarly, Killen and Rogerson (2010, p. 2) argue that a development partnership of multistakeholders would not adequately reflect a “global democratic decision-making paradigm.” With the international development co-operation system under pressure to become more inclusive with intentions to meet the needs of the poorest countries, they anticipated that such a system would not build explicitly on the mandates of their citizens when deciding on development issues. According to them, “at best [countries] have to hope that international power-brokers have their interests at heart when they decide development issues” (p. 2). They summarise that the power imbalances between donors and recipients combined with widespread conflicts of interests makes the development process progressively more “awkward” and “challenging” (p.2). Several analysts of the Busan HLF-4 have highlighted the uncertainty concerning the full participation and engagement of SSDC partners and other new actors in the post-Busan process concerning implementation and monitoring of Busan agreed commitments (Glennie & Rogerson, 2011; Kharas, 2012; Kim & Lee, 2013). SSDC partners have already stated clearly “that they will not participate in the future global monitoring framework”, but they will be at the negotiating table (Kindornay & Samy, 2013, p. 12). Therefore, the extent of their participation in the post-Busan process remains unclear. In spite of these challenges, the Busan HLF-4 has created a platform for renewed consensus on development co-operation on a multilateral level that aims to be inclusive and capable
59
of combating global poverty and addressing the crises and challenges of the twenty-first century (Davies, 2011; Kim & Lee, 2013). Overall, this review of the current state of the aid effectiveness literature finds it has been dominated by growth-oriented economic theories and policies with much of the debate focussing on the economic impacts of aid. The concept of foreign aid has broadened to development cooperation and aid effectiveness has now evolved into ‘development effectiveness’, without any clear consensus on what this actually means (Eyben, 2013). Increased numbers of SSDC partners and CSOs have multiplied the numbers of aid projects and mechanisms through which aid is managed. The increasing complexity of the aid architecture as shown thus far in this chapter detracts from the basic question of what types of development cooperation or aid is the most appropriate and what works best in what situations. There are many ways that aid can be analysed to address this. To help move this debate in a progressive direction, I now turn to considerations of power relations in the aid discourse as “aid relationships are relationships of power that have become an issue of global power politics” (Marut, 2008, p. 20). Section 2.3 is divided into two parts and presents a strand of literature examining how power is attached to aid practice and the discourse of power through the Foucauldian lens and its manifestations in the aid discourse.
2.3 Power: A symbolic charge of foreign aid Aid has been studied from different theoretical angles. In a summary by de Haan (2009, p. 19), he highlights perspectives on analysing aid effectiveness through four paradigmatic orientations that prove to be dominant in the field. These orientations are as follows: 1) Realist and Marxist perspectives that focuses on the role of aid in maintaining global power relations. 2) Liberal perspective that presents aid as a reflection of cooperation between providers and recipients of aid. 3) Social-democratic theories asserting that aid is expected to help in achieving improved quality of life. 4) Scholars of post-structuralism who focus on aid practices as discourse and ways of exerting power, which is the underlying focus of this thesis. This aspect will also be explored in more detail in the discussion of country-owned development processes and
60
the role of development aid in the context of rural development in Fiji in Chapters Four, Five and Six. Two landmark studies analysing the relationships of power in the field of development aid and the connection between aid and power were Teresa Hayter’s Aid as Imperialism (1971), and Paul Mosley, Jane Harrigan and John Toye’s Aid and Power: The World Bank and Policy-based Lending (1991). Both these studies recognise that the connection between aid and power is mainly through the conditionalities attached to aid transfers, between international financial institutions and ‘Third World’ countries. While this is “undoubtedly an important area of study”, more recent literature have directed attention towards the idea that power is pervasive in the field of development aid, leading away from the analysis of power confined to the economic realm (Ziai, 2009, p. 815). Literature examining the link between aid and power from this perspective is confronted with Michel Foucault’s notion of governmentality and this is detailed further in sub-section 2.3.1. The literature highlighted in this section draws on some key texts addressing power issues that may exist in aid relations and practice. It has been brought to attention that development partners are “part of a political process in which the issues of development and politics are closely interwoven” (Hyden, 2008, p. 260). Hyden (2008) calls for a better understanding of the role that power plays in the aid relationships of development partners. He examines a strand of political science literature focussing on aspects of power illuminating the challenges involved in aid practice that enhance current understandings of development co- operation. He highlights aspects of power illuminating challenges in the PDAE (and this is relevant also for other high-level forum outcomes) associated with the components of partnership, harmonisation and understanding. In applying the concepts of power, he highlights how “the partnership idea” (p. 260) embedded within the country ownership approach is most closely associated with the consensual tradition of power advocated by Arendt (1970), who argues that power does not belong to an individual but is a communal property, and Parsons (1957) who interprets power as a property of the system. In meaningfully applying this to the development community, Hyden (2008, p. 263) alludes to the making of aid decisions based on a relationship of “negotiated order between partners” and the naïve assumption that the mobilisation of commitments concerning the wider global aid agenda is “a global agreement”. The assumption that
61
there is consensus implies here that the use of power is constructive. Conversely, he also argues that partnership relations in the aid context can be viewed through the conflictual approach to power drawing on a number of scholars’ behaviourists’ studies of power such as Robert Dahl. The conflict approach exposes power as potentially controversial and destructive where it is used to exert influence and to determine skewed outcomes that may favour one party over another. The second component focussing on the harmonisation of foreign aid is, in Hyden’s view (2008) a reflection of power that is ‘manifest’ or ‘latent’. According to him, many analysts in the international development community are of the view that power is something manifest, where the idea of one actor getting another actor to act in accordance with their preferences is empirically observable. He emphasises that in the context of the harmonisation of aid, the perception of power as ‘manifest’ is evident in decision-making situations between partner governments. He also highlights that power may be ‘latent’, drawing on two approaches to the study of latent power from the works of scholars, such as Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci, and institutional interpretations of power in the works of Bachrach and Baratz (1962) and Lukes (1974). Harmonising aid is also ‘latent’ in institutional practices, where policies implemented by partner governments do not empower the poor, despite aid’s global goal of poverty reduction. Rather, these policies reinforce existing structural patterns that may not adhere to the global aid agenda. Finally, in terms of the goal of deepening understanding of political realities in recipient countries, Hyden (2008) highlights that power can either be perceived as being defined by formal and informal institutions. In the case of formal institutions, the discretionary use of power is limited to the objectives, roles and rules of formal organisations. Where there is a prevalence of informal institutions, the norms that individuals adhere to are “personalised powers” (p. 266) rooted in society and exemplified in various ways as clientelism (Haber, Razo, & Maurer, 2003; Levy, 2010), self-help (Cheshire, 2006), kinship and other customary and societal ‘rules’ and norms (Thornton et al., 2010; Zorn, 2003). A number of contemporary scholars have also undertaken power analyses (associated with ideas of authority, the state and political institutions) to assess power within the international aid system, particularly focussing on international aid practice in development institutions. One of these, Eyben (2008b, p. 29) conceptualises power within aid relations in terms of three propositions: (i) power is understood as a resource
62
that institutional actors possess requiring institutional mechanisms to create a more level playing field and to redress the global imbalance; (ii) the attribution of power to certain powerful actors and institutions who continue to set the political agenda and pursue their own interests at the expense of poor-recipient states; and (iii) the recognition that power is not a resource but rather a “diffuse process that enables and constrains action.” Given these power framings, in her power analyses of aid policy (Eyben, 2008a), she explains the aid policy process as a power struggle whereby policy decisions and policy change occur through various networks of people (actors) operating within institutional rules of the game (constraints and opportunities offered by institutions) drawn from the discourse environment (what is thinkable, visible, doable and the ways in which we interpret our world). In distinguishing types of power and understanding these within aid relations, Eyben (2010b) and others (Chambers, 2006a; Gaventa, 2006; Larmour, 2002) allude to three faces of power derived from Lukes (1974, p. 25) and VeneKlasen and Miller (2002, p. 45) described as: (i) visible power observable through formal institutional arrangements for policy making and implementation; (ii) informal power or hidden power shaping the policy agenda; and (iii) invisible power works through people’s internalisation of norms and beliefs, shaping meaning and policy choices. The third face of power, or latent power as termed by Hyden (2008) or invisible power as termed by Eyben and others, is important to this thesis, as it resonates Foucauldian perspectives on power relations and how they are shaped by social norms, values and world views (discussed further in sub-section 2.3.1). Power relations in the aid discourse have also been debated extensively by post- development critiques. These critiques, often inspired by post-modernism challenging the nature of the aid industry (de Haan, 2009) are arguably the “most significant” for conceptions of power in development (Gaventa, 2003, p. 11). Brigg (2002) highlights post-development’s use of the work of Michel Foucault, as one of its major theoretical departure points in analyses of development discourse. They do this through their use of the colonisation metaphor, in conceptualising the repressive views of power, development and ideas in ‘modern science’ that are directed by ‘the West’ as a colonizing power. In a prominent post-development publication, The Development Dictionary, Sachs (1992) presents a group of post-development writers, who provide insight on the development discourse by decrying Eurocentrism and various development injustices such as poverty, production, the notion of the state and equality.
63
In this publication, various post-development writers critique the ‘operation of power’ as masked by Western hegemony through development. Among these critiques, Majid Rahnema (1992, p. 124) argues that, despite independence, centuries of colonialism has led to the ‘colonising’ of the mind; Arturo Escobar (1992, p. 142) articulates the “colonizing mechanisms of development” and Claude Alvares (1992, p. 220) speaks of western science as “an associate of colonial power”, arguing that development based on modern science is made up of an “actively colonizing” power. Another prominent post- development publication, The Post-Development Reader, (Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997), has deployed a provocative analysis of the development discourse and practice using Foucauldian methodology. Contributors to this Reader, such as Arturo Escobar (1997, pp. 85-93), proposes the ‘colonisation of reality’, while Ivan Illich (1997, p. 97) refers to underdevelopment in the ‘Third World’ as a “state of mind, or as a form of consciousness” resulting from “reification”. Teodor Shanin (1997, pp. 66-68) writes of the “power of the idea of progress…developing a life of its own” and becoming the “blueprint of development/growth” that “penetrated all strata of contemporary societies”. These contributors all offer insights to the ways in which development discourses are imbued with power through the Foucauldian lens. Recently, it has been highlighted that aid effectiveness debates in the 2000s has focussed too much on aid practices and technical mechanisms, rather than addressing the power imbalances existing between development partners. As a result, achieving real change in development outcomes, such as poverty reduction, has been negligible (Kindornay & Samy, 2013). For the last development decade, assessments of foreign aid, previously mentioned here and in Chapter One, have largely attributed its ineffectiveness to three key factors: (i) the absence or lack of country ownership that recipient countries should be privy to in determining their own development strategies and priorities; (ii) the scarce or limited capacity within these countries to drive their own development and to use aid effectively; and (iii) donor driven efforts, motivations and strategic interests that continue to determine the direction of development for beneficiaries. While these factors have certainly been key reasons for ineffectiveness, this thesis is aimed at exploring the Foucauldian theme of ‘governmentality’ expressed through a ‘structured field of possible actions’ and how operations of power through the ‘government’ are inherently linked within the aid relationship for rural development in Fiji.
64
2.3.1 Michel Foucault: ‘Power is everywhere’ Michel Foucault, the French poststructuralist, has been hugely influential in shaping understandings of power (Gaventa, 2003; Hindess, 1996; Rabinow, 1991). Power for Foucault (1990, p. 93) is “everywhere” and its omnipresence “comes from everywhere” so in this sense is neither “an institution, nor a structure, nor a possession.” He defines power as, “the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organization; as the process which, through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, transforms, strengthens, or reverses them; as the support which these force relations find in one another, thus forming a chain or a system, or on the contrary, the disjunctions and contradictions which isolate them from one another; and lastly, as the strategies in which they take effect, whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies” (Foucault, 1990, pp. 92-93).
In his conception of power, he thought most urgent the “need to cut off the King’s head” in the field of political theory and abandoning the notion of sovereign power, where some individuals possess a power which others lack, or where a group of institutions and mechanisms ensure the subservience of subjects in a given state. Foucault abandoned the idea of power based on “consent, prohibition, legitimacy and sovereignty” (Jimenez-Anca, 2012, p. 38) and to him these were only “the terminal forms [that] power takes” (Foucault, 1990, p. 92). He advanced a paradigmatic shift towards discussion of domination in the terms of the controlling mechanisms of the population and governmentality (Hindess, 1996). Foucault’s work marks a radical departure from notions of conceiving power as an instrument of domination or coercion, and the idea that power is concentrated within discreet structures or institutions, seeing power instead as diffused and embodied in discourse, knowledge and ‘regimes of truth’ (Gaventa, 2003; Rabinow, 1991). Foucault recognises that relations of power only exist where there is a possibility of resistance (Hindess, 1996, p. 101) and as such defines ‘truth’ as “a thing of this world produced by virtue of multiple constraints inducing regular effects of power” (Foucault, 1976, p. 14).
65
Foucault links the notion of truth to the notion of regime and defines the concept of ‘regime of truth’ as “a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and functioning of statements [linked] by a circular relation to systems of power which produce it and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which redirect it” (Foucault, 1976, p. 14).
A regime of truth can also be understood as “the strategic field within which truth is produced and becomes a tactical element in the functioning of a certain number of power relations” (Lorenzini, 2013, p. 2). According to Foucault, power is not just negative, exclusionary, repressive, concealing, masking, or censoring, but it can also be positive. He alludes to power being a productive force in society that “produces reality [and] domains of objects and rituals of truth [whereby] the individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production” (Foucault, 1991a, p. 194). For the purpose of this thesis, the Foucauldian lens is used to assess aid effectiveness for rural development as an outcome shaped and directly impacted by different power dimensions that are exercised through the state. In the Foucauldian sense, these power dimensions can take the form of what he termed ‘biopower’, which is tied up in the aid architecture through its varying institutional arrangements, state practices and is determined by its ‘normalised’ governmentality processes. Biopower, understood as “the administration of forms of life” (Watts, 2003, p. 14), refers to an exercise of diffuse and micro-techniques of power throughout society that is productive and positive, as Foucault recognises it. It is the type of power operating through diverse techniques “for achieving the subjugation of bodies and the control of populations” (Foucault in Rabinow, 1991, p. 262). These techniques include “disciplining, ordering, ranking, making visible, and subjecting to knowledge” (Gaventa, 2003, p. 4). Brigg (2002, p. 422) argues that “development is synthetically bound with biopower, which operates by bringing forth and promoting, rather than repressing, the forces and energies of human subjects”. He also writes of how Foucault’s notion of dispositif with his concept of normalisation and governmentality (‘the conduct of conduct’ as Foucault terms it or how we think about governing others and ourselves in a wide variety of contexts) can be used to understand the operations of power, exercised through the state
66
and how the failure of development efforts linked to power can provide important insights into the development dispositif. As highlighted in section 1.6 of Chapter One, the discussions of ‘country- owned’ poverty reduction efforts for rural development in this thesis are guided by Foucault’s relational conceptualisation of power. Furthermore, it recognises the development dispositif as synthetically bound to Foucault’s notions of the ‘regime of truths/practices’, which are embedded in governmentality and expressed in what he termed ‘biopower’ (Foucault, 1980). According to Foucault (1980), such arrangements create different bodily obligations and constraints, which Eyben (2010a) acknowledges as the outcome of those relations of power in the aid relationship, and these are inherently linked to keeping poor people in conditions of poverty and marginalisation. 2.3.2 Governmentality Foucault’s works on power, as articulated through the development discourse, has implications for understanding the operations of power within the development dispositif, which permeate development efforts (Brigg, 2002). While many positionalities have influenced the workings of the international aid system (Mosse, 2005), critiques of aid effectiveness in this thesis will harness the notion of ‘governmentality’, to examine how the rationale behind the governing of aid for development governs rural development in Fiji. The operation of power acknowledged in this thesis is not negative power resulting from coercion or domination, but rather positive (or productive) power that legitimises and empowers action through the setup of practices and ‘regimes of truth’ that configure the “possible field of action of others” (Foucault 1982:221 in Watts, 2003, p. 12). This thesis frames the structured fields of action using Rose and Miller’s approach (1992, p. 177) to ascertain “how, and to what extent, the state is articulated into the activity of governing: what relations are established between political and other authorities; what funds, forces, persons, knowledge or legitimacy are utilised; and by means of what devices and techniques are these different tactics made to render programmes operable.
Rather than focussing on the power of the state or government, or the power of development institutions and stakeholders in accounting for the governance of aid and its ultimate effectiveness, the thesis explores ‘country ownership’ through the
67
governmentality lens to critically analyse how rural development in Fiji is governed. It explores more subtle interactions embedded in the plurality of actors seeking to problematize the rural as subjects to be governed and how this act of government takes place. To illustrate the idea of ‘governmentality’ that are embedded in society today, notable texts elaborating on the study of governmentality by Mitchell Dean (2010) and Nikolas Rose (1999) are deployed here. The analytics of government put forward by Mitchell Dean (2010) follow the twin crises of capitalism and neoliberalism after the collapse of the global financial markets in 2008 and 2009. He uses ‘governmentality’ to critique political reason. He draws on the use of the concept and model of ‘government’ thought, of the kind, exemplified by Foucault’s 1978-1979 lectures, which focussed on the study of liberal and neo-liberal forms of government through German post-war liberalism and the liberalism of the Chicago School (Foucault, 2008). In the same way that Foucault used the model of ‘government’ as “an alternative way of thinking about the power relations of contemporary societies” (Dean, 2010, p. 6), Dean also adopts this ethos, with some distinct metamorphosis and modification of Foucault’s earlier concepts, approaches, arguments and analyses (p. 7). ‘Governmentality’, in his view, offers a philosophy of usefully rationalising technologies (mechanisms through which governing is accomplished), programmes (planned attempts to reform or transform regimes of practices reorienting them to specific ends) and identities of regimes of government (a relatively organised and systematic way of doing things). However, he ventures further that relations of power, analysis and reflection of different formations of power are irreducible to those captured only by the concept and analyses of governmentality. Instead, he stresses the need to recognise multi-dimensional formations of power (such as bio-politics9 and sovereignty which he discusses extensively) working within even a single regime of practice rather than treating ‘governmentality’ as an exhaustive concept or as “an orthodoxy prescribing the other types of thought with which it can have legitimate relations” (p. 9). Dean’s scope of analyses of ‘governmentality’ is purposefully broad (p. 250) given his emphasis on ‘multiplicity’ (pp. 7, 12). Throughout this literature, he examines the complex, shifting relations between biopolitics, sovereignty and government. He positions the long-term trajectory of social and political struggles and transformations of authority relations via
9 Dean defines biopolitics as a form of politics involving the administration of the processes of life of populations (p.117). 68
an examination of the historical transformations of these three power formations. To locate the economic, social, psychological and biological processes that constitute a model of ‘government’ and to articulate the regulatory mechanism that ‘governs’ a model of ‘government’ through power formations, Dean examines in detail Foucault’s notion of the ‘governmentalization of the state’. This, he defines, as the “long-term trajectory by which the exercise of sovereignty comes to be articulated through the regulation of populations and individuals” and the processes constituting them (p. 267). He also traces the emergence and operation of these power formations, their rationalities and techniques in “dispositional, processual or reflexive” models of government (p. 252) that are “flourishing” in contemporary society (p. 117) and those which we participate in today. In examining the models of government and self- government, the shaping of our actions, processes and norms, Dean categorises dispositional government as most evident in the various forms of householding (notions of the economy), where there is an emphasis on the detailed regulation of acts and things10. Here, he also acknowledges that government may be processual (as is evident in the mercantile system) (p. 126) and forms of self-government invoked in the discipline of the army (pp. 107-111) or the “training of the prince” (pp. 124, 125) for instance. In the case of processual forms of government, Dean alludes to liberal and social forms of government where the processes of government are found in the population, the economy and society (pp. 134-149). Finally, in categorising reflexive forms of government, Dean describes a new process that he perceives as joint to the ‘governmentalization of the state’ and this he terms as the “governmentalization of government” (p. 205). In this instance, the government through processes comes to be reinscribed within, redefined or displaced by a government of governmental mechanisms or a “reflexive government” (pp. 205, 267). As such, he notes that reflexive forms of government may involve processes that are invoked (such as economic and globalisation processes), requiring reform (such as uncompetitive institutional conduct) or the security of governmental mechanisms through operationalising the capacities of diverse associations, movements and groups. These three government models have been used by Dean to distinguish the two trajectories of the ‘governmentalization of the state’ and the ‘governmentalization of government’ and
10 Dean defines ‘things’ as a heterogeneous concept entailing human relations with the physical environment, with the state itself, with culture, with habits and occupation, with notions of the economy and life itself (p.253). 69
to illustrate the sets of processes that govern present forms of liberal, social democratic, authoritarian and statist rule and authority in contemporary society. In understanding contemporary power relations, Dean concludes that the ‘art of government’ is to be concerned with locating a norm “that will allow one to define the proper scope and limits of government, how much governing the state should do and how much should be left up to, or in partnership, with other agencies” (p.263). He emphasises the need to “grasp the strategic operation and intelligibility of regimes of practices, which are irreducible to the programmes and rationalities of politicians, public servants and experts” (p. 265). Another notable text on the study of governmentality is Nikolas Rose’s Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (1999). The analytics of government that Rose discusses throughout his book are genealogical (p. 274) and in the context of a genealogy of freedom (p. 10). He draws on a wide literature of studies to examine the political rationalities since the middle nineteenth century and the problematics of government in the present for the English-speaking world, with a specific focus on Britain, the USA, Canada and Australia. In this context, he considers the ways in which the values and ideas of freedom have come to define and configure “practices for the government of conduct” and “the ground of our ethical systems, practice of politics and habits of criticism” (p. 10). From the outset, Rose outlines that the conventional ways of analysing politics and the contemporary organization of powers seem “obsolescent” and “uncertain” (pp. 1,3). He tracks the changing images and vocabularies of political power increasingly challenged by globalisation. In this context, he emphasises on the relevance of considering the extent to which the image of the hegemonic role of the state are framed and understood; and whether strategies, tactics and techniques through which individuals and populations have been governed can ever be adequately represented in language or image. His analysis on contemporary thought and politics extends Foucault’s ideas on ‘governmentality’ and Rose critiques the exercise of political power in the form of government by examining the relationship with truth, power and subject formation (p. 29). Against these prominent texts on governmentality, I now turn to specific case studies focussing on ‘governmentality’, in its various forms, which are currently operating in development practice and manifested in the international aid system.
70
2.3.3 Foucault’s governmentality in the development and aid discourse Foucauldian ideas of ‘governmentality’ have been deployed in areas of development, such as in the understanding of nature and resource management. For the purpose of demonstrating the use of Foucauldian power theory and the notion of governmentality in development practice, I only highlight a summary of three specific case studies pertaining to resource management, as examples, followed by a brief review of the governmentality perspective for rural development. In his case study of petroleum oil extraction and politics in the Niger Delta, Watts (2003, p. 14) explores two aspects of ‘governmentality’ cited in literature as “green governmentality”. Firstly, he draws on what Foucault refers to as relations between people and resources. In his case study, this corresponds to the people and oil in the Niger Delta. The second focuses on the formation of “governable spaces” in Nigeria, a concept that he borrows from Rose (1999, p. 31). In his research, Watts does not perceive and chart the trajectory of the “Niger-petroleum capitalism” (p. 28) as a dwindling resource, a resource curse or as a commodity central to the economics of civil war. These are views that are common within notable texts on extractive politics within the field of development theory (p. 15). Instead, his analysis on extractive politics in the Niger Delta tracks the relations between oil and violence via an examination of the ways in which the forms of governable spaces are produced by what Dean calls “authoritarian governmentality” (2010, p. 155) and its links to a form of global capitalism that Watts terms as petro- capitalism. In terms of water as a resource, a number of studies have been cited to draw explicitly on the theories of governmentality and biopolitics in analysing water governance, politics, management and sustainable development (Hellberg, 2014). Two specific case studies that examine the politics of water through the governmentality lens are Hellberg (2014) and Boelens, Hoogesteger, and Baud (2015). The former explores governmental and biopolitical effects of water governance in eThekwini municipality in KwaZulu-Natal province, South Africa. Through the use of narrative interviews with water users in eThekwini, the study illustrates how power works in water governance and the impacts that it has in terms of people’s lives. The biopolitical effects of water management in the municipality is one characterised by distinctions between those who pay and those who do not pay for the use of water or have limited access to water. The latter by Boelens et al. (2015) examines water policy reforms in Ecuador and how the present government controls, sanctions and regulates water and its users through new
71
forms of governmentality, in particular in relation to the privatisation and individualisation of water control. In terms of rural development, Foucauldian-inspired literature harnessing the notion of ‘governmentality’ has been relatively new, only emerging and becoming prevalent in the 1990s and 2000s (Goodwin, 1998), in studies carried out in the United Kingdom (Goodwin, 1998; Marsden & Murdoch, 1998; Ward & McNicholas, 1998), Europe (Valentinov, 2008), the United States and Australia (Herbert-Cheshire, 2000; Herbert-Cheshire & Higgins, 2004). The ethos behind the ‘governmentality’ perspective for rural development in these studies has focused on government techniques based on notions of individual and community responsibility, self-help and ‘bottom-up’ approaches of development. Harnessing itself to the ‘governmentality’ perspective, a unifying outcome of these studies is the illustration of how these techniques are used to mobilise skills and resources in rural communities ensuing ‘empowerment’ and ‘enterprise’. In an attempt to make sense of current strategies for rural development, these studies explore discourses of rural development through rural partnerships, local consultation and community-led development based on the notions of ‘governmentality’ and ‘governing’ that operate through these contemporary strategies. There have also been specific studies analysing aid relations and practice through the governmentality lens. In a volume edited by David Mosse and David Lewis on the governance and the ethnography of the ‘global aid architecture’(2005), the opening chapter by Mosse (2005, p. 9) seeks to analyse aid as “a relation of government” where power is exercised through “a set of [government] technologies that reorganises the relationship between people and things to achieve desired aims”. He makes the point that current international development policy constitutes the “convergence of ideas of neoliberal reform, democratisation and poverty reduction within a framework of global governance” (p. 1). Mosse and other contributors to this volume dismiss the notion of ‘global governance’ in international aid as a creation of dominance and hegemony. Rather, they focus on, “understanding how legitimacy is won for international policies, how programmes enrol participants with the rhetoric of freedom, partnership, ownership and participation; how order of control is achieved through internalised disciplines of power; how states govern through community control;
72
and how the representational practices through which state power operates are extended, but also disrupted, within the international sphere” (p. 2).
Mosse particularly highlights how the concept of governmentality has been used by scholars to reconcile the power effects of the global convergence of aid policy frameworks and harmonisation processes, with mutually agreed principles and recurring themes of partnership, local ownership, democratic accountability and transparency, as well as the idea of rights-based development in the current aid architecture. The contributors to this volume recognise the idea of foreign aid and development in general “as a knowledge/power regime of political or cultural domination” (p. 13), with other power formations, such as governmentality, biopolitics and sovereignty occurring collectively in aid practice. Similar to contributions in the Mosse and Lewis (2005) volume, another recent ethnography exploring different aspects of how ‘governmental’ programs, practices and calculated programs of intervention pervade every aspect of life, is Tania Murray Li’s (2007) The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development and the Practice of Politics. Tania Li employs categories of Foucault in her analytics of government, complementing this with ideas of Marx and Gramsci in her attempts to understand the workings of power and the rationale of development interventions – “what they seek to change, and the calculations they apply” (p. 1) in the context of improvement schemes in Central Sulawesi in Indonesia. These improvement schemes are aimed at “securing the welfare of the population, increasing of its wealth, longevity, health” (p. 270). In her ethnographic analysis, Li draws on the improvement schemes in Central Sulawesi, which include a large integrated development project aimed at improving livelihoods and nature conservation, the practice of politics in a Farmers movement, conservation measures on the use of park land by The Nature Conservancy non-governmental organisation, and a new wave of programs spearheaded by the World Bank aimed at community empowerment. Rather than condemning aid agencies as exploitative and coercive entities, Li focuses on the rationale of these improvement programs and the practices through which development agencies draw boundaries that “separate trustees from the subjects whose conduct was to be conducted” (p. 273). She refers to the notions of development, conservation and community empowerment as ‘trustees’, whose position is “defined by the claim to know how others should live” (p. 4) guided
73
by the objective that ensures it does not dominate others. Rather, the objective of trusteeship “is to enhance their capacity for action, and to direct it” (p. 5). According to Li, these trustees engage in ‘government’ and she examines the work of trustees and the imaginations and desires of those at the receiving end of the improvement schemes. Similar analyses are evident in the context of development intervention in Oceania (Hodge, 2014; McGregor, Challies, Overton, & Sentes, 2013). McGregor et al. (2013), for example, draw on studies of governmentality to examine recent shifts in New Zealand’s Official Development Assistance. They identify three governing mechanisms employed to direct and ‘normalise’ the aid policy shift from poverty alleviation to sustainable economic development introduced by a change in government. Drawing on a genealogical analysis of Australian aid relations and the forms of subjectivation that characterise the productive space of international development in the Pacific islands region, Paul Hodge (2014) examines the governing rationalities and technologies that have structured the governing demands placed on this region. He offers a critical account of ‘governed freedom’ and subjectivation in Oceania as constitutive of AusAID’s development objectives. Hodge identifies problematisation and responsibilisation (solution on offer) as key elements of desirable conduct that produce new norms and forms of conduct. He argues that these are central to the practices of subjectivation advanced by AusAid. The literature presented in this section is by no means exhaustive but it illuminates critiques of development and aid practice from a ‘governmentality’ perspective. They analyse how power is at work in engendering subjectivities and aspirations. The power applied in their analysis is of the governmental type and they use different aspects of ‘government’ to examine the crisis of development and aid practice. In a similar vein, this study frames its aims, objectives and research questions through the governmentality lens posing afresh the role of aid in rural development, what form it takes, how it is delivered and the outcomes that are more likely to ensue through a structured field of actions. Through this lens, there is an increased focus on how aid is governed and rationalising ‘a better way of governing’, with less focus on aid disbursements intended to reduce poverty by bridging resource gaps – a view that the aid effectiveness agenda has been linked with historically. The next section examines this link and the crisis of development and aid on poverty.
74
2.4 Poverty reduction: What role for development aid in today’s deepening poverty? Foreign aid is popularly viewed as an instrument to close the gap between developed and developing countries, rich and poor, and to effectively address conditions of poverty and deprivation (Schulz, 2001). Even though poverty reduction emerged as the overarching goal for development in the 1990s (de Haan, 2009), the increasing inequalities between rich and poor and the deepening poverty evident globally, has heightened the focus of development aid on poverty reduction (Jones, 2002). This focus has been further advanced in the development of global frameworks for collective action such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the central role of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) highlighted in Chapter One. These are all premised on the assumption that aid works in reducing poverty. Numerous analyses have been carried out concerning these and the role of HLF policy documents, such as the Paris Declaration agenda and “how far it releases the donors’ hold on aid spending,” especially given the primary role of PRSPs as key aid-policy documents that require the approval of donors (Wallace, 2009). Poverty reduction now continues as a top priority of the international aid agenda with consensus from key multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank (Tamang, 2009). Despite this central focus, the impact and effectiveness of aid in reducing poverty alongside other developmental outcomes has been questioned in the last six decades of aid (McGillivray, 2004). Many critiques have argued that aid contributes much more to the vicious cycle of indebtedness that now trap most of the developing world in more poverty and despair (Easterly, 2006; Hayter, 1971; Moyo, 2009; Schulz, 2001). While the objectives of aid and views on what it can achieve differ (de Haan, 2009), the biggest debate in the foreign aid literature with very little consensus relates to poverty reduction and well-being of recipients, as aid is expected to help achieve this (Milner & Tingley, 2013). Sub-section 2.4.1 next discusses the many dimensions of poverty and surveys empirical literature defining the multidimensional nature of poverty. This puts into perspective the difficulties in achieving meaningful poverty reduction through foreign aid and state-sponsored development assistance.
75
2.4.1 The multidimensionality of poverty Studies of poverty date more than 100 years, but the systematic analysis of poverty only became a significantly important topic following Amartya Sen’s 1976 seminal paper on poverty measurement (Kakwani & Silber, 2007). In a book publication entitled Many Dimensions of Poverty (Kakwani & Silber, 2007), the contributors focus on conceptual issues relating to the multidimensional nature of poverty. The book reflects 13 selected high quality papers presented at an international conference on ‘The Many Dimensions of Poverty’ organised by The International Poverty Centre11 (IPC) convened in Brazil in 2005. As outlined by the editors Nanwan Kakwani and Jacques Silber, poverty is now increasingly viewed as multifaceted with a shift in emphasis on assessing the incidence, intensity and inequality of poverty aspects from the unidimensional approach of poverty to a multidimensional one in recent years. The unidimensional approach, based on income and consumption data, concerned the use of these data as the sole indicator of wellbeing, dismissing other non-monetary attributes that are strongly correlated with the quality of life. One of the contributors outlines that these non-monetary attributes are “key dimensions of poverty such as life expectancy (longevity), literacy, the provision of public goods and even, at the limit, freedom and security” (Thorbecke, 2007, p. 4). The contributors to this volume all agree that identifying the poor requires more than crossing an income threshold. In recognising the multidisciplinary nature of poverty, the contributors to this volume discuss how poverty reflects deprivation suffered by people in many aspects of life. These aspects include, but are not limited to unemployment, poor health conditions, the denial of good basic education, adequate sanitation, access to safe drinking water and other needs/human development measures such as those defined by the MDGs and now the SDGs. They also highlight other forms of impoverishment where poverty constitutes a denial of human rights and dignity (Jansen van Rensburg, 2007), issues of vulnerability (Calvo & Dercon, 2007; Hulme & MacKay, 2007), powerlessness (Sindzingre, 2007), psychological elements reflecting the subjective dimension of poverty (Lever, 2007) and social exclusion (Alsop, 2007; Chambers, 2007). On the notion of human rights and dignity, Jansen van Rensburg (2007, pp. 165-184) delineates the link between poverty and freedom. She uses the South African experience to
11 The IPC is one of 3 global thematic facilities that is a joint set up by the United Nations Development Program and Brazil focussing on promoting South-South Development cooperation on applied poverty research. 76
illustrate the extent to which the South African Constitution ensures the protection of the social rights of the poor. She demonstrates how these protections are required for a decent living and are underpinned by fundamental rights of freedoms and entitlements. In terms of vulnerability, for Calvo and Dercon (2007, pp. 215-228), identifying the poor requires an assessment and understanding of the level of risk that people are exposed to in meeting the minimum standards in any particular aspect of well-being. For Hulme and MacKay (2007, pp. 187-215), chronic poverty is understood through identifying those individuals for whom poverty has been an inescapable trap and who have experienced extended durations of poverty. With regards to powerlessness, the lack of social institutions and their scant resources in developing countries is another dimension to be considered. Alice Sindzingre (2007, pp. 52-74) illustrates how poverty is maintained by mental representations and norms that prevent the poor from considering institutions that enable them access to income, education and other dimensions. She also draws on institutional and normative analyses to depict the cognitive power inherent in these and their consequential effects on perpetuating powerlessness, which trap people in a cycle of poverty that is passed on to subsequent generations. There is also a subjective dimension of poverty associated with numerous psychological variables. Joaquina Lever (2007, pp. 75-86) highlights how these variables need to be considered when considering the multidimensional nature of poverty. These variables vary and may include coping mechanisms for stress, depression, cognitive mechanisms for social support, among others. Finally, contributors in this volume reflect on how poverty is perpetuated by social exclusion where individual capabilities to overcome poverty are not of central focus. As such, poverty is evident in the absence of empowering mechanisms and participatory approaches as drivers of development. To make effective choices that contribute to poverty reduction, Ruth Alsop (2007, pp. 120-139) analyses multidimensional poverty through the concept of empowerment drawing on evidence from five case studies in Brazil, Ethiopia, India and Nepal. For Robert Chambers (2007, pp. 140-164), to understand the diversity deprivations and the many forms that poverty takes, he devotes his chapter to understanding perceptions of poverty that require contributions from both ‘development specialists’ and by poor people themselves. The multidimensional nature of poverty is also evident in the various definitions used to conceptualise poverty, identify the poor and quantify the extent of poverty. In
77
another serial publication by the IPC, Poverty Focus, its 9th issue presents ten articles shedding light on the question of how best to define and measure poverty. In an article by Peter Townsend (2006), he provides a historical perspective on the evolution of poverty conceptualisations and formulations of the ‘poverty line’. He highlights that all of the general debates that surround the conceptualisation of poverty classify it on ideas of subsistence, basic needs and relative deprivation (p. 5). The subsistence idea implies the condition when incomes are “not sufficient to obtain the minimum necessaries for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency” (p. 5). By the 1970s, the formulation of the ‘basic needs’ concept supported by the ILO became the basis of the official measure of poverty. The concept comprised the two elements of material needs for physical survival, which defined the subsistence concept, and the provision of essential services for meeting the minimum standards of different aspects of well-being, such as health care, sanitation and education, among others. From the late 20th century onwards, the poverty concept evolved and was formulated as relative deprivation. This includes income and other non-monetary attributes highlighted by the contributors to The Many Dimensions of Poverty previously mentioned. In a similar vein, Robert Chambers (Chambers, 2006b) classifies five clusters of meanings of poverty, elicited by development professionals. The first is ‘income or consumption poverty’ used mostly by economists in defining poverty. The second, Chambers classifies as ‘material lack or want’ where poverty is not only a result of a lack of income but also other basic needs, as defined by Townsend (2006). The third is a definition he borrows from Amartya Sen’s 1976 seminal paper, expressed as ‘capability deprivation’, referring to material deprivation as well as individual capabilities of what one can or cannot do. The fourth meaning takes on a multidimensional deprivation meaning, as already highlighted. The fifth focuses on illustrating development as a positive change shifting from conditions of “ill-being to well-being” (p. 4). Chambers highlights that these meanings then influence the primacy accorded to poverty alleviation, reduction or elimination. Consequently, these meanings shape the fundamentals of what development should be about, from a development professional’s perspective. In an attempt to define poverty operationally, Fukuda-Parr (2006) reviews the UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI), first developed in 1990 and then diffused as a poverty measure through UNDP Human Development Reports (HDR). She outlines the definitions and types of poverty inclusive in the HDI measure and these reflect the
78
lack of choices and opportunities, in key areas already specified, as well as “voice related to democratic processes” (p. 7). She highlights that despite multi-dimensional shifts in poverty concepts, the HDI is an income-poverty measure that continues to reflect the income measure of $1/day, developed and updated regularly by the World Bank. To provide a more composite measure that addresses other critical areas of wellbeing, Fukuda-Parr also outlines the development of the Human Poverty Index as a measure of capability deprivation in 1996 by the UNDP. Even with advances in the methodological measures of poverty, she highlights that the challenges of measuring poverty inclusive of its multidimensional nature remains considerable. In another article by Laderchi, Saith, and Stewart (2006, pp. 10-11), they review empirical evidence examining the definitions of poverty and report on four approaches of poverty drawn out from field testing in India and Peru. Despite a world-wide consensus on poverty reduction as a primary goal of development policy, they highlight that the definition of poverty remains a contentious one. Peter Edward (2006, pp. 14-16) and Lord Meghnad Desai (2006, pp. 16-17) suggest alternative measures to measuring poverty. In accounting for absolute poverty, the former defines an Ethical Poverty Line that also includes wellbeing indicators otherwise not accounted for in the MDG and World Bank $1 and $1.25/ day poverty lines. The latter proposes a new poverty line combining income and consumption data with the notion of labour capacities. With the poverty-related MDGs and now the SDGs recognising poverty as either absolute or extreme, poverty continues to be measured along income- consumption poverty lines (Mahadevan, 2007; McCloskey, 2015). The MDGs measure poverty in relation to the amount of money necessary to meet basic needs (UNDP, 1997). The SDGs are “an acknowledgement of the failings of the MDGs” alluding to the fact that more than one billion people still live in absolute poverty and more than 800 million people still don’t have enough to eat (McCloskey, 2015, p. 187). As defined by the World Bank (2008), people are deemed to be in absolute poverty if they are living on less than $1.25 per day. Poverty is also deemed as being relative. Relative poverty measures poverty in relation to the economic well-being of other members in society (UNDP, 1997). According to UNDP (1997), people are deemed to be in relative poverty if they belong to a bottom income group as defined by their national poverty line and do not have access to basic needs, which a society considers to be ‘normal’.
79
2.5 Summary This chapter has examined the discursive roots of the aid effectiveness agenda, showing how discussions around alternatives to development, the major determinants of aid effectiveness and concepts, such as country ownership and value for money, have evolved out of varying mutations of the aid architecture in response to criticisms of aid and its impacts on poverty reduction. It also highlighted the growing complexities within the aid system through the various commitments to development and poverty reduction that have been made at key High-Level Forums since the new millennium, making aid effectiveness a pressing concern. The chapter then related the analysis of aid through considerations of power relations and assessed some key texts on the theoretical basis of power within international aid practice. It also presents specific case studies examining development and aid effectiveness through the power discourse. Finally, this chapter related discussions on poverty reduction and the role of aid in achieving this, and presented some critiques showing the multidimensional nature of poverty and the challenges with defining and measuring poverty. This chapter emphasised that discussions concerning aid effectiveness loom large in the development discourse. There is still considerable debate regarding the meaning of aid effectiveness, what poverty encompasses and what the role of aid should be in meaningfully achieving poverty reduction and other development measures. Much of the debates concerning aid effectiveness in the 2000s have focussed on aid practices and technical mechanisms rather than power analyses (Kindornay & Samy, 2013). With the rhetoric of development aid hovering around the central objective of poverty reduction, more investigation is still required to assess its effectiveness and its meaningful application in country-owned development processes using power analyses. The gaps emerging from this literature review informed the research problem for this thesis and presents key avenues for research. These gaps will be explored in my case study of the governance of rural development and aid in Fiji.
80
Chapter 3 Methodology
The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of the governance of rural development by exploring the ‘collective and relatively taken-for-granted’ (Dean, 2010, p. 25) thinking inherent in recent aid practices. Earlier chapters have identified some of the emerging challenges surrounding the governance of aid, its effectiveness and what aid and its plurality of actors seek to address. Those challenges are complex and rely on conceptions of good, effective and equitable governance for their resolution. Clarity about the process for studying these conceptions of good, effective and equitable governance as embedded in recent aid effectiveness practice will ensure the research results have credibility, relevance, and utility. To provide such clarity, this chapter’s intent is twofold: first to argue a rationale for the approach taken, consistent with the research problem and theoretical framework identified in Chapter One. The emphasis of discussion here pertains to the implications and choice of using the analytics of governmentality conceptualised through poststructuralism. It highlights the potential of extending it to the study of relations between aid effectiveness mechanisms and its production of ‘power’ and ‘regimes of practices’ that render development programmes operable. The second is to show how this was applied to this thesis, by presenting the specific research techniques used in the case study of rural Fiji, its influence on the design and implementation of the research process, and discussing my positionality during this process. Of particular discussion here is, the use of the Vanua Research Framework (VRF) as an indigenous methodological approach and talanoa as an indigenous research technique to the fieldwork and interpretation of data. The chapter ends with a discussion on the face-to-face interview methods, limited ethnographic approach and discourse analysis used to gather and analyse data, the ethical considerations informing this research and concludes by highlighting quality issues concerning the transferability, validity and reliability of using a single case study approach.
3.1 Understanding research practices – a poststructuralist paradigm For claims about the world to constitute knowledge, many philosophers now use the term ‘warranted knowledge’ to indicate “the necessity of justifying the answers one gives to research questions” (Graham, 2005, p. 9). To situate the warranted knowledge
81
produced in this thesis, this section briefly examines the links between the philosophical position and empirical strategies underpinning this research represented by Postructuralism. At its core, poststructuralism “embraces the ultimate undecidability of meaning, the constitutive power of discourse and the political effectivity of theory and research” (Gibson-Graham, 2000, p. 95). The current research is concerned with understanding the constitutive power of discourse on rural development as constructed by a plurality of actors through their discourses and practices. That the rural development process generates such shared and complex understandings is clear in the following claim: “The rural of rural development while transcending the differences of language, region, caste and ethnicity, marks off a common terrain to be developed under the benign guidance of development functionaries. What characterises rural is the common condition of underdevelopment at which development interventions are aimed” (Thakur, 2014, p. 12).
The thesis contextualises the governance of rural development through analysing the rural development actors that have been concerned with devising, directing and managing rural development. Rather than being concerned with the success, failure or impact of a particular programme, this thesis attempts to seek an understanding of discourse on rural development by critically examining the social construction, organisation and operation of processes of rural development planning and governance and its implications for particular type/s of construction of the rural. To allow such insights it explores these social phenomena by focusing on discourse and questioning from a Foucauldian perspective the “discursive claims on which concepts of normality and deviance rest” (Hubbard, Kitchin, Bartley, & Fuller, 2002, p. 104). Foucault challenged discursive claims implying that human beings are entities that are aware of themselves and their place in the world. Rather, he argued that subjectivity is rooted in the body and constituted of and by a multiplicity of representations in which subjectivity is brought into being through discourses tied into complex power relations (Hubbard et al., 2002). These power relations emanate from social and cultural institutional spaces (hospitals, schools, prisons etc.) that are all important in giving a shape to the world (Hubbard et al., 2002). In society, people produce and reproduce a certain way of viewing and understanding the world and structure the world in a certain
82
way. Groups of people share and develop ideas and values, and they take understandings of these for granted. Those who participate in reproducing these shared ideas and values are all part of a discourse that is embedded in social behaviour. Consequently, this thesis regards observable structures, behaviours and interactions as all owing much to the discourses constituting the social organisation of rural development. Data collected from participants’ voices produced reconstructions of these diverse discourses. With its intellectual roots in Continental philosophy and literary theory (Woodward, Dixon, & Jones III, 2009), poststructuralism has been defined as a theoretical approach to knowledge and society confronting the modernist tradition of structuralism (Caplan, 1989; Gibson-Graham, 2000). As the term implies, it refers to those forms of analysis developed in response to the principles of structural analysis, especially “those which suggested that categories of identity and subjectivity are created through systems of language which work to perpetuate capitalist structures” (Hubbard et al., 2002, p. 84). Its philosophy and theory emerged in the 1960s as a movement within French philosophy inquiring into the construction, form, and role of different social and political identities embedded in class, ethnic, gender, racial, national, or sexual character (Howarth, 2013). From the perspective of social and political theory, Howarth (2013, pp. 13-16) asserts that there are at least three generations of poststructuralist theory that can be identified. The first generation consists of what he has termed the ‘founders of discursivity’ (p. 15) and includes key thinkers such as Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) and Michel Foucault (1926-1984). These philosophers were beginning to question the basic assumptions of structuralist and formalist thinking. Derrida was the first to introduce poststructuralist thought at a 1966 conference on structuralism in the city of Baltimore (Woodward et al., 2009), and from whom the dominant poststructuralist strategy of deconstruction originated (Gibson-Graham, 2000). He called into question and deconstructed the entire tradition of Western metaphysics, working against what Heidegger called “the metaphysics of presence” (Gibson-Graham, 2000; Woodward et al., 2009). He analysed the process of ‘centring’ upon and argued that manifestations of this process in Western thought were merely epistemological constructs handed down through generations of philosophers and scientists rather than being based on ontological foundations of Enlightenment idea(l)s
83
(autonomy, freedom, human rights) of truth and objectivity (Woodward et al., 2009). Derrida’s deconstructive method seeks to “undercut the truth claims inherent in any text” (Hubbard et al., 2002, p. 88). As such, poststructuralism is more concerned with ‘how we live’ and ‘how we might live’ rather than focussing on questions of ‘what we know’ or the quest for better ways of knowing (Hubbard et al., 2002). For Deleuze, these provided ways of analysing totalitarianism, dictatorships, states and different versions of capitalism. He suggests that these notions give consistency to the world where human subjects, objects and institutions are assembled into ‘desiring machines’ and this consequently obstructs more productive relations (Hubbard et al., 2002). Howarth (2013) presents the second generation of poststructuralists as consisting of theorists whose works were dominant in the late 1970s and early 1980s. According to him, these theorists engaged in deconstructing and revisiting the basic problems and concepts in cultural theory, and rethinking key concepts such as power, class, ideology, representation, identity, subjectivity and hegemony in the social sciences. Those that he labelled as second-generation poststructuralists include political theorists such as Ernesto Laclau (1945-2014) and Chantal Mouffe (1943- ), post- colonial scholar and analyst Edward Said (1935- ), feminist key thinker in the construction of queer theory Judith Butler (1960- ) and the political scientist James Tully (1946- ), among others. He categorises a third generation of poststructuralists as those researchers who have not only embraced the key concepts previously mentioned, but who have widened the scope of this theoretical approach to include mainstream issues like globalisation, governmentality, political economy, policymaking, political ideologies and so on. Third generation poststructuralists include key thinkers such as Alex Honneth (1949- ), Christoph Menke (1958- ) and Lutz Wingert (1958- ). Many poststructuralists in the second and third generations have been influenced by the deconstructionist approaches of Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault (Minca, 2009). Irrespective of the generation, all poststructuralists in human geography “use spatial metaphors, if not geographical concepts as media of expression” (Peet, 1998, p. 196). They categorise socially constructed ways of knowing, or knowledge in the identification of ‘self’ and ‘other’ or ‘structure’ and ‘agency’ (Graham, 2005, p. 29). In this manner, poststructuralism holds to a different logic in dealing with the complexity of understanding the world as opposed to the established ways of knowing that serve to “repress, divide and segregate” (Hubbard et al., 2002:86).
84
It is acknowledged that no sharp differences between postmodernism and poststructuralism persist (Peet, 1998). Both approaches take a position of philosophical scepticism towards grand theories and metanarratives as ways of understanding the world (Hubbard et al., 2002; Peet, 1998). Nevertheless, the latter differs in some significant respects that are worth mentioning. As Peet (1998, p. 208) highlights, poststructuralism criticises the ‘truths’ and ‘objectivity’ of modern knowledge while postmodernism proposes “new ways of being a person.” Hubbard et al. (2002, p. 85) takes this point further adding that, in essence poststructuralism raises questions about ontology (what the world is like or must be like in order for us to understand it) and critiques claims to both ‘universal’ and ‘particular’ truth. Conversely, postmodernism raises questions about epistemology (how we know and understand the world), rejecting the ‘truth’ derived from grand theories and metanarratives, and replacing these with more local, grounded and contextualised accounts, which welcome ‘other’ voices and celebrate ‘difference’. Like postmodernism, poststructuralism has attracted criticism from a number of commentators including Giddens (1987, p.195 in Howarth, 2013) and more recently Mark Bevir (2011 in Howarth, 2013). Giddens argued that poststructuralism like its predecessor structuralism are “dead traditions of thought” (p. 2). Bevir asserts that poststructuralists “emphasis is on language as constitutive of all subjectivity” and given their reified view of language, they are “unable to explain ideational change and to recognize the diversity of pluralism” (p. 3). Peet (1998, p. 215) stated that poststructural theories, particularly those at the postmodern end of the continuum are “declarative, rather than rational, systematic in a fragmentary way rather than totalizing, and while they cannot avoid representing (words are representations), do not claim truth in terms of representational accuracy.” He posits that poststructuralist theories take ideas to their limit through “the wear and tear of perpetual exaggeration, rather than through resolute claims for the exact replication of reality by truthful ideas” (p. 215). In spite of these criticisms, Howarth (2013, p. 3) argues that poststructuralism is “a living tradition that continues to provide conceptual resources to address central problems in social and political theory.” Elements of poststructuralism can be found in the work of philosophers, such as the genealogy studies of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844- 1900), Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) and his studies of traditions of metaphysics rooted in continental philosophy, Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), Gilles Deleuze (1925-
85
1995), Bruno Latour (1947-) for his work on the form and content of scientific knowledge and Michel Foucault (1926-1984). Accordingly, many poststructuralists have been influenced by their writings (Howarth, 2013; Minca, 2009). The contextual review of poststructuralism in this section situates the philosophical choice underpinning this thesis that stems from the work of Michel Foucault; the most important theorist besides Jacques Derrida, influencing poststructuralist thought (Woodward et al., 2009). This thesis uses his concept of the field of power of ‘government’ and his analysis of governmentality as a theoretical point of reference.
3.2 Foucault, poststructuralism and governmentality analytics Michel Foucault’s theorisations on power and discourse use language and genealogies to explore the boundaries between normality and deviance, and to deconstruct how the ‘body-subject’ is an effect of collective experiences and power relations that are beyond an individual’s beliefs or intentions (Hubbard et al., 2002, p. 104). These, he suggested, shaped the ordering of society that was created through discourses, which work to discipline bodies through the process of subjectification. In analysing discursive regimes and power relations, Foucault used language to understand systems of thought which he described as ‘discursive formation’ (Smith, 2009, p. 34). By this Foucault suggests that all social categories are discursively constructed, and body-subject categorisations such as being male or female, black or white, sick or sane, straight or homosexual, young or old, able-bodied or disabled, all emanate from discourse (Hubbard et al., 2002). In his later works on the development and applications of technologies of self-management that maintain power relations, he used genealogies to explain how some of these discourses work to produce subjects (Smith, 2009) and how individuals created themselves as subjects and objects (Hubbard et al., 2002). Foucault’s critical account as evident in his later works raised important questions about the concept of governmentality, subjectivity and social order; all of which embrace a plurality of wider networks which shape society (Hubbard et al., 2002). “Foucault’s influence on poststructuralism has produced a focus upon how different forms of power intersect with knowledge production to create certain valorised conceptions of the subject in any historical period” (Gibson-Graham, 2000, p. 100). In the field of power of the ‘government type’, it is widely acknowledged that the theoretical roots of thinking about governance have been extremely varied ranging from
86
classical Marxist theories through to Foucauldian social theory (Hubbard et al., 2002). Given the aims of this thesis, to seek an understanding of the rationale of rural development programs and what they have accomplished through the ‘government’ lens, this section specifically focuses on Foucault’s theorising on governace. This section also provides justification for the use of governmentality analytics to make sense of the modes of governance that are emerging at the local scale. 3.2.1 Poststructuralism and governmentality analytics Two main views dominate the debate on foreign aid: views between aid radicals and aid reformers. As highlighted in section 1.1 of Chapter One, the ‘aid radicals’ see foreign aid as benefitting the interest of donor states only, with negligible positive impact or perpetuating negative impacts on recipient states. On the contrary, aid reformers believe that aid is a mechanism of development benefitting recipient states. For aid reformers, aid is considered an input that will help to transform the poor, to the point that their level of development will be comparable to those of developed countries. Using governmentality analytics as a theoretical point of reference, a central element of this approach is taking a critical stance of the view of aid: as a positive project of government seeking to address the practical problems involved in governing states and their populations (Rojas, 2004). Foucault argued that attention should be paid to the “microphysics of power” (Hubbard et al., 2002, p. 72). From an aid perspective, it is important to see how power is operationalised through development efforts (practices) and subjects people across a range of contexts, and how development partners seek to effect changes in the conduct of others. Viewing aid as a practice supersedes the dichotomy found in the views held by ‘aid radicals’ and ‘aid reformers’ where aid either enhances development or works as an instrument of domination that brings more harm than good to poor countries. This study’s poststructural approach draws from poststructuralism’s stance of refuting the premise of the neutrality and objectivity of the research process. From a poststructuralist perspective, knowledge is regarded as a situated set of discourses viewed as being constitutive rather than reflexive (Gibson‐ Graham, 1994; Rose, 1997). The analytics of governmentality (Hodge, 2012; Li, 2007) is rooted in such an approach and “admits to being a perspective on questions of power and authority”, which emphasises “how questions” (Dean, 2010, p. 33). At its core, the analytics of government seeks to “formulate and consistently” pose questions of “how we govern
87
and are governed within different regimes, and the conditions under which such regimes emerge, continue to operate, and are transformed” (p. 33). This thesis relies on the poststructuralist strategies of genealogy and discourse analysis to carry out a detailed historical study, which trace aid practices for rural development in Fiji. Genealogy is understood here as a method to deconstruct power relations involved in the making and training of particular regimes of truth and “the devalorization of subjugated knowledges” (Huxley, 2009, p. 255). The analysis of discourse here refers to those development efforts (collective experiences and descriptions of practices) for rural development that are permeated and appropriated by western disciplinary and normalising power strategies and mechanisms expressed as historically contingent truths (Escobar, 1995). In the literature review of Tania Li’s (2007, p. 7) ethnographic work (see sub- section 2.3.3) concerning the governance of development interventions in Indonesia, she employs categories of Foucault in her analytics of government. She highlights two key practices that can be used to analyse governmental regimes of practices in development programs in order to understand and explain their rationale and outcomes in the name of improvement. One is to take into account the problematics of government and focus on Foucault’s method of problematization. This is corroborated by Dean (2010, p. 38) who refers to problematization as “the key starting point of an analytics of government…that calls “into question some aspects of the conduct of conduct”. This method “presumes an attention to the way ‘being gives itself to thought’, involves ‘a movement of critical analysis in which one tries to see how the different solutions to a problem have been constructed; but also how these different solutions result from a specific form of problematization” (Foucault, 1984, pp.118-119 in Howarth, 2013, p. 4).
In doing so, one needs to identify and analyse “the deficiencies that need to be rectified” through genealogical approaches to historical and discourse analysis (Li, 2007, p. 7). The second is what Li has termed “rendering technical” (p. 7), where the practice of government in development interventions or what she refers to as improvement schemes becomes technical. This, she states can manifest in three dimensions. The first dimension to rendering technical deals with a whole set of practices concerning the
88
domain to be governed through calculated means. As such, these practices are governed in technical terms enabling experts to devise specific interventions and techniques to develop the capacities of the domain to be governed. The second dimension implies that the ‘rendering technical’ practice is “simultaneously non-political” (p. 7): the structure of political-economic relations are excluded from the diagnoses and prescriptions of development interventions. Rather, development problems are framed in technical terms and experts are trained to frame them in this manner. “Their claim to expertise depends on their capacity to diagnose problems in ways that match the kinds of solutions that fall within their repertoire” (p. 7). The third dimension suggests that ‘rendering technical’ may include development interventions deployed to contain a challenge to the status quo, thereby being labelled “antipolitics” (p. 7). In analysing the practice of government through the practice of ‘problematization’ and ‘rendering technical’, some of the critical points raised by Li, which are particularly relevant to this study, are: 1. The practice of government in the persistence of the will to improve becomes technical “as it is attached to calculated programs for its realization” (p. 12); 2. Improvement schemes do not always have hidden motives of profit or domination; 3. Development experts cannot only focus on the interests of one group and are required to balance all sorts of relations between “men and things” (p. 9); 4. To govern, in the Foucauldian sense, is not in pursuit of a “common good” but “a plurality of specific aims” (Foucault, 1982, p. 95), thus interventions may yield outcomes “that are in tension with one another, or downright contradictory” (Li, 2007, p. 9); 5. Given the premise that the majority of improvement schemes do not seek to yield profits for anyone, Li suggests that the desire and rationale of development programs to improve the domain being governed should be taken at its word for the purpose of analysis.
This thesis has extended the governmentality analytics to relations between development partners or what Li (2007, p. 4) has referred to as ‘trustees’ and Fiji’s RDM. In Fiji, since the twentieth century, the list of trustees includes colonial officials and missionaries, politicians and bureaucrats, state intervention, international aid donors, specialists in agriculture, health, finance, conservation, among others, and non-
89
governmental organisations or civil society organisations of various kinds. These development partners all share in what Li (2007, p. 1) terms the “will to improve” and they desire to improve the condition of the population through configuring what Foucault (1982, p. 221) calls ‘the field of possible actions’. These trustees are charged with the welfare of populations. In improving the welfare of populations, Foucault (1982, p. 95) identified a distinct definition of government as a “right manner of disposing things” in pursuit not of “the common good” but “a plurality of specific aims” or finalities to be achieved through a range of “multiform tactics”. The concept of governmentality developed by Foucault focussed on the relation between the government of the state and its population over which it claimed authority (Hindess, 2002). Foucault’s theorisations, in a large part focussed on the shaping of suitable subjects by institutions, discursive practices, and technologies of the self. Hence, for this thesis, it conceptualises the government of Fiji’s RDM as an individual-like entity wherein the “will to improve” are governed by calculated means or programs of intervention that require “the right manner be defined, distinct finalities prioritized, and tactics finely tuned to achieve optimal results” (Li, 2007, p. 6). From the literature reviewed in Chapter Two, it is clear that debates on aid effectiveness remain highly contested and there are indeed no signs that development interventions are going to cease anytime soon. With the evolving aid architecture and broader global commitments evident in frameworks such as the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015) and the post Sustainable Development Goals, ‘better’ plans and new propositions to be made in development circles to ‘improve’ well-being and the welfare of populations in aid-recipient countries is expected to increase. It is not the focus of this thesis to dismiss the efforts of development partners or national governments in their persistence to improve conditions of well-being through aid programs, nor is it to offer a recipe of how development aid can be utilised more effectively or to propose how improvements can be made to aid programs. Rather like Dean (2010), Li (2007), Hodge (2014) and Rose and Miller (1992), this thesis takes a critical stance to expand the possibilities for thinking critically about the art of government that shapes and challenges the implementation of development programs that have endeavoured to secure the welfare of populations. A governmentality approach has a broader understanding of the concept of government by including “a plurality of forms of government” where both state and non-state actors are involved in
90
the “multifarious” practices of government (Foucault, 1991b, p. 91). Rather than looking at the governance of aid from the perspective of an ‘aid radical’ or ‘aid reformer’, this thesis demonstrates the ‘plurality of actors’ that all participate in different forms of government through aid practices concerning rural development. It critically examines what they attempt to do (how they condition rural actors’ responses) and what they accomplish in the process (how they affect rural actors’ discretion through discourses). Through the use of a limited ethnographic case study, the thesis then explores the relations of rule and localised struggles of the ‘rural’ and how they internalise and translate discourses at the micro-level, in order to negotiate the meanings of their local reality with others. 3.2.2 Limits of using governmentality analytics The governmentality perspective offers numerous strengths as well as criticisms for researchers within the critical social policy tradition (McKee, 2009). McKee (2009) highlights four key analytical insights of governmentality, which are also emphasised in Dean (2010, pp. 34-40). Firstly, governmentality provides distinctive ways of thinking and questioning regimes of practices and how they are constructed as objective knowledge. The second key insight of governmentality is that it conducts analysis in the plural. Thus, it does not restrict itself to an analysis of the institutions or political power of the state but rather a plurality of actors including the individual and how they shape their own subjectivities. Third, governmentality analysis focuses on a productive form of power “that runs through the whole social body” shaping and mobilising particular subjectivities (p. 470). In this sense, power does not serve to repress; rather it is conceived “as an invention of alternatives to current governing practices” (p. 471). Fourthly, unlike the mainstream governance literature which predominantly focuses on describing how the plurality of actors are, or how they should be governed, an analytics of government interrogates these normative assumptions. Instead of focussing on the traditional binary divisions at the heart of theories of the state that either serve as liberating or repressive technologies of power, governmentality “interrogates both the framing of issues and the technologies used to regulate governable subjects” (p. 472). Despite its value, McKee (2009) also notes five key criticisms waged against the analytics of governmentality. However, as McKee notes, these criticisms are not merely targeting Foucault’s own writings, but the writings of secondary commentators in post- Foucauldian governmentality studies who have appropriated Foucault’s ideas. The first
91
critique of governmentality is its predominant focus on discursive practice and its disregard of empirical reality. In this regard, governmentality practice is far too often dominated by discursive and textual approaches. McKee argues that this poses problems for researchers “who wish to apply governmentality in a more ethnographic/policy orientated setting” (p. 473) and those that are “interested in the effects of power at the micro-level and the lived experience of subjection” (p. 474). The second critique of governmentality is the limit posed by politics where explanations of state of affairs largely focus on forms of rule from the perspective of the ‘governors’ as referred to by Dean (2010) or trustees as referred to by Li (2007). This top-down discursive approach downplays the different social relations and vital processes that constitute the art of governing directed toward the population. These relations and processes are characterised by contradictions, complexities and inconsistencies (Li, 2007). Third, feminist and critical race scholars, who frame their research around the art of governing, do not pay sufficient attention to how the exercise of power is linked to various social inequalities. The fourth critique concerns Foucault’s rejection of the state theory where his emphasis has largely been on the plurality of sites of government. In this manner, governmentality “downplays the influence of governing institutions as social forces, and the central role of the state in shaping policies that regulate our daily lives” (p. 475). The final critique concerns the perspective of power advocated by Foucault himself. Given his depiction of the mode of power as something that is “inscribed so deep that one cannot step outside it,” Foucault is criticised of failing “to provide a convincing account of how resistance is actually possible” (p. 476). The limits of government outlined here point to the limits of governmentality as a way of understanding how power works. Scholars like Li (2007, pp. 19-27) have complemented Foucault’s insights with the Marxist theory to theorise the processes animating the capitalist relations between ‘men and things’ and the Gramscian theory of hegemony to explore the positionings that enable people (both trustees and subjects) to become mobilised in development programs. Others like McKee (2009) argue that the weaknesses of governmentality outlined here can be overcome by adopting Stenson’s (2005, 2008) realist governmentality approach which highlights the interaction between governance from above (top-down discursive approach of the ‘governors) and below (perspectives and relations of the ‘governed’). For Stenson, governmentality studies “only” focus on discourse, thus his realist governmentality approach emphasises “the
92
role of politics, local culture and habitus-including shared emotional and cognitive dispositions in restructuring governance” (Kessl & Kutscher, 2008, p. 25). Stenson examines governmentality in a case study focussed on local governance and community safety in the Thames Valley (United Kingdom). He examines governmentality in particular local configurations as opposed to an over-reliance on archives and policy texts (Clarke, 2008). While his realist governmentality approach has received numerous criticisms (Clarke, 2008; Fairbanks II, 2008; Kessl & Kutscher, 2008; Larner, 2008), scholars such as Fairbanks II (2008) and Kessl and Kutscher (2008) encourage the use of Stenson’s realist governmentality approach. They argue that mixed- method/ethnographic approaches further problematize and clarify governmentality processes concerning the relations between technologies of power and technologies of self and how these are characterised, how the struggles unfold between the plurality of actors in local configurations and to also identify the aspects of resistance that can be found in local configurations. To account for the power dynamics that reinforce the understandings of the interaction between governmental schemes from above (employing genealogical document analysis) and below (employing a mixed- method/ethnographic approach), the positionality of the researcher is brought to the fore.
3.3 Positionality: Reflecting on the research process and the use of governmentality Albeit its fundamentals to be more inclusive and to embrace difference and diversity in the analysis of the complexities of the social world, poststructuralism is also disposed to “troubling questions” that raise ethical issues (England, 1994, p. 81). These ethical issues concern the positionality of the researcher, and refers to their role and social identity to research encounter and the nature of power relations in research (p. 84). These prompt further questions, especially with regard to how researchers may appropriate the voices of others, how they deal with this appropriation when designing or conducting research, whose ‘voices’ to include in the research without colonising them in a manner that reinforces patterns of domination, and whether such issues can be resolved (England, 1994). To manoeuvre around these tensions, this thesis examines the research process through reflexivity and this has been critical to the conduct of fieldwork in this study. Reflexivity involves a self-scrutiny on the part of the researcher
93
and a self-conscious awareness of the relationship between the researcher and participants in the research (Bourke, 2014). It has played a central role in describing the positionality of this thesis and throughout the fieldwork component, a more reflexive and flexible approach to fieldwork has been used to allow for careful consideration of the interactions with research participants. This approach also allows the research encounter to be more open to “challenges to [the] theoretical position that fieldwork almost inevitably raises” (England, 1994, p. 82). The research process involves “reflecting on, and learning from past research experiences, being able to re-evaluate our research critically, and perhaps deciding for various reasons, to abandon a research project” (p. 81). Throughout the research process, the positionality of the researcher may shift and this is influenced by a confluence of factors that determine where one stands in relation to the ‘other’ (Merriam et al., 2001, p. 411). According to Narayan (1993) in Merriam et al. (2001, p. 412), factors such as “education, gender, sexual orientation, class, race or sheer duration of contacts” all frame the insider/outsider role of the researcher. As an insider, researcher’s study the group to which they belong and are intimately engaged with their research domain. In this thesis, the researcher is the insider and the insider viewpoint or ‘emic’ approach (Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel, 1999) was particularly important in the research epistemological orientation to avoid imposing the researcher’s own constructs and to describe rural development within the Fijian cultural system whereby the researcher was immersed in the selected field site developing relationships with participants and taking on social roles. The outside position shares no commonalities with participants nor do they belong to the group under study (Dwyer, 2009). The ‘outsider’ position was also evident in this research as discussed in the ensuing sub- section. The characterisations and variations of the insider/outsider position in this study are particularly framed by the themes of positionality, power and representation (Merriam et al., 2001). 3.3.1 Positionality The notion of positionality is determined by the researcher-researched relationship of where one stands in relation to the other (Merriam et al., 2001). This concept is articulated by the already mentioned aspects of our identities that serve as “markers of relational positions” (Maher & Tetreault, 1993, p. 118). Unlike standpoint theory which tends to look at one aspect of a person’s experience, the concept of positionality
94
acknowledges that people make meaning from various aspects of their identity and it assumes that power relations can change because social categories are fluid and dynamic, where reality is not fixed, but constructed (Kezar, 2002). Acknowledging a researcher’s specific insider/outsider position in the research process and their shifting positions according to contextual and relational factors are crucial for defining identities and knowledge in any given situation (Maher & Tetreault, 1993). It is common amongst researchers using qualitative methodologies to begin the research process as an insider, studying a research domain to which they belong (Bonner, 2002; Breen, 2007). While there are both strengths and limitations to the insider/outsider dichotomy (Breen, 2007), in the context of this PhD research, the researcher has been considered as both an insider and an outsider, both and neither (Gilbert, 1994; Mullings, 1999). Returning to Fiji to conduct fieldwork posed several dilemmas for me. What constitutes the ‘field’ versus ‘home’ is a problematic distinction, as returning to Fiji to do fieldwork was by no means returning ‘home.’ The field site detailed further in sub- section 3.4.2 was rural, quite different from the capital city of Suva, where I was born and raised; the socio-economic context was also very different. Yet strong family ties to the field site (where many extended family still reside) also made me feel very familiar with this setting. Although ‘blood links’ and my indigenous ethnicity located me with the research participants, the ‘native’ can be perceived as the ‘other’ through a confluence of factors already mentioned earlier including birthright, gender and education privilege (Merriam et al., 2001; Sultana, 2007). I was very aware of my birthright (into the chiefly clan of ‘Naulucavu’), gender and educational privilege both through material and symbolic differences. Consequently, I was simultaneously an insider, outsider, both and neither (Gilbert, 1994; Mullings, 1999). The discomfort and variabilities of subjective positions became important to be reflexive about and work through, where the contradictions in my positionality had to be constantly negotiated as fieldwork was undertaken. Beyond the common grounds of nationality or ethnicity, doing research at ‘home’ also brings in different dynamics with the insider-outsider positions and politics of representation, across other aspects of social differentiation. Research participants categorised me according to their worldviews, ‘other-ed’ me and negotiated the relationship on a continual basis. Nevertheless, many commonalities including my
95
ethnicity and ability to engage in regular conversation in the ‘Bauan’12 dialect and my perseverance to learn and speak the village dialect during my time in the field site, enabled me to bridge gaps. There was less ‘othering’ over time as they started to accept me as one of them rather than categorising me according to my privileges. During my time in the field, I was constantly referred to as a ‘gone susu madrai’13 and I had to put in considerable effort to prove myself as a part of them by actively participating in the traditional social roles I was subjected to, based on my birthright and gender. I also had to put in considerable effort to blend in as much as I could, ever conscious of my privileges as well as the power relations inherent therein. It would be naïve of me to regard the relationships that I shared with those in the field site as fully equal or that I had fully qualified to become an ‘insider’ over time. However, I believe that my determination to be a part of their daily activities, my participation in village obligations and the way I interacted with people shaped the relations of trust necessary in fieldwork. There is no doubt that I was only able to partially access the lives of the participants. Taking a Foucauldian position that recognises power as the ability to have particular forms of knowledge endorsed, I used my shifting position during the research process as an insider, outsider, both and neither. In my insider position, I investigated the effects of power at the micro-level and the lived experiences of the marginalised voices. As an outsider, I problematized and attempted to uncover the subtleties and assumptions concerning power relations that are hidden within the contours of aid effectiveness debates. 3.3.2 Power Recent analyses on the inequities framed in terms of power-based relationships in a research encounter have exposed the power-based dynamics inherent in research (Merriam et al., 2001). These analyses have suggested that power is a factor that researchers must not only be aware of, “but to negotiate in the research process” (p. 413). In the research process, power dynamics and relationships are embedded in the interview context and negotiated by “the interviewer, the interviewees, and the culturally embedded interview context constructed by both” (p. 413). Given the intention of this study to access data through both discourse analysis and a limited
12 Bauan Fijian is an Eastern dialect from Bau island, the island which enjoyed political supremacy at the advent of colonisation in Fiji. This has become the standard Fijian dialect spoken widely and understood throughout Fiji. 13 A term used to refer to someone born and raised in the urban. The term literally means to be raised on European bread in the urban context. 96
ethnographic method, power is a factor that was negotiated throughout the research process. The power of my position as a researcher and an ‘insider’ facilitated the approval process to conduct research and to gain access to participants. This enabled me to foreground the lived experiences of the participants in the research. Conversely, those whom I interviewed subtly negotiated my power as a researcher and as an ‘outsider’ by determining the location and scheduling of interviews, those that they permitted to be present during their interviews and the information that they were willing to share through the interview process. What perhaps concerned me the most about my positionality was the privileges I had as a ‘gone susu madrai’ from the city, from an educated background, proficient in the English language and my birthright in the chiefly clan. Such overt differences immediately put me in a different location, and often in one of hierarchy, where I was often referred to as a ‘gone vuli ni veivakatorocaketaki’14 or a ‘gone vuku ucui tukana’15. This attitude of categorisation is common across rural communities and as such, people in rural areas have come to be deferential to urban, educated ‘others’. The fact that I dressed differently, travelled in a car for fieldwork, carried a notebook, had a voice recorder and a drone to capture aerial shots of the field site, all placed me in an irreconcilable position of difference. As such, people were always willing to talanoa and were very welcoming into their homes. It was, however, interesting to note that on many occasions the women in particular would prefer to have talanoas carried out at my house in the village. This would mean that they could take a nice long break from their household chores – something that they would not be able to free themselves from if we had talanoa in their houses. My visits to talanoa in the people’s homestead aroused curiosity and interest and this was the norm of an outsider’s presence and in this manner I felt like an outsider with children following me around and women showing up during talanoa sessions to find out what was going on. The warmth and hospitality shown to me even from the most humble of homes, with food, tea, or where I sat (at the high end of a house) was always very welcoming. However, it also made me even more conscious of the deference that people showed sometimes, perhaps more than might be conferred to an ‘insider’ who lived in the village. It made me uncomfortable at times, yet refuting hospitality is considered offensive in the iTaukei
14 Literally describing one as an educated elite. 15 To describe one as wise and taking after the grandfather. In my case, my grandfather was the first indigenous Fijian to become a Professor in Fiji and our family name and background of being raised in academia is often treated synonymous with this. 97
Fijian culture, so my positionality was constantly negotiated through everyday acts such as what I ate, where I sat and how I carried out the talanoa sessions. To the extent possible, I would volunteer to participate in their daily activities especially if the women were weaving mats or preparing pandanus for weaving, when they would go fishing or to ‘taga ura’ (a collective task with other women involving wading in the river with fish nets to catch prawns) or when couples were heading to the plantation to weed or collect food for the day. Such little actions, perhaps seemingly mundane, are not insignificant. During this whole process, I also had to constantly keep in mind my embodied situatedness as the researcher. While my participation in daily activities often made some participants feel uncomfortable because of my privileges, over time my presence was accepted, and they began to see me as a part of them given that this was my village too. This resulted in a collective positioning of me generally as an acceptable insider doing ‘useful’ research. Nonetheless, throughout the research process, this raised questions of how I could negotiate my shifting positionalities to interact better with different people, while being attentive to the ethics and politics of representation involved in such processes of ‘fitting in’ and the inherent power relations evident even through the everyday actions that one may regard as mundane. This was grappled with on a daily basis on the field. Moreover, while I was conscious of differences and hierarchies in the field and post-fieldwork, I was also categorised as an ‘other’ by those observing and studying me in the field. This was perhaps most obvious of the key-informant interviews I had with rural development officials and those in educated and policy circles. The reverse power relations were obvious in the delay of meetings or disregarding of appointments granted, guarded responses and rushed interviews. I found that people also perceived me as representative of a group of educated elites and often positioned me with ties to privileged foreign educational institutions. Respondents reacted differently to these positioning with some having sentiments of acceptance (“Your research will be very useful for rural development, so it is good that you are here”) as well as scrutiny (“Why are you so interested in rural development”). These different representations meant that my positionality had to be negotiated in practice on a continual basis. I found that there were many similarities and differences emerging through the relations involved in the research process and this could either forge alliances or collaborations. Nonetheless, such fluidity and openness in the research process is never an easy feat to enact and
98
maintain, especially when inserted into multiple hierarchies of power relations, time/budget constraints, and distances (physical, emotional, political) (Sultana, 2007). Throughout the research process, it was always a challenge to have comfortable conversations with men in the village and those who were key-informant interviewees in the educated and policy circles. Sometimes condescending remarks or the constant reference made to my family background and political affiliation signified that my being an educated woman asking questions was perhaps a glaring threat to patriarchal norms. In such instances, I had to politely engage with or listen to such conversations, and then strategically steer them back to my research questions. Dealing with such power relations where I am categorised according to my gender with implied stereotypes of what I should be, meant that I sometimes had to make the patriarchal bargain (Kandiyoti, 1988; Sultana, 2007), in negotiating what was in the best interest in both getting my research done and not offending the interviewee. While this did make me uncomfortable, I have had similar encounters from educated men in my professional networks and have learnt to either respond in a diplomatic manner or handle it with humour (depending on the situation and the person). Power relations can work both ways as exemplified above, particularly when one is a young female researcher in a male-dominated field setting. In this manner, fieldwork was an intensely personal experience for me. It also raised questions about the ethics of research concerned with negotiating relationships that are both respectful and enabled the research to proceed. 3.3.3 Representation Understanding and fairly representing the ‘truth’ of findings and participants perspectives in research is a struggle that every researcher faces (Merriam et al., 2001). For this research, the concern with human agency and the interactions underpinned by the nature of conditions conceptualised through poststructuralism is central. The form and content of knowledge derived in this thesis is largely dependent on the case study location in which it was formulated. One’s contextual approach to research and how it is represented is largely determined by “your context – your location in the world” (Hanson, 1992, p.573 in Hubbard et al., 2002, p. 9). According to Hanson (1992), this shapes a researcher’s view of the world and therefore what a researcher sees as important and as worth knowing. To acknowledge my subjectivity in the research process and the ways in which the situated knowledge of this research has been
99
acquired, organised and interpreted, the use of reflexivity has been central to describing my positionality and the representation of participants in this research. Throughout the research process, another aspect that raised questions about the representativeness of research concerned conceptualisations of how differences are bridged in research to produce research that is mutually defined. With my intent to collaborate and make connections with the participants in the village, this excited participants, as they valued my efforts to nurture such relationships, given the ingrained notion of rural-urban divide where family residing in urban areas do not visit their villages frequently. They often praised my choice to come carry out research in my own village given their prior experiences with ‘outsiders’, who in this case had no commonalities with the participants, would come in to do research in other villages within the province, collect their data and never return again. When I told people that I was trying to capture a variety of experiences with rural development, and that everyone’s opinion was important regardless of age or gender, this was met with a lot of delight and eagerness. Such reaction is valid although unusual, given the top-down approach of village development that does not allow for participatory processes and traditional obligations that people are subjected to given their various roles within villages. The eagerness to participate in the research demonstrated the exercise of agency of research participants in the field. It was also evident from the positive reactions to participate in the research that rural villages in the hinterland are under- studied compared to those in semi-urban areas with easy road access who would perhaps react differently given that they may be over-studied by various researchers and development stakeholders. To acknowledge my subjectivity in the research process, being ethical and true to the relations and experiences that occurred in the field were important to me. The form and content of knowledge derived through the case study was always undertaken through consent. It was also overtly clear to me that research participants may have contested identities that emerge through the research process and that this can affect research experiences both positively and negatively (Fisher, 2015). To ensure that participants have meaningful roles and to recognise that the knowledge produced from these interactions is never impartial, as a researcher, reflections on the problematics of power, knowledges and truth claims throughout the research process was an iterative one. I became increasingly aware very quickly that knowledge is always partial and
100
representations of knowledges produced through field research are embodied in power relations and produced within “the context of our intersubjectivities and the places we occupy at that moment (physically and spatially as well as socially, politically, and institutionally)” (Sultana, 2007, p. 382). As such, the findings presented in this research is inevitably interpretive and partial, yet telling of stories that may otherwise not be told about rural development. It also reveals broader patterns that may or may not be stable over time and space. I have presented here how the framing of the researcher’s subjectivities is best acknowledged with an understanding of the roles of positionality, power and representation in the research process. I have also presented in this chapter that the rationale for “the will to improve” in improvement programmes and the examination of the position of ‘trustee’ or ‘governor’ and the position of ‘subjects’ or ‘the governed’ whose conduct is to be conducted, is situated in the field of power of a ‘government’ type. Therefore, it is justifiably examined through the Foucauldian approach of governmentality. While the analytics of governmentality underpins the theoretical departure and basis of this thesis, the research strategy emulates Li’s (2007) research strategy. It expands beyond an analysis of governmental interventions (their genealogy, their diagnoses and prescriptions, and their constitutive elements) to include an analysis of what happens when those interventions become entangled with the processes they would regulate and improve. Rather than conduct two separate analyses, this thesis merges its analysis of governmental programs with the local configurations they are aimed at ‘improving’ or ‘transforming’. To explain how this intersection was examined, I turn now to a discussion of method.
3.4 Research methods and ethical considerations This qualitative research is largely based on fifty (50) narrative interviews involving talanoa sessions carried out in Fiji in a three-month period in June to August, and October to early December 2016. During this period, limited ethnographic observations also took place. The study also draws on expansive readings of official documents that took place between December 2015 to January 2016, and June to August 2016. As summarised in Table 3.1, I visited Fiji on three occasions and conducted archival research and face-to-face talanoa interviews. While section 3.3 reflected on the complex and unpredictable nature of the research process, this section provides more
101
comprehensive information about the methods used to carry out this study, and to consider how the research is grounded in a reflection on ethical issues.
Table 3.1 Summary of field trips
Time Nature of trip Data collected
December 2015 to January Orientation General familiarisation 2016 Archival research Identifying data sources
Archival research
June 2016 to August 2016 Data gathering 10 key informants interviewed
Documentary data
October 2016 – December Data gathering 3 months of ethnographic 2016 observation
40 people interviewed
3.4.1 Toward an ethnographic method In section 1.7 of Chapter One and again in section 3.0, reference has already been made to the qualitative nature of this study rooted in a poststructural approach and more particularly, in governmentality analytics. Thus, it relies on identifying discourses and practices that construct and sustain specific identities, forms of authority, knowledge and techniques (Dean, 2010). It also draws largely on secondary data analysis and a detailed analysis of historical documents to track governmental programs across rural development, and to critically evaluate the RDM and its decision-making processes. The second part of this research draws on interviews carried out with key informants at the national level that are involved in the governance of aid and the area of rural development in Fiji, particularly with representatives of the state. The research is also based on interviews carried out with individuals ‘governed’ at the micro-level and on some limited ethnographic observations. In adopting a mixed methodology, this thesis recognises the following two key components to understanding rural development (Arce, Villarreal, & Vries, 1994, p. 159). First, it recognises the importance of empirical (ethnographic) work at the local level. Second, understanding rural development involves a wider sociological framework of analysis capable of dealing with specific 102
configurations of administrative practice, the elaboration of discourses of development and the ways that policies and programmes are internalised by the various actors concerned (Arce et al., 1994). 3.4.1.1 Research Process The first stage of the research process consisted of literature reviews focused on exploring concepts and debates in global development. This was carried out to familiarise myself with the available material on global development approaches and interventions, the post-war aid architecture and how it has evolved into the ‘new’ and current aid architecture, as well as the governance of the global aid architecture through key international aid frameworks. A review of key social theories was also undertaken to recognise and appreciate the theorisation of aid effectiveness issues, particularly governmentality. This first phase provided empirical and theoretical context to the study allowing me to narrow its scope. The second part of the research involved the analysis of secondary data. This resulted in a detailed reading of program documents and official policy documents dealing with rural development and aid. These were accessed at the National Archives of Fiji, the Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development and the Official Development Assistance (ODA) Unit of the Ministry of Finance to track governmental aid programs across rural development in Fiji. This stage of the research process used Foucault’s method of problematization to examine how power is lived and renders practices operable. As Howarth (2013, p. 4) argues, problematization brings together Foucault’s archaeological and genealogical approaches to historical and discourse analysis, and allows one to pay specific attention “to the way being gives itself to thought, involves a movement of critical analysis in which one tries to see how the different solutions to a problem have been constructed; [and] how these different solutions result from a specific form of problematization.”
To analyse the ‘problematized’ through the analytics of governmentality “is to start by asking what authorities of various sorts wanted to happen, in relation to problems defined how, in pursuit of what objectives, through what strategies and techniques” (Rose, 1999, p. 20).
103
Specific legislative council papers, annual reports, national development strategy papers, poverty reduction strategy papers and a number of key documents, particularly those pertaining to the setup and implementation of specific rural development projects were made available and analysed meticulously. These documents were studied for discourses and practices, sustaining a governmentalisation of aid for rural development, using the practices of ‘problematization’ and ‘rendering technical’ proposed by Li (2007) and Dean (2010) as outlined in sub-section 3.2.1. The selection of documents mainly comprised policy involved in the setup of the RDM in Fiji using the critical discourse analysis approach. This approach views texts as “social spaces [constituting] systems of knowledge and belief […] [together with] social subjects (or in different terminologies, identities, forms, of self) and social relations between (categories of) subjects” (Fairclough, 1995, p. 6).
Policy documents were useful in providing greater insights into what Dean (2010, p. 43) terms the “formation of identities”. Texts were analysed with particular attention paid to the various subjects or group of subjects constructed in the text, the roles and attributes ascribed to these subjects and the types of conduct or ‘field of possible actions’ promoted by these documents. Document analysis was particularly useful in highlighting discourses concerning the relationships between various groups of actors in the ‘governor’ and ‘governed’ domains, where specific arrangements created a ‘field of possible actions’ and how these can be seen as part of the governmentalisation of aid relations for rural development. Finally, with the provision of specific information on technical modalities relating to the evolving aid architecture and the RDM in Fiji, policy documents allowed for an analysis of the technologies and fields of knowledge governing rural development. To compliment the weaknesses of document analysis and governmentality analytics outlined in sub-section 3.2.3, the third, and more intense phase of the research process consisted of limited ethnographic fieldwork, conducted in Fiji between July and December 2016. The amount of time determined for the fieldwork was reduced substantially given the researcher’s long-term, in-depth familiarity with the study area. This country was identified as a valuable location for this research for several reasons. Fiji has historically been the recipient of high levels of donor funding post- independence (Mausio, 2006) like the rest of the Melanesian group which includes New
104
Caledonia, The Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Vanuatu. Nonetheless, Fiji suffers from increasing rates of poverty with rural poverty showing no discernible improvement (DFAT, 2013; Narsey et al., 2010) and records the largest percentage of urban poverty in the Pacific region despite the overall level of development and the moderately high average incomes (ADB, 2014). The consideration of Fiji as the case study location also stems from recent data analyses acknowledging the existence of absolute poverty in Fiji (UNDP, 2014). According to UNDP Pacific’s 2014 Human Development Report, the only other PIC where this has been acknowledged is PNG. As illustrated in Map 3.1 on page 106, poverty in Fiji is marked by considerable uneven distribution with almost 50 per cent of the poor concentrated in just 6 out of 86 tikinas (districts) that make up the 14 provinces. These 6 tikinas are located in only 5 of the 14 provinces. With the Fiji Government now declaring poverty reduction as a major development objective and given the increasing urban poverty rooted in the lack of rural development (Narsey, 2014), a case study analysis of state/donor strategies for rural development geared towards poverty alleviation is thus relevant. In addition to these, Fiji resembles differences that also allow for a valuable study. Fiji is a political and economically influential South Pacific nation (Thornton, 2009), second to PNG, and is home to many global institutions and organisations involved in development work thereby benefitting from their programs in many ways (Mausio, 2006). Its capital, Suva, is also the largest metropolis besides Port Moresby in PNG (Bryant-Tokalau, 2012). Nonetheless, poverty has been identified as a critical development challenge (Bryant-Tokalau, 2012). These reasons warrant concern for research to explore how development aid has impacted and stimulated the rural economy and whether it has effectively addressed issues of underdevelopment concerning rural living.
105
Map 3.1: Spatial distribution of the poor at tikina (district) level as a proportion of the total poor
Source: Pabon, Umapathi, and Waqavonovono (2012)
3.4.2 Field site and the use of ‘talanoa’ as the main ethnographic method of data collection Prior to selecting the field site, initial contact was made with the relevant ministries to request permission to access data and to source secondary resources concerning Fiji’s RDM and the state allocation of aid funds in Fiji’s post-independence period. I then carried out a first wave of consultation meetings with contacts in these ministries and asked respondents if they might recommend additional interview respondents, a method often coined as ‘snowball sampling.’ While in Fiji, I carried out 50 intensive interviews of approximately 60 minutes in duration with representatives of the two groups below (a detailed listing can be found in Appendix 2):
a) 10 interviews were targeted at key informants from the central and local government levels. These were with the Government of Fiji, including the Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development, the ODA Unit in the Ministry of Finance and representatives from the divisional and provincial council 106
levels in the Central Division. Former employees who held senior positions in the domains mentioned here were also selected as key-informants. There were also interviews with former politicians directly involved in the rural decision-making machinery during their term in office. Their views on the role of different organisations (central/local government departments) and institutional processes in driving and coordinating rural development efforts adds value to the analysis of aid effectiveness for rural development from the institutional/systemic level. b) 40 interviews were targeted at the ‘governed’ individuals at the village level in Nakorosule village of the Naitasiri Province in the Central Division (see Map 3.1, p.106). Two previous studies (Nayacakalou, 1978; Ravuvu, 1988) carried out in this village were used as baseline studies, against which my findings were compared, to measure the ‘impacts’ of rural development and to delve into the varied perspectives and experiences that the different participants (villagers) cope with in terms of rural development practice in their settings. Participants (villagers) may have different outlooks and experiences as well given the patriarchal and hierarchical structures that characterise the iTaukei Fijian way of life and their perspectives, values and knowledge are grounded in their experiential living. With the research intent to critically analyse power relations and structures that hinge on development efforts, the roles, statuses and particularities of livelihoods of villagers will vary, and there is a need to explore these and situate it accordingly when making links between micro-level aid effectiveness and institutional level (state or donor) aid effectiveness. 3.4.2.1 Nakorosule Village Nakorosule is a village of Naitasiri province, the only province in Fiji without a sea frontage (Nayacakalou, 1978), in the interior of the main island Viti Levu (see Map 3.2). Geographically, Nakorosule according to Google Earth, is on latitude 17° 46'24.36"S and longitude 178°15' 04.55"E. It is a village located 13 kilometres up on the left bank of the Wainimala River from Vunidawa (Ravuvu, 1988), the administrative centre of the Naitasiri Province (see Figure 3.1, p.109). Prior to roads being built, the rugged terrain, heavy forested hills, long-winding rivers with rapids and remoteness of the area made the village less accessible (Nayacakalou, 1978). Then, the
107
only mode of transport to Nakorosule was via river transportation using the bilibili (traditional bamboo raft) or by outboard motor punt. However, since road construction in the late 1970s (Chung, 1988) linking Vunidawa to Suva and road construction in 2005 linking Nakorosule village to Suva, the village has become more accessible. Nakorosule village is now a 30-minute drive from Vunidawa and approximately a two and a half hour drive from Suva.
Map 3.2: Ethnographic study area
Administratively, Nakorosule village is one of nine villages included in the tikina (district) of Nagonenicolo. The village has undergone significant change since the colonial period, both administratively and from its interactions with the formal economy (Nayacakalou, 1978; Ravuvu, 1988). Being the chiefly village of the old tikina of “Na Gone ni Colo East”16, much of the tikina gatherings and functions continue to take place in Nakorosule village today, giving the village its special position. The village of Nakorosule is the biggest in terms of population size in the district. It is comprised of three yavusas (a social unit of the Vanua17) – Waimaro (the head yavusa), Nakoroduadua and Loma and further subdivided into 11 matqali or clans (refer to Appendix 3 for breakdown of social groups). There are 111 houses and a population of
16 Despite Fiji becoming a crown colony in 1874, the Colo people (the hill tribes of Viti Levu) were still very unsettled and disregarded the British Law. To curb this, the colonial administrators divided the hill tribes into two separate districts: ‘Colo West’ and ‘Colo East’. Colo East became the new broader identity for the people of Waimaro at Nakorosule Village (Ravuvu, 1988). 17 Largest grouping of kinsmen, the members of which recognise and pay allegiance to a titular chief (Ravuvu, 1988). 108
350 (92 men, 94 women, 124 youths, 40 children), whose main livelihood is drawn from subsistence farming, remittances from relatives, commercial activities through the selling of agricultural produce and other small economic exchanges happening within the village.
Figure 3.1: Extensive inland river system connecting Wainimala River to the Rewa River (widest river in Fiji) on Viti Levu and the location of Nakorosule village
Source: Fiji Museum (http://virtual.fijimuseum.org.fj/)
Given the study’s aim to identify the practices governing rural development in Fiji and its stated intentions, the effects of these mechanisms at the micro level need to be examined. Cheshire (2006, p. 6) argues that contemporary strategies of rural development are mobilised in rural areas “in such a way that local citizens seemingly choose to align their conduct with the broad objectives of state agencies” and an ethnographic analysis is to be employed to examine how this is done at the micro level. In this manner, the thesis is largely qualitative adopting Nakorosule village as a case study to examine how the governance of rural development and its mechanisms shape rural conduct and how it structures their field of possible action. 3.4.2.2 Case Studies This study was largely case-driven to critically examine practices of rural development at the national level and to assess the poverty reduction outcomes of rural development efforts from a local-level perspective. Bryman (2012) presents case studies as a method 109
involving the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case or the study of two or three cases. Stake (1994) categorises these in three distinct ways. First, he describes case studies studying one instance in its own right as ‘intrinsic’. The second, he calls ‘instrumental’ case studies where specific cases are selected to provide an insight into an issue or to provide general understandings of a phenomenon using a single case. The third type are ‘collective’ studies that focus on a number of ‘instrumental’ case studies occurring on the same site or from multiple sites. Given the intentions in this study to attend to specific ways of governing (Dean, 2010, pp. 20-22) and to examine the particular context in which problems of governing have been called into question, a single case study approach has been used. While critics have argued that case studies ‘rely on too few studies of unrepresentative regions’ (Webb & Collis, 2000, p. 857), there are precedents for this approach as previously highlighted in studies presented in sub-section 2.3.3 of Chapter Two. They include Watts (2003, p. 14)) of a petroleum oil project in the Niger Delta, Hellberg (2014) and Boelens et al. (2015) who both examine the politics of water in Ecuador through the governmentality lens and Li’s (2007) case study of improvement schemes in Central Sulawesi in Indonesia. Other studies specifically focussing on rural development planning projects include Herbert-Cheshire (2000) exploring government and ‘expert’ discourses of rural community development in rural Queensland, Australia and Everingham’s (2006) case study of ‘a better way of governing’ in a regional program and organisation called Central Queensland A New Millennium (CQANM) in Queensland, Australia. There have also been strong advocates and practitioners of case studies who highlight a number of circumstances where this is the preferred strategy for investigation. Gleeson (2003, p. 222) for example, argues the value of single case studies for highlighting diversity. To generate data for research that focuses on issues of national planning and policy-making, Rhodes (1997, p. 193) argues that the appropriate methodologies for this include case-studies, semi-structured interviews and analyses of values and power relations. Yin (2014, p. 13) and Punch (2005, p. 155) further suggest that a case study approach is appropriate for ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions posed about complex, contemporary phenomena. There is also agreement that a case study is an effective way to explore subjectivities and the multiple meanings participants attach to their behaviours (Gerring, 2004, p. 348; Yin, 2014, p. 3). It has also been argued that a
110
case study is effective for generating practical knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2001, p. 70). Drawing from these, a single case study is apt for the purpose of the current study. An important aspect of case studies is determining the unit of analysis or what the case is (Yin, 2014, p. 22). The choice of Nakorosule village as the case study stemmed from an information-oriented approach. This is a non-random sampling technique involving the use of predetermined criteria to select the case(s) to be studied (Babbie, 2015; Liamputtong, 2013) and, thusly, non-probabilistic and purposive. Drawing from Bryman (2012), purposive sampling units are chosen for their particular features or characteristics enabling detailed exploration and understanding of the central themes and questions outlined in this thesis. As previously mentioned, the selection of Nakorosule village as a case study site was grounded on baseline information from two previous studies (Nayacakalou, 1978; Ravuvu, 1988) in Nakorosule critiquing the pattern of change introduced by the formal economy under the banner of rural development and its impacts on various aspects of subsistence living. The information base provided through these studies enabled me to monitor and assess the impact of state-led rural development efforts targeted towards Nakorosule village and neighbouring villages in the same district. The following criteria were also used in the selection of Nakorosule village:
i) The site should be an indigenous rural village meeting the definition of rural outlined in Chapter 1 and directly impacted by the plurality of actors during colonisation and post-independence with the setup of the RDM; ii) The site should be from a province where poverty is concentrated as identified in map 1; and iii) The site should be accessible and relatively of close proximity to allow for multiple visits to the site given the limited research budget and time allocated to the research.
According to Yin (2014), case studies should serve a particular purpose and offer something of value to the topic of research. As a manifestation of governance through the rural development program in Fiji, Nakorosule village was adopted as the primary unit of analysis to provide a practical example of how we govern and are governed – how we think about and practice government. On one hand, this aid effectiveness study on rural development used document analysis to answer specific questions central to a
111
study of governmentality such as what it was that interventions sought to change, to what ends and through what means. Through an ethnographic lens and a local-level perspective, the case-study analysis sought to expose how rural development projects are implemented, the compromises that have emerged and the effects of these compromises on the target population. 3.4.2.3 Indigenous research methodologies and the use of the Vanua Research Framework In a wider move to achieve some form of self-determination in knowledge institutions, the decolonising of research and its methodologies has been embraced by indigenous researchers to describe and articulate their preferred systems of knowledge gathering, processing and dissemination (Smith, 1999, 2004). For Pacific researchers, this move has been widely acknowledged via the development and use of culturally appropriate indigenous research framings and methodologies. These include the Kaupapa Maori theorising in New Zealand (Smith, 1997), the Kakala framework in Tonga (Thaman, 1992, 1997), Tivaevae in the Cook Islands (Maua-Hodges, 2001; Te Ava, Airini, & Rubie-Davies, 2011), Fa’afaletui in Samoa (Tamasese, Peteru, Waldegrave, & Bush, 2005) and the Vanua Research Framework (Nabobo-Baba, 2008) and ‘Iluvatu Research Framework (Naisilisili, 2011) in Fiji. Given the location of this ethnographic study within an iTaukei Fijian context, it was necessary to determine suitable ways of framing the research through indigenous/Pacific lens. The Vanua Research Framework was the selected indigenous research methodology for this study given its embedded situatedness in “indigenous Fijian worldviews, knowledge systems, lived experience, representations, cultures and values” (Nabobo-Baba, 2008, p. 143). Abdulla and Stringer (1999, p.154) suggest that the methodologies appropriate for researching and knowledge production amongst indigenous people situates them at the centre of a research act and uses their systems of knowledge and understandings as the basis for inquiry and investigation. In this manner, they argue that it opens up possibilities of dramatically extending their knowledge base and transforming their understanding of the social cultural world. This indicates that knowledge claim and knowledge production is not universalistic but socially situated (Harding, 2004, p.31) and reflects the knowers ‘situation and perspective’ (Grasswick and Andersen, 2002, p.2). In its research framing to utilise the indigenous Fijian system of knowledge and understanding, the Vanua Research Framework ensures that
112
participants are not just objects of research but are articulating and actively participating in the decisions and processes of knowledge gathering, processing and dissemination (Nabobo-Baba, 2008, p. 144). Framed by principles embedded in culturally appropriate, respectful and safe research practices, the Vanua Research Framework guided the traditional and cultural protocols and practices that I adhered to during the ethnographic study. Drawing on the steps of Vanua research as outlined by Nabobo-Baba (2008, pp. 146-148), my field study in Nakorosule village comprised of four steps:
1. Navunavuci (conception) – Besides the conceptualising of research taking place in this stage, it also includes pre-planning of fieldwork logistics and permissions to be sought from relevant stakeholders. While Nakorosule village is the village I identify with and call my village, a research permit from the Ministry of Education in Fiji and an approval letter giving me access to do research from the Ministry of Rural Development in Fiji were sought to formally inform the Fiji government of my research intentions. I was also advised by the Ministry of Rural Development to inform the Naitasiri Provincial Council (in its role and capacity to administer good governance and well- being for those residing villages in the Naitasiri Province) of the research that I would be undertaking at Nakorosule. 2. Vavakarau (Preparation) – This involved the facilitation of my entry as a researcher into my village. Given budget and time constraints and my physical absence from Fiji, I liaised with my father who went on my behalf to the village to consult the Vunivalu (chief and the highest title in the Vanua Waimaro) and elders of the three yavusa about my research intentions and fieldwork timeline. Unlike an ‘outsider’ who has to present a sevusevu to gain field entrance, my father advised that there was no need for me to do this as I was an ‘insider’ who belonged to the village. The sevusevu protocol only applies to those that are visitors. The Vunivalu and elders of the yavusa also agreed with this. They relayed to my father that the varaitaki (bearing of news) through his visit was sufficient stating that “oqo na nona koro, e warai ni dua na i sevusevu me caka, o kedatou vata tiko ga qoi” translating to “Nakorosule is her village, there is no need to present a sevusevu, we are her kinsmen.” The varaitaki for an ‘insider’ and the sevusevu for an ‘outsider’ also serves an important function for the researcher. As Nainoca (2011, p. 38) and Farrelly (2009, p. 45) point out, these protocols are a more culturally appropriate way of obtaining consent and in iTaukei Fijian custom, once these are presented and accepted, these serve as a blanket approval 113
to carry out all aspects of research in a village. A phrase synonymous with this that is frequently spoken by those on the receiving end of a sevusevu is ‘sa dola tu na katuba’ meaning all the doors to the village have been opened. 3. Vakasomuni i tukutuku (Data collection in the field): In an iTaukei Fijian village, there are unspoken rules about the way one dresses and the behaviours deemed appropriate and acceptable. During my three months in Nakorosule village, it was important that I adhered to these and respected these cultural practices. For dressing, women are not allowed to wear pants, shorts or sleeveless tops. Despite the uncomfortable heat, I made sure that I was in a skirt or dress with lengths below the knee at all times, even when going out into the plantation or the river. There are also internalised and practiced values that iTaukei Fijians grow up with that influence the behaviour expected of both the researcher and participants. Drawing on the work carried out by other iTaukei Fijian academics emphasising on these values, I was always very conscious to embrace and reciprocate ‘na veidokai’ - respect (Nabobo-Baba, 2008; Ravuvu, 1983; Tuwere, 2002), ‘veilomani’ - love and goodwill (Ravuvu, 1983; Seruvakula, 2000), ‘veivakarorokotaki’ – deference (Ravuvu, 1983) and ‘veikawaitaki’ - being considerate of and caring for one another (Ravuvu, 1983; Seruvakula, 2000). In the field, it was interesting to see how these values were engaged by participants and influenced the way in which they interacted and behaved towards me. Given my presence as an ‘insider’, having kinship links by blood, marriage or Vanua with individuals or families determined the appropriate attitude and behaviours in my researcher-participant relationships. This was particularly evident when I visited households in the three yavusa, Waimaro, Nakoroduadua and Loma to talanoa. Within the chiefly yavusa of Waimaro, there are five chiefly bure (household) that make up the chiefly mataqali or clan Naulucavu. The chiefly bure that I come from is Waisole. As such, when I was visiting households in the yavusa Nakoroduadua, there was a lot of veilomani and veikawaitaki evident in the way participants interacted with me. Historically, given the traditional social relationships through marriages and other links, the chiefly yavusa of Waimaro created supporters and followers from the other two yavusa who often shared the same bure with them (Ravuvu, 1983, p. 100). This became their lewe ni bure (member of their household) or their i la (supporters). The households in yavusa Nakoroduadua were always very open with their exchanges and had a nurturing attitude towards our talanoa sessions. I found myself spending a lot of time as
114
well with households from Nakoroduadua that were not approached for the research. This also resulted in some very constructive talanoa even though they were informal. For talanoa sessions conducted in the yavusa Loma, ‘na veivakarokorokotaki and ‘na veidokai’ were clearly overt. Given their traditional role as the bati (a Fijian social unit whose traditional task is to defend the chief), this greatly influenced the way in which talanoa was conducted with selected households that I visited. A more respectful relationship was always evident during our talanoa sessions and the mood was always very respectful and solemn. The only exception here was with a household that were cross-cousins (tavale) with my father. Their mother is the younger sister of my paternal grandfather and so the uncles I had talanoa with in this household were less formal with a lot of jokes and laughter shared between us. There was a relaxed social relationship evident here. As Nabobo-Baba (2006, p. 120) points out, in cross-cousin relationships, humour and banter have a special role “as vehicles for transmitting knowledge” and that “much is taught through such banter.” I encountered this throughout the village with my father’s tavales and those that shared this tavale relationship with me. 4. Na vakavinavinaka (gifting/thank yous): Nabobo-Baba (2008, p. 147) also talks about the importance of “reciprocal behaviour” that a researcher should reciprocate to the researched. Towards the end of fieldwork, I thought about how I could reciprocate the love, support, time, resources and knowledge that my kinsmen of Nakorosule village had extended to me. I knew deep within that nothing I gave could express my full gratitude to them for all the knowledge they had provided to me nor could equate to all the love, support, time and resources that they had extended to me. However, I was comforted by the fact that despite the size of my offering, my departure from the village would only be temporary given my research position, as an ‘insider. I knew that my research relationship would be one of continuous engagement with the people of Nakorosule well after my research and that I would still be actively participating in traditional obligations and formal requests of assistance made to my family from the village. Through the talanoa sessions I had in the village and the interactions I had with various kinsmen, I learnt that there was a great need for essential food items such as flour, oil, sugar and rice by the women in the village. During fieldwork, I was observing a Soqosoqo vakamarama (Women’s Committee) project involving the construction of a new house for the talatala (church pastor) of the village. A group of 20 military officers
115
from the Fiji Military were billeted in the village for 2 years to assist the village-men in the construction of this new building. Given that this was a Women’s project, the women in the village were responsible for the well-being of the visitors and were in charge of organising breakfast, morning tea, lunch, afternoon tea and dinner. The women in the three yavusa rotated on a daily basis in food preparation for the visitors. On many occasions, women were scrambling around the village rara (ground) to kerekere (ask) from other households for flour, oil, sugar or rice. This was to assist in their food preparations as on many occasions food produce sourced from the plantations or from the river was not enough to cater for both their families and the visitors. I also observed that women were continuously under stress juggling between their individual household affairs and their contribution towards the well-being of the visitors. Based on my observations and information I had gathered from informal talanoa sessions with them, I decided to buy food rations and other essential household items for distribution in the whole village. This included cartons of flour, rice, sugar, tea, oil and soap bars for washing. I also bought bales of material for distribution to each household in the village to thank the women for what they were doing. I also decided with the women in my family (my mother and paternal aunts) to contribute bales of material for the Vakavinavinaka (thanksgiving ceremony) that the village was organising for the military officers as they were wrapping up with their work from the village in December 2016. My vakavinavinaka and i tatau (departure) were carried out in Valelevu (chief’s residence) by an uncle of mine from my lewe ni bure of Nakoroduadua. My father’s sisters and my mum accompanied me for this ceremony. A yaqona presentation was done and the gifts were presented to the Vunivalu. Using the Vanua Research Framework to frame the ethnographic method in this research brought about a lot of self-reflection that I was undertaking throughout the research process. While it was easy for me to ‘blend in’ and manoeuvre within the framings of the Vanua Research Framework given my ethnicity as an indigenous Fijian researcher, it also posed challenges through my position as an ‘insider’ - being both indigenous Fijian and from Nakorosule village. It was in conducting talanoa sessions and the subsequent analysis of the talanoa that the challenges implicit in my role as an ‘insider’ first became evident. The most critical aspect of the ‘insider’, ‘indigenous’ or ‘native’ researcher role is the need to distance from the research project, its participants and the process of studying one’s own people (Kanuha, 2000). Ohnuki-Tierney (1984)
116
illustrates this point further suggesting that there is an inevitable contradiction and obstacle that an ‘insider’ must overcome in maintaining social relationships, trust and rapport while emotionally distancing and guarding themselves from their own identity groups. He argues that “as an endeavor to arrive at abstractions from the “native’s point of view,” if nonnative anthropologists have difficulty in avoiding the superimposition of their own cultural categories and meanings, native anthropologists have the task of somehow distancing themselves, both intellectually and emotively” (p. 584).
In my research, the hardships and often frustrating encounters that participants described about living in an iTaukei Fijian village and their recognitions of the failure of rural development given their daily challenges to improved standards of living and quality of life mirrored many of my grandfather’s experiences as a young boy growing up in the early 1930s. It seemed that time had stood still. I found myself having difficulty to separate the intimate knowledge I had of rurality in Nakorosule as described to me by grandfather when I was growing up (and those that I had personally observed and read about) with the current experiences that the participants had internalised which was the focus of my analyses. Kanuha’s (2000, p. 442) difficulty of conducting interviews from an insider’s point of view where “focusing on the interview process, and more important, on the responses and narratives of study respondents [were difficult] because of the distraction of [his] own self-reflections on similar events” resonated with me. Throughout my stay in Nakorosule and in subsequent analyses, the need to exercise reflexivity and detach my ‘inside knowledge’ and experiences from the study participants was an insightful methodological process that I had to learn as an insider researcher. What became apparent is that attempts to create sufficient emotional distance to minimise the interference with data collection, given my familiarity and closeness to the informants and the research topic, actually became an enormous advantage in my research. Instead of interfering with data collection, the distance I was creating both emotionally and intellectually resulted instead in insights that would not have been evident to me as an ‘outsider’. The access that I had to intimate knowledge of the case study enabled me to attain dense descriptions of complex phenomena (Geertz, 1973 cited in Kanuha, 2000) which “are exceedingly difficult for outsiders to observe” (Ohnuki-Tierney, 1984, p. 584).
117
Ohnuki-Tierney (1984, p. 585) argues, “perhaps one of the weakest areas of anthropological endeavor is the study of the emotive dimensions of our behaviour and their relationship to culture.” In addition to intellectual dimensions, he argues that emotive and sensory dimensions of behaviours are easily accessed by ‘insiders’. This is because of their familiarity and closeness to the community studied. As such they are in a position “to offer intimate knowledge of these dimensions of human behaviour and to make a great contribution” (p. 585) not only to ethnographic knowledge but also to theoretical treatments of human behaviour. I found this to be critical in the talanoa sessions, particularly in the way the talanoa were conducted and how participants responded to my questions with appropriate cultural behaviour and attitude determined by my traditional social relationships through blood, marriage, and Vanua to them. The next sub-section draws on the use of talanoa as the primary method of data collection in the field. 3.4.2.4 Talanoa as an interview method As recognised by indigenous Pacific academics and researchers mentioned earlier, indigenous Pacific people have their own explanations, meanings and definitions of conceptualising knowledge claims, production and dissemination which differ markedly from the ‘west’. This ethnographic study concerning practices of government for rural development and the rural realities in Fiji required a culturally appropriate approach that enables an engagement in dialogue “without concealment of the inner feelings and experiences that resonate in [one’s] hearts and minds” (Halapua, 2002, p. 1). It enables access to the concept of loto, a concept that Vaka'uta (2009) and Halapua (2002) describe as the ‘heart’ where true opinions rest. For them, in order to get in-depth understandings and accurate perspectives of experiences, attitudes, views, meanings, definitions and beliefs of a shared community, the loto captures the essence of these and to get to the loto, talanoa can serve as a guide. Vaka, Brannelly, and Huntington (2016, p. 539) illustrate this point further suggesting that talanoa can be observed without verbal contributions from the participants. Instead, participants can offer “nonverbal cues” whereby they keep on talking until their “true opinions about the subject are revealed” and they have “arrived at the loto. Talanoa therefore brings stories from the heart. Talanoa is a derivative of oral tradition and has been defined as a “conversation, a talk, an exchange of ideas or thinking, whether formal or informal (Vaioleti, 2006, p.
118
23). It has also been described as a “frank expression without concealment in face-to- face dialogue” (Halapua, 2002, p. 1). In the iTaukei Fijian cultural context, talanoa refers to “the process where two or more people talk together or when one person is the storyteller and has an audience who largely are listeners” (Nabobo-Baba, 2008, p. 148). Nabobo-Baba (2008, p. 149) discusses the use of talanoa as an interview method when conducting research among iTaukei Fijians and presents that it is an “appropriate approach to Fijian research and it embodies Fijian protocol in the sharing of information”. Vaioleti’s (2006, p. 21) emphasis on the strength of talanoa in culturally synthesising “information, stories, emotions and theorising…to produce relevant knowledge and possibilities for addressing Pacific issues” also demonstrates the use of talanoa as a culturally appropriate tool of data collection. In this research, talanoa was used in the data collection stages to introduce the researcher and the research project to the participants, and for getting to know the participants better in their environment. A number of protocols including the age of participants, their clan membership, gender and social status dictated the use of talanoa. It did not happen in a void and was guided by “rules of relationship and kinship, shared ways of knowing and knowledge and world views” (Nabobo-Baba, 2008, p. 149). Through the use of talanoa, engagement in dialogue and story-telling “without concealment of the inner feelings and experiences resonating in our hearts and minds” (Halapua, 2002, p. 1) was reconstructed. It ensured strong connections between the researcher and participants, built rapport and a trusting relationship, and enabled the gathering of extensive data from participants. All interviews carried out in Nakorosule used the method of talanoa. Five were formal, voice recorded talanoa sessions and 20 were informal talanoa sessions conducted while participants were engaged in their daily tasks. Another 15 talanoa sessions were conducted through participant observation where I was also immersed in participants’ tasks and assisting them while I conversed with them. These were informal sessions as well. An interview schedule was formulated initially (see Appendix 4, p.308), but this was amended accordingly at each meeting depending on the type of interviewee. 3.4.3 Data management and analysis This is a descriptive study, which identifies the prevailing practice and problems in the governance of rural programs. It then critically analyses the impact of Fiji’s approach to aid and rural development from the village level. It is based on the perceptions and
119
experiences of participants in Fiji’s rural programmes and an extensive analysis of official government documents and other sources which were consulted and cited. The use of written documentary data as a data source is warranted given the importance attached to exploring context, and the search for coherent patterns of practices (discursive formations) (Waitt, 2005). Having obtained a range of in-depth information about Fiji’s rural development programme and its ‘conduct’ on rural dwellers in the case being studied, I then looked for patterns in people’s various accounts in the context of the whole case. The recorded talanoa sessions, transcribed conversations, archival documents and other data records needed to be systematically stored for easy access and then analysed to provide answers to the research questions. This section outlines the main processes of data management and data analysis involved following data collection of the research. 3.4.3.1 Data Management The accuracy of data collected in a research is an important indicator of the quality of the research. However, caution should be exercised against overestimating the representational or reflective qualities of interview transcripts (Mason, 2002, p. 77). Given that talanoa was the main method of data collection, many ‘nonverbal cues’ emerged from the talanoa and it was not possible to ‘transcribe’ all the silences, evasions and emotional connotations in the interactions. Nonetheless, careful judgements and selections were made and to some extent, I made my own transcriptions using ‘thick descriptions’ with notations to indicate vocal expression, laughter, hesitation and observations other than the actual verbal exchange. For the informal talanoa sessions, field notes and observation were the main methods of data collection and I had to be as systematic as I possibly could about this, continually making judgements about what to write down or record and to make careful interpretation about what I had observed, heard and experienced. This was to ensure that I was handling data in “meaningful and sensitive ways” (p. 77), rather than imposing my own interpretations, as well as trying to remain as objective as possible to my data records. Throughout the research process, I drew on many ‘interpretive’ and ‘reflexive’ readings of interviews. Therefore, the second step in data management was to derive data in these ways. In an interpretive manner, I re-read the transcribed interviews and documentary material and recorded perceptions about the kinds of phenomena I catalogued using codes such as relationships/networks, practices/rules/norms,
120
decentralisation, participatory, values and beliefs, skills, livelihood and sustainability. Given that coding systems “are not analytically neutral” (Mason, 2002, p. 148), assigning codes were not decided “in a vacuum” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 256) but were done systematically. At the beginning of my ethnographic research, I had developed a rural development taxonomy (see Figure 3.2 on page 122) that would constitute the structure of elements central to rural development thinking and effectiveness. The patterns, sub patterns and items in this taxonomy were determined through my theoretical framework, for example the sensitising of concepts such as the ‘plurality of actors’ or ‘matters to be governed’, and from literature, such as the livelihoods perspectives and approach developed by Scoones and Wolmer (2003) and Scoones (2009). These concepts were considered relevant to codes I had developed as they provided a link between the study’s conceptual framework and research questions (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 256). In some instances, the reading of data stimulated some codes (Richards, 2009, p. 256), for example perceptions of the newly established rural integrated framework (IRDF) process as ‘participatory’. To derive data in a reflexive manner, ‘insider’ knowledge helped me to draw on my own observations, experiences and perceptions of rural development, particularly with data collected from field notes. Given that I was documenting my own response to what I was observing and hearing, at the end of every day out in the field, I would engage with the field notes I collected and would summarise my accounts of how I interpreted what was taking place at the time when I took down notes and how I interpreted these. The main challenge here was to ensure that in carrying out ‘reflexive’ readings of the interviews, I would record as fully and explicitly (to the extent possible) how I arrived at my interpretations, by iteratively questioning my own assumptions in the data analysis and interpretation of the research (Mason, 2002, p. 77). The coding process, interpretive and reflexive readings of interviews provided an operational frame of reference and a systematic way of deciding upon what should constitute data, which were later sorted, organised and indexed during data analysis.
121
Figure 3.2: Predefined patterns, sub patterns and units for rural development in Fiji
Pattern Very rural (Location of field site) Sub pattern 1 2 3 4 Extent of urbanised Distance to nearest Population Population density area urban area Item Accessibility to site (Degree of access)
Item Relationships' - Plurality of actors (Who is involved in guiding/enforcing Rrural Development Matters to be governed' (Livelihood resources, natural capital, human capital, economic capital, Item social capital and others) Pattern Patterns of Rural Development Sub pattern 1 2 3 Mode of Implementation/Dec Type of Rural Development entralisation Social Context Provision of basic services (water, electricity, road, health, Item school etc.) State Traditional vs State System Poverty reduction Conditions & Trends (Practices) at micro- Item programmes/projects Village Initiative level Hybrid Livelihoods (Formal + Conditions & Trends (Practices)at macro- Item Traditional) Donor level Item NGO Pattern Sustainability and Livelihood Outcomes
Sub pattern 1 2
Livelihood Sustainability
Item Poverty reduced Livelihood adaptation, vulnerability and resilience enhanced Item Employment opportunities Natural resource base sustainability ensured Quality of life; well-being and Item capabilities improved
3.4.3.2 Data Analysis Interview answers are the central part of this study, as its primary intention has been to identify perceptions of the ‘governors’ and ‘governed’ participants. They are meant to provide useful ‘raw data’, which would allow a realistic insight into the nature and operation of rural programmes in Fiji and how this affects those that it governs. For this reason, most material used in Chapter Five and Six of this study consists of comments made by the participants. These have been reproduced in full, although at times minor
122
or unfocused points have been omitted. The evaluative element also comes in, however, in the form of comments made by the participants of the study, and, at another level, in the form of observations made by the researcher, which focus mainly on the issue of ‘governance’ and the RDM’s ability to respond effectively to the objectives of rural development. Interpretation of data began during archival research and even as early as the first few interviews (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999a, p. 149), but was much more focused in the data analysis phase. Data analysis has been characterised as “beginning in the mind of the researcher as a conceptual and cognitive process” where researchers are in an iterative process of figuring out “what patterns their data can reveal and what stories their data tell” (p. 149). During archival research and consultations with selected staff from the Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Rural Development, I had to engage in several levels of analysis as I went along to make sense of what I was hearing, observing and recording. While I had a very clear theoretical framework, the overall direction of my research was not clear all at once; instead, it slowly emerged from a “morass of observations, interviews and other kinds of information” (p. 149), which in my case, included the extensive archival research and consultations I was doing in my first two visits (see Table 3.1, p.102). The more I read and the more I met with individuals from the relevant ministries, new research questions that I had not anticipated when the research was originally designed began to emerge. Initially, my theoretical framework was focussed on investigating rural development in Fiji through the lens of development aid and how this is facilitated and implemented through the state machinery via its relevant ministries acting as the implementing arms of the state. However, after my first two field visits to Fiji, I realised that a wider sociological framework of analysis was needed, so rather than critically evaluating rural development in the context of foreign aid alone, I had to define aid as both foreign and state-sponsored. It then became clear that I had to look at the interplay of the state in implementing development projects (albeit funded by the West), their administrative practices, how discourses are crystallised through these and the ways that their implemented policies and programmes are internalised by various stakeholders. Discourses referred to here pertain to discourses of modernisation (in the period 1950s- 1970s) and neoliberalism (from the 1980s to present) acquired under the banner of rural development in Fiji. Given that the majority of the rural in Fiji are still in iTaukei Fijian
123
villages, it also became clear that I had to critically analyse the local representations of power through the iTaukei Fijian administration, who administers governance for rural iTaukei Fijians, and the traditional structures at the village level. It became clear that the ethnographic study would clarify and expand on how these have influenced the RDM and inevitably construct the social configurations of the present. Drawing from this cognitive process, a new field site was also identified for the ethnographic study. Initially, I wanted to critically assess the impact of land resettlement schemes in Fiji as an example of a state-implemented but foreign aid funded programme. However, with my post-archival and post-consultation reflections, using an ethnographic study that focused on how Fijian development policy are influencing patterns of change in rural poverty was more suited for my new framework of analysis. To make sense of what I had been observing in my first two field visits, I engaged in a “systematic cognitive process” (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999a, p. 150) using the “pattern level of analysis” (pp. 154-155) to isolate specific patterns related to the research questions. The initial arrangement of patterns I identified for the research was organised in hierarchies as illustrated in Figure 3.2 and these were continuously “enhanced, subdivided and enriched throughout the course of the research” (p. 151). The taxonomy developed in Figure 3.2 guided the observations and interviewing that I conducted as well as the management and coding of data collected. Scheurich (1997, p. 63) points out that data analysis can also be characterised as “a creative interaction between the conscious/unconscious researcher and the decontextualized data”. This sort of “creative interaction” requires systematic analysis and exploration of data for patterns and results emerging from qualitative data (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999a). Using the pattern level analysis, I identified and assembled patterns of rural development, values and themes according to the sub patterns and items identified in Figure 3.2. The process I undertook here could broadly be labelled ‘discourse analysis’ as I was exploring power relations, practices (actions), perceptions and opinions as ‘discursive formations’ that structure’ possible fields of action’ (Waitt, 2005). My analysis of the discourses was closest to an interpretive and reflexive reading which Mason (2002, p. 149) says “will involve you in constructing or documenting a version of what you think the data means or represents, or what you think you can infer from them.” While there are reservations about the impositions involved in interpretive and reflexive readings of data suggesting that findings will
124
reflect the researcher’s representational predispositions (Kendall & Wickham, 1999, p. 29; Scheurich, 1997, p. 73), wide use of quotes from transcripts in Chapter Five and Six provides a window onto participants’ experiences and perceptions in their own voices. Allowing cited words and ‘raw data’ to speak for themselves and provide realistic insights, are also consistent with Foucault’s practice (Everingham, 2006, p. 120). The concepts and scheme I constructed to make sense of the data helped me to recognise my subjective representations and ensured (to the extent possible) that my “interpretive baggage” (Scheurich, 1997, p. 74) did not reproduce participants’ realities. As such, there is a challenge to manipulate and explore disparate data to produce meaningful account without shaping it too much and ensuring that the quality of research is not undermined. The next section deals with this in detail.
3.5 Transferability, validity and reliability of a single case study Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 277) argue that key quality considerations in qualitative research include the transferability or generalisability, validity, reliability and bias of results. This section deals first with transferability and then with dimensions of validity and reliability as they apply to this qualitative study. Although results of an ethnographic study “are not readily generalizable to other settings” (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999b, p. 291), the aim of this study was not to enumerate behavioural patterns of governance in rural development but to provide an argument with strong plausibility across a range of different rural development settings (Everingham, 2006, p. 123). This study provides more than just a rich and detailed description of this localised case. The experiences documented as relating specifically to the governance of rural development in Fiji encompasses topics covering broader theoretical issues in rural development. These include issues like conceptions of good governance, discourses of development and the inherent rationalities of ‘technes of government’ (Dean, 2010) such as community empowerment programmes, participatory approaches, power relations in existing organisations in development, processes of shaping conduct and ways of limiting coercive forms of power. Further to this, the findings from this study may be applicable to the whole of Fiji given that Fiji’s rural development programme is highly centralised. There is also applicability in the findings to the Pacific region as the case of Fiji has similarities to issues of rural development in the region and also has parallels with the broader adoption of multiple governmentalities and plurality of actors
125
(state, donor, NGO, village etc.) involved in the ‘governing’ of development in the region. Demonstrating more general applications in this sense is acceptable given that transferability concerns findings and should not be equated to the representativeness of a case or sample (Gobo, 2004, p. 443). The essence of ethnographic research is focused on the natural flow of human events over time where researchers’ themselves are the ‘instrument’ of data collection (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999b, p. 273). As such, these deviate from more controlled and standardised research in a positivist sense suggesting that findings should represent ‘reality or ‘truth’ (pp. 271-273) bringing into question the validity and reliability of research findings. While some ethnographers have ignored ideas of the reliability and validity of research findings in this positivist sense (p. 271), others adopt the approach that “different research paradigms require different standards for quality and have designed alternatives to reliability and validity” (p. 271). Still others have adopted a middle ground stating that positivistic rules should be adapted, translated and modified to make them appropriate for ethnographic practice (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999b). In the wider scheme of qualitative research, it is also suggested that “validity depends on information-richness and the analytical skills of the researcher” and relates to “plausibility of interpretation-its ‘fit with the data” (Waitt, 2005, p. 178). In this study, the criteria of ‘truth’ is rejected and I have modified the positivistic rules and adopted notions of quality related to analytical ‘fit’ with rich data. For qualitative casework, researchers employ various procedures so that data interpretations are valid. In this study, the issue of validity is addressed in two ways: validity in the content analysis of villagers’ narratives within the framework of qualitative research and validity as authenticity prescribed by Guba and Lincoln (1989 cited in Onwuegbuzie, Leech, & Collins, 2008) as fairness, ontological authenticity, educative authenticity, catalytic authenticity and tactical authenticity. To ensure that villagers’ narratives and stories reflecting rural development experiences and perceptions were valid, data triangulation was carried out through the data collection and analysis phases of the research from varied sources, which were compared with each other (Liamputtong, 2013). This included information from the village, provincial council, key-informant interviews with current and former government officials and documentary data. The methods triangulation was also adopted (Liamputtong, 2013) through the use of multiple research methodologies including talanoa sessions, key-informant interviews and
126
participant observation. To ensure that validity as authenticity was accounted for in the study, balance and fairness in the stakeholders’ interests about this research was addressed. The fairness involved a conscious attempt to make the voice of village participants and the voice of key-informants representing the state visible and balanced. Concerns about reliability are also evolving and there is “a lesser concern” of this in ethnographic research” and in exploratory research (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999b, p. 287). The term reliability, which refers to whether results of a study can be duplicated, is not the desired outcome of ethnographic and exploratory research (p. 288). Rather, as LeCompte and Schensul (1999b) point out, what must be achieved in the exploration of data is information that has been extracted in an internally consistent and rigorous manner via the systematic and appropriate selection of theory formulation, issues and themes for attention. Such assessments require the research process and its conceptual logic to be transparent (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 200). The quality of research then determines whether a study is well founded, substantiated and applicable, although not ‘true’ in the positivistic sense.
3.6 Ethical considerations There are many ethical challenges that have implications for qualitative research and these concern the issues of informed consent procedures and access to target groups, the relationship between the researcher and the participant, data handling procedures and the maintenance of confidentiality and safety, and procedures for returning information to participants, among others (Orb, Eisenhauer, & Wynaden, 2001; Winchester, 1996). This study is informed by ethical principles and largely draws from the ethical guidelines outlined in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, 2007, p. 25) which include: research merit and integrity, justice, beneficence and respect. All formal ethical requirements as per the National Statement have been complied with. The research has also been informed by ethical considerations governing the Vanua Research Framework and talanoa method detailed earlier. These include the way the ethics were conducted in the village setting and observing consent given through customary protocols, such as the sevusevu. In many ways, recognising and respecting these processes is pertinent and more important than going through ethics processes in universities. This research gained ethical approval from the University of New South Wales and has abided by the procedures and requirements in place in Fiji at
127
the time of fieldwork. This also included a research permit issued by the Ministry of Education in Fiji to conduct research work in Fiji. Throughout the fieldwork, all research participants were provided with an information sheet outlining the study’s objectives, methods and plans for dissemination prior to being interviewed (see Appendix 5). Written consent to participate in the research and be quoted in this thesis and subsequent publications was gained before starting interviews. Consent was also sought to record interviews. In cases where participants were not fluent in English, both the information sheet and consent form were translated into ‘Bauan’ Fijian which is the dialect most widely used in Fiji. An assigned volunteer assisted in the interpretation of information in the local dialect of participants where clarification was needed. However, as mentioned in sub-section 3.4.2.3, the Vunivalu and elders of the yavusa had given a blanket approval, so the consent form prepared for the ethnographic study was not used. In terms of confidentiality issues, confidentiality was guaranteed and, direct quotation used in this thesis was attributed to groups such as ‘politician’, ‘bureaucrat’ if it was a staff in the central state, divisional or provincial level or ‘governed individual’ if it was a participant from Nakorosule village in order to provide anonymity. In some interviews carried out at government level and at Nakorosule village, individuals were given alias names to protect their identity and ensure that anonymity would be maintained. At a more inter-personal level, the findings reported in this thesis have complied with keeping an open mind and an upheld duty to understand the viewpoint of participants (Duke, 2002). In this thesis, quotes were contextualised as much as possible and care was taken not to distort their meaning. Following every interview, participants were provided the opportunity to review the information that they had provided. In cases where a transcribed copy of an interview was requested, these were made available to participants to validate. Thus, participant information used in this thesis only reflects information that participants have validated.
3.7 Summary As a qualitative, ethnographic study based on discourse analysis of interviews and documentary data, this research provided an empirical study of a particular context in which questions about ‘governing’ have been raised. Conceptions of the tasks and intentions of the ‘plurality of actors’ involved in rural development can be ascertained
128
by examining the objectives explicitly stated in official documentation of the rural development programme in Fiji, documentation discussing the problems that rural development process has been designed to address, and its impacts on rural citizens. The focus in this chapter has been on a discussion of the epistemological and methodological approaches used to formulate the research enquiry. I have considered how governmentality analytics can be progressively used to better understand aid as a practice, showing how the explanatory power of the ‘government’ type is operationalised through development efforts (practices) and how this ultimately seeks to effect changes in the conduct of others. Issues of positionality were also explored with a focus of how these were applicable to my own research. Finally, to clarify my theoretical concerns and to contextualise my ethnographic material, this chapter concludes with a discussion of the research methods used, the process of data analysis and a reflection on the ethical issues emerging from this research. The next chapter outlines the specific contextual details of the rural development programme in Fiji and so situates the discourses identified in the data analysis.
129
Chapter 4 Multiple Governmentalities for Rural Development in Fiji: The Crown Colony, the Fijian Administration and the State Apparatus
In recent years, it has been recognised that many rural communities in most parts of the ‘developed’ world are experiencing continued population decline, the removal of public and private services, agricultural reforms and policies to promote economic efficiency. All of these have progressively undermined rural communities in their capacities to avert the negative impacts of rural development out-migration, poverty and economic decline (Herbert-Cheshire & Higgins, 2004). This has been evident for ‘developed’ nations of Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, France and the USA (Cheshire, 2006). Similarly, in most parts of the ‘developing’ world in the continents of South America, Asia and Africa, where the majority live in rural areas, the trajectory is one of decline rather than growth and there is little in the way of employment prospects and service provision to prevent the out-migration of rural dwellers (Ashley & Maxwell, 2001; Conway, 1999). Agricultural restructuring and policies based on economic efficiencies and underpinned by neoliberal ideology, which holds economic growth as the central priority, have been dominant in rural development strategies in these regions (Harrington, 2009). Consequently, these have brought about the negative impacts of poverty and the general decline in the well-being and capabilities of these communities (Ashley & Maxwell, 2001, 2002). For Pacific island countries (PICs) in the Oceania region, crises in rural development is evident in the inability of PIC governments “to service, let alone control” rural areas (Connell, 2007, p. 119), the increasing rural-urban migration, increasing urban and rural poverty, and the escalating pressures on land, housing and services in PIC cities (Connell, 2007; UNDP, 2014). For more than six decades, there has been mounting scholarly and political interest in the study of rural development (Ashley & Maxwell, 2002; Harriss, 1982). Rural development theory and practice followed on from the ‘blueprint’ of development and ‘stages of growth’ model expressed in modernisation (Rostow, 1971) and neo- Marxist (Frank, 1970; Schuurman, 1993) development thinking, as highlighted in Chapter One. It has emerged as “a distinct approach to interventions by the state in the economies of underdeveloped countries” (Harriss, 1982, p. 15). As a distinctive field of policy and practice, rural development was previously influenced by the “new strategy for development planning by the World Bank and the UN agencies” (Harriss, 1982, p.
130
15). This ‘new strategy’ focussed on distributional issues of social and political factors interacting with economic processes hinged on modernisation and neoliberal principles, and was characterised by the use of techniques to fix or solidify realities (Umans & Arce, 2014). Their assumptions and practices “penetrated all strata of contemporary societies” (Shanin, 1997, pp. 66-68). Drawing from these, rural development from the 1950s to the 1980s was then based on the conviction that development problems could be fixed by “one-size-fits-all fixes, or more specifically, the best-fix approach” (Umans & Arce, 2014, p. 337). The peasant modes of production concept was foremost in this approach (Schuurman, 1993) and external actors intervened in fixing problems by introducing many rural development projects based on the idea that this concept offered, i.e. “that the peasants involved would produce in a capitalist manner” (Schuurman, 1993, p. 37). This was done with fixed solutions couched in the delivery of modern inputs (Rostow, 1971). With the noble aim of “the will to improve” (Li, 2007, p. 264) and giving people an improved standard of living and progressive development (facilitating and achieving beneficiaries needs like health, education etc. in a more expeditious manner), the best-fit approach was widespread in rural development cooperation, especially until the 1990s (OECD, 2009; Umans & Arce, 2014). This approach generated a desire “to control the development process, to fix the problems and to rigidify the institutions” (Umans & Arce, 2014, p. 337). In controlling the development process, rural development actors act as “agents of territorialisation”, standardising, institutionalising and universalising rural entities; and through territorialisation, rural entities are reified “by defining their borders or enhancing internal consistency” (p. 343). There have been many criticisms of the best-fix approach (Jones, 2011; Umans & Arce, 2014) and since the late 1980s, increased recognition and emphasis on issues reflecting the diversity, embeddedness and complexity of the real world of development (Booth, 1994) resulted in a shift from a best-fix approach to a ‘context specific’ or ‘best-fit approach’. While a variety of paradigms (see section 1.3) emerging since the 1990s have accommodated the ‘best-fit approach’ and developed a new direction of programmes for rural development cooperation, rural development for the new millennium has been described as being in a “troubled state” and the persistence of rural poverty worldwide continues (Ashley & Maxwell, 2001, p. 395). Although it is increasing in urban areas, extreme poverty remains rural in nature for the majority (70%) of the developing world (IFAD, 2010).
131
Since Dudley Seers criticised a ‘growth fetish’ in development thinking (Seers, 1971), with attention to the promotion of capitalistic economic growth as the way out of poverty seemed to persist on a global scale. The inequalities in development within developing countries, and between developed and developing countries, have been driven by influential development theories. These have inevitably contributed to the debt burdens and the all-pervading influence that international financial organisations have on policies in developing countries (Schuurman, 1993). Power, actors, and structure have been identified as strategic elements involved in development interfaces that “constrain development possibilities”, and analyses of how these are socially constructed and “illuminate the micro-foundations of macro-processes” that have taken prominence since the early 1980s (Booth, 1993, p. 62). This chapter begins to examine the evolution of development thinking, policy and practice in the modern Fiji state’s rural development process. The main assumption is that power of the government-type (in the Foucauldian sense) embedded in the context of state-sponsored/led programmes, their administrative practices, and how policies and programmes are internalised by various stakeholders in the development process combine to (a) condition rural dwellers responses and (b) affect their discretion and capacity through discourses. On the other hand, the forces of modernity and capitalism driven by aid and guided by principles of modernisation and the neoliberalism paradigm acquired under the banner of rural development in Fiji have governed state intervention practices (state-led/sponsored) in the rural development process. Both of these discourses have contributed to processes of transformation and re-organisation of human life by defining, characterising and categorising the people they govern. This chapter, therefore, undertakes a problematics of government to explore how political authorities articulate desired objectives. It looks at how the modernisation process of the 1950s and the neoliberal movement of the 1980s for rural development was governed by three actors or “agents of territorialisation” (Umans & Arce, 2014, p. 343): (i) the colonial government, (ii) the Fijian administration and (iii) the modern- state apparatus. It examines in detail how these actors have problematized rural development in Fiji. It looks at how the rural sector’s ‘underdevelopment’ was problematized through the Colonial Administration that represented Great Britain and the establishment of Fiji’s RDM—post-independence. It then looks at how the category of people called “indigenous/i-taukei/rural Fijians”, who were constituted first by the
132
colonial state, were governed by the separate Fijian administration as a native population needing ‘development’, and how these problematizations have shaped rural development policies and strategies defining current development efforts in rural areas. The term indigenous Fijian or iTaukei is defined in this research according to Section 2 of the Fijian Affairs Act as, “…every member of an aboriginal race indigenous to Fiji and also includes every member of an aboriginal race indigenous to Melanesia, Micronesia or Polynesia living in Fiji and who has elected to live in a Fijian village” (Fijian Affairs Act, 1978).
The reference to Fijian village is significant here as it assumes two things: that this group of people have adopted or accepted Fijian customs and traditions, and that the iTaukei Fijian Administration governs them (Rika, Tuiseke, Tuiloa, & Finau-Tavite, 2008).
4.1 The Crown Colony and the problematizing of Fiji’s so-called “rural-poor” Fiji was a British colony from 1874 until 1970 (Knapman, 1987; Lal, 1992). The Crown Colony government was born out of the annexation of Fiji in the Deed of Cession of 1874. According to West (1961), the effects of establishing this apparatus on Fijian society were complicated and brought about seven key changes. First, the political order that was in place prior to Cession, whereby the banished Tongan chief, Ma’afu 18, who was extending his authority, was becoming a force to reckon with. His expanding empire was interrupted by the ceding of Fiji to Great Britain, as this confirmed the political paramountcy of the Bau Island and prevented the possible overthrow of Fiji’s self-proclaimed King, Ratu Seru Cakobau (Burns, 1963). Secondly, through Cession, a new iTaukei political order was born as the reorganised provincial boundaries determined by political alliances emerging from the introduction and infiltration of early traders, European planters and Christian missionaries were officially recognised as the matanitu, or the governing confederacies of iTaukei Fijian society (Routledge, 1985). Prior to this new political order, the iTaukei administration, which began informally in the 1840s, comprised of a group of chiefs. mainly from the eastern parts
18 Ma’afu, a Tongan Prince banished to Fiji was dominant in Fiji’s Lau islands (the most eastern group of isles) and had extended his authority to the Macuata and Bua Province in Vanua Levu (located on Fiji’s second biggest island) (West, 1961). 133
of Fiji. who acted as advisors on native Fijian political and social matters to the early traders, planters and missionaries (Burns, 1963; Daurewa, 2013). Between 1871 to 1873, there was a pre-cession government led by Ratu Seru Cakobau and 12 other eastern chiefs (including Ma’afu), who were closely connected to him that ceded Fiji to Britain in 1874 (Brown, 1973; France, 1969; Nicole, 2011). British colonial rule established the eastern system of ruling of the eastern chiefs, with its hierarchical nature and strong village structure, as the ‘tradition’ (Brookfield, 1988), which is now regarded as such throughout Fiji. Third, the Deed of Cession was an instrument guaranteeing the protection and preservation of the chiefly system, on the condition that it was consistent with the sovereignty of the Crown Colony and the colonial government acting on the Crown’s behalf. Through this new framework of government, both the new political order and the hierarchical authority of the chiefly system was preserved. Fifth, the establishment of the provincial system demarcating Fiji land boundaries into twelve provinces ‘for ease of administration and resource management’ (Durutalo, 1997; Qalo, 1984), became the dominant governing confederacies. These provinces were further divided into 80 districts and these defined the iTaukei Fijian social structure and were in effect the vanua of iTaukei political life. As described by Ravuvu (1983, p. 70), the vanua (literally meaning land) is “a social unit identified with a particular territorial area in which its roots are established.” He elaborates further that: “it also refers to the social and cultural aspects of the physical environment identified with a social group…on the social plane it includes the people and how they are socially structured and related to one another…on the cultural plane it embodies the values, beliefs and the common ways of doing things” (p. 76).
Due to the difficulty of introducing ‘western’ principles of governing the iTaukei Fijians during the pre-cession government of Ratu Seru Cakobau, and in recognition of the principles of vanua and native iTaukei Fijian social groupings as defined above, Cession recognised the need to administer iTaukei Fijians according to their customary forms of government (Ravuvu, 1983). As a result, the Deed of Cession created a framework of iTaukei governance and problematized the development of iTaukei Fijians by administering them according to the structure of governance embraced by the vanua. Under this structure of governance, each province was placed under its existing
134
roko tui or high chief and each district under a buli or local ranking chief.19 Lastly, through Cession, new ‘actors’ in the colonial tradition of government was also introduced for the administration of justice in Fiji. These included the establishment of a European Executive Council, a general court under one European and one native judge and the appointment of four stipendiary magistrates. These changes have led to the production of multiple governmentalities, its technologies and regimes of practices that have evolved through the Crown Colony and the iTaukei administration that existed in the early days of colonial rule. Through this setup, the iTaukei Fijian Administration in its operation today was born. Moreover, the conforming of the state to a development model driven from the centre in Fiji’s post- independent state today hinges on the historical subjectivities of rural Fijians via the introduced reforms of the colonial apparatus on Fijian society. These have all redefined the realities of “rural” Fiji. Given that iTaukei Fijians comprise the majority of “rural” Fiji, there is a long tradition of considering iTaukei Fijians as an inferior ‘other’ to be colonized and missionized; the opposite of the west’s cultural superiority. In short, they are far from ‘developed.’ In reflecting on Lemke (2007, p. 44), this chapter deploys the concept of ‘governmentality’ by concentrating on “the multiple and diverse relations between the institutionalization of a state apparatus and historical forms of subjectivation.” The rest of this chapter endeavours to trace the historical trajectory of the rural development process in Fiji from 1876 to post September 201420, and highlights some of the causes and unforeseen negative effects of development policies and practices emerging from multiple governmentalities solidifying ‘increased dependence’ realities of “rural Fijians.” 4.1.1 Institutionalisation of capitalist rural development in the colony of Fiji in its formative years: 1874 – 1939 While the capitalism ideology was introduced into Fiji through the arrival of early European sandalwood traders in 1840 and later European planters (Daurewa, 2013), this
19 Today, the roko tui holds the position of provincial executive officer and the buli is the equivalent of district officer. 20 In December 2006, Fiji’s fourth coup d’état took place and an interim military administration promoting a new direction for iTaukei governance took over. This interim government has been instrumental in diluting the powers of native institutions preserved by the colonial government, the colonial iTaukei administration and the post-independence iTaukei Fijian Administration. It has also disestablished the Great Council of Chiefs in 2012 (advisory council comprised of chiefs and nominated individuals to advise on iTaukei affairs). Following Fiji’s 11th General Elections in September 2014, this administration has now formed government and has continued to redefine the roles of remaining iTaukei institutions and their jurisdiction on iTaukei rural development. 135
section highlights the implementation of colonial economic development policies in the colony of Fiji between 1874 to 1839. Immediately after Cession in 1875, Fiji’s first Governor, Sir Arthur Gordon, established the iTaukei Fijian administration system (Burns, 1963; Qalo, 1984; West, 1961), which is discussed in detail in section 4.4 on page 171. This institution was set up to meet the particular needs of the iTaukei Fijian population and became the ‘founding orthodoxy’ instituting new norms and succumbing to a ‘doctrine of the Fijian way of life’ (France, 1969). It utilised the old system of chiefly rank that had been preserved by Cession and other existing native institutions. The system relied on chiefs given their role as traditional leaders to be front line administrators for the development of iTaukei Fijians. To effect administration of the iTaukei Fijians, according to their customs and institutions, a number of Ordinances comprised of regulations relating to native affairs that governed every aspect of iTaukei life in a Fijian village were enacted and a Native Regulation Board was established to oversee this (Brookfield, 1988; Burns, 1963; Ravuvu, 1983). The Board, later known as the Fijian Affairs Board and now the iTaukei Affairs Board dominated policy towards the Fijian population (Spate, 1959) and had the power to make regulations “for the good government and well-being of the [iTaukei] Fijian people” (Ravuvu, 1983, p. 113). These regulations were made pursuant to powers conferred by the Native Affairs Ordinance 1876-1893 (Native Affairs Ordinance, 1894a), Native Affairs Ordinance 1887-1895 (Native Affairs Ordinance, 1894b), Native Affairs Ordinance 1912-1920 (Native Affairs Ordinance, 1926) and the Native Affairs Ordinance 1927-1939 (Native Affairs Ordinance, 1936). These ordinances codified custom and tradition ‘as the norms’ and pertaining to traditional iTaukei customs including those that dealt with the councils, courts, marriage and divorce, the planting of gardens and the prevention of fire, theft, adultery, evil speaking, and the registration of births and deaths (France, 1968). According to West (1961), this newly established system and its regulations was closely aligned to Gordon’s land policy, his native taxation policy and his labour policy. The land policy was based on principles of how iTaukei Fijians hold rights to land (Ravuvu, 1983) and protected and preserved the majority of land to iTaukei Fijians (West, 1961). The native taxation policy was carried out through the system of lala21 that introduced plantation tax gardens, whereby each province was allocated a specific
21 The system of lala was a customary practice for reciprocity that allowed the chief the right to request a service from the people and in return, the chief reciprocates with a gift in thanksgiving. The Colonial Administration adopted this practice and modified it to suit official requirements through the setup of plantation gardens which were administered by the roko tui or buli (Daurewa, 2013). 136
quota for crops to achieve within a specific period (Daurewa, 2013), and this encouraged the growing and sale of agricultural produce. The labour policy limited iTaukei employment on plantations and imposed restrictions on labour movement (Durutalo, 1997; Knapman, 1987; Ward & Spate, 1990). At the beginning of the colonial period, the Fijian economy was dominated by the Europeans who controlled all the capital resources in the country and the Indian farmers who worked on the plantations (Lal, 1992; West, 1961). With the expansion of the sugar industry from 1864 onwards, Indian farmers had been brought to Fiji as labourers under the indentured labour system between 1879 to 1916 to work on sugar cane plantations (Lal, 1992; Routledge, 1985). Negotiations for this policy decision was instituted by Sir Arthur Gordon (Lal, 1992). The iTaukei Fijians were not active participants in the formal economy and when compared to the participation and contribution of Europeans and the Indian Fijians, theirs was very limited (Burns, 1963; West, 1961). Their participation was confined to their contributions in the copra and banana industry given their ownership in 50% of all copra groves and the fact that they were landowners of land on which banana were yielded. Regarding domestic crops for the internal economy such as taro, cassava, yam and sweet potatoes etc., while they planted these, the sale of these were to the Indian Fijians who would then act as intermediaries in these transactions. These crops also earned much less revenue than sugar and copra on the export market (Mausio, 2007; Spate, 1959; Ward, 1964). During this period, it was clear that the colonial government’s rural development agenda was governed and driven by Sir Arthur Gordon’s policy or native governance formula, which aimed at preserving the Fijian orthodoxy (France, 1969; Lasaqa, 1984; Roth, 1953; Spate, 1959). Based on earlier allusions, this orthodoxy included the codification of existing native communal land boundaries and the established separate iTaukei Fijian Administration beginning at the base with the village council to the apex of the iTaukei socio-political pyramid, the Great Council of Chiefs (France, 1969; Mausio, 2007), which was disestablished in 2012. The Great Council of Chiefs was the pinnacle for discussing issues and making resolutions affecting the iTaukei population. This new administrative model in ruling the tribal-socio political organisation of iTaukei Fijians in the rural economy and its policies confined the participation of iTaukei Fijians in the formal economy. The new system of governing the iTaukei Fijians ensured that the colonial government’s immediate need for revenue was satisfied
137
through the engagement of iTaukei Fijians on European plantations regulated by Gordon’s labour policy. The system also supported the chiefly control of village work force through the establishment of labour ordinances that limited iTaukei employment on plantations to a maximum of one year and imposed restrictions on labour movement. Through this new ‘native authorities system’, it inhibited plantation development through the development of policies aimed at protecting the rural sector, although this was never intended (Knapman, 1987). The Colonial administrative policy of “indirect rule”, whereby the existing system of local leadership supported the chiefly control of village manpower “was adapted to suit the demands and aspirations of the Colonial Government” (Ravuvu, 1988, p. 34). This newly introduced political system established in rural villages “was based far from them in the urban centre whence it came” (p. 37). Therefore during this period, iTaukei Fijians were locked into semi-subsistence agriculture that yielded marginal profit, while the Europeans and Indian Fijians were engaged in the booming sectors (e.g. sugar and capital industries) (Mausio, 2007). As such, the rural economy at the beginning of the colonial period remained largely self- sufficient supporting 140,500 iTaukei Fijians (Knapman, 1987). 4.1.2 Rural development in Fiji: 1940 – 1969 The colonial period marked the introduction of a single, homogeneous, permanent political entity throughout Fiji and the establishment of the idea of the state in Fiji (Overton, 1999). During this period (and after 1970), the concept of matanitu or government changed from a concept that: “embodied fluidity, negotiation, conquest and customary allegiances to a concrete expression of statehood: officialdom, centralised power, stability, codified laws and regulations and power structures that were predicated primarily on colonial hierarchies rather than on birthright or conquest” (p. 174).
Between 1940 and 1969, capitalist colonial development infiltrating rural development in Fiji continued to be governed by Gordon’s system of ‘native authority’ and heavily regulated by the codified laws and regulations of the Native Affairs Ordinances, as ‘rural living’ in villages were exclusively comprised of iTaukei Fijians. In the reorganisation and consolidation of the Fijian Administration in 1944, the Fijian Affairs Board was established under the Fijian Affairs Act Cap 120 to oversee the Fijian Administration system. This change, which is elaborated further in section 4.4 on page
138
171, came about under the astute leadership of Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, Fiji’s first and most distinguished Statesman. As previously highlighted in section 4.1.1, the Fijian Affairs Board replaced the Native Regulation Board, but continued with the same core function of administering a raft of regulations born out of the preceding Ordinances that controlled every aspect of life in traditional Fijian villages. In Gordon’s view and those preceding him, this would ensure the preservation of the Fijian orthodoxy and their traditions against the corrupting outside influences (France, 1968). Consequently, the idea of development with its connotations of progress, transformation and modernity were largely imposed for iTaukei Fijians as it involved particular aspects concerning ‘traditionalism’ or the preservation of culture and traditions “abstracted by the state and reified as ‘appropriate’ development” (Overton, 1999, p. 174). Between the 1940s to the late 1960s, the concept of traditionalism was “vigorously promoted” by iTaukei Fijian leaders at the time, who administered the development of iTaukei Fijians and an ‘ethnic-preference’ agenda that shaped the colonial government’s approach to rural development (Mausio, 2007, p. 43). As an example, a Cooperative Societies Ordinance was enacted in 1947 to launch the colonial government’s ethnic-preference agenda (Burns, 1963). Through this Ordinance, the development of iTaukei village cooperatives featured prominently in the colonial government’s ethnic-preference scheme (Qalo, 1997). Mausio (2007) expounded this ethnic-preference agenda in her analysis of rural development patterns in Fiji, over the period 1950 to 1987. She states that the ethnic-preference program was common in Britain’s ‘plural society’ colonies, such as Uganda and Nigeria, and was underpinned by the ‘divide and rule’ agenda, in which the primary objective was to “bridge perceived inter-ethnic economic gaps, rather than the rural-urban divide” (p. 46). In Fiji’s case, the approach was used to rationalise the iTaukei Fijian orthodoxy and philosophy that the key to iTaukei Fijian survival lay in some form of radical separation that would aid iTaukei Fijians to modernise at a progressive rate to ‘catch-up’ with other ethnic groups in Fiji (Mausio, 2007; Qalo, 1984; Ward & Spate, 1990). This philosophy stemmed from the uneven ethnic participation of iTaukei Fijians in the formal economy and the fact that they were not active participants in it, as previously highlighted. In another expounded analysis of the rural development agenda in Fiji, Overton (1999) provides a detailed discussion of Fiji’s long-standing vakamatanitu (state-led developmentalism) rural development agenda that took precedence post-1945 to post-independence. He
139
argues that this approach complements the iTaukei concept of vakavanua (custom) development, which shaped the state’s approach to rural development in the colonial period and after. According to Overton, rural development in the colony of Fiji, and thereafter, was actively supported by the state and featured prominently in colonial development strategies. Despite rural development (predominantly for iTaukei Fijians) featuring prominently in colonial development strategies, there were increasing concerns over the lack of iTaukei Fijian economic progress under the iTaukei Fijian administration system in the 1950s (Brookfield, 1988). With the advent of self-government in 1967, reviews by Spate (1959) and Burns (1963) compared favourably with the 1959 Commission of Enquiry into Land and Population Problems of the Colony of Fiji (Burns, Watson, & Peacock, 1960; Lal, 1992). These reviews recommended a decreased role for the Fijian Administration and the need to integrate iTaukei Fijians into the mainstream. The Commission of Enquiry of 1959 argued that the whole Fijian philosophy of life, as enshrined and enforced in the Fijian Administration and by its regulations was inimical to the socio-economic progress of iTaukei Fijians and would handicap them in competition with others. The Report also recommended that the iTaukei Fijian administration should cease to operate in any area with an established local government (Brookfield, 1988; Cole, Levine, & Matahu, 1984). However, these recommendations were resisted by the Council of Chiefs, who were concerned about their identity and the security their traditional institutions gave them (Seeto et al., 2002). The Council of Chiefs only accepted non-controversial reforms based on these reviews and those put forward in another report by Nayacakalou (1975). Consequently, the colonial government implemented three key policy reforms in its rural development approach in the 1960s. These included the relaxation of native regulations described earlier after its formal abolishment in 1968. This greatly increased the individual freedom of villagers (Brookfield, 1988; Lasaqa, 1984; Overton, 1988). The second reform included the enactment of the Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (ALTO) in 1966 and its successor the Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act (ALTA), which was introduced to rationalise the 30 year leasing terms of all crown, native and freehold land intended for Indian farmers for agricultural purposes and to protect the interests of iTaukei ‘landlords’ and ‘tenants’ (Mausio, 2007; Overton, 1999). The third reform was the establishment of resettlement and land development schemes, which was aimed at
140
promoting individualist iTaukei agriculture, resulting in the relocation of iTaukei Fijian farmers (mainly) in farming settlements (Brookfield, 1988; Overton, 1988, 1999). To provide the means and accommodate the management of the resettlement and land development schemes, a Land Development Authority (LDA) was setup in 1961 and a Fiji Development Company acted as its agent in managing the schemes (Brookfield, 1988; Burns, 1963). The LDA coordinated and controlled land development in Fiji’s four administrative divisions (Central, Eastern, Northern and Western) through its Local Development Boards. These boards were tasked to coordinate land development in their respective areas and to prepare Divisional development plans that were to be coordinated with the national land use plan (Brookfield, 1988). During this period, although these reforms consequently saw village life less ordered to account for the socio-economic changes that were occurring, the Fijian Administration continued to operate as a system of government for the iTaukei within the central state government. Based on the colonial government’s ethnic-preference agenda entrenched in the concept of traditionalism, the vakamatanitu, and vakavanua approaches of administering rural development, a vast majority of agricultural crop diversification projects eventuated during this period and were exclusive to iTaukei Fijian farmers in villages throughout Fiji (Mausio, 2007). The colonial government promoted capitalist development through the development of infrastructure and various land development resettlement schemes to cater for its crop diversification projects (Overton, 1999). The colonial government also promoted the development of research and extension services for new cash cropping initiatives that involved cocoa projects, village-based copra production, banana, maize and peanut cultivation and other semi-subsistence agricultural farming such as yaqona (piper methysticum) and the cultivation of root crops such as tapioca, taro and yams (Mausio, 2007; Overton, 1999; Spate, 1959; Ward, 1964). These were partly funded by Colonial Development and Welfare (CD&W) Grants from 1950 to 1969 and overseas aid funded these crop diversification projects in post-independent Fiji from 1970 onwards (Mausio, 2007).
4.2 The State and the rural development administration structure Following independence in 1970, the institutional support provided through the CD&W Grants for cooperatives, crop diversification projects, resettlement and land development schemes was withdrawn (Brookfield, 1988). However, rural people
141
continued to subdivide land and carry out individual farming “in a more patchy manner [reflecting] local conditions…but meanwhile, a wholly different philosophy of rural development had been adopted by government” (Brookfield, 1988, p. 23). This is detailed in sub-section 4.3.1. From 1969 to 1970, a Commissioner for Rural Development was appointed and the District Administration that was administered under the colonial government was charged with the essential task of coordinating the roles and activities of relevant departments in relation to the local project needs of rural people (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1980). Established in 1969, a rural development programme emerged following a study commissioned by the colonial government, which explored the essential structure for involving rural people in the planning and the implementation of rural development aspects of a national development programme (Hunter, 1969). As a result, a rural development organisation and administration had formalised the RDM that has remained unchanged as follows: i) the iTaukei Fijian Administration governing the rural development of iTaukei Fijians through its 14 Provincial Councils discussed in detail in section 4.4; and ii) the setup of Advisory Councils to administer rural development for the non- indigenous population.22 In 1971, rural development was administered under the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports; however, this was short lived. Given the state’s grand development strategy to integrate the development of the rural sector in the national development programme, which was guided by the publication of five-yearly development plans (refer to sub- sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2), the Ministry of Fijian Affairs was charged with the responsibility to oversee and implement government policy and objectives concerning rural development from 1972, onwards. The main broad objectives were aptly described in the Sixth Development Plan (Development Plan VI 1971-1975 - Central Planning Office, 1970, p. 302), the gist of which remain unchanged as follows: a) to stimulate rural communities to seek their own improvement, to express their needs and find ways to meet them by their own efforts and resources; where genuinely desirable and practicable, to enable them to receive technical,
22 Fifteen rural advisory councils were established in late 1969 to administer development projects for non-ethnic-Fijian segments. This development was aligned with post-independent state’s objective to promote multiracialism (Lasaqa, 1984).
142
financial or material assistance particularly where economic benefits would result; b) to involve the rural communities more closely in the preparation and implementation of the rural sector of the national plan; c) in the absence of a comprehensive form of rural local Government, to provide a framework of consultation and co-operation on development matters among all people living in rural areas; and d) to coordinate the work of existing agencies in the rural areas towards achieving development objectives. Based on these objectives and the State’s policy to involve rural communities in the national development process, the various projects planned and implemented under the State’s rural development programme are channelled through the rural development administration structure. This structure is perceived to be inclusive of the people therein in their own development but as the ensuing sections and findings in Chapter Five and Six illustrate, there is a misconception of the touted ‘inclusive, participatory, and bottom-up’ process concerning this structure. Since independence, the co-ordination of the rural development programme, and the institutional mechanism for administering this, has evolved with a proliferation of multiple actors but the hierarchical nature of the decision-making process has essentially remained unchanged. Based on the State’s policy to involve rural communities in their own development process, local projects and needs are channelled through the Provincial and Advisory Councils at the beginning of each year, who screen and make recommendations on projects for submission to the next tier. Presently, these Councils have been integrated into Provincial Development Boards, which is a key component in the RDM of the rural development programme elaborated later in the chapter. Between 1970 and 2009, the Provincial and Advisory Councils were essentially the screening agencies in the RDM. For the iTaukei Fijians, development projects considered for implementation by government, and those requiring government assistance23 are discussed at the village and tikina (district) levels and coordinated by the Village Councils and District (Tikina) Councils. These are then passed on to the Provincial Councils. In the case of other Fijians (Indian Fijians and minority communities), projects go through the Advisory Councils via its Consultative
23 Government assistance here refers to both government-funded and donor-funded projects that go through the national system. 143
Committees. The next three sub-sections examine in detail key changes occurring in the rural development decision-making process that have shaped the administering of the rural development programme and its prioritisation in different sectors and rural communities later documented in section 4.3. 4.2.1 Rural development organisation and decision-making process: 1970-1986 Based on the objectives for rural development alluded to earlier and the various projects planned and implemented under the rural development programme from 1971 to 1979 (detailed in sub-section 4.3.1), rural development needs and aspirations were channelled through the Provincial and Advisory Councils to the District Development Committee and then ultimately the Divisional Development Committee. The Divisional Commissioner chaired these Committees and Members of Parliament representing voting constituencies in the four administrative divisions24 acted as advisors on these Committees. Government officials25 provided the technical advice and expertise required for project consideration and implementation (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1980). In terms of their role, the Committees acted as screening agencies charged with the task of considering development projects from both iTaukei Fijians and other Fijian communities in their areas of jurisdiction for inclusion or exclusion from the District and Divisional Plans (Lasaqa, 1984). These Committees were also responsible for the allocation of funds approved by the State for the rural development programme, through the Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development. During this period, these Committees were also tasked with stocktaking and reporting on locally available labour and other resources that would be essential in implemented projects, which the State would then compliment by way of technical, technological or other contingent assistance (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1980). As described in the next section, for projects requiring both government and local contribution termed ‘Self-Help’ projects, the standard formula used for deciding the contribution of assistance is that people provide 1/3 and the State
24 Fiji is divided administratively into four divisions headed by a Divisional Commissioner that is appointed by the State: Central, Eastern, Northern and Western. These divisions are then further divided into 14 provinces and the 15th the self-governing island of Rotuma. The 14 provinces comprise a total of 187 districts (tikina) and 1,171 villages. 25 For the District Development Committee, government officials included the District Heads of government departments who were senior officers of government ministries and departments at the district level also known as District Officers. For the Divisional Development Committee, government officials included the Divisional Heads of government departments who were the most senior officers at the Divisional level also known as Divisional Development Planning Officers. In both committees, membership also comprised traditional leaders and representatives of the Provincial and Advisory Councils. 144
provides 2/3 of the cost of any project. This formula remains unchanged for Self-Help projects carried out by rural communities. Following a review of the Sixth Development Plan in 1975, the State apparently saw that the hierarchical nature of the approval and implementation process of projects proposed at the local level and channelled through the Provincial and Advisory Councils to the District and Divisional Development Committees was cumbersome. In many instances, a time lag resulted from the time a project would be proposed at the village level to the time it was approved at the District and Development Committee levels. The State acknowledged that such delays would hinder the success of projects, because the enthusiasm of project initiators could wane and this would hinder the state’s efforts in the ‘will to improve’ rural communities (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1980). To remedy this problem, a new procedure was introduced by the Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development in 1976, with the inception of the Seventh Development Plan (Development Plan VII 1976-1980 - Central Planning Office, 1975). Based on the assessments carried out, it was agreed that ‘minor’ Self- Help projects that did not require substantial and/or sophisticated external assistance that could be undertaken within the capacity of rural communities did not require the Divisional Development Committee approval. Once the District Development Committee had accepted and approved development projects, project implementation followed. This was also applicable to terminal projects addressing rural communities needs such as bus shelters, community halls, seawalls and small agricultural and fisheries projects, to name a few. Through the new procedure, only projects that were beyond the capacity within rural communities requiring significant external input and those that needed to be undertaken entirely by the State were channelled for approval through the four Divisional Development Committees. These included large infrastructural projects such as the building of new roads, schools, hospitals and health centres. To ensure that the roles and activities of the multiple actors26 were coordinated efficiently, the District Administration was responsible in overseeing this. The District Administration comprised of the four Divisional Commissioners for each of the administrative divisions, 19 District Officers and their subordinates, four Divisional Development Planning Officers and the 14 roko tui (provincial administrator who was
26 Provincial and Advisory Councils, the District and Divisional Development Committees and the relevant government departments. 145
often a high chief) of each province. This administration oversaw the coordination, approval and disbursement process of project funding within the RDM. The Divisional administration was the key agency in coordinating and implementing development projects and/or programmes. From 1970 to 1986, the structure of the RDM comprised of seven tiers of administration as follows: a) Village and Tikina Councils who reported to the Provincial Councils; b) Consultative Committees which reported to the Rural Advisory Councils; c) 14 Provincial Councils administering and governing rural development for the iTaukei Fijians in the fourteen provinces; d) 18 Rural Advisory Councils27 administering and governing rural development for the Indian Fijians and other ethnic communities in settlements; e) 18 District Development Committees; f) 4 Divisional Development Committees coterminous with the Administrative Divisions; and a g) National Committee that included various development committees at national level.
In addition to the coordinating roles and representative bodies in the RDM, the Rural Development Ministerial Headquarters was also undergoing significant restructuring from 1983 onwards. This restructuring stemmed from the State’s strategy to decentralise development planning and its policy responses to regional development recommendations that featured prominently in the Eighth Development Plan, detailed in sub-section 4.3.2 (Central Planning Office, 1981). There were three major features of the restructuring for the rural development programme. The first was the separation of the rural development programme from the Ministry of Fijian Affairs in January 1983. The second involved the revamping of the Divisional and District Administration who through the Ministry of Rural Development had become responsible for coordination and facilitation of all development activities in the rural areas. Apart from managing the Ministry’s development programmes and overseeing the work of their respective divisions, the Divisional Teams also had to facilitate work on behalf of other ministries and departments implementing development programmes and projects in rural areas.
27 Initially, there were only 15 Rural Advisory Councils established in 1969 but this increased to 18 by 1983. 146
The third was the provision of secretariat support that the Divisional and District Administration was tasked to provide to the State Minister responsible for rural development. 4.2.2 Rural development re-organisation and decision-making process: 1987- 2006 Since independence, the hierarchical structure of the RDM has remained but restructuring of the headquarters and divisional organisations continued. Between 1986 and 1988, the Relief, Rehabilitation and Rural Housing (RRRH) unit merged again28 with the Ministry of Rural Development that then became the Ministry of Rural Development, Rural Housing, Relief and Rehabilitation. In addition to this integration, the Foreign Aid Unit merged with the Rural Development Projects Section of the ministry (Ministry of Rural Development and Rural Housing, 1992). From 1987 onwards, the Rural Development Headquarters comprised four Departments namely the Accounts, General and Administrative Support Services, Projects and Aid, of which the basic structure remains today29. The three latter departments had a key role in shaping rural development outcomes given their designated areas of responsibilities. Under the State Minister and a Permanent Secretary (officer responsible to a State Minister for the supervision of a Department or a group of Departments within a Ministry), the General and Administrative Support Services was responsible for the coordination, planning, formulation and processing of rural development plans at the national level. This division was also tasked with monitoring development activities approved and implemented at the divisional levels, and conducting reviews of these projects. For the Projects department, their primary role involved the coordination, monitoring and evaluation of development projects (state sponsored/led projects), as well as the provision of general support services to field operations. The Aid department processed all aid requests requiring funding by donors through its Aid Co-ordinating Committee before any projects were submitted to a donor. This department was also assigned to carry out project visits to ensure timely implementation, to monitor the progress of projects and to evaluate the success rates of donor-funded projects.
28 In 1984, the Relief, Rehabilitation and Rural Housing Unit that was part of the rural development programme moved to the Prime Minister’s Office (Ministry of Rural Development & Rural Housing, 1992). 29 Currently, there are three main divisions within the Ministry: The National Disaster Management Office, the Corporate Services Division, which includes the Accounts and General Administrative Support Services described above, and the Development Services Division that includes the Rural Housing Unit and the Projects and Aid departments described above. 147
Within this central state body, the RDM described continued with business-as- usual, although two military coups in 1987 prevented the meetings of Divisional and District Committees from convening. After a lapse of two years, the Divisional and District Administration Committees were revived and continued to approve development projects. These Committees continued to set priorities for projects to be funded by the state and donor funding that came through the national system. The Divisional Commissioners then reported on decisions made to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry to decide on the allocation of funds approved in the National Budget Estimates, staffing and other matters relevant to their functions. Together with their subordinates (Divisional Planning Officers and District Officers), Divisional Commissioners carried out rural development functions in their respective Divisions within the framework of the overall rural development objectives and in consultation with the RDM. By the late 1980s onwards, the responsibilities at headquarters increased to the formulation of rural development plans and policies and the provision of support and advisory services to the Divisional Commissioners on accounting, general administration and aid matters (Ministry of Rural Development & Rural Housing, 1992). Towards the end of the 1980s there were also increasing coordination problems given the increase in agencies and government departments involved in rural development (Ministry of Rural Development and Rural Housing, 1992). The increase in agencies was directly related to the state’s regionalisation concept and shift from centralised rural development planning to sectoral planning. Instead of the overly centralised five-year development plans, the state developed short and medium term National Strategic Development Plans. Through the state’s sectoral planning approach, ministries became the implementing agencies of development projects under their respective jurisdiction and this weakened the control and regulation by the Divisional Commissioners at the divisional levels. Organisational reviews and necessary adjustments continued to be made in the 1990s, particularly with the addition of the Disaster Management Unit in 1990, to oversee the areas of disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and the long-term relief and rehabilitation of rural communities. The Ministry of Rural Development, Rural Housing, Relief and Rehabilitation also changed its name to the Ministry of Regional Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs given the state’s emphasis on regional development planning carried over from the 1980s. In the early 1990s, a
148
considerable amount of effort was directed towards strengthening the RDM at all levels and in 1995, this culminated in the setup of a National Development Committee of Cabinet (Department of Regional Development, 1999). This was absorbed into the RDM with the aim of mainstreaming divisional development priorities up to the national level. The NDC was chaired by the Prime Minister and membership comprised of the Permanent Secretary of Rural Development and other Permanent Secretaries from key ministries such as Agriculture, Infrastructure, Women and Culture, Social Services, Education, and Health to name a few (Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs, 1995). In the state’s efforts to strengthen the rural development framework, the Divisional/District Development Committee Priority programme was set up in 1996 to finance medium sized capital projects costing between FJ$50,000 and FJ$300,000 that could not be financed in the state’s capital budget provision (Department of Regional Development, 1999). This new programme was setup to aid in the implementation of projects that required significant external input and expertise, and to fast-track long outstanding projects that were not facilitated in previous years due to budget constraints or other pressing development projects that the Divisional Teams prioritised. In terms of its administrative functions and responsibilities, by 1998 the Ministry of Regional Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs was overseeing four key programmes including The Provision of Ancillary Services30, The National Disaster Management Programme, The Rural Housing Programme and the Regional and Rural Development Programme. Under the Regional and Rural Development Programme, the RDM continued to coordinate the Divisional/District Development Priority Programme and specific rural development programmes that the Ministry was fully responsible for, as described in sub-section 4.3.3 on page 159. All development funds (government or donor funded) channelled through the national system were fully allocated to the Divisional Commissioners, who then decided on how much to allocate to each District in consultation with the respective Divisional Development Committees and the National Development Committee of Cabinet (NDCC). District Officers, in consultation with their respective District Development Committees, then decided on the allocation of
30 Apart from rural development, the District and Divisional Administration staff under the Ministry portfolio are also required to undertake duties pertaining to the divisional and district registries including the solemnising and registration of marriages, births and deaths, the collection and accounting of taxes, the approval and issuance of licenses for business premises, shops etc. The Administration also coordinates the issuing of permits for lotteries, games, public meetings and so forth. 149
funds channelled to projects put forward by both Provincial and Advisory Councils. However, for rural development programmes administered through other government ministries, the final decision on the approval of development projects and the allocation and disbursement of development funds was the responsibility of the relevant Minister in that portfolio and their Permanent Secretaries. Based on the state’s sectoral planning approach, carried over from the late 1980s, a clear mandate on the coordinating role of the Divisional Commissioners seemed to be lacking. The operational autonomy of Divisional Commissioners, evident in the 1980s, was compromised given that the prioritisation and allocation of development funds was now the responsibility of relevant Ministers and their Permanent Secretaries whose portfolio administers the nature of assistance sought and for which it has budget provision. By 1999, it was imperative that a radical overhauling of the state’s RDM had to take place (Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs, 2002). The publication of two reviews by Kick and United Nations (1995) and Siwatibau (1997) were instrumental in its reorganisation. The reviews emphasised on the decentralisation of central state authorities and the need to strengthen the RDM through the delegation of powers and devolution of responsibilities to various stakeholders involved in it. The recommendations put forward in these reviews were endorsed in principle by the state in 1997. The general elections of 1999 was a catalyst to the reorganisation of the Ministry’s functional responsibilities commencing with the restructuring and reorganisation of the Economic Planning Unit formerly known as the Development Section. This Unit became responsible for research, policy and the design and documentation of major capital projects for funding by donor agencies, the coordination and facilitation of the Ministry’s capital budget through the National Planning Office in the Ministry of Finance and the provision of foreign aid for rural development projects through Fiji’s bilateral arrangements. This Unit handled all Divisional Development Projects and Self-Help projects that came through the District and Divisional Administrations. In the new millennium, a third military coup and fresh elections with a new government in 2001 changed the focus of rural development in Fiji. This change was based on the reintroduction of affirmative action policies in rural areas, as described in sub-section 4.3.4 on page 161. To effectively co-ordinate the implementation of these policies in rural areas, the state was committed to strengthening RDM. In the previous
150
two decades, the state was demonstrating efforts to decentralise this. However, the overall co-ordination and planning of the state’s development efforts, through various ministries who planned and implemented rural development projects independent of the divisional offices, remained as the status quo (Fiji Government, 2001). The state’s continued focus on sectoral policies meant that development planning and processing remained highly centralised (Fiji Government, 2001). Government ministries continued to plan and implement development projects with little consultation and input from the RDM as these projects were planned by the head offices. In this framework, Divisional Commissioners had no influence over the administration of their divisions, which they were accountable to in the 1970s and early 1980s. The increase in multiple ministries now involved increased coordination problems amongst ministries and in the overall national system. These ministries hardly consulted with each other and development efforts were duplicated in the process (Fiji Government, 2002). It was also becoming clear that the continued emphasis on sectoral planning to accommodate for the multi- sectoral nature of rural development, resulted in government ministries bypassing the RDM that was not being utilised and actively engaged in the decision-making of development priorities for rural communities.31 To mitigate the coordination and implementation problems, a review of the rural development planning machinery was conducted in 2002 to evaluate the District and Divisional Development Committee structures, the role of non-governmental organisations and the role of the iTaukei Fijian administration in the rural development consultative machinery (Fiji Government, 2002). The latter was carried out in a separate review of the whole iTaukei Fijian Administration (see section 4.4.2), in a comprehensive assessment of its role in preserving tradition and culture of iTaukei Fijians as well as its role in the socio-economic development of iTaukei Fijians. The implementation of the recommendations of these reviews resulted in two major reforms of the rural administration structure. The first was the merger of the provincial roles under the Ministry of Fijian Affairs with the Ministry of Regional Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs. This was done to enable a new arrangement for integrated provincial development under the Ministry of Regional Development and the streamlining process began in 2004. The second was the realignment of administrative boundaries along the provincial lines so that the multiple government ministries
31 Key Informant Interview with a former Principal Research and Policy Officer held on Friday, 26th August 2016 at the University of the South Pacific, Suva. 151
involved in rural development could work within the jurisdiction of Divisional Offices and the streamlining process began in 2005. Through this realignment, development planning for rural areas would be done at the divisional level with each division formulating three-year divisional strategic plans in consultation with relevant stakeholders including government ministries. This would ensure that the planning and co-ordinating of future rural development initiatives were holistic and only carried out through the formulation of Divisional and District Development Plans. In involving the Divisional Teams, this new reform would also ensure the engagement of the RDM involving the villages, the tikina and the provincial structure for iTaukei Fijians, the rural advisory councils of the non-iTaukei ethnic groups and the municipal governments32 within a Division. 4.2.3 Rural development re-organisation and decision-making process: 2007 to Present The fourth military coup in December 2006, and a change in government since then, has brought changes to the overall RDM. In terms of rural development administration at the state level, the ministry continued with structural reorganisation and realignment of line positions. Given the new streamlined structure for integrated provincial development that had commenced in 2004, the ministry was culminated into the Ministry of Fijian Affairs, Provincial Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs in 2007. The short and medium-term National Strategic Development Plans guiding development planning within government ministries and the divisional levels had been replaced by the Sustainable Economic Empowerment Strategies 2008-2010 (SEEDS) (Ministry of Finance, 2007). This document is a culmination of consultations with various government and non-governmental stakeholders on the state’s vision of ‘a better Fiji for all’ through its strategic priorities of good governance, growing the economy, reforming the public service and its financial institutions, improving access to land/land utilisation and community development. In terms of rural and regional development, this document and the 2008 People’s Charter for Change, Peace and Progress (elaborated in sub-section 4.3.5, p.164) became the zenith of its planning activities and significantly contributed to the re-organisation of the RDM and the state’s integrated
32 Municipal governments have been established for the cities of Suva and Lautoka and for 11 towns. Each has a city or town council elected for a three-year term presided over by a Mayor chosen by the councillors from among their own members. 152
approach to rural development, planning and implementation, discussed further in sub- section 4.3.5. From 2007 onwards, the RDM has since gone through a series of changes building on the new streamlined structure for integrated provincial development. To reflect the new policy direction of the state towards integrated rural development, the name of the ministry changed to the Ministry of Provincial Development and National Disaster Management in 2010. Since 2013, this has changed to the Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development and National Disaster Management. According to Pillar 7 of the People’s Charter for Change, Peace and Progress, the dual system of governance at the local level through the provincial and advisory councils was based on ethnic- driven development (NCBBF, 2008). While this had some success in the promotion of culture and heritage for iTaukei Fijians, it failed to address socio-economic development for them. The coordination of efforts in the planning and implementation of socio-economic projects through the iTaukei Fijian Administration as a system of governance remained “fragmented and ineffective” (p. 30). As a way forward, the Charter’s recommendation for the establishment of Provincial Development Boards (PDB) for each province was endorsed by the state. Since 2010, the PDB are now the representative body for each province through its integration of the provincial and advisory councils, the municipal governments, Mata-ni-Tikina (District representatives), Youth representatives, Women representatives and departmental heads working in a particular province (Fiji Government, 2014). Based on this new structure, development projects submitted by all Fijians residing in rural areas are channelled through the PDB via its Village Development Boards for iTaukei Fijians and via Advisory Councils for other ethnic groups. With the aim to further develop an integrated development structure at the divisional level, Divisional Development Boards (DDB) replaced the Divisional Development Committees of the former RDM. An Integrated Rural Development Framework (IRDF), along the lines of the Charter’s recommendations and the Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development is now favoured. The state acknowledges the need for participatory comprehensive cooperation between all stakeholders at the national, provincial and local levels. Its current integrated rural development policy is based on a participatory- oriented approach that aims to combine top/down and bottom/up planning and the integration of multi-sectoral needs as assisted or facilitated by various government
153
ministries and international agencies. The state seeks to integrate rural development initiatives effectively into its planning and decision-making framework through the establishment of the Divisional and Provincial Development Boards. Since 2010, the structure of the rural development consultative machinery comprises six tiers of administration as follows: a) Villages who report to Village Development Boards, chaired by the roko tuis (provincial executive officer) and assisted by the Turaga-ni-Koro (village headman); b) Settlements who report to 18 Rural Advisory Councils; c) District Development Boards; d) 14 Provincial Development Boards who screen project recommendations put forward by District Development Boards, municipal governments and other stakeholder groups comprising its membership. The PDBs are tasked with the responsibility to stimulate economic activity and ensure the provision of basic infrastructure in rural areas and maritime islands; e) 4 Divisional Development Boards coterminous with the Administrative Divisions; and a f) National Economic Development Board (NEDB) formed by a Cabinet Sub- Committee that includes State Ministers whose portfolios are relevant for rural development. Within this administrative machinery, rural development needs and aspirations as expressed by the rural people through their villages (iTaukei Fijians) or settlements (non-iTaukei Fijians) are channelled by the District Development Board, which comprise of elected provincial administrators33, Turaga-ni-Koro (village headman), Mata-ni-Tikina (District representative), departmental representatives working in a particular district and the District Officer as chair. The VDB formulate proposal papers on behalf of communities under the guidance of Divisional Planning Officers in the Office of the Divisional Commissioner and submit these to the District Development Boards (DDB). The DDB are essentially the screening agencies who ensure that projects channelled to the development boards are aligned to the Divisional Development Plans (DDP) formulated by the Divisional Offices. These DDPs are
33 Based on the realignment of administrative boundaries along provincial lines, elected provincial administrators are representatives of both villages and settlements. Provincial administrators report to the Divisional Planning Officers in the Office of the Divisional Commissioner. 154
coordinated through the Office of the Divisional Commissioners and are formulated in consultation with other relevant stakeholders in a particular division including all government ministries, private sector, municipal and rural authorities, development partners and all members comprising the RDM. From the district level, all proposals are channelled to the Provincial Development Boards then ultimately to the Divisional Development Boards. These boards are chaired by the Divisional Commissioners. Membership in the Divisional Development Boards comprise divisional heads of all government ministries, private sector representatives, municipal government representatives and non-government organizations working in a particular division. Representatives from provinces who sit in provincial and divisional boards recommend and prioritise infrastructural and economic development project proposals in close consultation with the Divisional Commissioners and relevant government agencies. The Office of the Divisional Commissioner is the decision-making authority on funding allocation for development projects in rural areas (Daurewa, 2013) and reports to the Permanent Secretary, who oversees all ministerial operations in the Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development and National Disaster Management. The Ministry, as the coordinating and implementation arm of the state’s efforts in rural and maritime development programmes under the IRDF, then collates recommendations made by the Office of the Commissioners and following approval from the relevant State Minister submits these to the Strategic Planning Office in the Ministry of Economy34 for budget, planning and formulation processes. The Strategic Planning Office then submits budget estimates for projects to the Development Sub-Committee before it is tabled before the National Economic Development Board who reports to Cabinet. The Development Sub- Committee decides on the prioritisation of funding and the allocation of funding from both government and donor funded projects. Divisional Commissioners as the head of administrative divisions have a lead role concerning the allocation of all capital expenditure budgets for rural development and they direct and oversee the implementation of the capital expenditure program by the relevant government ministries and departments. Since 2010, these integrated development boards at the national, divisional, provincial and district levels have become the key consultative and planning forums for development in line with budget, planning and formulation processes. In the case of development programs that development partners (donors) are
34 Formerly the Ministry of Finance 155
engaged in, these need to be aligned through the Divisional Development Plans, coordinated through the Divisional Commissioner and monitored by the Strategic Planning Office in the Ministry of Economy. A Budget and Aid Coordinating Committee (BACC) oversees all development partner funding coordinated through the Strategic Planning Office. The BACC comprises of Permanent Secretaries from the Ministry of Economy, Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office, donors and implementing agencies who consult and decide on projects to be included. For ODA assisted projects, the BACC and relevant line Ministries liaise closely with the Divisional Commissioners in the implementation of development projects in the rural sector.
4.3 Centralised rural development after independence Independence in 1970 brought changes to the nature of the state, but not to the overall development project other than to strengthen it. The state continued to adopt economic planning as the common basis for development policies. For rural development, however, the state had adopted a wholly different philosophy. Instead of concentrating only on capital expenditure programmes and investment in the urban centres, the state aimed at narrowing the disparity between the urban and rural areas through a ‘best-fix approach’. Couched in the delivery of modern inputs and integrated measures, the ‘best- fix approach’ proposed to improve the productive capacity and standard of living, in its broadest sense, of those people living in rural areas. Although the established rural development administrative structure, alluded to earlier, aimed at involving rural people in the planning and implementation of the rural development aspect of the national development programme, rural development after independence has remained highly centralised with the state controlling rural development national plans and driving the priorities on rural-related development, which is highlighted in the ensuing sub- sections. 4.3.1 Rural development 1971 to 1979 Governed by the rural consultative machinery and guided by the rural development objectives outlined in section 4.2, rural development from 1971 to 1979 coincided with the Sixth and Seventh Development Plans (Central Planning Office, 1970, 1975). Both these plans placed emphasis on the development of rural areas in accordance with the involvement of rural dwellers in their own improvement and development. The various
156
projects planned and implemented under the State rural programme during this period came under three categories and this remains unchanged today. The first involved self- help projects initiated, funded and implemented entirely by the rural communities themselves. The second involved self-help projects initiated by the people but partially funded by the state. As highlighted in section 4.2.1, for these projects, local contribution comprises 1/3 funding either by time, labour or funds and the state complements the remaining 2/3 cost of any project via funds, machines, technical expertise and/or through the actual supervision of project implementation. The third type of projects are capital-intensive projects, of which the government is responsible, such as rural cooperatives, rural education projects, agricultural development including cattle and sugar cane schemes, health and marine facilities and major infrastructural works. Major rural infrastructures include but are not limited to road and bridge building, rural civil aviation works, upgrading of community feeder roads, bitumen sealing of roads in villages and settlements, construction and repair of jetties for the maritime areas, and rural water, housing and electrification supplies. During this period, substantial funding was allocated to other relevant state ministries for the development of these major rural infrastructures. There was also a policy shift towards funding more economic-oriented projects as opposed to purely social projects and this guided the approval of projects by Development Committees within the RDM. This policy shift corresponded to the Alliance Government’s35 efforts to create a macro-development framework that would integrate both economic development and social change in rural areas. Development partners readily supported income-generating projects for rural dwellers and promoted this policy change further. (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1980). This policy shift also marked a spike in the launching of large-scale, exclusionary iTaukei agricultural projects and crop diversification projects that were touted as measures to raise rural incomes, and regarded as the best means for redistributing the fruits of development (Mausio, 2007). From 1971 to 1979, the administration of rural development was still very much centralised based on rural policies shaped by the ethnic-preference agenda and the vakavanua approach (Mausio, 2007; Overton, 1999). This continued to unfold despite the 1971-1975 development planning (Seventh Planning) period’s major objective to decentralise economic activity by location and to
35 The first elected government after independence in 1970. 157
broaden involvement by race in order to enhance opportunities, material living standards and the social and cultural amenities of the rural areas. By the end of 1979, the state acknowledged that the existing administrative machinery for development and the whole development process was overly centralised with many tiers and overlapping boundaries (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1984). A policy response towards increased decentralisation compared favourably by the end of the decade. 4.3.2 Decentralised regional rural development 1980 to 1989 Based on regional development recommendations of the Eighth Development Plan (1981-1985 - Central Planning Office, 1981), the state implemented three strategies concerned with rural development policy to promote increased decentralisation. The first involved the setting up of a network of rural growth centres that would deliberately push investment and general development activity into areas which had the potential to be developed but remained under or undeveloped. Strategy two focussed on concentrated rural infrastructure development involving both physical and institutional infrastructure investment in selected specific areas ensuring that this would be linked to the development of growth centres. The third strategy concerned the decentralisation of the administration of rural development to eliminate some of the excessive red tape and control that featured prominently in the overly centralised administrative structure. At the operational level, the state aimed to decentralise decision-making and budgeting processes for rural projects to the Divisional level. As such, Divisional Commissioners enjoyed a wide and flexible degree of operational autonomy (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1984). During this period, the allocating function of all self-help funds rested with the Divisional Commissioners who then decided on the prioritisation, allocation and disbursement of funds to each district. District Officers in consultation with District Development Committees then decided on the allocation and disbursement of funds to projects put forward by both the Provincial and Advisory Councils. Similarly, all other funding schemes, local projects and needs concerning rural development that came under the Ministry of Rural Development were allocated to the Divisional Commissioners and disbursement of funds was coordinated through the Divisional and District Administrations in the RDM. Given the bureaucratic and hierarchical approval processes evident in the RDM, there were also modifications made to the coordination of rural development funding in some areas around Fiji to
158
facilitate and bring decision making closer to the people. In some areas, funding allocation was devolved to Provincial and Advisory Councils. In the Eastern Division, the allocating function was devolved even further to Island Councils (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1984). Consequently, the Ministry of Rural Development became the most decentralised ministry in the state by the mid-1980s (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1984). Rural development interventions in the 1980s continued to be guided by the state’s rural economic projects policy focussing on the approval of economic and employment generation projects. Both the state and development partners concentrated on funding the initiation and implementation of rural economic projects (Fiji Government, 1987). Funding of capital-intensive infrastructure in the rural sector was slow and limited when compared to the infrastructural investment prioritised in the 1970s. From 1987 onwards, there was a lack of budget provision for important infrastructural programmes due to the political upheaval resulting from a military coup in that year. Funding for rural roads, rural water supplies, rural electrification, jetties, river embankments and seawalls to name a few were not approved from 1987 onwards largely because of the political upheaval and financial constraints faced by the state. This continued to unfold into the 90s decade despite being identified and prioritised by the divisional and district administrations as representative of the needs of the rural people (Ministry of Rural Development and Rural Housing, 1992). 4.3.3 Rural development via Sectoral Planning from 1990 to 1999 Given the State’s policy response to regional planning through increased decentralisation of the national development plan and its development programmes, the five-year state-led development plans guiding national development since independence ceased. From the late 1980s onwards, the state was advocating the concept of regional planning through the decentralisation of the national development plan and its programmes into regional components. Short and medium-term plans soon replaced the five-year state-led development plans. It was becoming more apparent to the state that the centralised sectoral planning and development with the traditional top-down approach of the rural development consultative machinery was “uncoordinated, disharmonious and at times duplicated development by other government ministries and development partners on the ground” (Ministry of Rural Development and Rural Housing, 1992, p. 40). The Ministry of Rural Development took on a lead role to
159
advocate the concept of regional planning which would introduce development planning and budgeting within identified regions (Ministry of Rural Development and Rural Housing, 1992). During this decade, the policy direction of rural development emphasised on infrastructural development, the inception of social services with an emphasis on the education and health sectors, and economic development. The installation of radiotelephones and the reactivation of the rural water supply and rural housing schemes featured prominently (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, 1995). Rural electrification was given a high priority to improve living conditions and enhance socio-economic opportunities for rural villages and settlements and a revised rural electrification policy was adopted to improve the delivery of rural electrification (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, 1994). The majority of the installation of rural electricity was carried out in the Eastern division (ibid). The self- help scheme and the Small Grants Scheme continued with business as usual. Based on the decentralised concept of regional planning, nine ministries constituted the regional development planning and budgetary system in which projects and budgets of the ministries in the central government related to rural development were put together and organised. These included the Ministry of Regional Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forests and ALTA, the Ministry of Public Works, Infrastructure and Transport, the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, the Ministry of Lands, Mineral Resources and Energy, the Ministry of Education, Women, Culture, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Youth, Employment Opportunities and Sports, and the Ministry of Housing, Urban Development and Environment. These ministries also constituted the National Development Committee (NDC) established in 1995 (see p.147) to mainstream divisional development priorities to the national level. An allocation of $1 million was set aside for projects identified and prioritised by the divisional and district administrations as representatives of the needs of the rural people and decided upon by Divisional Commissioners in consultation with the NDC. Despite its intent to speed up the implementation of long outstanding DDC priority projects, by the end of 1996 the state acknowledged that the allocation of $1 million dollars made very little impact on the overall estimated figure of more than $87 million worth of projects listed in the DDC Projects Lists (Department of Regional
160
Development, 1999). These included projects (largely medium sized infrastructural projects) neglected since the late 1980s and were accumulating through the years. As indicated above, although other sectors implemented rural development projects according to their own ministerial identified priorities, the combined impact still did not make any significant difference to the DDC Project List (ibid). By 1999, it was clear that the development challenges in rural communities were not improving significantly. There was negligible development apparent at the micro level based on rural communities expression of dissatisfaction with implemented projects and there was visible proof of the lack of improvements brought about in individual communities standard of living (Veitayaki, 2008). 4.3.4 Rural development in the new millennium: 2000 to 2006 Going into the 21st century, the problems concerning rural development remained. The population in Fiji’s rural areas continued to decrease, opportunities to generate income and employment opportunities in rural areas were minimal, the provision of social services and infrastructure development were negligible and the challenges of administrative management with the integration of public and non-public activities remained (Ministry of Regional Development, 2003). Moreover, it became apparent that the rural development mobilised in rural areas was unequal and unbalanced, with some districts more developed than others, some districts neglected altogether, and rural funding and priorities varied significantly between divisions. Amidst all these issues, the recognition on sectoral planning as an approach to accommodate the multi-sectoral nature of rural development started to change (as previously mentioned on p.146). The necessity to establish a new approach to rural development that strengthened community participation in the planning, implementation and maintenance of development programs/projects was conceived including the emphasis on community capacity building as an integral part of rural development (Ministry of Regional Development, 2006). From 2002 to 2006, the state’s rural development policy emphasised on poverty alleviation and rural and outer island development in order to attain the objective of “equal opportunities for all” (Ministry of Regional Development, 2005, p. 4). Rural development priorities implemented through the RDM included the self-help scheme, maintenance of rural roads, cane-access and non-cane access roads, divisional development projects, the rural housing assistance scheme and the reef and passage
161
clearance program. The reef and passage clearance program involved the clearing of waterways to provide easy access to those communities who used this as their mode of transportation. Through its Divisional Offices, the Ministry of Regional Development (later became the Ministry of Provincial Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs) continued its facilitative role in implementing the Small Grants Scheme, although in many cases, development partners were bypassing the RDM and assisting communities directly (Ministry of Provincial Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs, 2008; Ministry of Regional Development, 2006). The focus of implemented projects during these years was aligned to the Ministry’s Strategic Plan 2003-2005. This was guided by the state’s development objectives, which concentrated on the provision of basic amenities (such as housing, water, roads, power, communications), the promotion of socio-economic projects and the implementation of affirmative action projects (Ministry of Provincial Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs, 2008; Ministry of Regional Development, 2006). The central focus of the state’s development priorities rested on affirmative action policies. Underpinned by the ideological notion of the paramountcy of indigenous Fijian interests, the pro-indigenous affirmative action programs began as early as the colonial period through the state’s ethnic-preference agenda for rural development alluded to earlier in section 4.1.2 and were couched in pro-indigenous policies from independence onwards (Ratuva, 2013b). While the term ‘affirmative action’ was not used exclusively until after the military coup of 1987, it was articulated in preferential development policies bundled together with the national rural development program for iTaukei Fijians from the early days of colonialism to independence. At the same time, the state pursued a multi-ethnic ideological stance and a free market economy approach for the development of all other Fijians (ibid). Since the early days of colonialism, pro-indigenous affirmative action programs have focussed on ethnic-preference policies for the rural development of iTaukei Fijians, political affirmative action policies that provided a justification for military coups to ensure the paramountcy of iTaukei Fijian interests and educational affirmative action policies involving the prioritisation of state resources into the education of iTaukei Fijians. From 1990 to 2005, the State largely focussed on economic affirmative action policies through the establishment of various initiatives guided by the Nine Points Plan and the Ten Year Plan for Fijian Participation in Business (Ratuva, 2013b).
162
The Nine Points Plan came into fruition after the 1987 military coup largely emphasising on investment in the area of finance and equity and the implementation of affirmative action projects, based on communal capitalism that directly involved villagers through provincial shares. The Ten Year Plan, which became the state blueprint for iTaukei Fijian businesses from 1995 onwards, was aimed at developing iTaukei entrepreneurship, business education and training, encouraging iTaukei participation in investment, promoting and safeguarding the interest of iTaukei Fijians, and focussed on the reorganisation and strengthening of the iTaukei Fijian Administration detailed in section 4.4. As highlighted by Ratuva (2013b), the strategies outlined in these key documents are a significant shift from the rural-targeted affirmative action programs via the state’s primary commodity production strategy of the 1970s and the early 1980s. Rural-targeted affirmative action policies have been at the forefront of rural development during the colonial period and during Fiji’s post- independence. However, after three and a half decades of post-independent rural- targeted affirmation action, the ethnographic study in this thesis (see Chapter Six) and other research undertaken show that ‘trickle down’ impacts to iTaukei villages, in terms of socio-economic benefits, have been negligible (Ratuva, 2013b). In addition to strengthening affirmative action policies for development, two new schemes were introduced with the national rural development program. The Village Improvement Scheme (VIS) was introduced in 2002 to assist in the physical beautification and improvement of Fijian villages (Ministry of Regional Development, 2005). The Small Grants Scheme funded this and assistance focussed mainly on the construction of community halls, multi-purpose halls, churches and evacuation centres (Ministry of Provincial Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs, 2008). In 2003, a Community Capacity Building Program (CCBP) was launched with the aim of empowering people to determine their own development needs and priorities (Ministry of Regional Development, 2006). With four key components, the program geared towards carrying out a comprehensive social audit in each village in Fiji whereby communities would determine their resource base (physical assets, human resource skills and natural resource endowment) and capabilities. The second component involved the formulation of community development plans aligned to the social audit, while the third focussed on the establishment of a ‘linked approach’ involving
163
coordination across government portfolios and partnerships across the RDM, the corporate sector and civil societies. The fourth component was focussed on the monitoring and reporting aspect of implemented projects. In terms of decision-making processes and the implementation of the CCBP for each village, the program would comprise a Development Sub- Committee made up of Permanent Secretaries of different ministerial portfolios, a Working Group of internal and external stakeholders, and a Community Task Force at the local level. The success of the CCBP in each village would be measured by the capacity of rural leaders and those in leadership positions within villages to drive development projects through enhanced organisation and planning skills. The Ministry of Provincial Development undertook this development scheme for iTaukei Fijian communities and the Ministry of Multi-Ethnic Affairs facilitated the scheme for other Fijian communities. In the latter, the District Officers only assisted in the recommendation for projects but the Ministry provided all funding for projects (Ministry of Provincial Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs, 2008). During this period, the state was also working towards strengthening the RDM through a more integrated development approach (see section 4.2.2, p.147) that materialised after the fourth military coup of 2006. 4.3.5 Integrated rural development under the People’s Charter for Change: Post 2006 to Present The adoption of the People’s Charter for Change, Peace and Progress in 2008 chartered a new course of Fiji’s development agenda. The Charter is a policy document setting out very clear guidelines for building a sustainable and efficient development model with the overarching objective to rebuild Fiji into a non-racial, multi-ethnic and united, democratically governed nation (NCBBF, 2008). In terms of rural development, the policy direction of the national rural development program from 2007 onwards centred, specifically, on three ‘pillars’ as espoused in the Charter. The pillars ensure the provision of minimum and affordable basic needs to ensure income security and to strengthen the effectiveness of service delivery to rural dwellers. As previously highlighted, Pillar 7 in particular emphasised on the restructuring of the RDM and a policy shift towards a more integrated approach for rural development. This was in response to the ethnic-driven development that was articulated in Fiji’s development agenda from the colonial period to independence, pointing out that ethnic-driven
164
development was successful in the promotion of iTaukei culture and heritage, but was failing in the socio-economic development of iTaukei Fijians (Daurewa, 2013; NCBBF, 2008). In line with the policy direction in Pillar 7 of this policy document, the revised structure for the rural integrated development machinery has culminated to the establishment of Divisional, Provincial, District and Village Development Boards (see section 4.2.3, p.152). From 2007 to 2010, the state continued with its rural electrification, rural water supplies, rural housing and its upgrading of rural roads and airstrips schemes. Attention was also given to eco-tourism projects, coastal fisheries development and agricultural development and assistance through the Agriculture Marketing Authority. The state also focussed on the provision of basic services and the development of rural business. Education remained critical for the development of the rural areas and a European Union and AusAID grant-funded Fiji Education Sector Programme facilitated this. During this period the state was also geared towards intensifying its infrastructural development programme and to facilitate more commercial opportunities in the rural and outer islands (Ministry of Finance National Planning and Sugar Industry, 2007). The acquisition of the Republic of China Government-funded concessional loan facility provided additional resources to the state for the upgrading of rural infrastructure including roads, maritime transportation, water and low cost housing (Ministry of Finance and National Planning, 2008). With support from the Asian Development Bank, the state’s Rural and Outer Island Project focussing on the development of inter- island and international maritime infrastructure and upgraded rural roads to support tourism, agro-based industries and enterprise development was also established (Ministry of Finance and National Planning, 2006). Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 below provide a breakdown of major state initiatives carried out from 2007 to 2010 under the newly introduced integrated approach with different state ministries and development partners.
Table 4.1 Major Rural & Outer Island Development Programs: 2007-2010
Implementing 2007 2008 2009 2010 Programme/Project Ministry $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) State-Sponsored Program/Project Grant to Centre for Appropriate Fijian Affairs 0.92 0.9 0.9 0.9 Technology and Development
165
Village Improvement Scheme and Prime Minister's 1.12 0.8 2.5 2.09 Small Grants Scheme Office Government Government Supplies - Rural Outlets 0.14 0 0 0 Supplies Extension Agriculture Agriculture 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 Maintenance of Irrigation Services Agriculture 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.3 Livestock Extension and Research Agriculture 0.8 0.45 0 0 Land drainage and flood protection Agriculture 5 5 6 12.7 Water Shed Management Agriculture 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.9 Agricultural Marketing Authority Agriculture 1 1 0 0 Grant to Coconut Industry Agriculture 0.95 1 1.3 0 Development Authority Rural and Outer Island Development Agriculture 2 2.7 2.5 0 Fisheries & Mariculture 0.4 0.25 0 0 Forests Fisheries & Coastal Fisheries 0.5 1 0.75 0 Forests Fisheries & Portable Sawmills 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 Forests Fisheries & Aquaculture 0.2 0.5 0 0 Forests Fisheries & Brackish water 0.2 0.35 0 0 Forests Fisheries & Seaweed 0.4 0.2 0.3 0 Forests Provincial Grant to Self-Help Projects 4 1.5 3 3 Development Provincial Divisional Development Projects 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Development Provincial Maintenance of Non-PWD Roads 1 1 1 1 Development Upgrading of Existing Cane Access Provincial 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 Roads Development Provincial Emergency Water Supply 0.4 0.4 0 0 Development Provincial Rural Housing Assistance 0 0 1 1 Development Ground Assessment -Small Islands Land & Mineral 0.11 0.11 0 0 (water sources) Resources Fiji Groundwater Assessment and Land & Mineral 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.3 Development Resources Maintenance: Sub-Divisional Hospitals, Health Centres, Nursing Health 1.5 3 1.3 0 Stations Equipment for Health Centres and Health 0.4 0.5 0 0 Nursing Stations Dental Equipment for Sub-Divisional Health 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 Hospitals
Bio Medical Engineering Equipment Health 1.4 1 0.9 0
Eco-Tourism Projects Tourism 0.3 0.3 0 0 Infrastructure and Rural Electrification Programmes 6 6 0 0 Works
166
Infrastructure and Fiji Road Upgrading Project 21 17 17 30.6 Works Infrastructure and Outer Island Jetties 1 3 0 0 Works Natadola Marine Resort-Water Infrastructure and 0 0 4 0 Infrastructure Works Grant to Telecom Fiji Limited (Rural Infrastructure and 0.5 0.1 0 0 Telecom Service) Works Infrastructure and Shipping Franchise Scheme 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.5 Works Upgrading of Government Shipping Infrastructure and 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.4 vessels Works Infrastructure and Regional Water Supply 46.7 36.85 0 0 Works Infrastructure and Rural Post Infrastructure 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 Works Infrastructure and Upgrading of Rural Roads 1 10 0 0 Works Infrastructure and Other Rural Water Supply 2 5 3.5 2.4 Works Transport and Maintenance of Rural Airstrips 0.5 1 3.7 3.8 Civil Aviation Banking Services for Non-Economical Miscellaneous 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Rural Areas Rural Sporting Facilities Sports 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Source: Ministry of Finance Budget Supplements (2009, 2010; 2006, 2008; 2007). *The Small Grants Scheme is funded by development partners but it is facilitated by the Prime Minister’s Office and implemented via the Ministry of Rural Development.
Table 4.2 Major Rural Development Initiatives funded by Development Partners 2008-2010
Development Implementing 2007 2008 2009 2010 Programme/Project Partner Ministry $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) Development Partner Sponsored Program/Project Fiji Education Sector N/A N/A N/A N/A AusAID Education Programme Fiji Education Sector N/A N/A N/A N/A EU Education Programme Fiji Health Sector N/A N/A N/A N/A AusAID Health Improvement Programme Improvement of Emergency N/A N/A N/A N/A and Community Health Care Korea Health Systems in Vanua Levu Relocation and Construction Health N/A N/A N/A N/A China of New Navua Hospital Infrastructure Health and Sanitation N/A N/A N/A N/A UNICEF Health Programme N/A N/A N/A N/A Navuso Linking Bridge China Infrastructure
167
Somosomo Mini Hydro N/A N/A N/A N/A China Infrastructure Scheme Supply of Multipurpose N/A N/A N/A N/A China Fisheries Fishing Vessels ACIAR Assistance to the N/A N/A N/A N/A AusAID Agriculture Agriculture Sector Village Improvement/Small Prime Minister’s N/A N/A N/A N/A Taiwan Grant Scheme Office Source: Ministry of Finance Budget Supplements (2009, 2010; 2006, 2008; 2007) Consultation with the ODA Unit and Strategic Planning Office, Ministry of Finance
With the integrated rural development approach, the state emphasised on strengthening the capacity of provincial governments to participate actively in the planning and implementation of development initiatives. The Provincial Development Boards (PDB) were established in 2010 and by 2011, the Divisional Development Boards (DDB) were established in the four divisions. Under the new Integrated Rural Development Framework (IRDF) highlighted in section 4.2.3, all planning and decision-making concerning Self-Help Projects and Divisional Development Projects are now required to consult the reformed RDM. All other projects and programmes implemented by the ministries outlined in Table 4.1 also require approval from the Provincial Development Boards and the Divisional Development Boards. For rural development projects funded by development partners, such as those listed in Table 4.2, these require the approval of the Budget and Aid Coordinating Committee (BACC). Through the IRDF, Divisional Commissioners play a significant role in directing and coordinating development at the divisional level from both government stakeholders and development partners as well as other relevant stakeholders, such as civil society groups and non-governmental organisations. From 2011 onwards, the state has actively pursued key rural development projects through its respective divisional offices under the IRDF. Building on the Peoples Charter, the national rural development program has also been guided by the state’s Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development 2010- 2014 (Ministry for National Planning, 2009) and successor national strategic plan documents. These are policy documents setting out a strategic framework towards achieving sustainable democracy, good and just governance, socioeconomic development and national unity in various sectors including the rural sector. In addition to the conventional support rendered by the state through its ongoing rural development programmes and projects identified by the Divisional and Provincial Boards (refer to
168
Table 4.3 on next page), the state has embarked on new projects including the establishment of new telecentres in rural and outer islands to promote the use of modern ICT technology. By 2012, 15 telecentres had been opened in rural schools around Fiji to improve access to broadband services to rural communities (Ministry of Finance, 2012). With funding support from the World Bank and UNDP, the state also launched a new renewable energy projects programme from 2011 onwards, involving the replacement of diesel schemes with the installation of solar home systems and biogas development in rural areas. In efforts to strengthen market access deliverables for rural areas, the state has been prioritising funding towards the Rural and Outer Island Agricultural Development Programme by providing access to markets, and the Northern Development Programme involving the funding of small, micro-enterprises in the Northern Division (Ministry of Economy, 2016; Ministry of Finance, 2012). The state continues to prioritise the development of roads infrastructure. In the Government of Fiji’s 2016-2017 budget, an allocation of $527.2 million has been given to the Fiji Roads Authority to cater for the ongoing construction and maintenance of roads, bridges and jetties in both rural and urban areas around the country. An additional sum of $99.5 million, funded through ADB and World Bank loans, earmarked for projects in the transport sector has been allocated for the upgrading and replacement of roads, bridges, rural roads, streetlights and traffic signals (Ministry of Economy, 2016). Ongoing development of Fiji’s youth remain a priority of the state and resources have been allocated to upgrading training centres in rural areas particularly in the Northern and Western Divisions. In addition to this, the state is also prioritising the construction of new sporting facilities in rural areas. This is partly funded by the People’s Republic of China Government and plans to build stadiums in Vunidawa, Seaqaqa, RakiRaki, Korovou, Gau and Kadavu were expected to commence in 2013 (Ministry of Finance, 2012). Following tropical Cyclone Winston in February 2016, the state has also diverted funding towards the training of rural carpenters as a mode of upskilling rural dwellers in building cyclone resilient homes. For 2016 and 2017, rehabilitation and recovery works has been the focus of the state and development partners’ budgetary allocations under various programmes and projects particularly in rural areas. This has translated through the distribution of seedlings, replanting programmes, reconstruction of infrastructure and rehabilitation works for farm access
169
roads, drainage improvements and the supply of agro-inputs through a subsidised programme controlled by the state (Ministry of Economy, 2016).
Table 4.3 Major Rural and Outer Island Developments: 2011-2016
Implementing 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Programme/Project Ministry $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m) $(m)
State-Sponsored Programme/Project Grant to Centre for Appropriate Fijian Affairs 0.5 0.53 0.6 0.8 0.8 0 Technology and Development Village Improvement Prime Minister's Scheme and Small 0 0 0 0 0 9 Office Grants Scheme Extension Agriculture 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.5 2 0.8 Agriculture Maintenance of Agriculture 0.3 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 Irrigation Services Land drainage and Agriculture 4 9 7.5 7 10 7 flood protection Water Shed Agriculture 0.3 0 1 1 1 1.4 Management Agricultural Agriculture 0 1 0.9 1.5 1.5 5.3 Marketing Authority Rural and Outer Agriculture 1.67 1.15 1 2 1 1.8 Island Development Fisheries & Mariculture 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 Forests Fisheries & Coastal Fisheries 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 Forests Fisheries & Aquaculture 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 Forests Fisheries & Brackish water 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 Forests Grant to Self-Help Provincial 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 n/a Projects Development Divisional Provincial Development 5.6 5.73 8 5.4 2.6 3.5 Development Projects Maintenance of Non- Provincial 1.8 0 0 0 0 n/a PWD Roads Development Upgrading of Provincial Existing Cane Access 1.8 1.5 2 2 2.5 n/a Development Roads Emergency Water Provincial 0 0 0 0 0 n/a Supply Development Rural Housing Provincial 1 2 0.7 0.7 1.4 n/a Assistance Development Fiji Groundwater Land & Mineral Assessment and 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 0 Resources Development
170
Maintenance: Sub- Divisional Hospitals, Health 0.7 1.6 2.3 0 0 2 Health Centres, Nursing Stations Equipment for Health Centres and Nursing Health 0 0 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.8 Stations Dental Equipment for Sub-Divisional Health 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0 0.5 Hospitals Bio Medical Engineering Health 0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0 5 Equipment Rural Electrification Infrastructure and 3.7 6.2 8.5 10 19.5 14.9 Programmes Works Fiji Road Upgrading Infrastructure and 39 0 0 0 0 527.2 Project Works Infrastructure and Outer Island Jetties 3 0 0 0 0 0 Works Shipping Franchise Infrastructure and 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 2.4 2.3 Scheme Works Upgrading of Infrastructure and Government 3.4 3.8 3.5 18.9 3.1 0 Works Shipping vessels Regional Water Infrastructure and 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 Supply Works Rural Post Infrastructure and 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 Infrastructure Works Upgrading of Rural Infrastructure and 1.8 0 0 0 0 56.9 Roads Works Other Rural Water Infrastructure and 2.4 3.8 4 4 4 0 Supply Works Renewable Energy Infrastructure and Development 1.5 7.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 10.2 Works Projects Maintenance of Rural Transport and 4.7 1 0 0 0 0 Airstrips Civil Aviation Banking Services for Non-Economical Miscellaneous 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 Rural Areas Rural Sporting Sports 0 0.15 2.8 2.2 1.8 2.2 Facilities Source: Ministry of Finance Budget Supplements (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014).
4.4 The iTaukei Fijian Administration: An instrument of government for the iTaukei rural Fijians Although the iTaukei Fijian Administration has been in existence since 1875, a year after Fiji became a British colony, there has never been an agreed consensus (Ratuva, 2013b) on its role in the rural development of iTaukei rural Fijians. While various policies highlighted in the preceding sections have aimed at improving the socio- economic conditions of iTaukei Fijians, defining ‘progress’ for the rural iTaukei has 171
always been ambiguous due to the “contradictory perceptions and policies” surrounding the good government and well-being of the iTaukei Fijians (Ratuva, 2013b, p. 11). Since its emergence as a colonial state, two separate but related modes of development have been in place in Fiji, as examined earlier in the chapter. On the one hand, there was a deepening entrenchment of communalism governed by Sir Arthur Gordon’s native governance formula established in 1876. The other involved the consolidation of the capitalism economy, which infiltrated Fiji’s development process especially rural development from the 1940s onwards. Within these development strands, the iTaukei Fijian Administration was employed as an instrument of government for iTaukei rural Fijians, regulating their lives to ensure that it suited the demands and aspirations of the colonial government’s native policy and later its capitalist modes of production. It has been used as a ‘technology of government’ to codify laws, regulations and power structures predicated primarily on colonial hierarchies rather than on birthright or conquest. The following section examines how the ‘underdevelopment’ of rural iTaukei Fijians was problematized and governed by the iTaukei Fijian Administration when Fiji was a colonial state, and some important and consequent challenges emerging for the development of rural iTaukei Fijians today. 4.4.1 The Fijian provincial administration as an approach to ‘government’ For the purposes of the iTaukei Fijian Administration in “[efficiently governing] the natives without departing in any important particular from their own official customs, traditions or boundaries” (Robinson to Carnavon, 16 October 1874 in Lasaqa, 1984, p.155), the colony of Fiji was divided into 12 provinces immediately after Cession (West, 1961). The demarcation of boundary lines and administration of provinces was then increased to 19 (Qalo, 1984) and then reduced to 14 provinces (Burns, 1963), which remains unchanged today. As already examined in section 4.1, this demarcation is based on old tribal territories and political alliances and each province includes a number of districts or tikina, which comprise groups of villages. Within the hierarchy of the iTaukei Fijian Administration that the colonial government had created, provincialism was used as an administrative strategy to forge unity amongst Fijians under the colonial state (Durutalo, 1997). The rationale and structure of provincial unity assumed a hierarchy, at the apex of which was a paramount chief who dictated to all the rest of the assumed ‘lesser’ chiefs and commoners. This reconstruction of the ‘native’ machinery contradicted the traditional pre-colonial political reality in many independent
172
Vanua within a province, but the colonial government propped up this pre-colonial socio-political formation as a means of socio-political control to govern iTaukei Fijians more efficiently (Ravuvu, 1983, 1988). Throughout Fiji’s colonial period, the provincial system emerged as the cornerstone of ‘indirect rule’ and it encouraged a system of communal patronage through the adoption of various aspects of iTaukei tradition, which were modified by colonial rule (Durutalo, 1997). In its efforts to consolidate the capitalism economy in Fiji, the colonial government applied provincial leadership to govern iTaukei Fijians. In executing effective control and to promote social solidarity, this new approach of ‘government’ produced an amalgamation of traditional roles with new and more powerful roles through a hierarchy of ranks such as the Council of Chiefs, roko tui and the buli. At village, district and provincial level, the positions of authority, be they the Turaga-ni-Koro (village headman), roko tui (provincial executive officer) or buli (District Officer) were initially held by those of chiefly rank thereby reinforcing traditional structures on the ground (Seeto et al., 2002). This gave rise to a more authoritarian system and a strong village culture, now regarded as the ‘tradition’, in which orders filtered through the apex to the base where the iTaukei rural Fijian commoners resided and obedience, with allegiance, uncompromising compliance and unequivocal support, filtered back from the base to the apex (Durutalo, 1997; West, 1961). With the backing of the state, this new mode of ‘government’ has been widely criticised for its limited contribution to the development of iTaukei Fijians (Burns et al., 1960; Cole et al., 1984; Durutalo, 1997; France, 1969; Nayacakalou, 1975; Ratuva, 2013b; Seeto et al., 2002; Spate, 1959). While on the one hand, it ensured the protection of ‘tradition’ and culture and their obligations, on the other, it discouraged the cultivation of entrepreneurship amongst the rural iTaukei (Durutalo, 1997), and it marginalised them from mainstream development through its native regulations that were inimical to their socio-economic progress (Burns et al., 1960; France, 1968; Spate, 1959). It has also been criticised for encouraging a system of oppression and exploitation for the governed iTaukei, maintained partly through communal patronage and partly through the rigid hierarchical and centralised nature of the system that encouraged a competition of power, which has remained exclusive to chiefs (Durutalo, 1997; Ratuva, 2013b). The safeguarding of ‘tradition, culture and custom’, underpinned
173
by the native regulations amidst constant socio-economic change, was also referred to by Dr Nayacakalou as the ‘Fijian Dilemma’ in iTaukei Fijian development and socio- economic participation in society (Nayacakalou, 1975). For more than a century (1874- 1968), Fijian society remained predominantly rural governed by the rhythms of tradition as espoused through native regulations, provincial leadership as a form of indirect rule and dictated by the authoritarian system within the overarching iTaukei Fijian administration. Changes to the nature of the state as documented in preceding sections began to post a threat to the long established traditional order and its hierarchical structure of chiefly authority. By the early 1980s, it was becoming apparent that the creation of the ‘province’, as an institution ‘to protect iTaukei culture and interests’, was weakening and their role was becoming ambiguous. Discussions on the reorganisation of the provincial administration emerged and the Great Council of Chiefs or the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (the apex of the traditional order) began to consider proposals for its reorganisation in 1983. 4.4.2 Fijian provincial administration reorganised following independence in the 1984 and 2000 Reviews Since the reorganisation of the Fijian Administration in 1944, the number of provinces were reduced to the present fourteen, the system of government for iTaukei Fijians rested substantially on Provincial and Tikina (District) Councils and the autonomy of the iTaukei administration outside the central government was strengthened. The Fijian Affairs Board (FAB) now known as the iTaukei Affairs Board comprising the Fijian members of the Legislative Council was also established under the Fijian Affairs Act Cap 120 (PACLII, 1978) to control administrative affairs and make regulations. The Fijian Affairs Act now known as the iTaukei Affairs Act (Fiji Government, 2012) through its provisions oversee and govern the iTaukei Fijian Administration. At its annual meeting in October 1983, the Great Council of Chiefs invited the FAB to implement a review of the iTaukei Fijian Administration. A sub-committee of the FAB met on two occasions to consider the issues that had been raised in the GCC and subsequently invited a review team, led by Rodney Cole from the Pacific Islands Development Program (PIDP) of the East-West Center to prepare a report on issues raised by the GCC (Cole et al., 1984). The ‘Cole Report’, as it now commonly referred to, was confined for the most part to the system of government most appropriate for the iTaukei population living in villages recommending that iTaukei regulations be
174
reviewed and consideration be given to the reintroduction of Fijian Courts as a means of revitalising village life. The iTaukei regulations comprised of structured and institutionalised traditional leadership authority and notions of communalism backed by resolutions and orders formulated at the village and district council level and ratified as by-laws at the provincial and state level. While some recommendations made in the Cole Report were accepted for implementation such as the reviving of traditional authority and the strengthening of some aspects of communalism, the recommendation to reinstate the Fijian courts to bring back discipline and respect in the villages was not considered. Based on the recommendations, the focus of iTaukei governance changed from control to the inclusion of social, economic and political development. The hierarchical nature of the structures within the iTaukei Fijian Administration were strengthened accentuated on centralised authority that reinforced communalism fostered attitudes of reliance and inertia. By the new millennium, good leadership was required at all levels within the system to fulfil the aspirations of iTaukei Fijians and to ensure their good-government and well-being. Unfortunately, in many traditional settings, good leadership was absent and except for the most enterprising who succeeded under this framework, many iTaukei rural Fijians neither had the initiative nor the will to make improvements to their own well-being (Seeto et al., 2002). With the increasing interest and active involvement of iTaukei Fijians in the market economy, the iTaukei Fijian Administration was widely perceived as not having fulfilled “modern day aspirations of the Fijian people” by the new millennium (Seeto et al., 2002, p. 8). There was increasing concern that the structure and systems of the iTaukei Fijian Administration were no longer adequate to address the concerns, needs and interests of iTaukei Fijians at large (ibid). In 2002, the Fiji Government commissioned a review of the whole iTaukei Fijian Administration system. A review team led by PricewaterhouseCoopers (Seeto et al., 2002) was tasked to analyse the effectiveness of the iTaukei administration system, and to subsequently consider any proposed changes to the system. The review report proposed for an overhaul of the organisational structure of the administration, as it was apparent from their findings that the problems and concerns expressed during the review were the same problems and concerns expressed in the 1959 Report of Inquiry, alluded to earlier. The review noted that this was a clear indication that the iTaukei
175
Administration System had not changed significantly and consequently the iTaukei population was generally unhappy with the way in which the administration had been discharging its role. Unlike the Cole Report, whose review consultations were limited to those in political and traditional authority (Cole et al., 1984; Ravuvu, 1988), the 2002 Review was much more comprehensive and consulted a wide representation of stakeholders through a series of workshops and interviews from both the rural and urban areas (see Seeto et al., 2002, p. 4). The public was also invited to make written submissions to the review team. In its efforts to critically evaluate the effectiveness of the administration, the review focussed firstly on defining the current needs, concerns and aspirations of iTaukei Fijians that had evolved because of the changing socio- economic climate. The effectiveness of the system was then assessed against the ability to address the needs and aspirations expressed by participants. The various needs, concerns and aspirations as expressed by participants varied between urban and rural Fijians and varied according to their area or location. 4.4.3 The role of the Provincial Administration in rural development Colonial authorities established the Provincial Administration as an instrument of the state, whose activities included general representation of the authority of the executive at the local level, coordination of state activities in the field, and chairing a number of committees at the local level. During the colonial period, the provincial administration was used to suppress any form of political opposition and thus maintenance of law and order for iTaukei Fijians became its major preoccupation. A Provincial Council, as prescribed in the legislation, can create, pass and implement by-laws, impose penalties for contravening the by-laws and amend schedules to regulations in the iTaukei Affairs Act. In terms of rural development, the role of the Provincial Administration as prescribed in the legislation is to formulate and implement policies for promoting the health, order, welfare and good government of Fijians in the Province and the economic, cultural and social development of the Province. Up until 2006, the Provincial Administration continued to administer this role coupled with its advisory role in the deliberations of the state’s district and development committees. To fulfil the latter, the Provincial Administration filtered requests for development funds concerning their provincial boundaries, assigned development priorities for their respective areas and advised the representatives of the central state on development needs. In addition to this advisory role, the Provincial Administration was expected to assist rural
176
communities in the raising of funds for various development needs that they identified as provincial priorities and to explain to those residing in villages the requirements behind the state’s policies relating to development in the rural sector. Following the 2002 Review of the iTaukei Administration, the establishment of the PDBs in 2010 and the implementation of the IRDF in 2014 as a new approach towards rural development, the role of the reorganised Provincial Administration in national development is now somewhat ambiguous. There seems to be a duplication of roles administered by the Provincial Administration and the newly established PDBs. While legislation now mandates the PDBs as the institution responsible for the roles previously assigned to the Provincial Administration in the development of rural iTaukei Fijians, representatives in the existing Provincial Administration continue to participate in managing development funds for the provinces under the ongoing Development Assistance Scheme that that Ministry of Fijian Affairs oversees. This is despite the evident power shift towards PDBs as administrator for the prioritisation, approval and disbursement of development funds. There now seems to be an overlap in the role of these two separate bodies in administering rural development for iTaukei Fijians. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to critically assess the individual roles of the two bodies and the extent of their contributions towards rural development for iTaukei Fijians. However, it suffices to state that both still play a technical role in the implementation of institutional demands for the rural iTaukei with state resources.
4.5 Multiple governmentalities redefining the rural as an object and a subject of government Rural iTaukei Fijians have lived under three systems of government: isolated tribal communities until 1874, colonial rule from 1874 to 1969, and post-independence under the state from 1970 to date. For the non-iTaukei rural Fijians, they have lived under the latter two. Within the colonial and post-independent period of government, the iTaukei Fijian Administration has also continued to operate as a government regulating controls and policies concerning the daily lives of rural iTaukei Fijians. The latter two systems of government mentioned here has had considerable repercussions for the rural people, examples of which are detailed in the next two chapters. In reflecting on Foucault’s (1982) ‘art of government’, rural development in Fiji can be understood through various regimes of practices, as documented in this chapter, whereby images of the government
177
of the state exercise power over the rural populace, both as citizens and as members of a population. In governing rural citizens, this has encompassed such practices as: the administration structure; integration and coordination of various departments and ministries of state and other agencies, organisations and private sector stakeholders; the design, layout and location of various offices involved in the administering of rural development; policies and regulations concerning the government and well-being of both rural iTaukei and non-iTaukei Fijians; the means for the collection, collation and retrieval of information about the development needs of provinces and settlements; procedures for the filtering of development requests, prioritisation, approval and disbursement of development funds and the use (or lack thereof) of monitoring and evaluation tools to assess implemented projects. To list such conditions of governing not only enables an analysis of the description of the empirical routines of government, but it provides an attempt to understand, in addition, how all these regimes of practices listed above are to be thought. All of these regimes of practices are formed in relation to the specific forms of knowledge and expertise of a variety of authorities or multiple governmentalities referred to in this chapter as the colonial authority, the state apparatus coupled with its multiple actors and the iTaukei Fijian Administration as a government within a government for rural iTaukei Fijians. To understand the problematization of ‘the rural’ in Fiji is to grasp how “the possible field of action of others” (Foucault, 1982, p. 221) is structured through a variety of technics and micropolitics of power or “techne of government” (Dean, 2010, p. 37) in order to constitute authority on governable subjects as documented in this chapter. Significant features of the present-day rural Fiji derive from changes in iTaukei society that have been under the influence of colonialism and capitalism. In this chapter, an exploration of the literature revealed various perspectives problematizing Fiji’s colonial history, which has had lasting consequences in redefining the rural as an object and a subject of government. It has done this through its governing system of ‘native authority’, its institutionalisation of capitalist colonial development that heavily infiltrated rural development in Fiji and its adamant support to the iTaukei Fijian Administration. This is an administration that continues to be funded by the state and is now deeply entrenched in Fiji today. This system of government has shaped iTaukei conduct, now regarded as ‘the norm’, and it has become an essential part of iTaukei Fijian identity. In a system designed to enshrine the promotion of iTaukei culture and
178
heritage, the protection and well-being of rural Fijians, the shaping of human conduct effected by policies and regulations based on this has translated negligibly for the administration of rural development for all Fijians (Durutalo, 1997; Mausio, 2007; Nayacakalou, 1975; Qalo, 1984; Ratuva, 2013a; Spate, 1959). It has also translated negligibly for the emancipatory agency of the governed as presented in the ethnographic study in Chapter Six. Government, in the Foucauldian sense of ‘the conduct of conduct’, entails beneficiaries of whom are governed to be empowered by expertise, and can act through their own capacities for action. However, as Chapter Six shows, the ‘field of possible action’ for the governed is structured by the multiple governmentalities controlling rural development and the empowerment for the rural is accomplished through multiple actors and agencies orchestrating the possible fields of action for the rural.
4.6 Summary It is not the intention of the chapter to delve solely into the precise nature nor the reasons for change, but to trace the evolution of systems of governance over 135 years that largely impinge on rural development efforts in Fiji. Understanding this then enables one to relate to the practical implies of development aid and how it is approved, prioritised, allocated and disbursed for rural development. Given the kind of transition in rural development, as highlighted in this chapter, the current dilemmas facing rural development in Fiji not only comprise of budget constraints and competing development priorities faced by the state, but also echoes Foucault’s account of the welfare-state problem. This concerns what Dean (2010, p. 100) refers to as the “cultivation of the motivation to give.” Instead of questioning the attributes of the rural, their dependency and the culture of poverty problematized and prevalent in their environment, it is crucial to understand the multiple governmentalities involved as illustrated in this chapter, and their ‘will to improve’ as highlighted in the following chapter. This enables the questioning of the “ethical orientation” (p. 100) of those from whom the state seek to raise funds for rural development, such as international development partners, and the motivation of the state itself in prioritising rural development. This discussion is taken up in the next chapter focusing on the role and power of development discourse for rural development in Fiji from a governmentality perspective.
179
Chapter 5 Discourses and practices of rural development in Fiji: a governmentality perspective
The Fiji Government spent approximately FJ$1.73 billion between 2000 and 2012 for rural development programs. Yet 43 per cent of the rural population continues to live below the poverty line. While urban poverty declined significantly from 28 per cent to 19 per cent, rural poverty increased slightly from 40 per cent to 43 per cent (‘Marion’, Project Officer, State Government, Key Informant).
Development programmes focused on rural communities have acquired a major importance in Fiji. As the preceding chapter has shown, they involve a variety of institutional arrangements, programmes and projects that are used as a strategy for accelerating national development. The preceding chapter also shows that the establishment of the rural development administration structure and the organisational processes embedded in rural development planning in Fiji, paralleled legislative, policy and political changes and broader governance trends. With the broad aim to improve the standard of living for people in rural areas, particularly those lacking in economic progress, the objective of rural development is geared towards bridging the rural-urban divide to bring about a more equitable distribution of national development. However, as echoed by ‘Marion’ in her interview (discussed below), rural poverty has continued to increase to about 43 per cent despite the prioritisation of FJ$1.73 billion of state and donor funding for rural development programs since the new millennium. Based on responses from 10 key informant interviews at the state and local government levels, this chapter critically analyses how the act of ‘government’ of rural development takes place and how this is filtered through the RDM of the state. The main assumption is that power of the government-type (in the Foucauldian sense) is embedded in the context of rural development programmes and their administrative practices. It then profiles the emerging discourses inherent in the ideas and practices adopted in the rural development planning and decision-making process. Through this profiling, it reveals how these detached perspectives weaken the ‘country ownership’ that already exists and ultimately impact ‘development’ experiences of rural Fijians highlighted in the limited ethnographic study presented in the next chapter (6). 180
5.1 Policy as technology for putting governmental ambitions into effect The system that has been established by the Fiji government with respect to governing the rural sector in Fiji is complex. The description of the principal features of the system and the organisational aspect of it as described in Chapter Four, continues to be governed in a centralised and hierarchical fashion. The state, as the centralised power codifying laws and regulations and power structures, was predicated primarily on colonial hierarchies (Overton, 1999). It has continued to monopolise important functions and control finances for public spending through its implementation of various policies and programs for development in Fiji. Chapter Four has highlighted a number of policies shaping the governance of rural development. It depicts a system of governance deeply entrenched in colonial policies and the promotion of traditionalism, shaping the ethnic-preference agenda that has predominantly problematized rural development in Fiji. The capacity of the plurality of actors involved to stimulate and channel rural development activity derives largely from the “objectification of policy – that process through which policies acquire a seemingly tangible existence and legitimacy” (Shore & Wright, 1997, p. 5). Policy has become an increasingly central organising principle in contemporary societies, shaping the way we live, act and think. Policy as a form of power, is a key technology of development that shapes ‘conduct’ in modern society and it has: “Increasingly shaped the way individuals construct themselves as subjects. Through policy, the individual is categorized and given such statuses and roles as ‘subject’, ‘citizen’, ‘professional’, ‘national’, ‘criminal’ and ‘deviant’. From the cradle to the grave, people are classified, shaped and ordered according to policies, but they may have little consciousness of or control over the processes at work” (Shore & Wright, 1997, p. 4).
The past three and a half decades of rural development in Fiji has witnessed the ways in which policies are used as an instrument of power for shaping individuals – or to use Foucault’s terminology, as a ‘political technology’ (Foucault, Martin, Gutman, & Hutton, 1988). From the beginning of the colonial period through to Fiji’s inception as a nation-state in 1970, colonial economic development policies guiding capitalist development and Sir Arthur Gordon’s native governance policy have articulated the physical, economic, social and environmental planning of the rural sector and the
181
practices of government evident therein. The influence of policy as ‘political technology’ setting up the terms of references of rural development and enabling dominant discourses of development to materialise (see sections 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4), by setting a political agenda and giving institutional authority to a plurality of actors and overlapping discourses, cannot be underestimated. Policy, as a course of action is “bureaucratized and depoliticized through common sense practices such as planning” (Escobar, 1991, p. 667). Key informant responses highlighted in this section address the second research question of this thesis (see Ch.1, sub-section 1.5.2, p.22). It presents a discussion on how power of the government-type is exercised through policy, knowledge and expertise to ensure that certain (politically desirable) outcomes are more likely to ensue than others. Key informants at the government level clearly described the influence of policy in relation to the scope of governance, direction and planning of rural development. There was consensus that policy mandates the work that is carried out under the banner of rural development. ‘Richard’, a former elected head of government, alluded to his experiences of policy-making and decision-making stating: There is a very strong connection between policies and what is happening on the ground although a strong disconnect seems to exist between people and their understandings of policy. In my view, it seems that policies may not be spelt out properly for people at the operational level in the various ministries to read and understand. Nevertheless, policy definitely has a major role to play in the direction of rural development and budgetary formulations carried out by government every year are directed by policy.
Likewise, ‘Jeremy’, a project officer at the state government level, stressed the importance of policy and the role of policy makers in determining the work carried out within the ambits of rural development. The overall focus of budgetary expenditure or development needs, in ‘Jeremy’s’ view, is “driven by policy at the macro level” and these are “determined by the central agencies, that is, the Ministry of Finance.” However, there was also concern that political influence from political heads in the RDM and the centralised government machinery dictate the terms for the ‘will to improve’, and that the state’s motivation towards rural development is politically driven. For example, one key informant said:
182
In my experience with rural development, the policy direction is driven by political influence. The manifesto of the political party in power drives everything, even though the policy is guiding what we should be doing. The political influence finds its way into influencing everything that happens for rural development. And the role of project officers is to make them appear like they can work…they have to make it work with existing policies even though the influence is coming from outside. That is the biggest risk that the Ministry of Rural Development has. It is rightfully positioned as a connection to the people. If you go to the ground, they will tell you…oh the Commissioner or the District Officer’s office said this. That is all they know. That is their connection to government. News filters very quickly all the way down and politicians are aware of this. Therefore, they use the Ministry a lot when it comes to influencing grassroots (‘Marion’).
‘Richard’ echoed a similar view on this stating that the current government was “using the Provincial Councils as a tool of government to implement their activities.” These sentiments are not exclusive to the key informants above. In fact, responses from a workshop in 2013 held for 32 staff (comprising of senior and junior level officers from both the divisional and district offices and headquarters) of the Ministry of Rural Development also alluded to this. The workshop highlighted that staff were “neither familiar with policies such as the Integrated Rural Development Framework” nor could they “provide the necessary linkage [of policies] to the nature of their work” (Research Planning Unit, 2013, p. 3). Workshop participants also raised that existing policies and systems of government were beyond the influence of the Ministry and that in effect the “Ministry has no control” of these (p. 23). Since 1970, a series of policies devised by the state to support the rural development operations of the state have not changed much. State policy endeavouring to place greater emphasis on economic and employment generation projects as a means to “generate and simultaneously sustain greater economic growth that would in turn influence and assist the development of social amenities and enhance the quality of life of the rural dwellers” remains a priority (Fiji Government, 1987, p. 13; 2014). According to ‘Marion’, many of these policies are “in fact out of date.” Given the subtle power in policy to shape and guide the vision and objectives of rural
183
development, in ‘Marion’s’ view, the outcomes achieved are “often disconnected from what officers of rural development work towards because policy shapes the outcomes and controls the processes at work.” She also alluded to the frequent policy and program reversals or contradictions that have occurred. She pointed out that many initiatives and programs of rural development that are introduced “lack continuity and consideration of the long-term impacts.” In Fiji’s development history, the frequent change of government resulting from political coups have prioritised development goals and the appropriate roles and functions of each level of government based on their own party manifestos and political interests. As a result, many of the policies and programs are driven by a highly politicised and bureaucratically controlled state process. In the case of rural development, ‘Marion’ highlights that the political motivation behind rural development has always been to “control the grassroots” and so policies have only undergone “cosmetic changes.” In her view, policies for rural development continue to be entrenched in ethnic-preference ideologies propped up by a governance structure that has essentially remained unchanged since the colonial period. This structure continues to separate rural development prioritisation and funding based on racial lines. She emphasised that the embrace of the most recent reform known collectively as the ‘integrated rural development framework’ is still influenced by a rural administration structure that is guided by other ‘out of date’ policies that contradict the objectives of the integrated rural development framework. As previously highlighted (Ch.4 sub-section 4.3.5, p.164), the ‘Integrated Rural Development Framework’ (IRDF) was born out of the People’s Charter for Change following the 2006 military coup d’état. The principles and practices of this new reform was already set in motion from 2004 (Ministry of Regional Development, 2003) and principles such as decentralisation, community participation and integration of public and non-public activities were embraced by the state (ministry and government machinery) and local levels (divisional, district, village) (Ministry of Regional Development, 2003, 2006). The evolution of Fiji’s hierarchical and centralised system of rural development governance (as discussed in Ch.4) has been shaped by electoral changes, concern over the new government challenges of strengthening community participation, community capacity building and the effective integration of rural development activities. The effects of these concerns have included incomplete programs and inconsistent policies, departments with discrete rather than integrated functions, and power manoeuvres
184
rather than cooperation and coordination within and between the diverse departments of government. 5.1.1 Integrated Rural Development Framework as a new policy for planning and implementing rural development The National Council for Building a Better Fiji (NCBBF), established in 2007, developed the IRDF. The Council intended to be broadly representative including leaders and representatives from civil society (including religious, youth and community groups) private sector, workers and various political parties (NCBBF, 2008). It was co-chaired by Commodore Bainimarama (the current Prime Minister of Fiji) and by the late Archibishop Petero Mataca, who was the head of the Catholic Church in Fiji (NCBBF, 2008). A significant challenge of the Council was addressing concerns about the highly politicised, centralised and hierarchical RDM and the legacy of ethnic-driven development that was articulated in Fiji’s development agenda since the colonial period (NCBBF, 2008). Under Pillar 7 of the Charter, the NCBBF emphasised on the restructuring of the RDM and a policy shift towards a more integrated rural development approach was favoured. This was in line with the vision of the Bainimarama Government “to build a better Fiji for all” and the Ministry of Rural Development’s mission in “building the integrated rural development framework for productive, progressive, safe and resilient communities” (Fiji Government, 2014, p. 3). Under the IRDF, measures were introduced attempting to engage more with the local level and rural people through increased participatory planning and a consolidation of top-down/bottom-up approach to planning. It also attempted to integrate planning and implementation of rural development programmes across all sectors including agriculture, education, energy, environment, fisheries, forests, health and infrastructure (Fiji Government, 2014). Rather than being interpreted as empowering, and ameliorating peoples’ doubt of a highly bureaucratised and undemocratic governance structure, many of the policies and programs in rural development are still centrally controlled and unresponsive to the will of the rural people. As a result, the objectives of the IRDF, to ensure ownership of programmes by rural people through a bottom-up approach and to enhance the coordination and cooperation of rural development program planning and prioritisation between multi- stakeholders, remains rhetorical. This is a misconception yet to be acknowledged by
185
the plurality of actors involved in the formulation and implementation of rural development programs. It is a view that key informants frequently expressed as well. With its objectives to eliminate ‘double-dipping’ of rural programs through a multi-sectoral approach (Fiji Government, 2014), the IRDF has struggled to streamline rural development activities because of the absence of an integrated and holistic view of the overall situation. For instance, the many aspects of planning involving resource management, infrastructure needs, economic and social development and environmental safeguard, are allocated to diverse government departments and agencies with expertise in different disciplines (‘Marion’ and ‘Russell’, Project leader, State Government, Key Informant). Consequently, issues are dealt with in isolation without considering the interconnections between the functions of the various ministries, their individual programme outcomes and the ramifications of these (‘Marion’). While it is acknowledged that integration is necessary to ensure the streamlining of policies and programs (Fiji Government, 2014), the reality of this is “far-fetched” (‘Marion’). The embrace of the IRDF by the state and multi-stakeholders around Fiji has also brought into question the IRDF objective of improving livelihoods through income generating activities. During the colonial period and the first two decades of independence, crop diversification projects, cooperatives, resettlement and land development schemes (see section 4.2, p.141 in Ch.4) were all rural development programs geared towards generating income for rural dwellers. However, the effects of these included unsustainable programs with disastrous track records (Mausio, 2006; Veitayaki, 2008). These were reinforced by specific policies of government such as the affirmative action policies discussed in Chapter Four and by legislative changes in recent decades (Ratuva, 2013a). The prioritisation of funding for income generating projects by the state through its contemporary strategies of governing rural development via, for instance, the Self-Help Scheme and the foreign aid funded Small Grants Scheme (detailed in Ch.6) have also translated negligibly for rural people. The limited ethnographic study in Chapter Six reveals this. In addition to the challenges of coordination and integration amongst the plurality of actors involved, there is also a third, overlapping, challenge posed by the rural governance structure – that of linking administrative units or organisations, particularly with the separate iTaukei Fijian Administration, previously highlighted in
186
section 4.4 of Chapter Four. Provincial and Advisory Councils have been established by law to provide for “the welfare and the good government” of iTaukei Fijians with the former, and “to meet the development needs and aspirations” of all other Fijians (non-iTaukei) with the latter (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1984, p. 16). Yet, the past six decades has witnessed some contradictory impulses with respect to the hierarchical and centralised structure of these administrative bodies, particularly with the Provincial Councils. As illustrated in Figure 5.1 on page 188, (discussed further in sections 5.3 and 5.4), the RDM is very cumbersome despite efforts to decentralise the processes of rural development since the 1980s (Central Planning Office, 1981). From 1990s-2000s, further centralisation is evident in state action to control areas previously regarded as Divisional jurisdiction, such as various operational duties (prioritising funding, formulation and implementation of projects). In many instances, the state has consolidated their authority over many functions of the organisation at the expense of the local level administrative divisions and of decentralised agencies of the state. In contrast to these centralisation efforts, there are examples of a trend by both the state and local level actors to devolve responsibilities to rural communities. This is evident in the most recent reforming of the decision- making structure to include Provisional and Divisional Development Boards as inclusive bodies, which would enable Provincial, District and Village councils to participate in the administration of rural development. It is also evident in recently delegated responsibilities for administration of specific duties to the Turaga-ni-Koro (village headman) on behalf of the divisional offices (Fiji Government, 2014). Divisional offices in Fiji have a significant governance responsibility in that they manage and coordinate rural development assistance from both government stakeholders, development partners, civil society groups and non-governmental organisations (as already highlighted in Chapter Four). However, their responsibilities articulate with shifting state and national frameworks and priorities in a wide range of portfolio areas. Therefore, the system of rural development governance in Fiji should not only be understood as determined by the policies and practices of the plurality of actors involved at any single level of government. It should also consider the political influence of the state and development partners, beyond their obviously significant role as funding providers, and their use of knowledge and expertise to plan for rural development.
187
5.1.2 Using knowledge and expertise to plan for rural development It is perhaps, reasonable to suppose that knowledge and expertise that have proven their worth in developed countries cannot fail to have something important to contribute to the development of less developed countries. In the last two decades, this basic impulse has been one of the driving forces behind the idea that is “now deeply entrenched in developing as well as donor countries – that the key to successful development is ‘good governance’, [defined to mean] democratic governance and other institutional ‘best practices’ established in market economies” (Booth, 2011a, p. 8).
Itaukei Administration Governance Structure Rural Development Decision Making Machinery: Mainstreaming Rural Development Issues
Pre-2006 Post-2006 M1
President President
M2 SPCO SPCC DCC CABINET P'MENT GCC Cabinet M3 FAB/Minister for Fijian Affairs IAB/ Minister Itaukei DC Mn NATIONAL NGOs PRIV. SECTOR Roko & DO Roko Tui Commissioner Provincial Administrator Buli Assistant Roko Tui 4 ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS DDC2 - DIVISIONAL PROJECTS DIVISIONAL NGOs Turaga ni koro Mata ni Tikina Non-iTaukei Administration Governance Structure CENTRAL Provnicial council Provincial Council Advisory Council EASTERN NORTHERN DDC1 - DISTRICT PROJECTS DISTRICT NGOs Municipal governments WESTERN District Council (Tikina) District Council (Tikina) VILLAGE PROJECTS VILLAGE NGOs Integrated Development Committee
Village Turaga ni Koro Village Settlements Key: M1, M2, M3…Mn - Ministries SPCO - Stratecic Planning and Coordinating Office Yavusa (Kinship Group) SPCC - Strategic Planning and Coordinating Committee DCC - Development Committee of Cabinet NGOs - Non Government Organisations Mataqali (Descent Group) N.B: Under the IRDF PRIV. - PRIVATE SECTOR Divisional Development Boards (DDB) P'MENT - PARLIAMENT Provincial Development Boards (PDB) GCC - Great Council of Chiefs I Tokatoka (Extended family) District Development Boards (DDB) FAB - Fijian Affairs Board Village Development Boards IAB - ITaukei Affairs Board Divisional Commissioners' Office - Secretariat to VDB, DDB, PDB, DDB DC - District Commissioner Secretariat to the Cabinet Sub-Committee i.e. NEDB DO - District Officer National Economic Development Board (NEDB) DDC1 - District Development Committee DDC2 - Divisional Development Committee
Figure 5.1 Rural Development Decision Making-Machinery
Source: Adapted from Daurewa, A. (2013); Fiji Government (2014) and fieldwork notes.
In Fiji, the commitment to decision-making and planning for rural development has been governed by a process involving a relationship between the ‘trustees’ (Li, 2007, p. 4), governors (Dean, 2010) or development experts, advisors and fieldworkers and the
188
‘developed’, or those on the receiving end of development aid and advice. Conceptually, rural governance has undergone reforms requiring an integrated plan with three key characteristics: (1) it should be based on understanding context and sound working knowledge of the rural and its populace; (2) be developed collaboratively by rural inhabitants, but incorporate a whole range of expertise across multi-sectors; and (3) take a documented form that would create ownership and commitment (Fiji Government, 2014). Given the plurality of actors involved in the “gargantuan task of changing, shaping, homogenising, and supposedly, improving the lot of the developed” (Kaufmann, 1997, p. 107), key informants suggested that a ‘shared database’ capturing rural development programs and projects was as vital as a common framework of operation to achieving effective communication and ultimately good governance. This shared database would include specific information on various rural development programs funded and implemented by government ministries, development partners (donors) and non-state actors. There is evidence in the accounts of key informants and in government reports that there were perceived inadequacies with previous planning and prioritisation of rural development. For instance, ‘Marion’ observed: The Ministry was involved in assessing the impacts of water projects and we came across one in the province of Kadavu where bore holes had been identified by water experts as a source of water which they approved as a drinking source for this village we went in to monitor. They also suggested the setup of flush toilets, which were in full use when we arrived in the village. While we were there, the Ministry of Health also came in to carry out their water quality assessments and reported that the water source was not safe to drink from, given that the level of contaminants found in it did not meet the required water quality standards. They also pointed out that the tooth decay and diarrhoea cases evident in the village was a direct consequence of the poor quality of water extracted from these bore holes. Then, the Ministry of Environment officials paid a visit and reported that the construction of flush toilets was damaging the environment and polluting the water supply because the disposal of waste was not considered carefully nor was the location of these toilets, which was obviously polluting the water source. This is a clear example of the lack of coordination amongst diverse government departments and actors
189
and the need for a shared database as everyone is working in ad hoc ways to achieve their end goals without any meaningful consultations carried out with other stakeholders.
A streamlining of functions by diverse government departments to make effective use of the RDM has required attention since the early 1990s and the need for a rural development database was acknowledged (Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs, 1995, p. 11). During the 1990s, a priority here was the setting up of a Rural Development Database to be used not only for development purposes but also for disaster management activities. The purpose of this database was to store details of all rural development projects. These included those implemented by the Ministry of Rural Development, and others, to enable strategic planning and an integrated approach, and to have available an instant source of information to process prioritised development projects, often viewed by some sectors as ‘peoples’ wants and not necessarily their ‘needs’ (Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs, 1995). This issue continues to plague the system in relation to project processes, procedures, controls and prioritisation consequently leading to project delays, re-prioritisation of projects and a wastage of resources (Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development & National Disaster Management, 2014). A recent review of the Ministry of Rural Development’s functions and operation procedures found that there was “lack of a clear auditable trail in reconciling project filings to source systems of record” and practices involving the proper registration of project applications, its prioritisation and implementation varied between divisions (Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development & National Disaster Management, 2014, p. 2). This is reinforced by the absence of a streamlined rural development database where information on projects are efficiently managed and accessible. Consequently, the four divisional offices, to date, have varying information on development projects under the Ministry’s overarching programmes and this makes it difficult to gauge project status, the prioritising of project applications based on demand or requests and the effective monitoring and evaluation of projects (Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development & National Disaster Management, 2014). A major shortcoming identified in the official government planning documents guiding rural development was with the system of knowledge deployment by state and
190
non-state actors. The Eighth Development Plan for instance, noted “development projects are often discouraged because money or advice is not available on the spot and when needed” (Central Planning Office, 1981, p. 17). As a result of this, the strategic direction was aimed at decentralising “to the extent practicable, necessary and desirable, decision-making and budgeting to the Divisional level” (p. 17). This conveys an understanding that knowledge acquisition was an important determinant of the success of rural development. Hence, the administrative changes, budget innovations and criteria to be used for allocating various rural development grants were significant technologies of governing. Based on Fiji’s rural development plans, the various research papers produced that were informing the policy and strategic direction of rural development, and drafts of the most recent Integrated Rural Development Framework (IRDF) itself, have constructed a particular knowledge of the rural in Fiji. This has both shaped, and were shaped by, prevailing discourses and rationalities discussed later in this chapter. The value attached by the key informants to a shared database and the need to have one setup at the earliest highlights that the context and knowledge of the rural in Fiji is contested. An inherent assumption of Fiji’s Development Plans and the current IRDF processes is that the working knowledge and shared database of the rural is enabled by drawing on multiple sources of expertise and integrating these to ensure the effective formulation, coordination and implementation of rural development efforts. However, as illustrated in this description of the rural development planning process from a local government participant this is hardly the case in Fiji. In his representative role as an advisor to the Provincial Council, ‘Russell’ (Project leader, State government, Key Informant) was a member of the technical advisory group giving quantitative and qualitative information on various rural development issues to the National Development Committee (see Figure 5.1, p.188). When meetings convened, questions posed to ‘Russell’ would be answered based on “hard quantitative and qualitative data” that had been collected in his role as a fieldworker engaging with various communities within the Province. However, ‘Russell’ highlighted that the majority of final decisions made on the prioritisation and funding of development projects rested with the political and vanua (traditional) heads and this was largely based on their personal opinions.
191
Other key informants agreed with this view, emphasising the subjective nature of planning for rural development and called the process undemocratic and technocratic. ‘Thomas’, a project officer in the local government level (divisional and district level) alluded to their role in gathering data from the administrative division in which they worked and how this would be presented to various committees with an explanation of how data was gathered. Despite the fact that information was based on evidence with justifications provided on the basis of why one development project should be prioritised over another, in many cases the knowledge presented by these officers only served to formalise the planning and project implementation process and for documentation purposes. The final decisions on what to prioritise and fund rested with the “big guns” present in the council meetings. ‘Thomas’ emphasised how “undemocratic” this was in the sense that the consultation process is only limited to the political will of the most influential persons present in these meetings and emphasised the subjective nature of these consultation processes as decisions are based on their personal biases and opinions and “rarely” on what is being presented. As succinctly stated by him: “To put it very simply, we are just there to validate that development projects are prioritised in a logical manner, even though this is never the case.” Another key informant (‘Charles’), who was an appointed Minister in government during his term alluded to the technocratic processes involved in rural planning, particularly from the late 1950s to early 2000s. In his view, he highlighted the role of technical advisory groups on rural development planning and funding in the late 1950s and 1980s. He pointed out that there was a lot of detailed research conducted to understand context, and policy at the time was largely based on rigorous research often carried out by academics and specialists who were predominantly foreigners. He stated that there was a lot of hard, quantitative data informing various macro level policies designed for rural development in Fiji. In retrospect, however, he acknowledged how many of these technocratic processes did not really include the views of the rural villages and settlements, what they really wanted, their values and aspirations. Many decisions were made from the top and he was a part of those consultation processes. In comparing that to Fiji’s RDM today, ‘Charles’ observed that there has been a “reversal” in that research is no longer a prioritised area in planning for development, and a lot of the decisions made are done on an ‘ad hoc’ basis. He pointed out that handouts are being given to communities to keep them satisfied and in
192
cases where communities are consulted for development projects, their voices are filtered through the highly-centralised governance structure that Fiji has – a structure that has been there from time immemorial. In comparing the type of consultation process evident in the RDM existing in the 1950s to 1980s, and the evolved processes that now exists, ‘Charles’ expressed that Fiji’s current rural development process and the appointment process for development committee members is highly politicised. Whereas back in the 1950s to the 1980s, there was a fairly democratic process where members to the various district, provincial and other national committees were appointed through elections. Charles’s comment suggests that a lot of knowledge was brought in. It denotes that specialist scientific and technical data was recognised as a valuable form of knowledge for rural development planning and was largely possessed by expatriate experts in the establishment. The comments made also allude to the democratic planning and decision-making processes in rural development and how this has been reversed to the current top-down approach that the state operates in. Other key informants (‘Marion & ‘Richard’) agreed with the view that the system was run in a non-political way (with exceptions to it) prior to this government. Presently, the system is constrained by government officials ignoring councils and the fact that councils have little real control over local development. The powers to make decisions and be part of the policy-making process was described as extremely top- down, where under this current government, the members of the various Provincial and Divisional boards and local councils is a political appointment. Therefore, once a list of political appointments is drafted, the government then decides on committee nominees (see Figure 5.1, 188). These appointments are not decided by the people for whom development is targeted, that is, the rural communities. In Fiji’s current RDM, ‘Marion’ highlighted that the membership of those who sit on the consultative committees for rural development defer to centralised decision-making by the state. Development boards are intended to serve as a channel for the councils to enable them to actively participate in the administration of rural development. Their main function is to prioritise proposed projects for allocating funds. However, critiques of the committee system include that they lack “real power” due to government manipulation in decision-making (see Dubsky, 1988, p. 4). This form of manipulation has been undermining the effectiveness of the system of governing rural development
193
in Fiji since its inception (Dubsky, 1988) and continues do so, as pointed out by key informants. This aspect is critically examined further in sub-sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. It is clear that the process of rural development in Fiji is bound up in a relationship of power structures and hierarchies. Drawing on post-structural analyses of aid effectiveness with its focus on aid practices as discourse and ways of exerting power (see section 2.3 of Ch.2, p.60), the plurality of actors involved in Fiji’s rural development process make decisions based on a relationship of “negotiated order between partners” (Hyden, 2008, p. 263). In applying the concepts of power, the consensual tradition of power advocated by Arendt (1970) is evident in Fiji’s RDM, where power does not belong to an individual but is a communal property. The use of power implied here is constructive and identifies with Foucault’s relational conceptualisation of power as positive (or productive) (Foucault, 1982), legitimising and empowering rural development action through the setup of practices and ‘regimes of truth’ that frame the structured fields of action of rural dwellers. In using the analytics of governmentality to critique Fiji’s rural development, the rationale (mechanisms through which governing is accomplished) used to guide the rural development process and planning as ‘inclusive, participatory, and bottom-up’ is some misconception as key informants have illustrated here. Although public deliberation within the system of rural governance serves to broaden particular perspectives through dialogue, which is expected in democratic systems, the discourse of rural development in Fiji is narrowly controlled. Moreover, the knowledge and expertise constructed for rural development planning today is also narrowly controlled, and not constructed by diverse stakeholders as perceived. Consequently, these mechanisms or technologies of governing direct the programmes of rural development or the “planned attempts to reform or transform regimes of practices reorienting them to specific ends” (Dean, 2010, p. 7). They rely upon discursive and practical techniques of discipline and regulation that seek to govern rural individuals and communities with the socio- political objectives of those in authority. This discussion is presented in the next section and key informant responses highlighted here address the third research question of this thesis (see section 1.5.2 of Ch.1, p.22). It describes the discursive practices used by the state and donors that manifests itself in specific norms of conducted which shape and guide the contemporary rural development strategies of ‘self-help’ and the ‘small grants scheme’ discussed in the next chapter (6).
194
5.2 Concepts of development A salient feature of the interviews at the government level, was the language key informants employed. The various positions of the ‘trustees’, ‘governors’ or ‘developers’ were reflected in their use of different discourses, as demonstrated by extracts in the ensuing sub-sections. Words such as ‘sustainable’, ‘empowering’, ‘enabling’, ‘choice’, ‘participatory’ reflect the dominant development paradigm operating between the late 1970s to early 1990s (Kaufmann, 1997). This discourse contrasts strikingly with reference to the development paradigm of the late 1990s and into the new millennium which predominantly focus on standards of living, measures of aid effectiveness and economic growth, poverty reduction measures, millennium development goal and sustainable development goal indicators, more often used by high-level government officials, development partners and economists. The choice of words used by key informants at the operational level of government (i.e. project officers at ministry, divisional and district level) as opposed to the choice of words used by key informants who were previously high-level government officials reflects not only different ideological positions, but also different goals. Goals and courses of action (i.e. policy and projects) are defined based on an institution’s understanding and definition of what constitutes a problem and its resolution (Kaufmann, 1997). These practices are “issues of power…invented by institutions as part of an apparently rational process that is fundamentally political in nature” (Wood, 1985 in Escobar, 1991, p. 667). Chapter One (see section 1.3) and Chapter Two (see section 2.2) outlined that the field of development has sustained critiques and debates about the dominance of a particular ideology (for example, modernisation, neoliberal), the exclusion of certain groups of people from development projects and the processes and procedures of development (for example, top-down, bottom-up, integrated, grassroots, participatory, decentralisation, sustainable). Chapter Two also highlights the decadal transitions in development and how many of the development alternatives (for example, participatory and sustainable development) were quickly absorbed into the mainstream. It shows how “development is at best a dialogue [and] at worst the imposition of a set of (‘our’) processes and beliefs on the ‘other’ ” (Kaufmann, 1997, p. 107). The next two sub- sections reveal a set of discourses that are embedded in the strategies of rural
195
development. It is argued that rural development in Fiji, as it is currently practiced, is largely determined and constrained by views of development that conform closely to mainstream models in the field of development. The rural development discourse evident in Fiji constitutes a framework characterised by networks/relationships between the trustees/governors/developers and the developed: in other words rural development is what they define it as (Wood, 1985). It rests in a “western-centred system of knowledge and power [recycled] in the name of post-1960s notions of sensitivity to the grassroots, local culture, and the like” (Escobar, 1991, p. 660). 5.2.1 The rhetoric – sustainable development The embrace of key elements of alternative development and practices by developing countries such as ‘sustainable development’ has had a major impact on redefining the goals of development (Kothari & Minogue, 2002; Pieterse, 1998). As Chapter One indicated, the revival of interest in social and human dimensions of development from the mid-1990s onwards entailed a changed approach towards development aid practice. Aid institutions have since drawn explicitly from a set of principles enshrined in notions of sustainable development (Raco, 2005). Consistent with this, the vision of the Ministry of Rural Development in the 1990s to the early 2000s, for example, was seen as moving beyond infrastructure priorities only. It was becoming involved in the empowerment of rural people through the development process to better meet their socio-economic needs through its promotion of self-sufficiency, sustainability and appropriate technology (Ministry of Regional Development, 2003, p. 7; Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs, 2000, p. 1). The principles and practices of this approach to development were popularised in the early 1990s by post- development ideas and has become institutionalised as part of mainstream development in Fiji. By 2014, the Ministry of Rural Development’s mission had expanded from “championing the sustainable socio-economic development of rural communities through the Integrated Rural Development Framework” (Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development & National Disaster Management, 2014, p. 1). A series of modifications have been made to mainstream policies of the state in an effort to overcome past shortcomings and to meet changing perceptions and priorities, however, rural development programmes designed since Fiji’s independence have remained unchanged (see section 4.3.1 of Ch.4). ‘Marion’ stressed that a lot of the rural
196
development programs designed in the 1960s still exist today. In her view, there have only been cosmetic changes to the programs, but their purposes remain the same. She alluded to an example of the rural housing programme that was established as the hurricane relief programme in the early days of rural development in Fiji. While the name has now changed to the former, the purpose and what it was designed for, that is, assisting rural areas with damaged homes remains. According to her, many rural development programmes in Fiji resemble cosmetic changes only and “it’s almost like we have the old, but we are just patching on the new stuff without really understanding the purpose of what was the old, this was the reason for it, do we still need it or not…we have just been building on the old.” According to key informants, the achievement of sustainable development for the rural in Fiji is assumed to be positively correlated to economic growth via income- generating activities (‘Thomas’), their ‘empowerment’ by allowing them to identify and prioritise their development needs (‘Timothy’, Project Officer, Local Government, Key Informant) and the creation of an ‘enabling’ environment to be self-sufficient through contemporary strategies of governing such as the Self-Help Scheme (‘Russell’ and ‘William’, Local Government Leader, Key Informant). This has not always been borne out and there is no automatic causal link amongst these given the increasing challenges of rural development such as poor livelihood opportunities, isolation and lack of access to services and markets, lack of rural community participation in identifying and prioritising their own development needs and the reduction of an economically active population present in the rural areas (Ministry for National Planning, 2009; Research Planning Unit, 2013). Sustainable development has been co- opted onto Fiji’s rural development agenda and this process of conscription of an alternative development practice is accompanied by a watering down of rural development challenges and political commentary that has constructed a discourse co- opted into the mainstream (Kothari & Minogue, 2002). This point was illustrated by ‘Marion’ on the appropriateness of rural development practices in effectively addressing the international objective of poverty reduction: If we go back to the basics, survival stuff, you find that this is a pressing problem in Fiji. We still have communities that don’t have access to clean water. Even food security is an issue in a country where we have vast amounts of land and great climatic conditions for agriculture. Even shelter is an issue
197
even though many of our communities live in a communal setting. A lot of our initiatives, we are trying to copy what is done overseas, but whether it will work for us is another question. There is also the move to do income-generating projects, and again are we ready for entrepreneurship in our rural villages. You know these are some of the practices that are used overseas to bring about socio-economic development and it has worked there. But in our context, does it work? Understanding context is key. I have seen a lot of development initiatives that have come modelled on alternative practices of development and they have failed over and over. They are good initiatives, but understanding context is key and whether it will work in our context is a challenge. And I can’t recall whether there are any true success stories for rural development in Fiji for what has worked. You know ones that really stand out and we can replicate in other parts of Fiji. I really can’t think of any. The basic stuff still need to be addressed before we go on to the next level of development.
Marion’s view brings out the tensions between development theory and practice in general, and specifically between the dominance of the neoliberal paradigm (with the emphasis on income-generating projects, economic growth etc.), and the achievement of social progress and poverty reduction. Her comment demonstrates the failure of rural development programmes in delivering sustainable development and in effectively addressing development issues, especially basic human welfare. 5.2.2 Social development In section 4.3 of Chapter Four, the conception of rural development as the state perceives it is rooted in narrowing the disparity between the urban and rural areas. Economic-oriented growth looms large as a key target for rural development outcomes and interventions. State policies, development partner goals and the state’s focus on economic growth and development corresponded to this from the 1970s to 1990s (see section 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.3.3 in Ch.4). During this period, the integration of economic development with social change in rural areas was acknowledged (Fiji Government, 1987; Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1980; Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs, 1995). However, the growing inequalities, the negligible development apparent within rural communities (Veitayaki, 2008) and the evident failure of the paradigm of progress, together with the realisation that the social
198
implications of economic policies were not necessarily beneficial led to a gradual re- evaluation of policy and practice. By the mid-1990s, policy strategies for rural development were not only geared towards supporting private investment efforts and providing infrastructure that increased accessibility, especially for commercial initiatives. It was also emphasising on “social development through its own system and [to] facilitate the efforts of others (both government and non-government) in rural development, and encourage and implement the participation of rural people in rural projects and allow them to participate in the government’s overall development efforts” (Department of Regional Development, 1999, p. 3). During the 1990s, the term social development was no longer conceived as a “welfarist conception of social policy for basic needs” but evolved to include “three related aspects of development and practice” (Green, 2002, p. 52). These include the planning of development outcomes prioritising social impacts, especially through the social sectors of health and education. The second was the use of knowledge and expertise to inform development policy, planning and implementation across all sectors. The third was the progression of social development as an interdisciplinary academic discipline that critically examines development processes to better understand development practice (Green, 2002). In Fiji, the starting point for a socially aware approach to rural development began in the mid-1990s as previously mentioned but as a practice it only materialised in the early 2000s (see sub-section 4.3.4 in Ch.4). This emerged from the recognition that integrated development across all sectors was necessary to achieve socio-economic development and that interventions had to be targeted specifically at the rurally disadvantaged. State priority for rural development in the 2000s was perceived as follows: When I was in government, the way we looked at it…priority was on infrastructure – the roading, hospitals, schools, water supply, electricity schemes and all that. And of course, the rest was really aimed at improving the living standards of people which means we had to look for income generating projects. You identify the needs and basically, they are the same. You want to have a good roof over your head, you want to have something for the stomach, you send your children to school, you have a good hospital close by and that is basically the needs of the people. On the basis of those needs were our government policies often formulated and implemented (‘Richard’).
199
In the 2000s, the perception of rural development as an integrated development practice characterised by aspects of social development across all sectors was also ambiguous. Given the state’s vision of: “One Nation, One Standard”, its mission of providing rural Fiji with “equal opportunity, equal access to infrastructure and services through: leading change, partnerships, community empowerment and increased service delivery initiatives”, and the State’s objective of “equal opportunities for all” (Ministry of Regional Development, 2005, p. 7; 2006, p. 4), the reality of rural interventions to alleviate poverty and to narrow the gap of rural- urban disparity were exclusive to a specific group of people. Instead of involving all rurally disadvantaged communities in this integrated development practice, social development as a development input was narrowly defined to predominantly cater for poverty and marginality of a specific group, that is, the iTaukei Fijians. The Ministry of Rural Development’s Strategic Plan 2003-2005 (see sub-section 4.3.4 of Ch.4) centred on this with its objectives to provide basic amenities, and promote socio-economic projects, particularly through the implementation of rural-targeted affirmative action projects that would not make iTaukei Fijians poorer and more disadvantaged as a result of their engagement with the rural development process. As ‘Elijah’ (Appointed Minister, State Government, Key Informant) pointed out, the hardships and vulnerabilities faced by the rural communities in iTaukei villages on the mainland and outer islands was a direct consequence of rural development programmes that did not focus on addressing basic needs that would improve their standards of living in the long run. During his term in office, the Ministry of Rural Development conceived a ‘new approach where people came first’. In addition to the coordination and implementation of capital projects that addressed basic needs, ‘Elijah’ stated that the Ministry of Rural Development also focussed on community capacity building as an integral part of rural development. In line with the categorisation of social development alluded to earlier as a ‘welfarist conception of social policy for basic needs’, rural-targeted affirmative action projects prioritised poverty alleviation specifically for iTaukei Fijians. This was based on the argument that they were predominantly rural and had to “catch-up” to the other
200
ethnic groups as claimed by ‘Richard’. The initial focus on rural-targeted affirmative action policies throughout Fiji’s colonial period and post-independence highlighted in sub-section 4.3.4 of Chapter Four, encouraged an emphasis on rural development strategies along ethnic lines. Subsequently, the state’s development priorities rested on this from the late 1980s to 2006. As part of the rural-targeted affirmative action policies, participation for rural iTaukei Fijians in their own economic development and in the wider market economy were divided into three categories from 2000 to 2006. According to ‘Richard’, the first category was at the grassroots level and included small businessman and women, market vendors, and small-scale farmers and fishermen. The second category involved provincial level development where provinces were encouraged to form provincial companies. As pointed out by ‘Richard’, this gave provinces an opportunity to invest in office accommodation as the government was granting them “fairly long-term leases.” Examples of these as cited by him include the Ro Lalabalavu House, Kadavu House, Rogorogoivuda House for the people of Ba in Lautoka, Macuata House in Labasa, Namosi House and a few others for provinces that came forward. ‘Richard’ emphasised that the idea behind this affirmative action initiative was targeted at encouraging and promoting provinces to invest in land and buildings to earn income and “then grow from that.” During his official visits to provinces, he advised provinces “to try and build up as much capital as they could, buy assets that grow in value and then later on, go into risky ventures.” The third category was at the national level and involved the establishment of various industries focussed on iTaukei Fijian participation in the economic sector. This category had its roots in the Nine-Point Plans and Ten-Point Plan for Fijian Participation in Business mentioned in sub-section 4.3.4 of Chapter 4 (p.162). These were the state blueprints guiding iTaukei participation in entrepreneurship and the formal economy from the late 1980s to 2006. According to ‘Richard’, the goal of these policies was not only to assist and increase the participation of iTaukei Fijians in other sectors, but also to ensure that iTaukei Fijians acquired assets that could be invested in other sectors; he elaborated: If you look at [iTaukei] Fijian participation, there is no iTaukei industry in the communication industry, none in the telecommunication industry or electronics. ITaukei participation is in TV because this was setup back in the 1990s and it was ensured that 51% was for the iTaukei. That’s how Fiji TV Ltd is owned by
201
the iTaukei. There are no iTaukei Fijian businesses in the finance sector. ITaukei Fijians don’t have a bank nor insurance companies or hire purchase companies. Not one owned by an iTaukei. So, the idea was to setup a Fijian holding company to look after a certain area of the economy, like there is now in Fijian Holdings Limited and it has subsidiaries in tourism, properties and the cement industry. The finance sector is so huge (insurance, hire purchase etc.) but iTaukei Fijians don’t have a cent in those industries. The other thing was to get into agriculture and forestry in a big way where the iTaukei can own another holding company and then setup a similar one to Fijian Holdings Limited. But that’s all changed now. I hope that another government that comes in can continue that but Fijian Holdings has been a great success. But I have my doubt now given the current CEO who is linked to the elites in government. Anyway, that is the idea our government was developing. There is nothing in writing…no documentation of this thinking. The only document was the report that was written concerning the setup of FHL and this was presented to the Fijian Affairs Board. No one bothered about it at the time. That was before the coup and after the coup everybody jumped. The report was resurrected and that was the basis of the paper that went to Cabinet for the grant of FJ$20million to fund Fijian Holdings Limited. At the same time, there was a group of us, the Fijian Initiative Group, we called ourselves that, because we were concerned about the problems facing iTaukei Fijians, and we formulated the Nine-Point Plans. So, one of the points was the setup of Fijian Holdings. I can’t remember what the other 8 were, but they were all focussed on Fijian participation in the economic sector.
‘Richard’s’ description of rural-targeted affirmative action policies reinforces the ethnic-preference problematization of rural development mentioned in Chapter Four. “The old paradigm re-dresses itself, but does not change” (Kaufmann, 1997, p. 128). These policies have been there since the colonial period and are rooted in the institutionalisation of ‘native authority’ and capitalist colonial development espoused as ‘technics’ to protect the well-being and governance of rural iTaukei Fijians. The dominant ideology of the economic-growth model and the neoliberal paradigm is still operationalised. The sustainable and social development alternatives are guided by
202
policies that owe most to a host of political and economic criteria and agendas that have little to do with development.
5.3 Discourses of participatory action: contrasting actors and technologies An important argument against continuing the practice of top-down development planning and action is the “growing recognition by professionals of the obvious fact that rural people [are] themselves, knowledgeable on many subjects that [touch] their lives” (Chambers, 1992, p. 4). Most strongly developed by Rapid Rural Appraisal and Participatory Rural Appraisal practitioners, the participatory approach aims “to enable rural people to do their own investigations, to share their knowledge and teach us, to do the analysis and presentations, to plan and to own the outcome” (p. 5). The participatory approach developed rapidly in the early 1990s and draws on several traditions including the community development approach of the 50s and 60s (Chambers, 2014), highlighted in Chapter Two. This section presents a discussion on how the act of government is filtered through the state’s RDM and specifically addresses the fourth research question of this thesis (see section 1.5.2 of Ch.1, p.22). In Fiji, it is perceived that ‘participatory action’ has always been central to the administration of rural development and numerous government reports have emphasised on participatory approaches (Fiji Government, 1969, p. 342; 2014; Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1980, p. 1; 1983, p. 10; 1984, p. 16; Ministry of Rural Development, 1987a; 1987b, p. 10; Ministry of Rural Development & Rural Housing, 1992, p. 16). The thinking on rural development portrayed a construct founded on a modernist approach, where development would bridge the rural-urban gap and advance the rural people to become like their urban counterparts. It also problematized the rural as a ‘subject’ requiring ‘government’ via the strategy of rural development in order to shape their conduct and structure their field of possible actions in contributing to Fiji’s development. The part that they would play in the development process involved a ‘fixed package’, or technology of governing guided by economic principles. This is evident in the ‘move away from purely social projects to more economic-oriented projects’ in the self-help programme from 1970 to 1979, and the ‘ready acceptance of Aid Donors to support those projects that will generate income to the rural people in the future’ (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1980, p. 12). It was also noted that the Ministry supported “this move away from
203
purely social projects in the interest of accelerating economic growth and employment opportunities in rural areas” (p. 12). From a policy perspective, one could argue that Fiji’s rural development programme has always encouraged the inclusion of rural people as drivers of their own development process. On the contrary, the deployment of rural development interventions by the state has become technical or what Li (2007, p. 7) has termed ‘rendering technical’ given its attachment to calculated programs for its realisation. Based on the state’s objectives of rural development to stimulate rural communities to seek their own improvements and to involve them more closely in the design and delivery of projects (see section 4.2 of Ch.4), participatory relations are governed by calculated interventions, which do not simply involve rural people and the state. They incorporate a whole range of other actors and “multiform tactics” (Foucault, 1982, p. 95) that require “the right manner be defined, distinct finalities prioritised, and tactics finely tuned to achieve optimal results” (Li, 2007, p. 6). For Fiji’s rural development programme, the ‘right manner to be defined’ is the mobilisation of state and foreign aid resources to meet the specific objectives of rural development as defined by the state and to ensure the delivery of ‘finalities’ or specific programs and projects that would create favourable conditions for development. These would then be achieved through integrated measures, which have as their purpose the improvement of the productive capacity and standard of living of rural dwellers. It was also envisioned, that the integrated measures would then be achieved through “a framework of consultation and cooperation on development matters among all people living in rural areas” in the absence of a comprehensive form of rural local government (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1980, p. 1). With a focus on the governance of rural development and the rural development administrative structure, the conception was that the basic structure involved rural people in the planning and implementation of rural development (Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1983). It touted that participatory action would be enabled through the structure and that collective-decision making of a deliberative and liberal democratic nature would take place. However, as the next two sub-sections demonstrate, this has merely been rhetoric. They are, instead, discursive practices rendering the rural as governable subjects, whose conduct is consistent with the broader socio-political
204
objectives of neoliberalism bound up in Fiji’s development process as later revealed in Chapter Six. 5.3.1 The rhetoric – deliberative democracy In 1986, a comprehensive study on the administration of rural development in Fiji (the first and only study of its kind) identified the prevailing practices and problems in the administration of rural programmes (Dubsky, 1988). The study identified the principal administrative and decision-making structures characterising the rural development programme, the role of popularly-elected councils and the mechanisms for processing projects such as aspects of coordination, funding and other procedural activities involved in the programme. Findings in the study indicated that political neutrality, generally, prevailed in the system and attempts at manipulating rural people were denied. It was noted that elective councils provided a “participatory input” (p. 2) in the system, although it did not involve a form of popular decision making, which the system should follow. Criticisms of the system evident in the study also pointed to the perceived democratisation of the system, which was absent in practice given the complexity of the system and top-down organisation structure, as illustrated earlier in Figure 5.1. Beyond its normative benefits, deliberative democracy had instrumental benefits that helped in the governance of Fiji’s rural development programme from 1970 to 1985. According to Dubsky (1988), deliberative democracy was periodically given prominence and it distinguished rural programmes from those of other government departments. However, he also noted that deliberative democracy during that period was lacking in many respects, where too little time was allowed for people to discuss their problems or actions were taken without consulting them. He also noted that on the part of the people, an attitude conducive to participation was lacking, particularly for cultural reasons. In addition to this, there was also a perception that participation with the government was not advantageous to rural people “because of excessive costs to themselves or for other reasons” (p. 7). His findings also indicated a wrong perception amongst actors of the role they had in the system where villagers did not consult the various councils on projects they were undertaking, and on their part, councillors failed to go down to the villagers to monitor projects or to investigate their concerns. In this regard, councillors were deemed as “not doing their job” (Dubsky, 1988, p. 7). These
205
criticisms are still evident in the RDM today, as key informants pointed out and are still embedded in the practices of rural development carried out by relevant actors. Deliberative democracy is concerned with improved collective decision-making and is based on the principle that governance should be inclusive, deliberative and consequential (Niemeyer, 2013). This means that mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that anyone affected by collective decisions should be able to influence the outcome of decisions made through a process of reason and reflection (Santos, 2012). It emphasises the rights of individuals or their representatives to have an opportunity to participate in consequential decision-making (Santos, 2012). As noted earlier, the participatory element and collective decision to participate has been present in dealing with self-help projects (see Ch.4 and Ch.6), in which rural people are directly involved, or have some influence in ‘consequential deliberation’ about decisions made. Other than this, there is a deficit of deliberative democratic principles in practice in the administration of rural development. In Chapter Four (see sub-sections 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3), it highlighted that the scope of governing for rural development is institutionalised and shaped by three ‘agents of territorialization’ or multiple governmentalities. These are the colonial administration, the iTaukei administration and the state as the central authority overseeing the deliberation of the rural development program. Consequently, there have been two systems of government in place: the ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ (or democratic). Since the Cession of Fiji to Great Britain in 1874, the ‘traditional’ system of government established to serve the iTaukei Fijian people, has undergone a series of major reviews and changes in its form and structure (Cole et al., 1984). However, the ‘top-down’ organisation and collective management of affairs through both the ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ (or democratic) systems of government remains unchanged. The modifications to the organisation and functions of the various actors involved in the RDM and how these determine the exercise of human agency are detailed in the sections that follow. This is to demonstrate that change, undertaken in a progressive manner towards a decentralised system and a localised government machinery embodying ‘democratic’ principles, continue to conflict with the hierarchical management structure existing since independence.
206
5.3.2 Liberal democracy For a system of government to be considered democratic, not only does it involve the rule of the people, but it must also be constitutional or liberal. The exercise of democracy only becomes liberal when a successful balance between ‘majority rule’ and the protection of ‘individual and minority rights’ is maintained (Plattner, 2010). The relationship between the two components is a complex one and “they can and have been separated, not only in theory but in practice” (p. 84). Historically, as Plattner (2010, p. 84) has also written, “Premodern democratic city-states were not liberal (in the sense of protecting individual rights) and did not aspire to be. Some European constitutional monarchies were relatively liberal even if not democratic. Hong Kong under British colonial rule was exceedingly liberal even though its residents had very little voice in how they were governed. Yet in today’s world, majority rule and the protection of individual rights almost always appear in tandem.”
It has been remarked that the word ‘democracy’ possesses a dual character with two separate and sometimes competing goals (Plattner, 2010). For while it seeks to ensure the ultimate sovereignty of the people, at the same time it limits the day-to-day rule of the majority so that it does not infringe upon the rights of individuals or minorities. If it is any standard to go by that liberal democracy should maintain a successful balance between these goals, this balance should reflect a cooperation amongst the plurality of actors involved. Fiji under British colonial rule was relatively liberal even if not democratic. While the framework for the control of iTaukei Fijians closely followed the principle of ‘indirect rule’ by the colonial government as highlighted in Chapter Four, the system of government is deemed relatively liberal. For although on the one hand, the iTaukei Fijian people had very little voice in how they were governed, but on the other, through an indigenously-based leadership hierarchy that is the Great Council of Chiefs (see Figure 1), chiefs in their role as traditional leaders were the frontline administrators and medium through which colonial administrators exercised agency to support the chiefly control of village manpower and ultimately the control of iTaukei Fijian Affairs. The Colonial Government exercised agency through ‘native policy’ to ensure as far as possible that Fijians were governed in accordance with their ancient customs and traditions (Baledrokadroka, 2003) but this system of government as
207
mentioned in the previous chapter was also adapted to suit the demands and aspirations of the Colonial Government (Ravuvu, 1988). This ‘control framework’ was vested in the rural development governance framework guiding the organisation and administration of all rural development programmes and this has remained unchanged. Key informants have remarked that the word ‘democratic’ has been absent in the organisation and administration of the RDM since its inception in 1969. Even though proponents of the current structure in Figure 5.1 converge on the opinion that the structure is relatively liberal in allowing rural communities to ‘participate’ in decision- making at the village and settlement level, a distinction commonly made, as noted by key informants, is between participation as a means to accomplish a project more efficiently, effectively or cheaply, and participation as an end where the community or group sets up a process to control its own development. As McGee (2002, p. 104) differentiates, “a refinement of the means/end dichotomy is the distinction between participation for instrumental purposes and participation for transformative purposes, whereby getting people to buy into a donor’s project (to share the costs and ensure commitment and project sustainability) is instrumentalist, and facilitating people to decide on their own priorities is transformative.”
As illustrated in Figure 5.1, participation in rural development is instrumentalist. Project initiation, consideration and prioritisation of projects within Fiji’s rural development programme filters through various actors who act as screening agencies. While there have been some attempts at revising the form and structure of the machinery, the essential elements still remain. For example, rural communities in iTaukei villages exercise their agency through their village council and Turaga-ni-Koro while non- iTaukei communities in settlements exercise agency through their Integrated Development Committees if they have one or directly through their Advisory Councils. Their ‘participation’ is only limited to project initiation but the consideration and prioritisation of projects rests with other actors in the hierarchy. In this instance, the structure is then perceived as being relatively liberal and democratic in considering their ‘participation’ through information-sharing whereby they propose the types of rural projects that they would like considered. On the other hand, it is not democratic as the decision-making and control of action is still extremely top-down with the role of actors
208
as screening agencies as illustrated in Figure 5.1. This point is discussed further in section 5.4. The guiding principle of Fiji’s RDM has been to develop the socio-economic outlook of the governed through institutions well recognised and having roots in the people (that is, the iTaukei Fijian Administration and the Advisory Councils) to play an ever-increasing part in the rural development of rural dwellers in Fiji. To translate the success of rural development into practice, it is hoped that the integration of these institutions with the central state machinery would then achieve the end of ‘putting the rural dwellers in the driver’s seat’ to control their own development; and this would echo the principles of ‘empowerment’ and ‘participation’ central to the development discourse. It then portrays the system of government not only as a democratically liberal entity, but also one that is socially democratic. However, the limitations of ‘participation’ evident in the structure are appropriated by the elite and articulated at the top-end of the continuum in Figure 5.1 and exclude those at the bottom-end. The fact that participation equates to representation has implications for the quality of Fiji’s rural development programme both at the community level and the national level. More significantly, participatory action and development at the community level is built into the local structures of political representation and processes, as evident in Figure 5.1. This fosters the creation of an aggrandisement of the structures ‘democratic’ principles that are ‘inclusive, participatory, and bottom-up’ as essential elements of good governance. It also politicises development interventions, undermines the point of having popularly-elected members within the various bodies in the RDM as well as undermining social cohesion.
5.4 Discourses of participatory planning: the agency of experts Any attempt to highlight how the subjects of rural development retain a capacity to translate or transform power according to their will would be incomplete without discussing the human agency that exists among those who are the instruments of participatory planning in the RDM. In Figure 5.1, the local village, district, provincial and advisory councils, the Ministry of Fijian Affairs, the Office of the Divisional Commissioners, the Ministry of Rural Development and other relevant ministries involved in the integrated nature of rural development, the development partners (aid donors), NGOs, the private sector, the Provincial and Divisional Development Boards
209
and the National Economic Development Board are the categorised experts who are responsible for the conduct of conduct at the local level. In focusing upon the networks of power enmeshed in Fiji’s development programme, it becomes a necessity to problematize discourses of planning as a mentality of rule that shapes the way subjects select courses of action for their socio-economic development. This is exercised through the mode of governing ‘at a distance’ done via implementation of a range of discursive and practical mechanisms which seek to align the attitudes and behaviours of rural people with the socio-political objectives of the state (Rose & Miller, 1992). In Fiji, as in many other developing nations modelling socio-economic development based on development blueprints of advanced economies, many of these mechanisms echo modernist and neoliberal policies of personal responsibility, competition, efficiency and reduced assistance on one hand, while attempting to be ‘inclusive’, ‘participatory’ and ‘transformative’ on the other. This section will further explore the ways in which contemporary discourses of planning provide the state with the means to govern rural development initiatives despite the state’s apparent preference for a ‘hands-off’ and ‘decentralised’ approach. The focus is to examine the discursive planning machinery through which rural development objectives are pursued, and the political rationalities that justify certain courses of action over others. By and large, “the act of governing that takes place through certain discursive, regulatory mechanisms construct notions of how rural people should think and behave” (Cheshire, 2006, p. 57). Rather than see them simply as rhetoric, these discourses have practical implications and can be understood as discursive practices (Foucault, 1990). According to Clegg (1997), these practices not only constitute knowledge in text, but in definite institutional and organisational practices. Consistent with the problematizing of governance presented earlier in Chapter Four, attention is paid here to the ways in which planning is diagnosed by experts to normalise dominant ways of thinking about and planning for rural development in Fiji. 5.4.1 Participatory planning as discursive practice In the administration and planning of Fiji’s rural development programme, the political dimensions of the RDM cannot be disregarded because of the great importance of the programme to the iTaukei Fijian community. During most of its existence, the programme was under the umbrella of Fijian Affairs (as one of the department of the Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development), as shown in the ‘Pre-2006’ structure
210
of the iTaukei Fijian Administration in Figure 1. This setup was partly justified by the argument that the overwhelming majority of iTaukei Fijians live in villages (Dubsky, 1988, p.11). For the same reason, the present relative separation of the administration of rural development of iTaukei Fijian affairs from non-iTaukei Fijian affairs continues to be justified on this basis (Marion). In efforts to engage participation at the local level, the mainstreaming of rural development issues in the RDM assumes that the establishment of the IRDF, as an effective mechanism for integration, will “achieve the desired synergy” that has yet to be borne out in practice in Fiji’s rural development programme (Fiji Government, 2014, p. 9). As earlier highlighted in sub-section 5.1.1, this framework calls for the institutionalisation of rural development programmes at the local level whereby the coordination of efforts at various levels, the functions at each level and how the integration of roles at each sphere of government will be accomplished, is clearly defined. Through this integrated rural development concept, it is then assumed that “a bottom up approach to planning and project implementation in the rural communities using the village, settlement and tikina (district) hierarchical setup” will be created (Fiji Government, 2014, p. 10). This will then be led by the Office of the Divisional Commissioners given that the primary locus of integration is at the divisional levels (see Chapter Four). Under the IRDF, it is also assumed that the formation of the Divisional, Provincial, District and Village Development Boards will create space for consensual decision-making whereby each committee will meet twice a year to deliberate on the priorities for development submitted from each administrative division at the beginning of the year and set the development direction for the respective divisions at the end of the year. Through these boards, members can exercise their agency based on the devolution of decision-making powers at these levels. This is based on the presupposition that these consultative mechanisms will engage participatory input and decision-making systems of traditional villages, tikina or district and provincial structures as well as the rural advisory authority and the municipal governments by involving them in the evaluation and selection of development priorities, the formulation and implementation of development strategic plans and the implementation and monitoring of national development programs. For example, at the Divisional Development Board (DDB) level, divisional heads from various ministries and elected representatives from the private sector, the municipal government and non-government
211
organisations will deliberate on development priorities that have been screened and recommended by the Provincial Development Boards (PDB). At the PDB level, the deliberation of development priorities is overseen by the Commissioner’s office and assisted by the Roko Tui (executive heads of each provincial council) and the Provincial Administrator. Other members in the PDB include district advisory councillors overseeing non-indigenous affairs, and representatives of the municipal government, tikina (district) spokesperson and youth and women representatives from a province. At the District Development Board level, the roles and responsibilities are like that of the PDB but are at the district level. At this level, the District Officer oversees the deliberation of priorities and membership is comprised of advisory councillors, the Turaga-ni-Koro, mata ni tikina (district spokesperson) and government departmental representatives working in a district. Finally, at the village level, the Village Development Board (VDB) is a forum open to all members of a village and the deliberation of priorities determined at this level is chaired by the Roko Tui and assisted by the Turaga-ni-Koro. It is expected that through these actors at the local level, space will be created and opened for consensual decision-making and that through these participatory alternatives, these local actors will gain ground and be directly involved in budgeting, policy dialogue, planning, project implementation and appraisal, monitoring and evaluation of rural projects. The principles of institutional design for the IRDF alluded to here mandate that the traditional decision-making structure is engaged in the formulation of development plans from the village, district and provincial levels, and that all project proposals go through the Divisional, Provincial, District and Village Development Boards (Fiji Government, 2014). Though the nature of these spaces seeks to create and open up consultative mechanisms for participatory planning in rural development, issues of power patronage, and difference inherent within these mechanisms “undermine the very possibility of equitable consensual decision-making [and] restrict the possibility of ‘thinking outside the box’, reinforcing hegemonic perspectives and status quo reinforcing solutions” (Cornwall, 2002, p. 5). The production of space through these consultative mechanisms “create as well as circumscribes possibilities for agency” (Cornwall, 2002, p. 8). In Foucault’s work on discourses (Foucault, 1990, 1991a), he draws attention to the ways in which power spreads through spaces, generating a multiplicity of points of resistance as well as creating and establishing particular
212
institutional forms, patterns and practices. For Foucault, discourses dictate and shape not only what is said and done, but frames the possibilities of engagement circumscribing what can be said and what can be done in any given social space, constituting what counts as knowledge and whose knowledge counts. As such, discourses define boundaries of action or ‘the conduct of conduct.’ Discourses of participation for rural development in Fiji and the consultative mechanisms therein can be seen through Foucault’s analysis, as a way of defining boundaries. The present participatory mechanism depicted in Figure 5.1 is viewed as lacking in many respects. Participatory processes touted in the illustration simply reproduce echoes of dominant knowledges rather than amplifying the alternative ‘bottom-up’ and ‘integrated’ perspectives claimed in the current IRDF. Key informants alluded to the cultural context and the participatory planning restrictions embedded in these consultative mechanisms, for iTaukei Fijian protocol reasons, stating that cultural reasons still have a very significant role to play in who decides what. Given the way in which Fiji’s RDM is established, decisions made at every level are filtered to the next. Consequently, the powers within these consultative bodies decide on the types of projects that are prioritised and funded, not necessarily the people. This then filters further and projects are prioritised depending on how well connected individuals within consultative bodies are to government officials. It was also highlighted that the consultative processes of assessment for development projects and additional assistance that may be given for rural development limits influence and stifles dissent from rural dwellers as ‘beneficiaries’ and ‘citizens’ of rural living. This is further illustrated by ‘Richard’ who alluded to the bureaucracy within the RDM and identified this as a bottle neck as many decisions are still made on the basis of respect for the chief. As pointed out by him, “this slows the process down greatly.” Before he became in an elected leader of government, in many instances, ‘Richard’ would bypass the various committees in Figure 5.1 and went directly to the decision-makers at the government level. He noted that sometimes one was lucky to bypass, and other times one would be told to go back and come through the proper channels. The possibilities for engagement and agency within Fiji’s RDM is discursively bounded to permit only “limited citizen influence, colonising interaction and stifling dissent” (Cornwall, 2002, p. 8). During Fiji’s colonial period, the British administrators had established forms of decentralised governance to administer indirect rule using the
213
traditional structure and the colony’s construct – the iTaukei Fijian Administration. This art of government and the production of governable subjects emerging from it (see section 4.1 in Ch.4) bear noteworthy similarities to the governance structure of rural development advocated in Fiji today. The consultative mechanisms used during British rule served as vehicles for the colonial administration and have a similar form and function to the committees of more recent times (see section 4.2 in Ch.4). During the colonial period, popular participation was limited and the colonial administration made use of participatory strategies through its construct of the iTaukei Fijian administration and the use of the ‘native authorities system’ supporting the chiefly control of village manpower as an agency lending legitimacy to their interests. As such, the colonial administration was instigating the process of ‘space making’ and the traditional chiefs through the ‘native authorities system’ defined its contours. This colonial cultural construct and the Fijian protocols embedded within it has continued to frame the possibilities of engagement and agency within Fiji’s RDM. It circumscribes what can be said and what cannot, by defining the contours of what is up for discussion or decision- making, and moving other considerations out of the frame. The discursive practice of the participatory planning process expressed intentions of integrating diverse government departments and building a dense web of relationships with other stakeholders rooted in principles of strategic planning, inter- dependence and good governance (Fiji Government, 2014). However, key informants noted that decision-making within the RDM is highly subjective and is not characteristic of the expressed intentions. The influence of the traditional iTaukei structure and the iTaukei Fijian administration were attributed to the subjective nature of decision-making that has developed as a significantly hindering legacy in the progress of rural development in Fiji. Consequently, attaining consensus through the exercise of rationality in public deliberation is limited in Fiji’s RDM. Historically, in instances where decisions are made by chiefs, these commands unquestioned respect and obedience. This unquestioning respect for authority has carried over into modern times and has infiltrated a wide cross-section of the Fijian way of life. It has given rise to what has been termed a ‘culture of silence’ where ordinary people do not ask questions or take initiatives, but wait for those in authority to act and decide. Key informants echoed that this was the same in every province. In this vein, the level of participation is only limited to policy prescriptions of the powerful lending legitimacy
214
to power interests and is a site of expression and expansion of the agency of those who are figure heads or at the top of the ‘ladder of continuum’ (McGee, 2002, p. 104). The fluidity and ambiguity of efforts at enhancing participation in Fiji’s RDM is also articulated by a ‘particular space’ of a tokenistic nature that does not promote the visibility or voice of other members outside the structures of the consultative mechanisms nor of those within the consultative mechanisms that may not be of a traditional chiefly rank or at the upper end of the ‘ladder of continuum’. Decision- making at these levels are less direct, more subjective and participation is limited to those at the top of the ladder. Key informants also regarded the current consultative mechanisms as a superior form of government, because, in their view, it was not just a reflection of the iTaukei Fijian Administration hierarchy, but it was also another level of government and bureaucracy at the regional scale. Furthermore, the absence of criteria to properly assess projects allow politicians, traditional leaders and bureaucrats to influence the process of planning and to ignore the established tiers of government. According to them, the embedment of Fijian protocols within the consultative mechanisms in the RDM in fact hinder the progress of development projects and its translated impacts for rural dwellers. The ideas espoused and practices adopted by Fiji’s RDM can be interpreted as implying not only notions of government of a colonial construct but also conceptions of power relations, patronage and difference. The nature of spaces created for participants has been largely tokenistic. While the analyses above indicate that participatory practices within the RDM are often represented as a ‘ladder of continuum’, the process of determining representatives of each of the consultative mechanisms presents further challenges. Key informants regarded the RDM as being hierarchically ordered and male dominated given the patriarchal nature of the Fijian social system. As such, participatory development in the rural context grapples with concerns, principally around exclusions of gender and age. Community consensus and decision-making made at the village level often exclude less powerful groups or individuals. In the iTaukei Fijian context, the youths and women are often left out. Culturally, they are not visible in consultative processes and their voices are excluded. Consequently, projects concerning the wellbeing of women, youths and children are often under prioritised (if at all) and their narratives are not considered in the defining of boundaries of action associated with
215
rural development planning. Further to this, the representation of women and youths in the various consultative mechanisms is limited although the IRDF touts the inclusion of women and youths as members of the various committees. This examination of participatory planning of rural development in Fiji highlights concerns about ‘democracy’, ‘good governance’ and the conception that governance should include a diversity of stakeholder representatives with legitimacy in the interests of those that they represent. The data suggest a general concern on the lack of these. This system, meant to increase efficiency and rationality of rural development by means of popular participation, may have undesirable effects; it may decrease people’s willingness to assume responsibility and increase their dependence on the government system. The current system makes for apathy and a reluctance to take responsibility. 5.4.2 Modernist and neoliberal modes of governing for rural development in Fiji The literature review in Chapter Two highlighted previous studies attempting to explain discrepancies between rural development project plans and results (Chambers, 2014; Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Escobar, 1995; Li, 2007). These studies centred on the notion that development projects routed through some combination of decentralised planning (Chambers, 2014; Li, 2007), participatory governance (Chambers, 2014; Cooke & Kothari, 2001) and the withdrawal of state intervention through neoliberal planning are achieved on the ground in ways that at least partially reflect the needs and interests of local groups. Today, every bilateral or multilateral donor agency alongside national governments profess three assertions: they seek to reduce poverty, bring about and enhance development and achieve the Millennium Development Goals which have now been co-opted into the recently introduced Sustainable Development Goals. To this end, these actors are demanding that ‘good governance,’ ‘democracy’, and the ‘enforcement of human rights’ become top priorities for recipient countries (Mosse & Lewis, 2005). To achieve this, these terms are subject to different interpretations that give rise two different paradigms (see sub-sections 5.4.2.1 and 5.4.2.2 for discussions of these in Fiji’s rural development situation). First, conditions of development and poverty reduction are achieved through strong economic growth and this involves following prescriptive policies based on neoliberalism, outlined in the Washington Consensus. As a result, mediating development increasingly involves operating within these three domains and promoting them in the interests of trade, investment and furthering
216
neoliberal reforms. Second, to reduce poverty and bring about development, distinct expressions of participation engaging the power of the people will ensure good governance, uphold democratic principles and protect human rights. Critics of these preconditions of development argue that the interpretation of these three terms are selective as they are oriented to support neoliberal economic policies of donor institutions and do not necessarily address development issues of the people for whom governance, democracy and human rights really matters (Barr, 2004). These include a better quality of life, a more equitable distribution of wealth, access to employment, education, housing and health care and so forth (see section 2.4 in Chapter Two). This sub-section focuses on these three terms as preconditions of rural development, and how the embedding of these in modernist and neoliberal modes of planning for rural development consequently influences the eventual distribution of development benefits. Neoliberal reforms developed in the 1980s and were inspired by the structural adjustment policies of the ‘Washington Consensus’ in response to the global economic crisis alluded to in sub-section 1.1.1. of Chapter One and sub-section 2.2.5 of Chapter Two. Fiji’s neoliberal policies were part of the structural adjustment programs by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (Ratuva, 2015). These have included policies centering on the privatization of public enterprises, private-sector led development, export-oriented reforms, public sector management, and market-led policies (Ravuvu & Thornton, 2016). In terms of rural development, the state’s development approach was based on two seemingly contradictory philosophies: growing the economy along the path dictated by the Washington consensus and providing affirmative action programs for iTaukei Fijians in line with the aspirations of ethno-nationalist politicians and supporters (Ratuva, 2015). The reliance of Fiji’s rural development programs on neoliberal policies has been most evident in the implementation of some affirmative action programs, whereby the focus was on increasing participation for rural iTaukei in their own economic development and in the wider market economy, particularly with indigenous participation in the corporate sector (see sub-section 5.2.2). Until 1970, Fiji adopted many colonially inspired rural development policies and administration procedures as previously outlined in section 4.1 of Chapter Four. Like many other developing countries, as Fiji developed, it formed more sophisticated state operations, which shifted many responsibilities like rural development to the state. From the 1970s to 1990s, Fiji’s rural development policies
217
centred around two broad issues: improving income inequality by narrowing the rural- urban gap and reducing poverty. In development plans prior to the advent of the MDGs, Fiji’s rural development objectives were broadly in-line with poverty reduction via the physical integration of urban and rural sectors with regional development planning as its key development strategy (Central Planning Office, 1970, 1975, 1981). However, with the advent of the MDGs and now the SDGs, the state has embraced a wider set of objectives including environmental issues, vulnerability reduction and disaster risk mitigation measures (Fiji Government, 2014). These are increasingly taking centre stage as there is increasing recognition of the severity and speed of climate change and its impacts on the poverty-stricken (William). Drawing from Fiji’s Development Plans (Central Planning Office, 1970, 1975, 1981; Fiji Government, 2001, 2014), Fiji’s key rural development strategies and policies in the post-independence era can be summarised as follows: i) Ensuring a more balanced spatial distribution of development by channelling investment and resources to undeveloped and underdeveloped areas; ii) Promoting maximum utilisation of the development potential of each region, according to the availability of local factors of production; iii) Providing basic supporting infrastructure for the promotion of commercial development and investment in rural areas such as roads, ports and jetties, access to electricity and telecommunication, housing and reliable piped water supply; iv) Encouraging active community participation and greater self-sufficiency through the collective self-help programme; v) Creation of employment and income generating opportunities for rural people; vi) Providing accessible markets for rural dwellers’ agricultural produce, handicrafts and other income-generating goods; vii) Increasing access to and maintenance of effective social services, particularly education, health, welfare programs and basic need services; viii) Improving the coordination and effectiveness of local level administration (through decentralising the planning, and administrative machinery);
218
ix) Improving the coordination and effectiveness of development initiatives of Government and development partners (donors); and x) Reducing economic and social disparities between regions through a more equitable distribution of national wealth and development opportunities to ensure improvements to living standards.
In addition to the state’s interventionist role in rural development, since the 1970s many other actors have increased their work in this sector including non-governmental organisations and the private sector. The state encouraged such involvement by providing them with the ‘space’ and ‘agency’ to participate in rural development planning and implementation through the RDM as illustrated in Figure 1. 5.4.2.1 Paradigm One: Advancing economic growth for rural Fiji The Fiji government rightly notes that to achieve rural development, principles of strategic planning must incorporate ‘good governance’ (Fiji Government, 2014, p. 5). The governance reforms, as promoted by the state are oriented towards reducing poverty via ‘building economic growth’, ‘environmental resilience’ and ‘social improvement’ (p. 6). The institutions it has established to reinforce the principles and practices of good governance include (but are not limited to) the various development boards within the RDM and experts engaged in the machinery as illustrated in Figure 1. Historically, most of Fiji’s Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) for rural development comes from Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the European Union (Mausio, 2007; Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, 1980). More recently, there is growing funding support extended from the UNDP, China and civil society organisations (Thomas). Loans for large infrastructure projects such as roads, ports and jetties have been negotiated with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (Ministry of Finance and National Planning, 2006, 2008). After the political upheaval of October 1987, various donor countries suspended aid programmes to Fiji, subject to the successful resolution of ethno-political issues. Only in 1990 did development partner funding resume for long-planned projects. This donor stance was also apparent across Fiji’s development programme in the early 2000s following the coup d’état of May 2000. This is a prime example of the successful use of donor pressure to ensure good governance in terms of the rule of law and democratic principles. Over the years, Fiji, under the influence of international financial institutions
219
such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank, has pursued export-oriented, market-driven economic agenda and all the policies associated with the Washington Consensus (Barr, 2004). Fiji’s rural development is no exception to this. To bring about rural development, achieving economic growth has been key and the following measures have been evident in Fiji’s rural development strategies: i) Policies directed towards increasing rural economic projects have often meant a prioritising of and an increase on the approval of economic and employment generation projects offsetting social projects (see sub-section 4.3.2 in Chapter Four); ii) State and development partner (donor) funding of capital-intensive infrastructure to promote commercial development and investment in rural areas. Findings based on both interviews and government reports and figures (see sub- sections 4.3.2, 4.3.3. 4.3.4, 4.3.5 and Table 4.1-p.165 and Table 4.3-p.170 respectively) indicate that allocation on roads remains the highest expenditure for rural development followed by the programmes of rural and regional water supply and rural housing. The 2010-2014 Public Sector Investment Program – a multi-year framework covering major procurement and infrastructure items requested by line ministries but are largely donor- led, is another key rural program that government has progressively pursued and devoted resources to alongside development partners “to tackle poverty and crucially important social services” (Thomas). iii) The introduction of land reforms in 2009 through state power to free up land and improve access to land as a factor of production. Given the state’s focus on food security, import substitution and export growth in the resource based sectors, land reform in relation to resource based sectors has become paramount in Fiji. This has been acknowledged as an effective measure to address issues pertaining to Fiji’s ailing sugar sector, the need to diversify into other crops and the imperative to have commercial farming (Ministry for National Planning, 2009). However, this has created a lot of unresolved and ongoing land ownership issues with several yavusa (kinship group), mataqali (descent group) and i-Tokatoka (extended family) groups (Richard).
220
iv) Support for small micro-enterprises, eco-tourism projects, coastal fisheries development and agricultural development through the Rural and Outer Island Agricultural Development Programme and the Northern Development Programme (see sub-section 4.3.5 in Chapter Four). From 2011 onwards, there has been an increase in their budget allocations (see Table 4.3 in Chapter Four, p.170).
Since the inception of rural development, the state has consistently emphasised that greater economic growth would enable it to devote more resources to advancing rural development and reducing poverty. However, poverty rates continue to be higher in Fiji’s rural areas than in urban areas and the incidence of poverty continues to increase in rural divisions (UNDP, 2014). Based on Fiji’s Household and Income Expenditure Surveys for 2002-2003 and 2008-2009, rural poverty increased from 41 per cent to 43 per cent (Fiji Bureau of Statistics, 2007; Narsey et al., 2010). Although many factors contribute to this and must be taken into account (however this is beyond the scope of this thesis), the neoliberal development agenda the state was implementing in the 1980s through the redirecting of aid to structural adjustment programmes and market liberalisation (Ratuva, 2015) affected rural development practice and contributed to disinvestment in the rural sector. As previously highlighted in page 30 of sub-section 4.3.2 of Chapter Four, funding of capital-intensive infrastructure in the rural sector was slow and limited in the 1980s when compared to the infrastructural investment prioritised in the 1970s. Budget provisions were prioritised on Fiji’s structural adjustment programmes instead (Ratuva, 2015). Neoliberal restructuring led to the withdrawal of the state from earlier large-scale management of the agricultural sector. This continued into the 90s decade. Conversely, from the late 90s to present, the implementation of programmes and projects under the rural development programme has further embedded neoliberalism with its focus on affirmative action programmes (see Ratuva, 2015) and the capitalist/industrial funding priorities government and development partners were promoting in the rural sector. As the summarised measures highlighted earlier indicate, the policies for rural development continue to espouse planning and programming procedures suited to large-capital development projects rather than people-centred development. Furthermore, there is also an irony to the approaches to rural development that government is advocating. Some of these have
221
hindered economic growth as they have focussed on small scale enterprises and informal sector activities through the Rural and Outer Island Agricultural Development Programme and the Northern Development Programme. In terms of modernist/neoliberal planning and rural development practice, two points must be noted: First, it seems that economic growth for rural development has been achieved at the expense of rural dwellers. The economic policies pursued by the state to assist rural dwellers are targeted at macro-economic growth and at large-scale capital infrastructural projects that have little ‘trickle-down’ impacts for rural dwellers. Secondly, economic growth as the state perceives it, must be shared so that all people benefit – not just the few. However, growing rural poverty and inequality in Fiji, shows that, over the years, economic growth has not been equally distributed. The proportion of the Fiji population living in rural poverty has continued to increase. 5.4.2.2 Paradigm Two: Accountable institutions and people-centred development Recently, Fiji’s 2010-2014 Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development (Ministry for National Planning, 2009) has stressed the need for a broader understanding of good and just governance, sustainable democracy and human rights principles to achieve socio-economic development and national unity. The objective of the Roadmap has remained unchanged focusing on the implementation of policies to achieve the vision of “A Better Fiji for All” which is consistent with the Peoples Charter (NCBBF, 2008) referred to previously in sub-section 4.3.5 of Chapter Four. According to these policy documents, principles of good and just governance and sustainable democracy cannot be restricted to the formal governance framework and institutions within the state itself. Instead, they must be applied more widely to include all areas of how the country is governed daily in terms of policy formulation and decision-making that involve input from civil society organisations as well. Their definitions of good governance are guided by notions of good governance espoused by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and several other UN bodies which describe good governance as having eight major characteristics: “It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimised; the views of minorities are taken into account; and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in
222
decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society” (Ministry for National Planning, 2009, p. viii).
While emphasising on the strengthening of transparency and accountability of the state, an effective law and justice sector, the application of the principles of human rights and so on, these policy documents also give prominence and support to civil society organisations and partnerships with these bodies and to agendas that help create democratic or ‘people’s governance’. Both these policy documents seek development that is people-centred and the type of economic growth they advocate is pro-poor.
Under the Roadmap, it is emphasised that “Fiji needs to entrench a culture of democratic good governance such that it becomes the dominant political thinking and behaviour of the people of Fiji” (Ministry for National Planning, 2009, p. viii). As a strategic priority of good governance, the Roadmap focuses on developing an integrated development structure at divisional level to ensure that the integration of iTaukei development interests are prioritised in Fiji’s national development plans and programs and that the devolution of decision making powers to the divisional levels is pursued. Through this strategic priority, the Roadmap calls for a strengthening of partnerships with civil society organisations to complement the government’s outreach programmes and projects. According to the Roadmap, these are: “critical to ensure local participation and to improve delivery of development programmes to raise living standards of people in the rural areas. This will assist communities in identifying resources and formulate community development plans directed at income generating skills and initiatives that maximize the returns from available resources” (Ministry for National Planning, 2009, p. xi and xii).
While these policy documents use the right development ‘buzz words’ (Cornwall & Brock, 2005) and declares it is encouraging principles of good and just governance, sustainable democracy and participation in the development process, the reality of the style of participation for people-centred development encouraged in Fiji’s rural development planning rooted in the RDM is very limited. Moreover, the Roadmap’s advocating of good governance guided by the UN definition and characteristics alluded
223
to earlier stressing ‘participatory’, ‘consensus oriented’, ‘accountable’, ‘transparent’, ‘responsive’, ‘effective and efficient’, ‘equitable’ and ‘inclusive’ governance, contradict the realities of the ‘space’ for decision-making in Fiji’s RDM. As previously mentioned in sub-section 5.4.1, the ‘culture of silence’ in the RDM undermines the “democratic culture’ that the Roadmap is advocating for. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 5.1 and preceding sections, the hierarchy of order and plurality of actors involved in rural planning excludes the views of minorities and the full participation of ordinary people from mobilising in demand of their rights and to engage as participants in all aspects of rural development. With the current structure, people for whom rural development matters most are often politically weak, geographically dispersed, lacking in networking and government resources, and lack information needed to, assert their rights and demand accountability from the plurality of actors involved in their development. As such, planning for rural development in Fiji has remained a domain for the privileged elite, politicians and bureaucrats.
5.5 Rural development as discursive practice The preceding sections have provided a profile of rural development in Fiji drawing on issues relating to discourse, practice and power. Contradictions within the state and the interface between the state and other actors in the RDM are not only central to understanding how policies and programs are the actors’ representations of what rural development should be but also provide perspective on the ways in which actors negotiate diverse practices in rural development. The discourses employed in the strategies of rural development highlighted here are simply alternative mechanisms for effecting change and rural development can be seen as discursive practice imposing a discipline and a limit on what can be operationalised. Viewing rural development as a discursive field, Fiji’s rural development process is enmeshed in a system of power relations which produces a ‘domain of objects and rituals of truth’ (Foucault, 1980). In critically examining Fiji’s rural development relations from a governmentality perspective, the institutions, social processes and economic relations on which the discursive formation of rural development is articulated ‘conduct’ the rural transformations that take place. The multiplication of actors in the RDM and ‘spaces’ for participation over the course of the last forty-five years and their uses for a range of contradictory agendas
224
and purposes has given rise to a complex mesh of institutions and interests. Fiji’s RDM consists of regularised institutions which serve as an interface between people (as users, as citizens, as beneficiaries) and authorities of the state. The state created institutions (the boards, councils, various committees in Figure 5.1) who are conferred with statutory powers to allocate resources, to define the contours of rural development and to prioritise rural development accordingly through the various administrative reforms that have taken place throughout Fiji’s colonial and post-independence period. The documentation analysis provided in Chapter Four and the data presented in this chapter reveal a set of discursive practices used by the state to administer rural development. Specific techniques of governing the ‘conduct of conduct’ is inferred from the establishment of local level institutions and policy arrangements, as inherent in the RDM as consultative mechanisms to assist in ‘rolling out’ rural development. The discourses of participatory planning, deliberative and liberal democracy and sustainable socio-economic development presented earlier have provided a shared set of assumptions, which have influenced the behaviours of the plurality of actors engaged in Fiji’s RDM, and have made them complicit actors in a powerful regime. In this sense, these discourses constitute a mentality of governance at work in Fiji’s rural planning. The highly centralised and regularised relations within Fiji’s RDM creates spaces that are bounded, where only certain actors are able to participate within them. Key informant responses in this chapter clearly articulated the objectives of rural development, the practices involved in the prioritisation and funding of projects. They also explained ways in which the mandates and remit of members within the RDM tend to be circumscribed by the agendas of the state and are rarely, if ever, open to negotiation by rural citizens and other stakeholders. The opportunities available to the mass of ordinary citizens to participate within the RDM remains restricted to representatives, whether appointed, nominated, co-opted or elected. The role of the RDM and the extent to which participation within it has legitimacy for intended rural development policy directions rests on what Cornwall (2002, p. 18) refers to as “forms of discursive closure that bound what can be discussed and frame the versions that emerge.” It is certainly the case that in Fiji the conception of coordinated, integrated, democratic rural development governance has been aspirational, rhetoric and discursive rather than fully achieved.
225
5.6 Summary: Using an ‘analytics of government’ approach to understand trends of rural development and how governmental practices work for Fiji’s rural programme To support country ownership and to contribute to building country ownership where it doesn’t exist, Booth (2011a, p. 8) presents that this contribution is not effective if it takes the form of “conventional democracy promotion, or the domestic accountability agenda as presently conceived.” In terms of Fiji’s rule development, both Chapter Four and this chapter clearly show that rural development is state-led and hence, country- owned. Assistance provided to rural areas through development partners (donors), whether it is administered under the Small Grants Scheme or through bilateral arrangements (via implementation through various government agencies), the facilitation of these is mandated to go through the RDM presented in Figure 5.1. Likewise, all state sponsored rural programmes go through the same route. With the rhetorical construction of the IRDF and other policy frameworks as advocating ‘good governance’ and coherent ways of practising, thinking and speaking about rural development, the question is raised whether this should be interpreted as an uncontested set of assumptions. Furthermore, taking into consideration the challenges of the RDM presented in this chapter, the question of transparency and accountability in Fiji’s public financial management system is also raised and whether the RDM through its current processes augur well for the alignment of development funds with national priorities and national development strategies. It is certainly the case that in Fiji the conception of coordinated, integrated, democratic rural development governance has been aspirational, rhetoric and discursive rather than fully achieved. Moreover, the subjective nature of decision-making and the absence of criteria to systematically assess development projects using the RDM indicate a weak country-owned system that would consequently hinder aid effectiveness for rural development programs at the country level. Using an ‘analytics of government’ approach as discussed in Chapter Three, this chapter examined the mentality of rural development governance in Fiji. The analysis suggests that institutions such as those engaged in Fiji’s RDM “are improvised from available moral, intellectual and practical techniques in attempts to assemble pragmatic solutions to deal with specific exigencies and limited problems” (Rose, 1999, p. 275).
226
As data presented in this chapter shows, within Fiji the rhetoric of the rural development planning process construed good governance as being coordinated and integrated in the RDM. With the IRDF that currently directs Fiji’s rural development planning and implementation, it is envisioned that the development of an integrated structure at divisional level is required to govern social, environmental and economic behaviours in a rural area, by stakeholders from the state, market and civil society. The analysis in this chapter and the description of the observable structures and practices that were outlined in Chapter Four, have highlighted how the discourses of development, democracy and planning have utilised concepts of discourse, power and governmentality to deal with rural development challenges in the Fiji context. It has also revealed how internal contradictions within these discourses have shaped governance practices in the RDM and how these renders visible the complexity and diversity within the state and other actors that are engaged. The chapter has highlighted the contrasts and incompatibilities as well as overlapping aspects of these competing discourses and the effects of these in the rural development planning process. Data show that the RDM has been used by the state to shape the discursive conditions in which local people ‘conduct’ their own programmes of development. This will be considered in the next chapter which profiles the techniques and effects of ‘power’ that take place in the local context and how this ultimately impacts the development experiences of rural Fijians.
227
Chapter 6 Relations of rule: A case study of micro-practices of Power for Rural Development in Nakorosule
According to the Fiji Government’s rural and provincial development strategy under the Strategic Development Plan 2008-2010, rural and outer island development ‘is the cornerstone for achieving economic growth and a better quality of life for all citizens’ (Fiji Government, 2009, p. 6). Similarly, the Fiji Government’s recent strategic policy direction for rural and outer island development, guided by the People’s Charter for Change, Peace and Progress 2009 and the Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development 2010-2014, also consider this. They emphasise the revitalisation of economic activities via rural development, to contribute directly to economic growth and improve the well-being of rural communities. Given the emphasis of Chapters Four and Five on the ‘government of rural development’, it is evident that those who have an interest in seeing rural Fiji become more competitive on the economic front, shape community action within rural dwellings in some way. Indeed, as this chapter shows, rural people cannot pursue whatever outcomes they choose. Instead, they are being directed by a whole range of stakeholders towards specific forms of communal action and the pursuit of specific development projects. While Chapter Five provided a general discussion of how certain forms of conduct are promoted through the discursive practices of participation within the rural development machinery, this chapter focuses more sharply on the techniques and effects of ‘power’ derived from relations of rule that take place in the local context. This chapter is based upon the premise that it is only through detailed empirical analysis of particular places, people and events that we are better able to understand how certain relations of rule ‘enable’, but also shape, rural development schemes at the local level. Through primary analysis of this type, the agency of the governed is also made apparent. For these reasons, this chapter concerns itself with the rural development experiences of Nakorosule Village in Fiji, introduced earlier in Chapter Three and discussed in detail here. In particular, the aim of this chapter is to highlight the relationships of government that exist in terms of Nakorosule’s development activities, how mechanisms are formed (contemporary strategies of rural development) that govern rural development in Nakorosule, and how these are implemented by various actors involved in ‘local-level and government’ partnerships that currently exist. Rather
228
than forming an argument against the hegemonic nature of knowledge and interventions in the development discourse in rural communities, this chapter pays attention to the relations of rule, as they occur at the local level. In other words, the effects of government via rural development and the influence therein that act as instruments in the exercise of power, which is both profound and subtle, is examined.
6.1 Nakorosule The history of development patterns in Nakorosule Village has been traced in two previous publications (Nayacakalou, 1978; Ravuvu, 1988). Nayacakalou’s study of the Nakorosule village economy in 1954 (Nayacakalou, 1978, pp. 75-106), and Ravuvu’s study of the patterns of change in Nakorosule village in the 1980s (Ravuvu, 1988, pp. 87-148) had documented some of the changes in the Fijian way of life, which were introduced by the formal market economy and rural development efforts as they intensified in rural areas. The existence of these earlier studies makes Nakorosule a particularly useful location to study rural development and they are used as a basis for discussion of changes in Nakorosule Village, emerging from projects implemented under the rural development programme. Since the colonial era, Nakorosule has undergone changes resulting from interactions with the market economy. Being the chiefly village of the old tikina (district) Na Gone ni Colo East, much of the tikina gatherings and functions occurred in the village, thus its special position and mentions in both studies conducted by Nayacakalou (1978) and Ravuvu (1988). As already highlighted in Chapter Three, Nakorosule is home to the Vunivalu (titular chief) who is the head of the yavusa of Waimaro which, in tradition as well as in present day relations, is the major chiefly yavusa of the entire area. For this reason, it is an important village in the district of Na gone ni colo and “many others owed political allegiance to it in the past” (Nayacakalou, 1978, p. 76). It is also an important village in other respects. For instance, the talatala or spiritual head of the old district Nagonenicolo, comprising the six villages of Nakorosule, Nasalia, Nawaisomo, Waimarua, Waibalavu and Laselevu (Nayacakalou, 1978; Ravuvu, 1988) also resides in Nakorosule. There is also a school in the village, in which over 100 children from those six villages are taught up to the eighth primary school year.
229
6.1.1 Houses and households Of the 130 houses in Nakorosule village, 21 of these are wooden houses, 106 are of corrugated iron and 3 cement block constructions. 40 of these houses are classified as in good condition, 81 as fair, and 9 as in bad condition (‘Jone’, formal talanoa participant). Minimum requirements for houses defined as in good condition are those that are durable, that is, with a sturdy housing structure that protects inhabitants from climatic conditions such as cyclones, they have sufficient living area and are not overcrowded, have access to direct water supply with taps installed and good sanitation with access to flush toilets. Houses listed as fair meet some of these requirements and those in bad condition do not meet any of these requirements. The membership of each household varies from one member to six per household. Of the 130 houses, at least 35 houses belong to families who reside in the capital city of Suva and who only make occasional visits to the village annually. The village has a population of 350 inhabitants, categorised further as follows:
Table 6.1 Population by Gender and Age Group Males Females Total Elderly (aged 65 and over) 28 29 57 Adults (aged 25-64 years) 61 48 109 Youths (aged 15-24 years) 29 18 47 Children (under 15 years) 71 66 137 Totals 189 161 350
As indicated by ‘Jope’ (formal talanoa participant), these figures show a great number of children, partly because so many of them are from the other six villages in the district, but they live with relatives in Nakorosule while attending school. Youths comprise the lowest number as many leave the village to go attend high school and board in neighbouring district schools. Others leave the village to complete their high school years in urban centres and to secure employment in urban centres, residing with families whom they share some kinship bond with there. 6.1.2 Social Organisation Since Nayacakalou (1978, pp. 78-79) and Ravuvu’s (1988, pp. 95-98) studies, the traditional vanua groupings underlying the social organisation of Nakorosule village
230
have remained unchanged. For instance, the three yavusa (social grouping of the vanua), Waimaro, Nakoroduadua and Loma continue to be guided by special relationships and specific roles in relation to internal and external village affairs that were forged since they came together and settled at Nakorosule. These yavusa are subdivided into mataqali (family social unit) as illustrated in Appendix 3. These groupings reflect social groupings recorded in current government records which have been simplified and standardised for administrative convenience. During fieldwork, it was observed on various occasions the general, though quiet, confusion among the talanoa participants on their mataqali and tokatoka (a Fijian social unit) membership. Ravuvu (1988, p. 97) also indicated this and alluded the inconsistencies of social groupings and the confusions it created to the changes imposed by the Native Land Commission and the Colonial Government. These institutions introduced and incorporated small social sub-units or groups of the mataqali with a larger mataqali group, or tokatoka with a larger tokatoka group. According to Ravuvu (1988), this process of centralisation was carried out throughout Fiji and it was “a matter of administration convenience” for the Native Land Commission (p. 94) and “for the assumed convenience of the colonial government” (p. 98). As is current practice in Nakorosule, customary inter-group relationships are guided by official government records, and this conflicts with practices of kinship relationships and other contingencies of living, as recalled by talanoa participants aged 50 and over. For talanoa participants in this age category, the sanctity of many traditional tasks and roles performed by members of the different yavusa, mataqali and itokatoka groupings have become diluted and are no longer revered. These participants attributed this to the creation of the new legal entities (new mataqali and new tokatoka groups) that conflicted with traditional practices of the Nakorosule people as well as the introduction of alternative inter-group relationships. Despite the inconsistencies of these groupings and the confusions it has created, they continue to guide, define and shape the cultural norms and everyday practices evident in Nakorosule village. This ‘act of government’ is conducted through the relations of rule and channels of social action discussed in the next section. These are the ‘acts of government’ that define iTaukei communal living in rural villages across Fiji and have been set in place to govern the way of life in Nakorosule. As illustrated in the following section, these pervade every aspect of village living and define the boundaries of action in Nakorosule on a daily basis.
231
6.2 Relations of rule and channels of social action Chapter Four introduced the system of iTaukei political order and hierarchical authority of the chiefly system established by multiple governmentalities. This has continued to be the dominant technology of governing that has rendered particular issues, domains and problems governable in iTaukei Fijian villages. In Nakorosule village, forty respondents participated in the talanoa sessions (see Appendix 2) and alluded to the role iTaukei Fijian cultural norms and social groupings play in determining their boundaries of action. Sixty per cent of the talanoa participants (24 out of 40) were well aware of their individual functions, roles and responsibilities within village boundaries and acknowledged the importance of this in the protection of customs, traditions and the consolidation of their resources. When participants were asked about the internal dynamics of traditionalism within villages, their daily interactions in Nakorosule and how they organised themselves daily within the boundaries of cultural norms (see Part III of Appendix 5), ninety percent of the participants (36 out of 40) stated that traditional leadership vested in a chief as the authoritative figure in the village was key in defining their boundaries of action. For these participants, the traditional chief is at the core of the village way of life and what they can or cannot do is circumscribed by decisions under the chief’s influence and guidance. Participants also acknowledged how certain actions, which they regard as cultural norms, shape their own behaviours (summarised in Table 6.1).
Table 6.2 Cultural norms defining boundaries of action in Nakorosule (Yavu ni bula va koro) Cultural norm Frequency (Vakarau ni bula se i tovo ni bula) N=40 Traditional head (Dua na lewa) 36 Relationships (Veiwekani) 40 Reverence (Veivakaturagataki) 40 Respect (Veivakarokorokotaki) 40 Sharing (Veiwasei) 30 Looking out for each other (Veiraici) 25 Caring for one another (Veikawaitaki) 30 Deep concern for one another (Veinanumi) 30
From Table 6.1, these norms influence the degree of flexibility enabled in daily interactions and village activities, whereby people in Nakorosule (the subject) are able to organise themselves for their own development. In exploring intra-community 232
dynamics and how these are bound together in the daily activities of village living, all talanoa participants emphasised the importance of establishing harmonious relationships with each other, showing reverence and respect where it is due. Participants stated that these practices are key in keeping the peace within the village and ensuring the success of projects implemented for village development. Seventy-five per cent of the participants stated that ‘sharing their wealth and assets with one another’, ‘caring for one another’ and having a ‘deep concern for one another’ are all important values that need to be considered in daily interactions with village members. Again, participants alluded to the significance of observing these norms in their daily interactions and in the planning and consolidation of any development work that was brought to the village. Sixty-three per cent voiced that ‘looking out for each other’ was also important and all these norms define and make up the iTaukei community and its way of life in Nakorosule village. According to participants, these norms not only pervade every aspect of their daily living, but they also define their boundaries of action within key forums. As discussed in Chapter 5 and presented in Figure 5.1, these forums include the Village Council (Bose Va Koro) and District (Tikina) Council. These define the contours of development in Nakorosule, whereby what is up for discussion and considered in decision-making within the village is determined by them. As responses by participants in the next two sub-sections show, these forums create spaces that are bounded, where only certain actors are able to participate and where certain views related to village governance are upheld and discussed, while others are excluded. 6.2.1 Nakorosule Village Council (Bose vanua Koro) For Nakorosule villagers, the Village Council makes the core of social organisation within the village. It is the first forum at which issues affecting the community are discussed. It is the residence of the chief and this is when he interacts with his people in terms of thoughts, words and action. According to talanoa participants, this is the iTaukei community. In Nakorosule, the Village Council comprises the heads of the yavusa, mataqali and tokatoka social groupings and representatives from various village committees footnoted in sub-section 6.2.2. The Council selects a Village Development Committee voted by popular election that overlooks the proper administration of the village. This committee is also responsible for promoting the overall development and economic welfare of Nakorosule.
233
To better understand the role of the Village Council for the development of Nakorosule and the boundaries of action of Nakorosule villagers as subjects interacting with the Council, participants were asked to comment on the pursuit of rural livelihood strategies in terms of the traditional governance structures in place in the village (see Part III/Section 3 in Appendix 5). For the majority of participants, gender, age and traditional role/clan differences are a cause for concern. Quite often, the welfare and interests of women and youths are neglected in this forum and depending on one’s traditional position within the village, villagers do not express their views honestly and openly in village council meetings. Participants acknowledged that this has served as an impediment to progress and development within Nakorosule. According to participants, the ‘culture of silence’, where people do not speak up in the presence of those in authority, such as chiefs and elders because it is seen as disrespectful, is an accepted part of culture and village living that defines their boundaries of action. As a result, the decision-making processes within the Village Council and other forums in the village is based on a top-down approach and although there may be ‘consensus’, participants stated that this consensus has not been arrived at by a ‘real’ consultative approach. In most cases, people generally nod in agreement because it is the accepted norm. Subsequently, the views of the people are not being heard. Participants identified the Village Council as a traditional mechanism set up to govern their well-being. They were asked to comment on its role in ensuring the success of development at the village level. The majority of participants expressed the pertinent need to boost the coordination function of this forum. They expressed dissatisfaction in the way the Council operated. They attributed the failure of many development projects in Nakorosule to the lack of strong leadership within the Village Council and the lack of capacity in good judgement and insight from decision-makers within this forum. For instance, the Turaga ni Koro (village headman/spokesperson) is the secretary of the Village Council and the deliberation of development priorities determined at this level is chaired by this person on behalf of the chief. According to participants, the current Turaga ni Koro is very young (28 years of age) and is not equipped with the necessary skills to carry out duties required of this role effectively. Although his selection was based on popular election, participants stated that this was merely done because he was the son of the late Vunivalu (titular chief) and was the only son keen to take up the role. Participants commented that there were no other criteria used to select the Turaga ni
234
Koro to ensure that the most qualified candidate was chosen. In addition to this, participants commented that decision-makers within the Council should work with relatives in urban areas to provide professional advice as many lack the capabilities to deliberate effectively on resolutions made. In assessing the effectiveness of the Village Council in contributing to the well- being of Nakorosule, there was consensus from all participants that there is a lack of ‘team-work’ culture (yalo vata) amongst stakeholders in the village. Consequently, there is no clear work program that the village adheres to, there are many interventions from outsiders into the village (especially from those with roots in Nakorosule but reside in urban centres) disrupting organised community programs and many Village Council discussions and resolutions are not followed up and carried out. Participants frequently expressed that the same agenda is discussed for many meetings, and there is a lot of ‘finger pointing’ about delays and disorganisation of meetings. According to participants, people in Nakorosule are ill-informed of development activities taking place in the village, as well as their responsibilities towards the development of Nakorosule. Many individuals are not aware of their function, roles and responsibilities in the village and the Vanua (see definition in Chapter 4, p.133). Participants alluded to the ‘overall slackness in the lives of many’ and that there were a growing number of single parents, ‘too much kava drinking’ and ‘lazy’ people who need to be brought into the mainstream activities of the village. Female participants frequently expressed that many village men were engaged in long hours of kava drinking daily and did not attend to their roles and responsibilities as fathers and providers for their families. In many cases, women are having to play dual roles as nurturers and providers in their homes. The need to improve village health care, cleanliness of village surroundings, water supply system, housing, toilets, waste disposal and fencing of stray animals was also observed. Again, participants attributed these deficiencies to the lack of leadership and confidence in the Village Council and stated that a role awareness program should be established in Nakorosule so that each individual is aware of his/her function, roles and responsibilities in the village and Vanua. In the 30 informal talanoa sessions conducted (see Appendix 2), a further concern expressed by participants is the lack of support that villagers give to the Village Council. It was widely acknowledged that the Council needs to be empowered to gain
235
the confidence of the villagers, to ensure adherence to the village work program. Despite its broad powers and functions, the perceived output of the Council has been inadequate. Yet again, participants viewed this as a direct result of the lack of strong leadership and capacity of decision-makers within the Council. From these frequently expressed sentiments, it is clear that the hierarchical nature of the traditional structures in the village with their emphasis on centralising authority and reinforcing communalism (see section 4.1.1 of Ch. 4, p.135) have consequently fostered attitudes of reliance and inertia that have accentuated the demand for good leadership. Where this is absent, as in the case of Nakorosule, only the most enterprising succeed, while most villagers do not have the initiative nor the will to make improvements on their own. The most enterprising individuals can be categorised into three different groups. First, it may include those who have relocated outside the village boundaries because of galala, an extension of individual rights (see Overton, 1988). The second category of individuals include those who, because of religious beliefs and differences, do not participate in village activities as it is viewed an extra burden or responsibility and, therefore, they undermine traditional leadership. The third group includes those who are resourceful and are able to make improvements of their own, but at the same time, are still observing custom and tradition within village boundaries. While these views were expressed openly in talanoa sessions, participants reiterated that these would never be discussed openly in the Village Council forum or in any other governing entity in Nakorosule. 6.2.2 District Council of Nagonenicolo (Bose va Tikina) The prioritisation of development projects that (a) span across two or more villages, (b) are infrastructural development projects that cannot be funded internally, and (c) require state or donor assistance are coordinated by the District Council through the District Development Board. Under the recently established Integrated Rural Development Framework (IRDF) (see sub-section 5.1.1 of Ch. 5, p.185), the District Council is a member of the District Development Board and together with other actors comprising this Board (refer to Figure 5.1) discuss and prioritise development needs of the district (tikina) and sources of funding. The majority of talanoa participants were very limited in their knowledge of the purpose and functions of the District Council. While they understood that this forum served as the next tier up where Village Council resolutions were discussed, their understanding of its specific responsibilities were very limited.
236
Only a select few could engage in talanoa to talk about the roles, responsibilities and effectiveness of the Council in addressing rural development needs for Nakorosule. The talanoa participants were mostly members of this forum or members of the Village Development Committee and selected representatives who member various committees36 at the village level to oversee and govern different aspects of village development. These participants expressed their concerns over the lack of clarity regarding decision-making authority in this forum. Perhaps contributing to the lack of clarity, is the way that Council membership from each of the six villages making up the tikina (district) Nagonenicolo (refer to Section 6.1) is comprised, as follows: a) Mata-ni- Tikina (village representative); b) nominated women and youth representatives from the various Women’s Committee and Youth Committees; c) nominated urban representatives; d) the Turaga-ni-Koro (village headman/spokesperson); and e) a District Officer as an ex-officio member.
According to the IRDF, District Officers Chair, District Development Board meetings and therefore their presence at District Council meetings tend to undermine the role of the appointed individual (in which case is mostly a nominated Turaga-ni-Koro who is the appointed chair), who chairs this forum. Participants also noted that, on some occasions, the presence of a Head of a Yavusa social grouping (Turaga ni Yavusa), as members of these meetings, would undermine the role of the appointed person. As a result, the ‘culture of silence’ norm then results in the Yavusa directing meetings. For participants familiar with decision-making and deliberation processes in the District Council, they had mixed views in relation to the powers vested in the Council to prioritise development project funding. Some agreed that the Council had full control over the selection of projects, which would then be tabled to the Provincial Office. Others expressed that decisions made in this forum did not really matter, as all resolutions must go through the hierarchical and endorsement process (discussed in Ch. 4 and 5). However, there was expressed concern by all these participants that the approval of village proposals tabled at District Council meetings is largely dependent on
36 Besides the Village Development Committee, Nakorosule also has a Health and Well-Being Committee (Komiti Tikobulabula), School Committee (Komiti ni Vuli), Church Committee (Komiti ni Lotu), Women’s Committee (Soqosoqo Vakamarama), Youth Committee (Komiti ni Taba Gone) and a Natural Resource Committee (Komiti ni Yaubula). 237
the calibre of people being nominated to the Council. The extent to which development occurs is engineered by their capabilities and self-interests. For these participants, they understood the importance of selecting members on merit and the need to have criteria that are adhered to, to ensure that intelligent, respectable and mature people are representatives of these forums. According to these participants, many in Nakorosule village are not aware of the critical roles of the Village Council and District Councils. Nor do they understand the importance of selecting members to these forums on merit to ensure that members are equipped with the necessary skills to carry out their role effectively. For instance, at the District level, each individual mata plays a leadership role. According to participants, villagers look up to these individuals with confidence and hope that these individuals will present their development needs well. Despite this, there was much discussion and concern expressed through the talanoa that many in Nakorosule still vote members on an ad-hoc basis for the sake of being seen as actively participating in village meetings. For others, selections are still dictated by customs and traditions that they are immersed in, making choices based on one’s traditional position or status, age and gender rather than their capabilities. Traditional practice continues to dictate the selection of membership and the decisions made on the prioritisation and funding of development needs at all levels of Council. This ‘regime of practice’ is also at the core of voting members in at the Provincial Council level. Subsequently, it manifests itself in decision-making processes taken up to the Provincial Office for endorsement.
6.3 Representing the Rural: The Naitasiri Provincial Council Chapter 4 (p.175) highlights the the role of a Provincial Council in the development of a province. As prescribed in legislation, it serves to formulate and implement policies for promoting the order, welfare and good government of its subjects, that is, iTaukei Fijians residing in iTaukei villages. It is also legislated to promote the economic, cultural and social development of its respective province. In the case of Nakorosule, its welfare and development interests are governed by the Naitasiri Provincial Council given its location within the provincial boundaries of Naitasiri (refer to sub-section 3.4.2.1 of Ch. 3, p.107). The Naitasiri province covers a land area of 1,700 square kilometres comprising 86 villages divided into 16 districts (Fiji Government, 2016) with a total population of 161,000 (Fiji Bureau of Statistics, 2007). Based on these statistics,
238
Nakorosule comprises 0.2 per cent of the total provincial population. Higher levels of urbanisation continue to manifest in Fiji’s urban sector. Statistics show that more than half the Fijian population live in urban areas (51%) and the trend of rural to urban migration is anticipated to escalate in the future (Fiji Bureau of Statistics, 2007). While there are various reasons (mainly economic, social and environmental) attributed to rural people migrating to cities, there is an extricable link between migration and poverty. In Fiji, many people move because they are unable to afford the basic amenities of life (Raghbhendra et al., 2009). To a large extent, rural development in Fiji has fallen behind other competing national development priorities largely because it was neglected in the 1990s and 2000s due to the military coups and these have been responsible for triggering the exodus of rural dwellers into urban areas (see section 1.4 of Ch.1, p.19). Aligned with the organisational structure of the iTaukei Fijian Administration, the conduit for requests for development assistance from Nakorosule go from the Village, to the District, to the Naitasiri Provincial Council to the Government. The three councils are a part of the Provincial Administration structure (see section 4.4.3 of Ch.4, p.176) initially setup to oversee the government of official customs, traditions, boundaries and socio-economic development of Nakorosule. However, with the establishment of the IRDF to streamline the expanding roles and responsibilities of these councils, the Naitasiri District Development Board and Provincial Development Board administration have been established and are now a part of the reorganised Provincial Administration (see section 4.2.3 of Chapter 4, p.152-155). These institutions are now responsible for the socio-economic development of Nakorosule and other villages within the province. The government of official customs, traditions and boundaries remain the responsibility of the actors in the old Provincial Administration structure. Given that the IRDF is still in its early implementation stages, in the interim, the Provincial Council continues to play a significant role in decision-making for socio- economic development taking place in the province. In the case of Nakorosule, talanoa participants still widely perceive this Council as their conduit and voice for development assistance to the relevant government authority or funding agency, in which case is mostly the Ministry of Rural Development. Since its inception in the colonial period, the role of the Naitasiri Provincial Council has not changed significantly. It remains as a forum overseeing the
239
implementation of village by-laws and an entity guiding the development of villages in the province. Based on a detailed document analysis of Naitasiri Provincial Council Papers, Minutes and Submissions from 1980 to 2010, the professed objectives of the Council are framed around the needs, concerns and aspirations of the province as expressed through the conduits already discussed. These can be categorised under three broad objectives. The first is to foster the development of villages within Naitasiri to attain a higher standard of living and a better quality of life. Within this objective, it is reported that improved well-being outcomes will be achieved by the Council and measured through infrastructural development such as improved access to roads, jetties, hospitals, schools and housing; improved sanitation, water supplies and rural electrification; addressing educational needs; providing improved health care and medical relief; ensuring sustainable natural resource development and economic development; promoting income generating activities such as farming, marketing and transporting of agricultural products and wealth creation that will result in improved family welfare. The second objective concerns the preservation, promotion and enhancement of iTaukei Fijian culture and identity. These include the promotion of language, traditional art and craft, traditional cooking methods and traditional medicines and health practices; increased awareness programs focussing on traditional roles and customary practices; and the preservation of archaeological sites, artefacts, traditional ceremonies, literature and oral traditions. Thirdly, the Council professes to focus on the empowerment of vulnerable target groups including women, youths and children in the province. The goal here is to enable them to be a part of decision-making processes that contribute to their development. It also serves to encourage them to be active participants in the formal economy, such as, participating in financial rural welfare programmes subsidised by government and non-government actors. Drawing from the above, it is obvious that there are clamours for village development in all areas of socio-economic participation in rural Naitasiri. This includes the need for improved access to education and training opportunities, employment and wealth creation and income generating activities. In acknowledgement of these, the Provincial Council has done little to improve the capacity of people in Nakorosule to participate in terms of socio-economic development. Based on its professed objectives, it is apparent from observations made during field-work and perceptions of talanoa participants, that the Council has not been able to deliver on its
240
functions effectively. A comparative analysis of current developmental changes to those recorded by Nayacakalou (1978) and Ravuvu (1988) also reveal this. The outputs of the Council have been inadequate and insignificant. Talanoa participants37 and key informants from the state and local government level (see Appendix 2) attributed this deficiency to several factors, as categorised below. According to both talanoa and selected key informants, the first and foremost hindrance to the effective administration of the Provincial Council, and all other levels of Council, is the long decision-making process inherent in the current system. The current approach to decision-making through the various levels of Council is time consuming and lacks feedback to the villagers. According to participants, a ‘sa kau cake’ phenomenon exists, which denotes that project proposals have been acted upon, as they have gone through the various levels of Council for endorsement. Finding out if projects have been tabled to the next level, or if they’ve been approved or disapproved, is a long and unclear process. The anticipation is that the Councils will report on the outcome of project proposals when resolutions and plans have been made. According to key informants, disappointment with the slowness in the decision-making process has led some communities (who would normally be expected to go through the Village and District Council as a basis for approaching the Provincial Council) by-passing the traditional system. On a different note, given the hierarchical endorsement process, talanoa participants expressed their view that development funds should be given directly to them without going through the various conduits. There were also criticisms by talanoa participants that too many individuals are involved at the Provincial Council level and other levels of Council. The coordination of development efforts at the local level remains fragmented and ineffective. Key informants also agreed with this view, stating that too many agencies are involved in a non-cohesive manner undermining the delivery capability of the Provincial Council and the whole rural development machinery. This has resulted in a duplication of functions and wastage of resources. Another factor associated with the inability of the Provincial Council to deliver on its professed objectives is attributed to its ineffective management practices and operational systems and processes. Key informants stated that these practices are too immersed in tradition and not aligned with organisational best practice and concepts of
37 The majority of talanoa participants were not familiar with the organisational structure and operational procedures of the Provincial Council. The select few that were familiar were individuals who have previously or are currently representing Nakorosule to the various forums within the Provincial Administration structure. 241
good governance, highlighted in sub-section 5.4.2 of Chapter 5. According to talanoa participants, there is a lack of coordination and communication between and within the various Councils. People in Nakorosule are often not aware of Council resolutions or plans. For example, whilst Provincial Rural Development Plans and District and Divisional Plans have been developed for provinces by the Roko Tuis (provincial executive officer) or Provincial Council Offices, the process is top-driven and, in many instances, does not involve or consult with people at the village level. Consequently, such plans lack commitment from the people. Further to this, talanoa participants jested that people in Nakorosule are unaware of the existence of these documents and they themselves as participants lack knowledge of its contents. Talanoa participants also discussed how meeting practices for the various levels of Council are ineffective. They expressed that meetings do not always start on time, the agenda is often not set and when there is an agenda it is sometimes not adhered to. There is also inadequate notice given by council members when they are not available to attend meetings and there is no follow-up on meetings resolutions. Another issue raised by both key informants and talanoa participants concerning best practices and good governance principles was the lack of proper budgeting, accounting or monitoring practices of funds used by the Provincial Council, and how these are prioritised and utilised at the district and village level. A frequently expressed view concerned the lack of accountability and transparency in the collection of soli (annual communal tax collection) for development paid by all villages to the Provincial Office. People are not fully aware of how their contributions are being used or spent. Similarly, in the case of development funds disbursed from the state to the Provincial Council, talanoa participants stated that people at the village level are unaware of how these funds are being prioritised and utilised. Echoing sentiments concerning the lack of strong leadership and capabilities identified for Village and District Councils highlighted earlier (see sub-section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2), key informants and participants also voiced that the Naitasiri Provincial Council shared similar issues. The general perception shared is that too many individuals with the traditional title of a Ratu or chief are members of the Provincial Council. Consequently, it is difficult to make decisions based on good judgement and logic. They also voiced that, since its inception, many Provincial Council members are not fully aware of their roles and lack the qualification and training to deliver the
242
expected levels of services required of them. There are no criteria in place to select Council members and participants stated that many of these members are chiefs and nominated individuals by the state. In many cases, both of these actors’ lack qualification and training to deliberate effectively on development issues for the province. There were also criticisms from key informants that in some meetings, government representatives (particularly the Divisional Commissioners) are not available nor present in meetings to implement policy decisions. Conversely, in other instances, Divisional Commissioners are present but are not in a position to make decisions. The problems and concerns of the Naitasiri Provincial Council raised by participants here are not isolated to the Naitasiri Province only. In fact, key informants stated that these issues are practically identical in every province around Fiji. Coupled with the analyses of the multiple governmentalities, presented in Chapter 4, and the discussion of discursive practices evident in the process of rural development in Chapter 5, it is clearly demonstrated that a major determinant of the rural development process is the structure itself. The realisation of development needs at the village level is bound by the actors, their regimes of practices and their act of government that has sustained the rural development machinery in Fiji since its inception. Further to this, the contemporary strategies of governing rural development enabled by the ‘act of government’ inherent in the machinery do shape, guide or affect the aspirations of rural citizens. This discussion is pursued in the next section, focussing on the mechanisms of governing through the Nakorosule community via Ministry-funded ‘Self-Help Scheme’ and other projects funded through the ‘Small Grants Scheme’.
6.4 Governing through community The design and delivery of rural development for iTaukei rural communities in Fiji do not simply involve rural people and the state. The previous section has illustrated how they incorporate a whole range of other actors and ‘multiform tactics’ (Foucault, 1982, p. 95) to mobilise development funds required. The current approach to decision making and approval procedures therein is also coordinated by a group of actors that are not entirely representative of the rural populace. The conduct of the rural as governable subjects is derived from the relations of rule that are taking place at the local level. These are consistent with the ‘regime of practices’ that prop up the colonial structure of
243
centralised authority reinforcing communalism. This act of government directs the techniques and ‘government technologies’ that manifest as rural development programmes. These programmes give the discursive practice of rural development its form and shape the conduct of rural dwellers more directly. There are various streams of development funds that rural communities like Nakorosule can approach to fund development within the village. Development funding in the Ministry of Rural Development is categorised into funding for self-help projects and funding for infrastructural development. Funding for infrastructural development is specifically for rural housing and farm road (non-cane road) access. Both these funding modalities are fully funded by government. Development funding from other relevant ministries in government and some funding from donors tagged for specific sectors are tagged Divisional Development Projects. These projects are now classified under the Public Sector Investment Program (see Section 5.4.2.1, p.220). The prioritisation and funding of divisional development projects are controlled by relevant government ministries administering those projects that come under their respective portfolios. The Office of Divisional Commissioners only administers Public Sector Investment Program projects under the Ministry of Rural Development. ITaukei rural communities can also access funding under the Small Grants Scheme, as discussed later in sub- section 6.4.2. For this research, the focus of rural development programmes directed in Nakorosule only concerns itself with the Self-Help Scheme and the Small Grants Scheme. In keeping with the aim of the study, to critically analyse national development processes and systems of aid delivery couched in ‘country-owned’ arrangements, these programmes have been selected based on their sources of funding. The Self-Help Scheme is fully funded by government and the latter is fully funded by foreign aid donors. An assessment and comparison of how the two programmes have translated in Nakorosule village address the second objective (see p.21) and the third and sixth research questions (see p.22). These explore how contemporary strategies are directed in the context of rural development, and how ‘country-owned’ arrangements implemented in these programmes contribute to the effectiveness of aid delivery for rural development. 6.4.1 Self-Help Scheme The major type of project relating to village or community development is the Self-Help Scheme which operates under the Ministry of Rural Development. Projects that qualify
244
under this scheme are those that can be initiated by a community within a village, a village or a district (tikina). The aim of the programme is to assist rural communities with infrastructural and income generating projects. Key informants reported that the programme is divided into two categories of funding assistance that ranges from FJ$1,500 to FJ$25,000. Projects that qualify for funding in the first category are social projects benefitting a wider section of the community. These are non-income generating projects, which include, but are not limited to, minor electrical works, foot paths, bus shelters and the construction of small scale infrastructural works like flush toilets, piped water and so forth. In the second category, funding is reserved for projects that generate income which benefit individuals, groups and communities as well as projects that are approved by the Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Rural Development. The standard formula used for deciding the contribution of assistance is that people provide 1/3 (in cash or in kind) and the State provides 2/3 of the cost of any project (see Chapter 4, p.144). The selection and approval processes of self-help projects requires applicants (individual, groups, or communities) to submit a project proposal form (see Appendix 6) to the District Office. All projects that are submitted for consideration need to be part of Village Development Plans. Project proposals under this scheme require endorsement from the Turaga-ni-Koro and Provincial Council Office. In the case of income-generating projects, these require the endorsement of relevant government ministries before projects are submitted to the Provincial Council Office. Following recommendation from the Provincial Council Office through the District Officer and Provincial Administrator (Roko Tui), a consolidated list of project proposals is then submitted to the District and Provincial Development Board for discussion. A revised short list is then submitted to Divisional Commissioners who make the final endorsement on the prioritisation and funding of projects. Whilst it is developmentally legitimate and logical for self-help applicants to deal directly with the Ministry of Rural Development, traditional practice and the current rural development machinery dictates otherwise. It requires that project proposals be taken up to various levels for endorsement. In the case of Nakorosule, talanoa participants expressed a lack of confidence in this system. This is attributed to the long decision-making process evident in the rural development machinery and the lack of funding and resources available for project funding at the village level. These
245
participants also criticised that the selection and approval processes are often unrealistic. When asked to elaborate further, it was clarified that Nakorosule currently does not have a Village Development Plan and therefore does not meet the minimum requirement of accessing self-help funds. Members of the current Village Development Committee expressed that they didn’t have the capabilities to develop a Plan as there was no template to follow. In their view, the Plan is better suited to be designed by urban relatives who would have the capacity to do so or the Ministry of Rural Development. Given the absence of a Village Development Plan, there have been no self-help project submissions from Nakorosule in the last five years. Many of the development projects currently funded and undertaken by the village are those funded through fundraising initiatives that the village organises together with relatives from urban areas. In the context of rural development, self-help schemes are consistent with principles of endogenous development. This advocates for locally-controlled development with locally-sourced resources and where the benefits are retained within (Cheshire, 2006). It is designed to encourage rural communities and individuals to develop their own development strategies, rather than relying on government for financial and other forms of support (ibid). In assessing the aid effectiveness of the self- help programme from this perspective and its translated impacts in Nakorosule, three questions were posed to talanoa participants. They were asked to (1) identify the types of projects that they would normally submit for self-help assistance, (2) the role they had in the design and implementation of self-help projects they were familiar with and (3) whether they were satisfied with the outcomes of self-help. Most of the participants (30 out of 40) were unaware of the self-help programme, nor could they identify projects in Nakorosule that were funded by this programme. Only a few of them (10 out of 40) were able to identify a self-help project and all of these participants named the rural electrification project, which brought electrical power to Nakorosule in 2008. Clearly, there is a lack of awareness of the programme in the village. Participants were then asked to discuss their understandings of development at the community level (see Part II/Section 2 in Appendix 5). The primary focus here was to gauge participants awareness and involvement in development activities taking place in Nakorosule. They were asked to define development and rural development, and explain what they considered as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ development. They were also asked to elaborate on their
246
role or extent of participation in development projects, as proposed internally by the village as a community, or those externally introduced to the village by government and non-government actors. Finally, participants were asked to identify and comment on the translated impacts of development projects implemented in Nakorosule. In assessing their understandings of rural development or the broader term of development, the participants understandings of development varied. For participants who had been exposed to living away from Nakorosule for a specific period in their life and for those who had pursued some form of formal or tertiary education or employment away from the village viewed development in a more holistic sense. They defined development as a process of achieving sustainable livelihood outcomes where poverty is reduced, employment opportunities are created, and their quality of life and well-being is improved. For other participants who had lived in the village for the most part of their lives or those who did not have exposure to some form of formal education and those that were in the youth category, their understanding of development was defined in the infrastructural sense. For them development meant the construction of footpaths, the provision and access of electricity to the village, the renewing of water mains and its provision to each household, and road access to the capital city of Suva and other municipals. For three of the participants in the elderly category (aged 65 and over), development to them meant ‘food in the pot’ and not worrying about where the next meal would come from. To gauge their role and extent of participation in development projects, all participants agreed that the village, as a community, relies directly on members of the various village committees, and those that have been nominated to the different levels of Council, to orchestrate development for them. The act of government in Nakorosule does not encourage bottom-up participation, nor does it require active participation from communities in committing to or driving their own development. Development is only designed and implemented by a select few. The youths and women participants voiced that they find it difficult to be a part of the development process in Nakorosule as the system of governance isolates them from that process. Although nominated women and youth representatives are members of these consultative forums in the village, they were of the view that there was no meaningful participation for them and that their contributions are often undermined by the male-controlled forums.
247
Talanoa participants were also asked to share their views on development in Nakorosule, and to comment on how implemented projects have impacted their community and their individual household well-being. For the majority of participants, they view development as an ‘enabler’ that is supposed to make village living ‘easier’. When asked to clarify what they meant by this, participants attributed this to having better access to education, an increase in income-generating activities and improved village infrastructure. These are aspirations, that in their view, bridge the rural-urban divide and it is what they hope for in development. In Nakorosule, village children acquiring and attaining a good level of education is viewed as a guarantee for an office or white-collar job and participants viewed this as a dream for every village family. Yet in a village setting like Nakorosule participants expressed that this ‘does not come easy’. In a similar vein, participants expressed that income-generating activities in Nakorosule is only confined to agriculture. This mainly involves the planting and selling of taro, cassava, banana, kava and plantain crops. For many of them, while a road now connects the village to urban centres, their markets to sell these crops are not guaranteed. With all the labour and time taken to plant and transport produce to be sold in municipal markets, it remains a challenge to earn a consistent income from these activities. Female participants commented that to compliment agriculture-based activities, many women are now involved in a Micro-Finance Scheme administered by the state. Under this program, a start-up amount of FJ$700 is provided to those enrolled in the program. Funding under this program are for income-generating projects, such as, for example, the establishment of canteen shops and commercial farms. Loan repayments are on an annual basis and a Micro-finance representative from the South Pacific Business Development Office (the largest microfinance institution in Fiji) visits the village weekly to meet with those enrolled in the program. In these meetings, they discuss their issues, their savings are collected, loan repayment transactions are made and additional loan money is handed out to those applying for any additional loan. Women in Nakorosule, who are enrolled in this program, have all established canteen shops that sell basic food items, such as tinned fish, sugar, cooking oil, biscuit, eggs, noodles and tinned meat. For female talanoa participants who are part of this program, the program has been beneficial but also poses greater challenges. On the one hand, the program has been rewarding in building their financial literacy capacity, given that enrolment in this program requires a 2-month training involving a financial literacy
248
program and the basics of running a business. On the other, there are now sixteen canteen shops in the village that are financed by this program. Some of the women enrolled in the program find it hard to make their loan repayments, as they are competing with other women who are selling the same products as them. As an example, there are perhaps too many canteen shops (16) for a village with a population of 350 in Nakorosule. Talanoa participants expressed that all villagers would like to have their children educated with the hope of acquiring white-collar jobs. They would all like modern houses with tap-water and electricity. They would all like to travel easily. They also recognise that all these require funding and criticised that there is not enough assistance provided to the village level to address these. Participants also expressed the difficulties in meeting the demands of development and making a decent living that improves their household well-being. Their way of life is dictated by a traditional governance structure attributed to preserving culture and traditions, kinship ties and cultural norms, which make it difficult for them to acquire their individual or collective aspirations as a community. In a village setting governed by its traditional administrative structure, there is a mismatch with development efforts to cater for financial undertakings required for education, health needs, church activities and self- help projects. This issue is due to a number of factors. Firstly, village existence, or living within village boundaries, comes with many traditional obligations that villagers are expected to abide by. Most village activities are communally attended to and take priority over individual household obligations and needs. Households are expected to be resilient and resourceful, and to provide for communal or village obligations. Many participants expressed that when this occurs, it places a significant burden on household resources (financial and material) and time away from their livelihood activities. This problem has also been alluded to in other Pacific island countries such as Samoa (Thornton et al., 2010). There have been many well-intentioned development projects brought into Nakorosule, but the impacts have been negligible as communal activities takes precedence over individual household well-being. Secondly, there was also concern that many projects brought into the village lack organisation and are conducted in a non-cohesive manner. Many of these projects do not critically examine the elements of a monetised economy, the lifestyle it requires (neoliberal mindset of individualism and its emphasis on private ownership) and what makes them successful
249
are completely different from what traditional practice dictates. Thirdly, the act of government in Nakorosule confines and limits villagers view of the world and the various underlying relationships between elements that form the world and its activities. For Nakorosule villagers, everything they do is directed by the centralised authority that exists within the village. According to participants, people in Nakorosule are well aware of the economic gap that exist between the rural and the urban areas, and they all aspire to have what urban dwellers enjoy in terms of economic activities and infrastructural facilities. However, in the process of acquiring these, many villagers still want to keep the village social structure and their traditions. They aspire to uphold a village ‘way of life’, without fully understanding how this view defines their boundaries of action and how it influences development outcomes, which translate into practice for them. The issue of the success of the self-help programme is determined by the availability of funds as these frequently tend to diminish and achievement cannot meet people’s demand making the program ineffective. For instance, in the 1970s and 1980s, increases in self-help funds can be attributed to foreign aid, which were funds diverted—or ‘repurposed’—to rural dwellers from other uses (Dubsky, 1988). Key informant interviews reported that self-help projects around Fiji have grown in numbers and variety, but perhaps most of them, although useful, have not been directly productive. Findings based on both interviews and government figures indicate that allocation on roads remains the highest expenditure, while self-help projects are given the most publicity. In Nakorosule, many of the implemented self-help projects have been infrastructural in nature and do not create employment or generate income. As Ravuvu (1988) noted, in the 1980s village self-help projects have included the installation of a piped water system, the building of a community hall and the construction of a new and larger church. In the 2000s, it was the installation of electrical power to Nakorosule via the rural electrification program and the extension of the school building to accommodate for students up to the eighth year. While these contribute to improving well-being in terms of improved and better facilities, these projects cannot sustain themselves. They require maintenance and repairs which require additional funds. Villagers rely on government and non-government actors for financial and other forms of support. These projects do very little to empower people to organise their own development.
250
Based on talanoa responses, it was clear that most of the development constraints facing individual households and the village as a community rests on how individuals have been educated and moulded. There is a great need to increase awareness on various development issues: (a) how development ‘works’, (b) how Fiji’s administrative and governance structures influence development outcomes, (c) what types of development assistance exists and (d) to engage in open discussions about what it means to be ‘developed’. There are many development aspirations attributed to a higher standard of living and a better quality of life, which people in Nakorosule would like to acquire, but the rural development program in Fiji and its administration is conducted through calculated interventions and programs that ultimately shape their transformation and aspirations. Whether people in Nakorosule subscribe willingly or reluctantly to self-help projects, or other village development projects, the fact that many of them live in insecure situations and increasingly face new financial requirements of the so-called ‘new life-style’, as propagated and spread by development, continue to give rural development a special appeal in Nakorosule village and other rural villages in Fiji. 6.4.2 Small Grants Scheme Funding is of central importance in rural development and the success of the programme depends largely on the availability of government and donor funds. While Fiji is not an aid-dependent country, the importance of aid varies by sector (Schmaljohann & Prizzon, 2014). It plays a much stronger role for the social sector, where rural development has critical importance. For Fiji, key informants noted that more project success in rural development has been registered in the area of foreign aid. This, however, seems to imply growing dependence on external sources and lesser self- reliance, which may not altogether be desirable for development. In terms of rural development, the type of funding assistance in the Small Grants Scheme is categorised into three broad sectors. These include village/settlement development, education and other integrated projects that contribute to the improvement of rural areas. Since the inception of the rural development programme in 1969, findings based on government documents indicate that infrastructural projects remain the largest expenditure of this scheme. These include community halls, churches, evacuation centres, schools and bridge/foot/road crossings. From 2013 onwards, projects assisted under the scheme are aligned with the 2013 Fiji Constitution on the Bill of Rights focussing on the right and
251
access to education, economic participation, clean water supply, food, basic infrastructure, housing and sanitation, health services and social security schemes. Although funded by donors, the scheme is controlled and coordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office. Projects committed and prioritised by the Prime Minister are facilitated by the Development Cooperation and Facilitation Division (DCFD) and implemented by the Ministry of Rural Development. The conduits for accessing the Small Grants Scheme are dictated by the rural development machinery and are very similar to conduits of accessing other types of funding assistance. However, the key difference is that the Budget and Aid Coordination Committee (BACC) of the Ministry of Economy vets village/district/provincial project proposals that have been submitted via relevant line ministries and makes recommendations to the Prime Minister’s Office. Development partners (donors) who want to fund specific projects under the scheme liaise with the Budget and Aid Coordination Committee (BACC). This is the main government body for managing development assistance in Fiji and is the focal point for all decisions on aid, including at the sector level. Line ministries are invited on a needs basis. However, in some cases donors often bypass the BACC by discussing their programmes directly with line ministries. It is only at the end of negotiations that the BACC is then involved for approval. Findings based on key informant interviews highlighted that this occurs frequently with the Ministry of Rural Development as development partners prefer to liaise directly with the Ministry. A considerable share of assistance is also channelled via Non-Government Organisations and thus not managed by the BACC. Many development partners are using NGOs to bypass the highly centralised rural development machinery and to liaise directly with communities. In Chapter 4, the members of the BACC were highlighted and these represent key central agencies which include the permanent secretaries for Finance, Strategic Planning, National Development and Statistics and Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation; the deputy secretaries of the Office of the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Economy; and the secretary for the Public Service. In principle, they meet once a month. The Overseas Development Assistance Unit of the Ministry of Economy acts as the BACC Secretariat. Although the BACC makes decisions on projects that qualify for the scheme, the Prime Minister’s Office also coordinates and prioritises funding for the scheme. It remains unclear whether these responsibilities
252
between the units are clearly separated and whether cooperation between them is efficient. For Nakorosule village, talanoa participants were not aware of village projects funded by the Small Grants Scheme. Moreover, there were no records available nor could key informants identify projects that were specifically funded by this scheme and implemented in Nakorosule. Key informants could only comment generally on the effectiveness of the administration of the scheme. They stated that the coordination of the scheme remains highly centralised and the endorsement process of projects funded under it remain fragmented. They expressed concerns connected with a balanced distribution of funds under the scheme allocated to divisions and criticised the selection criteria stating that only the Prime Minister’s Office was privy to this. Such problems, however, have not been subject to analysis in this study.
6.5 Summary In Fiji, state agencies within the centralised rural development machinery have shaped the discursive conditions in which rural communities initiate their own programmes of development. With these conditions in place, it is anticipated that rural communities will freely choose to conduct themselves according to their desired aspirations. As this chapter has illustrated, what is available to rural communities are conditions that render them as governable subjects, whose conduct is consistent with the broader socio- political objectives of those in authority. The chapter explored how the contours of development are defined by the iTaukei administration structure, as a component of the rural development machinery. On the one hand, it claims to embrace the inclusion of rural communities as actors in the government of rural development, while also claiming to encourage their participation in the development process. However, the relations of rule at the local level, as depicted in this chapter, are dictated by traditional practice. It is clearly demonstrated that the devolution of responsibility to the local level through rural development projects has not been accompanied by commensurate amount of decision-making power or resources, which have tended to remain firmly centralised.
253
Chapter 7 Conclusion – Rural development as ‘country-owned’ and sustaining good governance in Fiji
Rural development programs in Fiji have been a sporadic feature of the colonial administration, the state and the iTaukei administration from the mid twentieth century. Contemporary efforts include attempts to implement ‘good governance’ by action at the local level. Rural development has been carried out through Fiji’s rural development machinery (RDM), to achieve objectives of government. However, there has been dissatisfaction with the RDM and the reforms it has undertaken, coupled with experimentation of policies and contemporary strategies by the plurality of actors involved in various rural development programs. Many initiatives have not worked effectively, have been fragmentary and unsystematic, and have involved contrary and counterproductive elements. It has been suggested that failings like this in development discourses are imbued with power, and the operations of power is inherently linked with development practice. Post-development critiques, for example, have argued that these failings are embedded in subtle power relations masked by Western hegemony through development (Escobar, 1995; Gibson-Graham, 2010; Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997; Sachs, 1992). From a poststructural perspective, it has been suggested that the reason for this is couched in complex institutional and governance arrangements, and the key relationships between individuals, institutions and broader relations of power (Scoones, 2009). Scholars of poststructuralism have focussed on development and aid practice as discourse and ways of exerting power (de Haan, 2009) and this approach guided this research. To test poststructural assertions that attaches such importance to inherent sets of assumptions, it is particularly valuable to consider linking power of the government type with the failure of development efforts and to consider the operations of power in the development aid agenda that is exercised through the state (Brigg, 2002). In the context of rural Fiji, the poststructural perspective is particularly valuable to understand the cultural and historical constructions shaping local development discourses, and to consider new governance arrangements in terms of their subjectivation. Hence, this research focused on one specific example of contemporary governance – the country ownership process in Fiji’s RDM – and asked a significantly different question:
254
How can development aid avoid weakening country-owned development processes, as embodied in the specific arrangements and practices of Fiji’s RDM, when it already exists?
This thesis has not simply described the field of institutions that constitute Fiji’s RDM. Nor has it articulated an ideal form of rural development governance tailored to specific conditions. Instead, it examined the governing rationalities and technologies that characterise rural development in Fiji. Focusing on key policy documents, government reports, key-informant interviews and a limited ethnographic study, this thesis has traced the fashioning of particular subjectivities, as constitutive of Fiji’s RDM, and the function of problematisation as central to the practices of subjectivation inherent in the RDM.
7.1 Reviewing the research framework The overview in Chapter Two showed that there is a vast and diverse literature about recent aid trends, widespread criticisms of aid and its impact on poverty reduction and achieving improved quality of life. Much of the scholarship focusses on macroeconomic issues of aid, macro-level analyses of aid practices and technical mechanisms rather than power analyses. Moreover, there has been very little contribution in the literature assessing aid effectiveness at the micro-level, how it affects the lives of the poor, and less still in terms of practical advice to consider how the effectiveness of development aid can be improved (Mavrotas, 2009). In line with this thinking about how to improve the quality of aid, the principle of ‘country ownership’ has been reiterated in outcome documents of several international agreements, as highlighted in Chapter Two, committing development partners to the use of country systems as the default approach to the provision of development assistance. However, there is criticism that the principle of ‘country ownership’ responds to a different set of questions that do not stem from thinking through the conditions under which aid can be effective (Booth, 2011a). Drawing on Booth’s (2011a) analysis concerning ‘collective action problems’ and the conception of country-owned development as an outcome to be constructed rather than treating it as an established fact (see sub-section 2.2.2 of Ch.2, p.48), this thesis focused on the country ownership process in Fiji’s RDM from an analytics of government perspective. It focussed on how practices of subject formation embedded in
255
Fiji’s RDM encompasses power relations that ultimately determine and shape the quality of aid for rural development, the types of rural development outcomes that materialise and the aspirations of rural citizens as subjects of rural development. The concept of ‘country ownership’ considered governance in three key dimensions: (1) the problematics of government, (2) the practices or technologies of government, and (3) the rationales and justification in both of these. These elements were defined in Chapter Two (see section 2.3) and extended discussions on governmentality analytics and how these three elements are relevant to this study are elaborated in Chapter Three (see sub- section 3.2.1). These elements form the main diagnostic framework of this thesis and as argued in Chapter Three (see section 3.2), a governmentality approach as initiated by Foucault (Foucault, 1991b), is deemed most appropriate for thinking critically about the art of government that shapes and challenges the implementation of development programs concerning rural development. It also progresses recognition of the influential discourses of development construed as good government. Chapter Three also identified two other theoretical approaches for studying governance and understanding how power works, which have been sources of significant concepts for this research. To complement Foucault’s insights, a limited ethnographic approach, and the Vanua Research Framework (VRF) as an indigenous methodological approach, were used to further problematize and clarify governmentality processes concerning the relations between Fiji’s RDM and local governance in the selected study area. While the transformations narrative in ‘governing for development’ have been subject to scrutiny in regard to their institutional arrangements and country-owned processes, less attention has been paid to the reality of policy, leadership, short-termist actions and unresolved collective action problems in developing countries. The inclusion of this mixed- methodology and micro-level perspective relates bodies of work that have scarcely been critiqued, until the recent writings of Booth (2011a, 2011b).
7.2. Reflections on the Findings By considering the case study of Fiji from an analytics of government perspective, this thesis has contributed to the current imperative: …To deliver more finely tuned ideas about what are the building blocks, and what may be the room for manoeuvre, in facilitating appropriate and feasible institutional innovations [given that] the experimentation with aid approaches
256
that better support ‘country ownership’ have largely failed (Booth, 2011b, pp. 522-523).
It enhances understanding of changes in rural development governance in Fiji as exemplified by the governing rationalities and technologies inherent in Fiji’s RDM. The practical contribution of this thesis lies in identifying trends, and the challenges and potential of alternative forms of governance that have largely impinged on rural development efforts in Fiji. Chapter Four noted some of the historically and socially specific sets of ideas shaping the rural development landscape, including developments in legislation and local government responsibilities. It traced the evolution of systems of governance over 135 years in Fiji and examined how country-owned processes have shaped particular subjectivities as constitutive of Fiji’s rural development. Understanding this enables one to relate to the practical implies of development aid and how it is operationalised for rural development in Fiji. The chances of introducing effective institutional changes and the strengthening of country owned processes are increased if they are based on a fuller appreciation of the implications and practical consequences of both previous and emerging rationalities of governance. In addition to practical insights as such, this thesis extended the use of governmentality to account for the contours of contemporary rural development governance evident in the case study in terms of subjectivities and hence in discourses. It responds to calls for research that “unsettle its objects and defamiliarize the intellectual and political landscapes that thought acts upon” through governmentality’s genealogical framing (Walters, 2012, p. 114). To contribute to this assertion, Chapter Four and Chapter Five of this thesis offers a genealogical and discourse analysis of rural development governance in Fiji and the forms of subjectivation characterised by the governing technologies and rationalities in Fiji’s RDM. By highlighting the forms of subjectivation, which I argue make up the ‘conduct of conduct’ and the structured “field of possible actions” (Foucault, 1982, p. 221) of those being governed, what becomes apparent is rural development intervention that is, both, highly governed and a governed freedom that acts upon the lives of rural citizens in Fiji. Using governmentality’s genealogical framing, the data and analysis in Chapter Four undertook a problematics of government to explore how political authorities articulated desired objectives. It considered closely the ‘freedom’ underpinning Fiji’s
257
rural development processes and policies by examining how rural development is governed by three “agents of territorialisation” (Umans & Arce, 2014): (1) the colonial government, (2) the iTaukei Fijian administration and (3) the modern-state apparatus. It suggested that these multiple governmentalities control and determine rural development pathways and structure the ‘field of possible action’ for the governed. Chapter Five analysed the mentality of rule taking place in Fiji and the act of government filtered through the RDM process through discourse. Flyvbjerg (2001) has argued that discourse analysis allows exploration of the operation of power that is productive and positive (Watts, 2003) and the close relationship between power, discourse and knowledge. From a poststructural perspective, knowledge is regarded as a situated set of discourses viewed as being constitutive rather than reflexive (Gibson‐ Graham, 1994; Rose, 1997). Hence, discourse legitimises (Watts, 2003), shapes practices, and mobilises particular subjectivities (Dean, 2010). As shown in this chapter, discourse analysis serves to highlight the distribution of power in society. Certainly, discourse analysis allows and demands consideration of factors such as power, strategic behaviour and interest. Given this, it is not surprising that many of the consequences of the discourses and their interaction evident in this case study were no different to those that would be revealed by more conventional power analyses (Eyben, 2008b, 2010a; Hyden, 2008; Levy, 2010; Mosley et al., 1991; Ziai, 2009). The analysis suggested that institutions such as those engaged in Fiji’s RDM “are improvised from available moral, intellectual and practical techniques in attempts to assemble pragmatic solutions to deal with specific exigencies and limited problems” (Rose, 1999, p. 275). Using discourse analysis, key-informant responses and official government documents revealed internal contradictions within the discursive conditions that rural development operates in. Viewing rural development as a discursive field, it elucidated the system of power relations Fiji’s RDM is enmeshed in and emphasised the productive elements or “domain of objects and rituals of truth” (Foucault, 1980, p. 194) that characterise Fiji’s rural development processes. These chapters provided the primary conclusion that Fiji’s RDM is characterised by a highly centralised and regularised set of discursive practices that constitute a mentality of governance at work in Fiji’s rural planning. In recognising this, viewing discourses employed in the strategies of rural development, as alternative mechanisms for effecting change, and viewing rural development as discursive practice imposing a discipline and a limit on
258
what can be operationalised, increases understanding of the problematics of governing rural development. It also opens up new ways of thinking about ‘country ownership’ and the reality of policy and institutional arrangements, as well as entrenched ‘collective action problems’, which ultimately direct rural people towards specific forms of communal action and the pursuit of specific development projects. The effects of these are evident in the data in Chapter Six, and are elaborated in the following section.
7.3 Development experiences of the governed: the interplay of discourses and technologies of governing in Fiji’s RDM As mentioned briefly in the previous section, this thesis has analysed the ‘government of rural development’. This has entailed an examination of multiple governmentalities and discourses, that, together, constituted a mentality of governance that is shaping community action within rural settings. This mentality of governance is evident in ‘the relations of rule’, as employed in Fiji’s RDM, where the “will to improve” for rural development are governed by calculated means or programs of intervention that require “the right manner be defined, distinct finalities prioritized, and tactics finely tuned to achieve optimal results” (Li, 2007, p. 6). Hence, in Chapter Six, the effects of these ‘multifarious’ practices of government (Foucault, 1991b) were analysed. It is evident from the analysis that the design and delivery of rural development for iTaukei rural communities in Fiji do not simply involve rural people and the state. The interplay of multiple discourses, as analysed in the preceding chapter (5), showed that the state was by no means alone in exercising power as various other stakeholders simultaneously exercised power. In Chapter Six, the mentality of governance orchestrated through the ‘relations of rule’, evident in village settings, also determined how they internalised and translated discourses at the local level, in order to negotiate the meanings of their local reality with others. The analyses in Chapter Five and Six showed that gaps in rural (and non-rural) development projects around Fiji have repeated themselves through the decades. While these gaps seem repairable, there is no proper reappraisal of the situation under proper guidance to ensure that these gaps are addressed and recognised as ‘lessons learnt’ and not to be repeated again. Further to this, the findings in Chapter Six showed that development patterns in the village case study of Nakorosule, have not improved
259
significantly; rather, the rural-urban gap has continued to increase, and aspirations of rural citizens have not been addressed effectively. The absence of basic infrastructure and facilities (standard housing, village footpaths, enhanced septic and water systems, flush toilets), lack of income generating projects, despite the vast resources available to meet increasing and competing demands (church obligations, provincial taxation, village obligations, livelihood and well-being), and the lack of basic school amenities (school library, toilet and water tank upgrades, housing for teachers, school canteen, school garden, vocational school) are not new development challenges (see Nayacakalou, 1978; Ravuvu, 1988), nor are they isolated to Nakorosule (see Lasaqa, 1984; Seeto et al., 2002). The only visible improvements that have been made in Nakorosule since the studies of Nayacakalou (1978) and Ravuvu (1988) are the installation of electrical power and the construction of a new six-bedroom house for the village Pastor. The latter was a project organised by a group of people from Nakorosule, who reside in the urban capital of Suva and was viewed by them as an important form of community development contributing to the spiritual development of people in Nakorosule. The analysis in Chapter Six showed that Nakorosule villagers do not control their own development and are increasingly dependent on the RDM and other actors to coordinate their development aspirations. Consequently, rural development programs have not effectively addressed rural development needs in Nakorosule. The processes of change within Nakorosule have not effectively educated, moulded and equipped individuals to adapt to introduced and new knowledge, articulated by their discursive conditions, in order to bring about positive change that supports their well- being and their systems of knowing, understanding and reasoning on what it means to be ‘developed’. The baseline study carried out by Ravuvu (1988, p. 188) echoed similar sentiments: “Development or rural development for that matter, in its present form and direction, will continue to intensify inequalities not only between rural and urban dwellers, but among the rural population themselves. The present pattern of development has not only created much wealth for a few, but it has also increased deprivation, loss of control and dependence for the majority, and in particular [iTaukei] Fijians.”
260
In observing development patterns in the study area of Nakorosule, the baseline studies of Nayacakalou (1978) and Ravuvu (1988) both recognised that the development pathway of iTaukei rural villages through state policies supporting land modernisation, engaging communities in various new cash economies, and focusing communities on formal markets would eventually underwrite the autonomy that comes from the strength of traditional (non-market) economies. However, as an anthropologist, Nayacakalou also recognised that the safeguarding of ‘tradition, culture and custom’ underpinned by the Native Regulations, discussed earlier in Chapter Four (see section 4.1.1), amidst constant socio-economic change would result in what he termed the ‘Fijian Dilemma’ in iTaukei Fijian development and socio-economic participation in society (Nayacakalou, 1975). He argued that this would hinder socio-economic progress of rural Fijians. Ravuvu (1988), on the other hand, as an anthropologist, argued that the failings of development projects in these settings would eventuate from an increased dependence on mainstream development alternatives characterising Western economies. Other scholars have remarked similar viewpoints (Anderson, 2011; Escobar, 1997; Gibson- Graham et al., 2013; Rahnema & Bawtree, 1997; Regenvanu, 2009). Rather than concentrating on the hegemonic nature of knowledge and interventions in the development discourse in rural communities, for example, as argued by Ravuvu (1988), Anderson (2011), Escobar (1995, 1997) and Rahnema and Bawtree (1997), the limited ethnographic analysis focussed on the relations of rule, as they occur at the local level. Through a governmentality analysis, this research examined what Nayacakalou (1975) termed the ‘Fijian Dilemma’ and looked beyond analyses of hegemonic practices and how these impact development. Rather, it sought to understand how the iTaukei Administration problematised governing, how they sought to govern conduct, and how the state utilised this administration to accomplish their mode of governance at the local level. It was not so much interested in who manipulated the planning process, as in how they did so and how these interactions were manifestations of ongoing disputes about the nature of ‘good governance’ in Fiji’s ‘country-owned RDM, between people thinking in different ways and interpreting issues differently. Therefore, an examination of the mentality of ‘relations of rule’ operating at the local level showed not only the various interests manoeuvring for power, but also the way in which rural communities problematised and rationalised their actions and the concrete arrangements through which their conduct is governed. The analysis in Chapter Six
261
emphasised the complex group of interacting forces maintaining a ‘top-down’ approach of development, where discursive practices of representation of interests and of knowledge were articulated in such a way that certain development interventions were more likely to eventuate than others. In this instance, the analysis showed that the RDM and its administration contributes to the challenges of rural development and supports the argument made by Arce et al. (1994, p. 157) that “development administration then, is not a factor that is external to the problem of rural development, but itself forms part of it.” In his own work, Foucault conceived power as diffused and embodied in discourse, knowledge and ‘regimes of truth [practices]’ (Gaventa, 2003; Rabinow, 1991). He also alluded to power being a productive force in society that produces “reality” and the discursive practices in which society operates (Foucault, 1991a, p. 194). Foucault explains how social reforms of prisons, schools and hospitals were linked to the exercise of power in society. In a similar vein, this case study has shown how different practices have shaped the way power operated. To fully appreciate the relative effectiveness of decision-making processes inherent in Fiji’s RDM, is to firstly recognise how these have been problematised and discursively defined. This thesis sought to understand the mechanisms of governing ‘country ownership’ in rural development as a practice of government – a discursive practice that manifests itself in specific norms of conduct to shape, guide or affect the aspirations of rural citizens. In examining rural development through the governmentality lens, this thesis deconstructed the historical development of how the rural were problematized in Fiji when it was a British Colony. It examined the established structures and their operations of power and illustrated how this controlled rural development through various governing technologies (native regulations, iTaukei administration structure, contemporary strategies of Self-Help and Small Grants) that were established during that period. This thesis has argued that these have produced a ‘regime of practices’ that have now shaped how rural citizens as ‘target populations’ in rural development orchestrate their development and daily living. It suggests that the existing traditional and central government structures within the RDM have reinforced a ‘laidback’ attitude and trait of inertia found in many iTaukei Fijians. It has yielded productive power that has hindered socio-economic progress for rural Fijians and has altered iTaukei Fijian development throughout Fiji’s post-independent period, consequently shaping the way
262
of life in iTaukei Fijian villages. It is evident from the analysis in Chapter Five and Chapter Six that the patterns of affluence and leisurely quality of iTaukei Fijian life has eroded, but it still exists and influences the attitudes and motivations of many rural iTaukei Fijians – though the manner and direction of this influence has changed in some instances.
7.4 Key thesis contributions and implications for rural development in Fiji and Pacific Island Countries (PICs) From the outset, rural development has always been on the global development aid agenda. While there have been decades of neglect, the turn of the 21st century has witnessed a revival of donor interest and contemporary aid programming with a strong focus (at least in principle) on rural development (Allen, 2013). Amidst the global debates on aid effectiveness highlighted in Chapter One and Two, global studies alluding to aid effectiveness at the micro-level, particularly those concerning community well-being, have emphasised traditional economies, indigenous alternatives and community partnering for local development as approaches to improve aid effectiveness (Curry, 2003; Gegeo, 1998; Gibson-Graham et al., 2013). These all embrace the basic tenets of ‘bottom-up’, ‘decentralised’, ‘grassroots’, participatory, and ‘sustainable livelihoods approaches of development that have been mobilised globally since the late 1980s (see section 1.1 and 1.2 of Ch.1). There is no doubt that these have contributed to some development successes, but given that extreme poverty remains rural in nature for the majority of the developing world (70%) (IFAD, 2010), a number of important and fundamental criticisms remain about the effectiveness of development assistance, as highlighted in Chapter Two. In the Pacific region, the increasing rates of urbanisation of Pacific towns and cities have been largely attributed to the decline in service provision in the periphery (Connell, 2007), a backlog of a demand for services and infrastructure, and an increasing share of secondary, industrial and tertiary services sectors situated within urban areas (Jones, 2012). All these point to shortcomings in rural development. While there is a major need to rethink approaches to urban management and urban development in the Pacific against this backdrop of urbanisation trends (Jones, 2016), this thesis has analysed how rural development is governed in Fiji to provide
263
perspective and increase understanding on why resource gaps between the rural and urban continue to widen. 7.4.1 Thesis contributions Given the influence of development assistance (be it foreign aid or government sponsored) for rural development, this thesis examined how development assistance is filtered through the RDM down to the local level. In this manner, this thesis contributes knowledge to discourses on effective institutional change that leads to a ‘better way of governing’ development aid in Fiji and the wider Pacific region. This thesis showed the challenges inherent in the ‘country ownership’ of Fiji’s rural development processes and how this is governed by two different modes of government. There is the central state machinery operating in a Westminster mode of government and then there is the traditional governing structure which governs the development of iTaukei Fijians in rural villages. Both these modes of government are used for the delivery of rural development services. Similar dual (western and traditional) modes of government are also evident in other Pacific island countries in Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia. Through these modes of government, the thesis has illustrated that these dual governance structures make it difficult to yield consistent, successful efforts that benefit the rural and they do not empower or assist in unleashing the hidden potential in rural citizens to fully utilise the resources they hold. In many instances, rural development projects have turned out to be ‘a form of welfare’, rather than being used as an instrument of the people for the development of their economic and social aspirations. Efforts to bring about more holistic development that address the aspirations of rural citizens and efforts to empower rural citizens to control their own development is limited by these differing modes of government that run parallel to each other. In Fiji, the RDM is the conduit through which all programmes for rural development are to be channelled and, in principle, this incudes foreign aid assistance (see section 5.6 of Ch.5). Although the Budget and Aid Coordination Committee (BACC) of the Ministry of Economy takes on a central role in coordinating project proposals from bilateral arrangements with relevant ministries engaged in the rural development sector, findings in Chapter Six have indicated that, in some cases, donors bypass the BACC and liaise directly with line ministries. It also pointed out that this occurs frequently with the Ministry of Rural Development. In other instances, as Chapter Five has showed, donors liaise directly with NGOs to deliver development
264
services, because ‘country-owned’ processes, such as the RDM, are too bureaucratic. While donors’ actions are perhaps valid in this regard given the ‘red tape’ and ‘collective action problems’ inherent in the system, these stances also undermine existing ‘country-owned institutional’ frameworks, and do not help support these ‘country-owned’ processes in rectifying these issues so that they are able to improve their delivery of development services. Though they recognise the shortcomings of ‘country-owned’ processes, bypassing these do not assist in addressing the ‘collective action problems’ in the system. If anything, aid channelled in this manner only shields incumbent leaders and the plurality of actors involved in these processes from any form of accountability. Given that Fiji’s RDM is highly subjective, centralised and regularised as Chapters Four, Five and Six have highlighted, such actions from donors are unfavourable to bridging resource gaps and assisting the right sorts of institutional change that are needed. In Chapter Five, it was also highlighted that both government and aid funded projects only monitor the utilisation of funds and the evaluative element is lacking. Key-informants highlighted two reasons for this: (1) they are only required by donors to report on the utilisation of funds; (2) they lack the human resources to carry out impact evaluations to track the sustainability of projects and to assess the effectiveness of these in addressing development challenges. It is clear that aid can be harmful to country-owned development understood in this way, because there is more focus on financial disbursements than there is on ensuring that financial assistance addresses professed objectives intended to reduce poverty and bridge resource gaps. It is widely accepted that donor governments provide aid with the noble aim of giving people an improved standard of living and progressive development (facilitating and achieving beneficiaries needs, for example, in health and education in a more expeditious manner). However, whether these development programmes are facilitated and implemented with a complete awareness to the weak ‘country-owned’ processes that are already there, and the social and cultural sensitivities within the operationalised systems of governance that act upon the lives of people living in Fiji and the region, tends to be overlooked. A radical shift is therefore needed in political and public thinking about how donor countries can assist the development of recipient countries by promoting ‘country ownership’. The findings in this thesis highlight the gaps that the current ‘country-owned’ system has, and in looking at addressing solutions, development partners should work closely with recipient governments to strengthen
265
their ‘country-owned’ development processes and to assist the emergence of developmental country leaderships. To put recipient countries in the ‘driver’s seat’ is to ensure that they are able to participate actively in a robust system upholding fiduciary and ‘good government’ standards, and that they have the opportunity to engage directly in the administration and management of funds, given the recognition accorded to them by financial institutions. Some of the biggest challenges to improving development practice at all levels, from bottom to top, take the form of unresolved collective-action problems as findings in this thesis has shown. Recipient governments must be assisted along these lines first to ensure that they overcome institutional obstacles of this type and this is what support to country ownership should chiefly be about.
7.5 Future directions and opportunities The absence of a regional level of government that coordinates rural development without the colonial constructs that are in the RDM, and the need for integrated, aligned and harmonised work programs as well as cooperation between the State, iTaukei Fijian Administration and its councils, and other stakeholders, complicates implementation of an institutional structure to facilitate planning for coordinated rural development. The task of this study was not to show that rural development planning and governance has ‘worsened’, nor was it to provide a prescriptive model on how to improve these. Rather, the thesis was aimed at deconstructing and showing the ‘collective action problems’ that continue to plague Fiji’s RDM, and to provide an alternative way of critiquing rural development governance by exploring more subtle interactions embedded in the plurality of actors seeking to problematize the rural as subjects to be governed, and how this act of government takes place. Through the governmentality lens, the thesis increased focus on how development assistance (state-sponsored or foreign aid) is governed and rationalised a ‘better way of governing.’ The findings from this study have highlighted the significant challenges at the national level, to address the inherent problems in Fiji’s country-owned RDM. It is evident from the thesis that development for iTaukei Fijians through the iTaukei Fijian Administration, as a government operating within the modern-state apparatus, has been negligible. Central governance in this manner has only led to suppression and over- dependence. Studies by Lasaqa (1984), Mausio (2007), Overton (1999), Qalo (1984), Seeto et al. (2002) have echoed similar sentiments. The findings in Chapters Five and
266
Six also point towards a new way of governing rural development in Fiji, where the delivery of rural development services needs to move away from the current governance framework, which operates under the rhetoric of traditions, customs and culture and emphasised that what people perceive and accept as the norm, without questioning, needs to be changed. Indeed, as the thesis has showed, there is a great need to understand and recognise that these are dynamic concepts and change over time, and to hold onto something that is inconsistent with the tenor of current times is not realistic. The current system is in need of major reforms and perhaps it is time now to go further, to re-examine the role of the Fijian Administration in rural development and the body of councils within it, as administratively, they are still ruled by decisions from central government. Thus, their corporate body status is underutilised and decisions they wish to make are still filtered through a highly centralised RDM. While the state is responding to some of the challenges inherent in Fiji’s RDM, through the establishment of the Integrated Rural Development Framework (IRDF), innovations that will devolve authority for local participation needs to be explored further as well. The underlying technologies of government fashioning subjectivities that act upon the lives of rural iTaukei Fijians and rural dwellers, in general, have normalised the discursive conditions under which rural people operate. These continue to wield very specific rationalities (specific ends) that continue to define the parameters of rural development and the ongoing influence of the state in controlling the ‘developed’.
267
List of References AAI, Action Aid International. (2005) Real aid: Making Technical Assistance work. Johannesburg, South Africa: Action Aid International. Retrieved from http://www.actionaid.org/sites/files/actionaid/real_aid_2.pdf. Abbott, D., & Pollard, S. (2004). Hardship and poverty in the Pacific: Strengthening Policy Analysis And Strategies In The Pacific. Retrieved from Manila: http://hdl.handle.net/11540/3283 Acemoglu, D., & Angrist, J. (2001). How large are human-capital externalities? Evidence from compulsory-schooling laws. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11054 Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2001). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369-1401. Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J. A. (2005). Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth. In P. Aghion & S. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth (pp. 386-414): Elsevier B.V. ADB, Asian Development Bank. (2014). Fiji Country Partnership Strategy 2014-2018: Poverty Analysis (Summary). Retrieved from http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linked-documents/cps-fij-2014-2018- pa.pdf. Addison, T., Niño-Zarazúa, M., & Tarp, F. (2015). Aid, social policy and development. Journal of International Development, 27(8), 1351-1365. doi:10.1002/jid.3187 Adebajo, A. (2014). Two prophets of regional integration: Prebisch and Adedeji. In B. Alder-Currie, R. Kanbur, D. Malone, & R. Medhora (Eds.), International Development: Ideas, Experience and Prospects. Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671656.003.0020. Adelman, I. (1999). Fallacies in Development Theory and Their Implications for Policy. Working Paper No. 887. Retrieved from Berkeley, California: http://are.berkeley.edu/~irmaadelman/dubrov.pdf Adusei-Asante, K., & Hancock, P. (2016). Impact assessment and official development assistance: ethnographic research of the World Bank's community-based rural development projects in Ghana. In V. Jakupec & M. Kelly (Eds.), Assessing the Impact of Foreign Aid: Value for Money and Aid for Trade (pp. 169-182). New York, USA: Academic Press, Elsevier. Alesina, A., & Dollar, D. (2000). Who gives foreign aid to whom and why? Journal of Economic Growth, 5(1), 33-63. doi:10.1023/A:1009874203400 Allen, M. G. (2013). Rural development: Back on the agenda in the Western Pacific? In D. Hegarty & D. Tyron (Eds.), Politics, Development And Security In Oceania (pp. 165-175). Canberra: ANU ePress. Alsop, R. (2007). On the concept and measurement of empowerment. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Poverty (pp. 120-139). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Alvares, C. (1992). Science. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Books. Anderson, T. (2011). Melanesian land: The impact of markets and modernisation. Journal of Australian Political Economy,(68), 86-107. Arce, A., Villarreal, M., & Vries, P. d. (1994). The social construction of rural development: discourses, practices and power. In D. Booth (Ed.), Rethinking
268
social development: theory, research & practice (pp. 152). England: Longman Group Limited. Arendt, H. (1970). On violence. New York: New York : Harcourt, Brace & World. Ashley, C., & Maxwell, S. (2001). Rethinking rural development. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 395-425. doi:10.1111/1467-7679.00141 Ashley, C., & Maxwell, S. (2002). Rethinking rural development. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- files/1866.pdf Aubut, J. (2004). The Good Governance Agenda: Who Wins and Who Loses. Some Empirical Evidence for 2001. Working Paper Series No. 04-48. Retrieved from http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationalDevelopment/pdf/WP/WP48.pdf Babbie, E. R. (2015). The Practice of Social Research (14th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning US. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947-952. doi:10.2307/1952796 Bah, E. M., & Ward, J. (2011). Effectiveness of foreign aid in small island developing states. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA) Paper No. 32062. Retrieved from Germany: Baledrokadroka, J. (2003). The Fijian Understanding of the Deed of Cession Treaty of 1874. Indiana: Ostrom Workshop. Banerjee, A. V. (2007). Making Aid Work. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Barr, J., & Christie, A. (2015). Improving the practice of value for money assessment. Centre for Development Impact Practice Paper, 12, 1-9. Retrieved from http://www.ids.ac.uk/publication/improving-the-practice-of-value-for-money- assessment. Barr, K. (2004). Competing paradigms of good governance, human rights and democracy. Retrieved from London: http://www.realityofaid.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/ROA_2004_part3.pdf Bauer, P. (1971). Dissent on Development. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Baulch, B. (2006). Aid distribution and the MDGs. World Development, 34(6), 933- 950. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.013 Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bertram, G. (1986). Sustainable development in Pacific micro-economies. World Development, 14(7), 809-822. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(86)90033-1 Bertram, G. (1993). Sustainability, aid, and material welfare in small South Pacific island economies, 1900-90. World Development, 21(2), 247-258. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(93)90020-A Bertram, G. (1999). The MIRAB model twelve years on. The Contemporary Pacific, 11(1), 105-138. Bertram, G. (2011). Pacific island economies. In M. Rapaport (Ed.), The Pacific Islands: Environment and Society (pp. 959-992). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Biermann, F., Stevens, C., Bernstein, S., Gupta, A., Kabiri, N., Kanie, N., . . . Young, O. R. (2015). Integrating Governance into the Sustainable Development Goals. POST 2015/UNU-IAS Policy Brief #3. Tokyo, Japan: United Ntions University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS). Bissio, R. (2007). Paris Declaration of Aid Effectiveness: Application of the criteria for periodic evaluation of Global Development Partnerships - as defined in Millenium Development Goal 8 - From the Right to Development Perspective: 269
the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.realityofaid.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/RoAReports2008_Chapter3.pdf Bloom, D., & Sachs, J. D. (1998). Geography, demography and economic growth in Africa. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/1998- 2/1998b_bpea_bloom_sachs_collier_udry.PDF Blunt, P., Turner, M., & Hertz, J. (2011). The meaning of development assistance. Public Administration and Development, 31(3), 172-187. doi:10.1002/pad.592 Boelens, R., Hoogesteger, J., & Baud, M. (2015). Water reform governmentality in Ecuador: Neoliberalism, centralization, and the restraining of polycentric authority and community rule-making. Geoforum, 64, 281-291. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.07.005 Bonner, A., & Tolhurst, G. (2002). Insider-outsider perspectives of participant observation. Nurse Researcher, 9(4), 7-19. Boone, P. (1994). The impact of foreign aid on savings and growth. Retrieved from London School of Economics: Boone, P. (1996). Politics and the effectiveness of foreign aid. European Economic Review, 40, 289-329. doi:10.1016/0014-2921(95)00127-1 Booth, D. (1993). Development Research: From Impasse to a New Agenda. In F. J. Schuurman (Ed.), Beyond the Impasse: New Directions in Development Theory (pp. 49-76). London & New Jersey: Zed Books. Booth, D. (2005). Missing links in the politics of development: Learning from the PRSP experiment. Working Paper 256. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- files/2003.pdf Booth, D. (2008). Aid effectiveness after Accra: How to reform the 'Paris agenda'. Briefing Paper 39. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi- assets/publications-opinion-files/2549.pdf Booth, D. (2011a). Aid effectiveness: bringing country ownership (and politics) back in. Working Paper 336. . Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- files/6028.pdf Booth, D. (2011b). Aid, institutions and governance: What have we learned? Development Policy Review, 29(s1), s5-s26. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 7679.2011.00518.x Booth, D. (Ed.) (1994). Rethinking Social Development Theory, Research & Practice. Harlow: Longman Pub Group. Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the research process. The Qualitative Report, 19(18), 1-9. Brant, P. (2013). Chinese aid in the South Pacific: Linked to resources? Asian Studies Review, 37(2), 158-177. doi:10.1080/10357823.2013.767311 Brautigam, D. (2010). China, Africa and the international aid architecture. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.594.6351&rep=rep1& type=pdf Breen, L. J. (2007). The researcher 'in the middle': Negotiating the insider/outsider dichotomy. The Austrailan Community Pscyhologist, 19(1), 163-174. Brigg, M. (2002). Post-development, Foucault and the colonisation metaphor. Third World Quarterly, 23(3), 421-436. doi:10.1080/01436590220138367
270
Briguglio, L. (1995). Small island developing states and their economic vulnerabilities. World Development, 23(9), 1615-1632. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(95)00065-K Briguglio, L. (2003). The vulnerability index and small island developing states: A review of conceptual and methodological issues. Retrieved from Paper presented at the AIMS Regional Preparatory Meeting on the BPoA+10 Review. Retrieved from http://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/44137/vulnerability_paper_s ep03.pdf: Retrieved from http://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/44137/vulnerability_paper_s ep03.pdf Brookfield, H. G. (1988). Fijian farmers each on his own land: The triumph of experience over hope. The Journal of Pacific History, 23(1), 15-35. doi:10.1080/00223348808572573 Brown, S. (1973). Men From Under the Sky: The Arrival of Westerners in Fiji. Tokyo: Charles E Tuttle Co. Brown, S., & Swiss, L. (2013). The hollow ring of donor commitments: Country concentration and the decoupling of aid-effectiveness norms from donor practice. Development Policy Review, 31(6), 737-755. doi:10.1111/dpr.12033 Bryant-Tokalau, J. (2012). Twenty years on: Poverty and hardship in urban Fiji. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 168(2/3), 195-218. doi:10.2307/41581001 Bryceson, D. F. (2002). The scramble in Africa: Reorienting rural livelihoods. World Development, 30(5), 725-739. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00006-2 Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burall, S., Maxwell, S., & Menocal, A. (2006). Reforming the international aid architecture: Options and ways forward. Working Paper 278. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- files/892.pdf Burns, A. (1963). Fiji. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Burns, A., Watson, T. Y., & Peacock, A. T. (1960). Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Natural Resources and Population Trends of the Colony of Fiji, Legislative Council of Fiji Paper, No.1 of 1960. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25169023 Burnside, C., & Dollar, D. (2000). Aid, policies, and growth. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 847-868. doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.847 Calvo, C., & Dercon, S. (2007). Risk and vulnerability to poverty. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Poverty (pp. 215-228). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Caplan, J. (1989). Postmodernism, Poststructuralism, and Deconstruction: Notes for historians. Central European History, 22(3-4), 260-278. doi:10.1017/S0008938900020483 Carbonnier, G. (2010a). Official development assistance once more under fire from critics. International Development Policy Revue Internationale de Politique de Développement, 1, 137-142. doi:10.4000/poldev.141 Carbonnier, G. (2010b). Official development assistance once more under fire from critics. International Development Policy(1), 137-142. CARE International, & ActionAID. (2006). Where to now? Implications for changing relations between DFID, recipient governments and NGOs in Malawi, Tanzania
271
and Uganda. Retrieved from http://insights.careinternational.org.uk/media/k2/attachments/where-to-now.pdf Central Planning Office, Fiji Government. (1970). Sixth development plan 1971-1975. Suva: Central Planning Office. Central Planning Office, Fiji Government. (1975). Seventh development plan 1976- 1980. Suva: Central Planning Office. Central Planning Office, Fiji Government. (1981). Fiji's Eighth Development Plan 1981-1985, Volume Two, Parliamentary Paper No.1 of 1981, Parliament of Fiji. Suva: I.B.Ravutu, Government Printer. Cernea, M. M. (1991). Putting people first : sociological variables in rural development (2nd, rev, and expanded ed.). New York: New York : Oxford University Press. Chambers, R. (1992). Participatory Rural Appraisal: Past, Present and Future. Forests, Trees and People Newsletter, 15/16. Retrieved from https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/139/rc173.pdf ?sequence=2&isAllowed=y Chambers, R. (2006a). Transforming power: From zero-sum to win-win? IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 99-110. Chambers, R. (2006b) What is poverty? Who asks? Who answers? Poverty in Focus: What is Poverty? Concepts and Measures (pp. 3-4). Brazil: UNDP International Poverty Centre (IPC). Chambers, R. (2007). Participation, pluralism and perceptions of poverty. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Poverty (pp. 140-164). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Chambers, R. (2014). Rural Development : Putting the last first. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Chandy, L. (2011). It's complicated: The challenge of implementing the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2011/09/22-paris-declaration- chandy Chenery, H. B., & Strout, A. M. (1966). Foreign assistance and economic development. The American Economic Review, 56(4), 679-733. Cheshire, L. (2006). Governing Rural Development: Discourses and Practices of Self- help in Australian Rural Policy. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing Company. Chung, M. (1988). The impact of a road. In J. Overton (Ed.), Rural Fiji (pp. 97-121). Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific. Clarke, J. (2008). Governing the Local? A response to Kevin Stenson. Social Work & Society, 6(1), 15-20. Cleaver, F. (2001). Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The New Tyranny (pp. 36-55). Clegg, S. (1997). Foucault, Power and Organizations. In A. McKinlay & K. Starkey (Eds.), Foucault, Management and Organization Theory: From Panopticon to Technologies of Self (pp. 29-48). United Kingdom: SAGE Publications. Cochrane, L., & Thornton, A. (2016). Charity rankings: Delivering development or dehumanising aid? Journal of International Development, 28(1), 57-73. doi:10.1002/jid.3201 Cogneau, D., & Naudet, J.-D. (2007). Who deserves aid? Equality of opportunity, international aid, and poverty reduction. World Development, 35(1), 104-120. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.09.006 272
Cole, R. V., Levine, S. I., & Matahu, A. V. (1984). The Fijian Provincial Administration: A Review. Honolulu: East-West Center, Pacific Islands Development Program. Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can be Done About It. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Collier, P., & Dollar, D. (2001). Can the world cut poverty in half? How policy reform and effective aid can meet international development goals. World Development, 29(11), 1787-1802. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00076-6 Collier, P., & Dollar, D. (2002). Aid allocation and poverty reduction. European Economic Review, 46(8), 1475-1500. doi:10.1016/s0014-2921(01)00187-8 Collier, P., & Hoeffler, A. (2002). Aid, policy and peace: Reducing the risks of civil conflict. Defence and Peace Economics, 13(6), 435-450. doi:10.1080/10242690214335 Connell, J. (2007). Islands, idylls and the detours of development. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 28(2), 116-135. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.2007.00284.x Conway, G. (1999). The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in the Twenty-First Century. Cornell University, New York: Comstock Publishing Associates. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny. London; New York: Zed Books. Corbridge, S., & Jones, G. (2008). The continuing debate about urban bias: The thesis, its critics, its influence, and implications for poverty reduction. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/146499340901000101 Cornwall, A. (2002). Making spaces, changing places: situating participation in development, IDS Working Paper 170. Retrieved from http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/Wp170.pdf Cornwall, A., & Brock, K. (2005). What do buzzwords do for development policy? a critical look at ‘participation’, ‘empowerment’ and ‘poverty reduction’. Third World Quarterly, 26(7), 1043-1060. doi:10.1080/01436590500235603 Craig, D., & Porter, D. (2003). Poverty reduction strategy papers: A new convergence. World Development, 3(1), 53-69. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00147-X Curry, G. N. (2003). Moving beyond postdevelopment: Facilitating indigenous alternatives for “development”. Economic Geography, 79(4), 405-423. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00221.x Dabelstein, N., & Patton, M. Q. (2013). The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: History and significance. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 27(3), 19-36. Dalgaard, C. J., Hansen, H., & Tarp, F. (2004). On the empirics of foreign aid and growth. The Economic Journal, 114(496), F191-F216. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 0297.2004.00219.x Daurewa, A. (2013). Radical changes in indigeneous governance: Understanding a Fijian experience, 2006-2012. (MA in Development Studies), The University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji. Retrieved from http://digilib.library.usp.ac.fj/gsdl/collect/usplibr1/index/assoc/HASHce84.dir/d oc.pdf Davies, P. (2011). Towards a new development cooperation dynamic, Chapter 4. Retrieved from http://cso-effectiveness.org/IMG/pdf/autocontrolong-2.pdf Davis, T. W. D. (2012). ACFID and 'Value for Money' Discussion Paper. Retrieved from https://acfid.asn.au/sites/site.acfid/files/resource_document/ACFID-Value- for-Money-Discussion-Paper.pdf
273
de Haan, A. (2009). How the Aid Industry Works : An Introduction to International Development. Sterling, VA, USA: USA Kumarian Press. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles & London: SAGE. Department of Regional Development, Fiji Government. (1999). Department of Regional Development Annual Report for the Year 1996, Parliament of Fiji, Parliametnary Paper No.62 of 1999. Suva: Pio. B.Tikoisuva, Government Printer. Desai, L. (2006) A new measure of the poverty line. Poverty Focus: What is Poverty? Concepts and Measures (pp. 16-17). Brazil: UNDP International Pacific Centre (IPC). DFAT, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Government. (2013). Aid Program Performance Report 2012-13 Fiji. Retrieved from Australia: https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/fiji-appr-2012-13.pdf Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13,000 Years. Great Britian: Chatto and Windus. Dijkstra, G. (2011). The PRSP approach and the illusion of improved aid effectiveness: Lessons from Bolivia, Honduras and Nicaragua. Development Policy Review, 29, s110-s133. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7679.2011.00522.x Dijkstra, G., & Komives, K. (2011). The PRS approach and the Paris agenda: Experiences in Bolivia, Honduras and Nicaragua. European Journal of Development Research, 23(2), 191-207. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2010.30 Dollar, D., & Levin, V. (2005). Sowing and reaping: Institutional quality and project outcomes in developing countries. Working Paper 3524. Retrieved from http://www- wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2005/03/06/ 000090341_20050306121837/Rendered/PDF/wps3524.pdf Dollar, D., & Pritchett, L. (1998). Assessing Aid: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1998/11/438890/assessing-aid- works-doesnt Dornan, M., & Newton, T. C. (2014). Regional service delivery among Pacific island countries: An assessment. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 1(3), 541-560. doi:10.1002/app5.45 Droop, J., Isenman, P., & Mlalazi, B. (2008). Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Study of existing mechanisms to promote mutual accountability between donors and partner countries at the international level, Background paper. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/43163465.pdf Dubsky, R. (1988). The administration of rural development in Fiji. Institute of Rural Development, University of the South Pacific. Duke, K. (2002). Getting beyond the ‘official line’: Reflections on dilemmas of access, knowledge and power in researching policy networks. Journal of Social Policy, 31(1), 39-59. doi:10.1017/S0047279402006505 Durutalo, A. (1997). Provincialism and the crisis of indigeneous fijian political unity. (MA in Development Studies), The University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji. Dwyer, S. C. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54-63. Easter, C. (1999). Small states development: A commonwealth vulnerability index. The Round Table, 88(351), 403-422. doi:10.1080/003585399107947
274
Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest have Done so Much ill and so Little Good. New York: Penguin Press HC. Easterly, W. (2009). Can the West save Africa? Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 373-447. doi:10.1257/jel.47.2.373 Edward, P. (2006) The ethical poverty line: A moral definition of absolute poverty. Poverty Focus: What is Poverty? Concepts and Measures. Brazil: UNDP International Pacific Centre (IPC). Ellis, F., & Biggs, S. (2001). Evolving themes in rural development 1950s-2000s. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 437-448. doi:10.1111/1467-7679.00143 Emmi, A., Ozlem, E., Maja, K., Ilan, R., & Florian, S. (2011). Value for Money: Current approaches and evolving debates, LSE Report to Save the Children, UK, London. Retrieved from http://bigpushforward.net/wp- content/uploads/2011/09/vfm-current-approaches-and-evolving-debates.pdf Engel, S. (2014). The not-so-great aid debate. Third World Quarterly, 35(8), 1374- 1389. doi:10.1080/01436597.2014.946251 England, K. V. L. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80-89. doi:10.1111/j.0033- 0124.1994.00080.x Escobar, A. (1991). Anthropology and the development encounter: The making and marketing of development anthropology. American Ethnologist, 18(4), 658-682. Escobar, A. (1992). Planning. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Books. Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Escobar, A. (1997). The making and unmaking of the Third World through development. In M. Rahnema & V. Bawtree (Eds.), The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Esteva, G. (1992). Development. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The Development Dictionary (pp. 6-25). Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Everingham, J.-A. (2006). Regional Planning as Good Governance: A Central Queensland Case Sudy. (Doctor of Philosophy), The University of Queensland. Eyben, R. (2008a). Conceptualising policy practices in researching pathways of women's empowerment. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies Retrieved from http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/WomenEmp/Pathways_Working_Paper1.pd f. Eyben, R. (2008b). Power, mutual accountability and responsibility in the practice of international aid: A relational approach. Retrieved from http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/4164/Wp305.p df?sequence=1 Eyben, R. (2010a). Hiding relations: the irony of 'effective aid'. European Journal of Development Research, 22(3), 382-397. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2010.10 Eyben, R. (2010b). Supporting Inclusive and Democratic Ownership: A ‘how-to note’ for donors. Report for the OECD DAC Working Party on Aid Effectiveness Cluster A ‘Ownership and Accountability’. Retrieved from http://cso- effectiveness.org/IMG/pdf/enabling_environment_institute_for_development_st udies.pdf Eyben, R. (2013). Struggles in Paris: The DAC and the purposes of development aid. The European Journal of Development Research, 25(1), 78-91. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2012.49 275
Fairbanks II, R. (2008). A critical response to Kevin Stenson's governing the local: Sovereignty, social governance and community safety. Social Work & Society, 6(1), 36-41. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London & New York: Longman. Farran, S. (2014). Aid, trade and taboo: the place of indigenous traditional knowledge in development strategies: A Pacific perspective. Development Studies Research, 1(1), 28-41. doi:10.1080/21665095.2014.909289 Farrelly, T. (2009). Business Va'avanua: Cultural Hybridisation and Indigenous Entrepreneurship in the Bouma National Heritage Park, Fiji. (Doctor of Philosophy), Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/1166/02_whole.pdf?sequence= 4&isAllowed=y Feeny, S. (2007). The impact of foreign aid on economic growth in Papua New Guinea. The Journal of Development Studies, 41(6), 1092-1117. doi:10.1080/00220380500155403 Feeny, S., & McGillivray, M. (2010). Aid and growth in Small Island Developing States. The Journal of Development Studies, 46(5), 897-917. doi:10.1080/00220381003623889 Fiji Bureau of Statistics, Fiji Government. (2007). 2007 Census of Fiji. Suva, Fiji. Retrieved from http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/statistics/2007-census-of-population- and-housing. Fiji Government. (1969). Fiji Council Debates, Sessions of 1969. Suva: Government Press. Fiji Government. (1987). Ministry of Rural Development, Rehabilitation and Rural Housing Annual Report for the Years 1983-1984, Parliamentary Paper No. of 1987. Suva: Parliament of Fiji. Fiji Government. (2001). 50/50 by Year 2020: 20 Year Plan for the Enhancement of Indigeneous Fijians and Rotumans Participation in Commerce and Business. Suva: Fiji Government. Fiji Government. (2002). Rebuilding Confidence for Stability and Growth for a Peaceful, Prosperous Fiji: Strategic Development Plan, 2003-2005. Suva: Ministry of Finance and National Planning. Fiji Government. (2009). Ministry of Provincial Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs: Annual Report 2008. Parliament of Fiji, Parliamentary Paper No.11 of 2009. Suva, Fiji: R.S.Oli, Acting Government Printer. Fiji Government. (2012). Republic of Fiji Islands Government Gazette: iTaukei Affairs (Amendment) Decree No.22 of 2012. Suva, Fiji: A.V.Naivakasoro, Government Printer. Retrieved from http://www.fiji.gov.fj/getattachment/6977fb4a-d402- 42a6-a702-457813bac7a6/Decree-No-22_2012---iTaukei-Affairs-(Amendment)- De.aspx. Fiji Government. (2014). Fiji's Integrated Rural Development Framework (IRDF). Suva, Fiji. Fiji Government, Ministry of iTaukei Affairs. (2016). Ministry of ITaukei Affairs Annual Report, 2015. An enlightened Vanua for a Progressive Fiji. Parliamentary Paper No.67 of 2016. Retrieved from Fiji: http://www.itaukeiaffairs.gov.fj/images/brochures/MTA-AR-2015.pdf Fijian Affairs Act. (1978). Fijian Affairs Act (Cap 120). Suva: Parliament of Fiji.
276
Fisher, K. T. (2015). Positionality, subjectivity, and race in transnational and transcultural geographical research. Gender, Place & Culture, 22(4), 456-473. doi:10.1080/0966369X.2013.879097 Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ford, L. (2015). Sustainable development goals: all you need to know. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/global- development/2015/jan/19/sustainable-development-goals-united- nations#comments Foucault, M. (1976). The political function of the intellectual. Translated from the French by C. Gordon. Radical Philosophy(17, Summer 1977), 12-14. Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. Interview by A. Fontana and P. Pasquino. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977 (pp. 109-134). New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777-795. Foucault, M. (1990). The History of Sexuality. Translated from the French by Robert Hurley (Reissue ed.). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1991a). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. London: Penguin Books. Foucault, M. (1991b). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (pp. 87-104). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics. London: Palgrave. Foucault, M., Martin, L. H., Gutman, H., & Hutton, P. H. (1988). Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Fraenkel, J. (2006). Beyond MIRAB: Do aid and remittances crowd out export growth in Pacific microeconomies? Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 47(1), 15-30. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8373.2006.00300.x France, P. (1968). The founding of an orthodoxy: Sir Arthur Gordon and the doctrine of the Fijian way of life. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 77(1), 6-32. France, P. (1969). The Charter of the Land: Custom and Colonization in Fiji. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Frank, A. G. (1970). Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution: Essays on the Development of Underdevelopment and the Immediate Enemy. New York: New York : Monthly Review Press. Friedman, M. (1958). Foreign economic aid. Yale Review, 47, 500-516. Friedmann, J. (1966). Poor regions and poor nations: Perspectives on the problem of Appalachia. Southern Economic Journal, 32(4), 465-473. doi:10.2307/1055900 Frot, E., & Santiso, J. (2008). Development aid and portfolio funds: Trends, volatility and fragmentation. Working Paper No. 275. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/development/pgd/41890256.pdf Frot, E., & Santiso, J. (2009). Crushed aid: Fragmentation in sectoral aid. SITE Working Paper No.6. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/z3488603/Downloads/SSRN-id1517340.pdf Fukuda-Parr, S. (2006) The Human Poverty Index: A multidimensional measure. Policy Focus: What is Poverty? Concepts and Measures (pp. 7-9). Brazil: UNDP International Poverty Centre (IPC). Gallup, J., Sachs, J. D., & Mellinger, A. (1999). Geography and economic development. CID Working Paper No. 1. Retrieved from 277
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/faculty-working- papers/cid-working-paper-no.-001 Gani, A. (2009). Governance and foreign aid in Pacific island countries. Journal of International Development, 21(1), 112-125. doi:10.1002/jid.1480 Gaventa, J. (2003). Power after Lukes: An overview of theories of power since Lukes and their application to development. Brighton: Participation Group, Institute of Development Studies Retrieved from http://www.powercube.net/wp- content/uploads/2009/11/power_after_lukes.pdf. Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the space for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23-33. Gegeo, D. W. (1998). Indigenous knowledge and empowerment: Rural development examined within. The Contemporary Pacific, 10(2), 289-315. doi:10.2307/23706891 Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354. Ghina, F. (2003). Sustainable development in Small Island Developing States. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 5(1-2), 139-165. doi:10.1023/A:1025300804112 Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2000). Postructural interventions. In E. S. Sheppard & T. J. Barnes (Eds.), A Companion to Economic Geography (pp. 95-110). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). The End of Capitalism (as we knew it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy (1st ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2010). Forging post-development partnerships: Possibilities for local and regional development. In A. Pike, A. Rodriguez-Pose, & J. Tomaney (Eds.), Handbook of Local And Regional Development (1 ed.). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203842393.ch19 Gibson-Graham, J. K., Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2013). Take Back the Economy an Ethical Guide for Transforming our Communities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Gibson‐ Graham, J. K. (1994). ‘Stuffed if I know!’: Reflections on post‐ modern feminist social research. Gender, Place & Culture, 1(2), 205-224. doi:10.1080/09663699408721210 Gibson, C., Andersson, K., Ostrom, E., & Shivakumar, S. (2005). The Samaritan's Dilemma : The Political Economy of Development Aid. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Gilbert, M. R. (1994). The politics of location: Doing feminist research at “home”. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 90-96. doi:10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00090.x Gleeson, B. (2003). Learning about Regionalism from Europe: ‘Economic normalisation’ and beyond. Australian Geographical Studies, 41(3), 221-236. doi:10.1046/j.1467-8470.2003.00231.x Glennie, J. (2011a, Friday 18 November). Yes, the Paris declaration on aid has problems but it's still the best we have, Blog (Aid effectiveness. Poverty matters blog). The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/global- development/poverty-matters/2011/nov/18/paris-declaration-aid-effectiveness- necessary Glennie, J. (2011b, Monday 3 January, 2011). Has the world met its Paris aid commitments?, Blog (Aid effectiveness. Poverty matters blog). The Guardian.
278
Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty- matters/2011/jan/03/paris-declaration-aid Glennie, J., Ali, A., King, M., McKechnie, A., & Rabinowitz, G. (2012). Localising aid: Can using local actors strengthen them? Working Paper 352. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- files/7789.pdf Glennie, J., & Rogerson, A. (2011). Global reach is the prize at Busan. Opinion, (154). London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI). Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- files/7293.pdf. Global Partnership. (2015). Global Monitoring. Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. Retrieved from http://effectivecooperation.org/about/global-monitoring-framework/ Glynn, J. J. (1985). Value for money auditing - an international review and comparison. Financial Accountability & Management, 1(2), 113-128. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 0408.1985.tb00248.x Gobo, G. (2004). Sampling, Representativeness and Generalizability. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 435-456). London: Sage. Gollin, D. (2014). The Lewis model: A 60-year retrospective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), 71-88. doi:10.1257/jep.28.3.71 Goodwin, M. (1998). The governance of rural areas: Some emerging research issues and agendas. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 5-12. doi:10.1016/S0743- 0167(97)00043-0 Graham, E. (2005). Philosophies underlying human geography research. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (Eds.), Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project (2nd ed., pp. 8-29). England: Pearson Education Limited. Green, D. (2011). The future of aid - what's at stake in Busan. Retrieved from http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/the-future-of-aid-whats-at-stake-in-busan/ Accessed 15 March 2016 Green, M. (2002). Social Development: Issues and approaches. In U. Kothari & M. Minogue (Eds.), Development Theory and Practice: Critical Perspectives (pp. 52-70). Hampshire, England: Palgrave. Grugel, J., & Hammett, D. (Eds.). (2016). The Palgrave Handbook of International Devleopment. London: Palgrave Macmillan: Macmillan Publisheres Ltd. Guba, G. E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Guillaumont, P., & Chauvet, L. (2001). Aid and Performance: A Reassessment. The Journal of Development Studies, 37(6), 66-92. doi:10.1080/713601083 Gulrajani, N. (2011). Transcending the great foreign aid debate: Managerialism, radicalism and the search for aid effectiveness. Third World Quarterly, 32(2), 199-216. doi:10.1080/01436597.2011.560465 Gupta, K. L., & Islam, M. A. (1983). Foreign Capital, Savings And Growth: An International Cross-Section Study. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Haber, S., Razo, A., & Maurer, N. (2003). The Politics of Property Rights: Political Instability, Credible Commitments and Economic Growth in Mexico, 1876- 1929. New York: Cambridge University Press.
279
Halapua, S. (2002). Talanoa Process: The case of Fiji. Honolulu, Hawai'i. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan022610.pdf. Hall, R. E., & Jones, C. I. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 83-116. doi:10.3386/w6564 Hansen, H., & Tarp, F. (2000). Aid effectiveness disputed. Journal of International Development, 12(3), 375-398. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(200004)12:3 Harrington, L. M. B. (2009). Resource Management, Rural. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (pp. 390-397). Oxford: Elsevier. Harriss, J. (1982). Rural Development: Theories of Peasant Economy and Agrarian Change. London: Hutchinson University Library. Hayman, R. (2009). From Rome to Accra via Kigali: ‘Aid effectiveness’ in Rwanda. Development Policy Review, 27(5), 581-599. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 7679.2009.00460.x Hayter, T. (1971). Aid as Imperialism: Harmondsworth: Penguin. Hellberg, S. (2014). Water, life and politics: Exploring the contested case of eThekwini municipality through a governmentality lens. Geoforum, 56, 226-236. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.02.004 Herbert-Cheshire, L. (2000). Contemporary strategies for rural community development in Australia: a governmentality perspective. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2), 203-215. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00054-6 Herbert-Cheshire, L., & Higgins, V. (2004). From risky to responsible: expert knowledge and the governing of community-led rural development. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(3), 289-302. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.10.006 Hickey, S. (2009). The politics of protecting the poorest: Moving beyond the ‘anti- politics machine’? Political Geography, 28(8), 473-483. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2009.11.003 Higgins, K. (2013). Reflecting on the MDGs and making sense of the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Canada: The Nort-South Institute. Retrieved from http://www.nsi-ins.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2013-Post-2015.pdf. Hindess, B. (1996). Discourses of Power: From Hobbes to Foucault. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers. Hindess, B. (2002). Neo-liberal Citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 6(2), 127-143. doi:10.1080/13621020220142932 Hodge, P. (2012). A Progressive Authoritarianism? The case of post-2006 Fiji. Third World Quarterly, 33(6), 1147-1163. doi:10.1080/01436597.2012.681493 Hodge, P. (2014). ‘Governed freedom’ in Oceania: AusAID, subjectivation and the practice of critique in studies of governmentality. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 55(3), 292-305. doi:10.1111/apv.12070 Holdcroft, L. E. (1978). The Rise and Fall of Community Development in Developing Countries, 1950-65: A Critical Analysis and an Annotated Bibliography. (Master of Science thesis), Michigan State University, Michigan. Hollway, S., Howes, S., Reid, M., Farmer, B., & Denton, J. (2011). Independent review of aid effectiveness. Retrieved from http://www.aidreview.gov.au/publications/aidreview.pdf Hopper, R., Birch, J., & Hemmingway, G. (2010). A parliamentary inquiry into aid effectiveness: A report of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Debt, Aid and Trade. Retrieved from http://www.opml.co.uk/sites/default/files/AEIXX_0.pdf 280
Houerou, P. L., Nishio, A., & Tata, G. (2008). Aid architecture: An overview of the main trends in official development assistance flows. Retrieved from Washington D.C.: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2007/02/7411698/aid-architecture- overview-main-trends-official-development-assistance-flows Howarth, D. R. (2013). Poststructuralism and After: Structure, Subjectivity And Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hubbard, P., Kitchin, R., Bartley, B., & Fuller, D. (2002). Thinking Geographically: Space, Theory, and Contemporary Human Geography. London: Continuum. Hughes, H. (2003). Aid has failed the Pacific. Issue Analysis(33), 1-31. Retrieved from http://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/2007/ia2033.pdf. Hulme, D., & MacKay, A. (2007). Identifying and measuring chronic poverty: Beyond monetary measures? In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Poverty (pp. 187-215). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Hunter, G. (1969). Rural Development Organisation and Administration. Legislative Council Paper No.6 of 1969. Retrieved from National Archives of Fiji. Hussain, A. (2008). Governance and vulnerability in small island states. (Doctor of Philosophy), Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington. Huxley, M. (2009). Foucauldianism. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (pp. 255-262). Oxford: Elsevier. Hyden, G. (2008). After the Paris Declaration: Taking on the issue of power. Development Policy Review, 26(3), 259-274. doi:10.1111/j.1467- 7679.2008.00410.x ICAI, Independent Commission for Aid Impact. (2011). ICAI's approach to effectiveness and Value for Money. Retrieved from https://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/ICAIs-Approach-to-Effectiveness-and- VFM.pdf IFAD, International Fund for Agricultural Development. (2010). Rural Poverty Report 2011. New Realities, New Challenges: New Opportunities for Tomorrow's Generation. Retrieved from http://www.ifad.org/rpr2011/report/e/rpr2011.pdf Illich, I. (1997). Development as planned poverty. In M. Rahnema & V. Bawtree (Eds.), The Post-Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Ito, S. (2009). From the viewpoint of development sociology. In S. Otsubo, H. Kimura, & S. Ito (Eds.), Introduction to International Development Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Development Studies. Tokyo: Keiso-Shobo. Jackson, P. (2012). Value for money and international development: Deconstructing myths to promote a more constructive discussion. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/development/effectiveness/49652541.pdf. Jakupec, V., & Kelly, M. (2016). Official development assistance and impact assessment - Theoretical and practical frameworks. In V. Jakupec & M. Kelly (Eds.), Assessing the Impact of Foreign Trade: Value for Money and Aid for Trade (pp. 1-13). United Kingdom: Academic Press, Elsevier. Jansen van Rensburg, L. (2007). A human rights-based approach to poverty: The South African Experience. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Poverty (pp. 165-184). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Jimenez-Anca, J. (2012). Beyond Power: Unbridging Foucault and Weber. European Journal of Social Theory, 16(1), 36-50. doi: 10.1177/1368431012444919 Jones, G., & Corbridge, S. (2010). The continuing debate about urban bias: The thesis, its critics, its influences and its implications for poverty-reduction strategies.
281
Progress in Development Studies, 10(1), 1-18. doi:10.1177/146499340901000101 Jones, H. (2011). Taking responsibility for complexity: How implementation can achieve results in the face of complex problems. Working Paper 330. Retrieved from London: Jones, P. (2002). Poverty reduction: What role for the state in today's globalized economy? International Development Planning Review, 24(2), 223-225. Jones, P. (2012). Pacific urbanisation and the rise of informal settlements: Trends and implications from Port Moresby. Urban Policy and Research, 30(2), 145-160. doi:10.1080/08111146.2012.664930 Jones, P. (2016). The Emergence of Pacific Urban Villages: Urbanisation Trends in the Pacific Islands. Retrieved from http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/The- Emergence-of-Pacific-Urban-Villages-Urbanization-Trends-in-the-Pacific- Islands.pdf Kabutaulaka, T. (2006). Global capital and local ownership in Solomon Island's Forestry industry. In S. Firth (Ed.), Globalisation and Governance in the Pacific. Canberra: ANU Press. Retrieved from http://press.anu.edu.au//ssgm/global_gov/pdf/ch12.pdf. Kakwani, N., & Silber, J. (Eds.). (2007). The Many Dimensions of Poverty. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with Patriarchy. Gender & Society, 2(3), 274-290. doi:10.1177/089124388002003004 Kanuha, V. (2000). "Being" native versus "going native": Conducting social work reesarch as an insider. Social Work, 45(1), 439-447. doi:10.1093/sw/45.5.439 Kaufmann, G. (1997). Watching the developers: A partial ethnography. In R. D. Grillo & R. L. Stirrat (Eds.), Discourses of Development (pp. 107-131). Oxford, United Kingdom: Berg. Kendall, G., & Wickham, G. (1999). Using Foucault's Methods. London: Sage. Kenny, C. (2008). What is effective aid? How would donors allocate it? The European Journal of Development Research, 20(2), 330-346. doi:10.1080/09578810802078704 Kerr, S. A. (2005). What is small island sustainable development about? Ocean & Coastal Management, 48(7–8), 503-524. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.03.010 Kessl, F., & Kutscher, N. (2008). Rationalities, practices, and resistance in Post- Welfarism. A Comment on Kevin Stenson. Social Work & Society, 6(1), 26-35. Kezar, A. (2002). Reconstructing static images of leadership: An application of Positionality Theory. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(3), 94-109. doi:10.1177/107179190200800308 Kharas, H. (2007). Trends and issues in development aid. Working Paper No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2007/11/development- aid-kharas/11_development_aid_kharas.pdf Kharas, H. (2010). Rethinking the roles of multilaterals in the global aid architecture. In Global Economy and Development at Brookings (Ed.), Making Development Aid More Effective Global Economy and Development at Brookings. The 2010 Brookings Blum Roundtable Policy Briefs. Washington D.C.: Brookings. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2010/9/development- aid/09_development_aid_kharas2.PDF.
282
Kharas, H. (2012). The global partnership for effective development cooperation. Policy Paper 2012-04. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/06/06-global-partnership- kharas Kharas, H. (2014). Development assistance. In B. Currie-Alder, R. Kanbur, D. Malone, & R. Medhora (Eds.), International Development: Ideas, Experience, and Prospects (pp. 896). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671656.003.0051. Kick, C. G., & United Nations. (1995). Fiji: review of regional planning. Port Vila, Vanuatu: Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, Pacific Operations Centre. Killen, B., & Rogerson, A. (2010). Global Governance for International Development: Who's In Charge? Development Brief Consultation Draft Issue 2. OECD Development Cooperation, Paris. Kim, E. M., & Lee, J. E. (2013). Busan and beyond: South korea and the transition from aid effectiveness to development effectiveness. Journal of International Development, 25(6), 787-801. doi:10.1002/jid.2938 Kim, J. (2011). Foreign aid and economic development: The success story of South Korea. Pacific Focus, 26(2), 260-286. doi:10.1111/j.1976-5118.2011.01065.x Kindornay, S., & Samy, Y. (2013). Establishing a legitimate development cooperation architecture in the Post-Busan era. In H. Besada & S. Kindornay (Eds.), Multilateral Development Cooperation in a Changing Global Order (pp. 271- 294). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. Knapman, B. (1987). Fiji's Economic History, 1874-1939. Studies of Capitalist Colonial Development. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, The Australian National University. Korten, D. C. (1980). Community organization and rural development: A learning process approach. Public Administration Review, 40(5), 480-511. doi:10.2307/3110204 Kothari, U., & Minogue, M. (2002). Critical perspectives on development: An introduction. In U. Kothari & M. Minogue (Eds.), Development Theory and Practice: Critical Perspectives (pp. 1-15). Hampshire, England: Palgrave. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483-499. doi:10.1086/261763 Laderchi, C., Saith, R., & Stewart, F. (2006) Does the definition of poverty matter? Comparing four approaches. Poverty Focus: What is Poverty? Concepts and measures (pp. 10-11). Brazil: UNDP International Policy Centre (IPC). Lal, B. V. (1992). Broken Waves: A History of The Fiji Islands in the Twentieth Century. Honolulu: Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press. Lancaster, C. (2009). Sixty years of foreign aid: What have we learned? International Journal, 64(3), 799-810. doi:10.2307/40542202 Larmour, P. (2002). Conditionality, coercion and other forms of ‘Power’: international financial institutions in the Pacific. Public Administration and Development, 22(3), 249-260. doi:10.1002/pad.228 Larner, W. (2008). Comments on Kevin Stenson's 'Governing the local: Sovereignty, social governance and community safety. Social Work & Society, 6(1), 21-25. Lasaqa, I. (1984). The Fijian people: Before and after independence. Canberra: Australian National University Press. Lawson, M. L. (2011). Foreign aid: International donor coordination of development assistance. Journal of Current Issues in Globalization, 4(1), 77-99. 283
LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999a). Designing & Conducting Ethnographic Research (Vol. 1). Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press. LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (1999b). Essential Ethnographic Methods (Vol. 2). California: AltaMira Press. Lemke, T. (2007). An indigestible meal? Foucault, governmentality and state theory. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 8(2), 43-64. doi:10.1080/1600910X.2007.9672946 Lever, J. (2007). The subjective dimension of poverty: A psychological viewpoint. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Poverty (pp. 75-86). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Levy, B. (2010). Development trajectories: An evolutionary approach to integrating Governance and Growth. Economic Premise 15. Retrieved from Washington D.C.: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPREMNET/Resources/EP15.pdf Levy, V. (1988). Aid and growth in Sub-Saharan Africa: The recent experience. European Economic Review, 32(9), 1777-1795. doi:10.1016/0014- 2921(88)90085-2 Li, T. M. (2007). The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development and the Practice of Politics. Durham,London: Duke University Press. Liamputtong, P. (2013). Qualitative research methods (4th ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. Lindemann, S., & Denzer, A. (2013). Development cooperation - Between rejectionist and reform-oriented criticism. Retrieved from Germany: https://www.kfw- entwicklungsbank.de/Download-Center/PDF-Dokumente-Development- Research/2013-03-08_FE_EZ-Kritik_eng.pdf Lipton, M. (1977). Why Poor People Stay poor: Urban Bias in World Development. London: Temple Smith. Lipton, M. (2001). Escaping poverty: The poor's productive resource needs: Keynote address. Paper presented at the Sustainable Food Security for All by 2020 Conference September 4-6 2001, Bonn, Germany. http://conferences.ifpri.org/2020conference/PDF/summary_lipton.pdf Llavador, H. G., & Roemer, J. E. (2001). An equal-opportunity approach to the allocation of aid. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 147-171. doi:10.1016/S0304-3878(00)00128-0 Long, N., & Villarreal, M. (1993). Exploring development interfaces: From the transfer of knowledge to the transformation of meaning. In F. J. Schuurman (Ed.), Beyond the Impasse: New directions in development theory. London: Zed Books. Lorenzini, D. (2013, October 28). What is a "Regime of Truth"? Retrieved from http://www.fsw.uzh.ch/foucaultblog/featured/28/what-is-a-regime-of-truth Ludwig, R. (2005). Official development assistance. Foreign Aid: Will it Ever Reach Its Sunset? Headline Series no.327 (pp. 7-12). New York: Foreign Policy Association. Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan Press. Mahadevan, R. (2007). The poverty transition: when, how and what next? Journal of International Development, 19(8), 1099-1113. doi:10.1002/jid.1387 Maher, F. A., & Tetreault, M. K. (1993). Frames of positionality: Constructing meaningful dialogues about gender and race. Anthropological Quarterly, 66(3), 118-126. doi:10.2307/3317515 Manoa, F. (2015). Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS). Paper presented at the ANU State of the Pacific Update 2015, Canberra. 284
Marandet, E. (2012). Governing through freedom, ruling at a distance: Neoliberal governmentality and the new aid architecture in the AIDS Response in Malawi. (Doctor of Philosophy), Brunel University, Malawi. Marren, P. (2015). Overseas Development Aid: Is it working? In G. McCann & S. McCloskey (Eds.), From the Local to the Global: Key Issues in Development Studies (3rd ed., pp. 59-77). London and New York: Pluto Press. Marsden, T., & Murdoch, J. (1998). The shifting nature of rural governance and community participation. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 1-4. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(97)00042-9 Marut, D. K. (2008). Aid is power - The challenge for CSOs and democratic ownership. Retrieved from http://www.realityofaid.org/roa_report/aid-effectiveness- democratic-ownership-and-human-rights-world-poverty/ Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. London: Sage. Maua-Hodges, T. (2001). Tivaevae. Unpublished paper. Victoria University. Wellington. Mausio, A. (2006). Boomerangs and the Fijian dilemma: Australian aid for rural development, 1971-1987. (Doctoral dissertation), Australian National University, Canberra. Mausio, A. (2007). The 'Fijian Dilemma': The Revolving Door Syndrom in ethnic Fijian rural development, 1950s-1987. Fijian Studies: A Journal of Contemporary Fiji, 5(1), 42-70. Mavrotas, G. (2009). Introduction: Development aid—Theory, policies, and performance. Review of Development Economics, 13(3), 373-381. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9361.2009.00495.x Mavrotas, G., & Nunnenkamp, P. (2007). Foreign aid heterogeneity: Issues and agenda. Review of World Economics/Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 143(4), 585-595. doi:10.1007/S10290-007-0123-y Mawdsley, E., Savage, L., & Kim, S.-M. (2014). A ‘post-aid world'? Paradigm shift in foreign aid and development cooperation at the 2011 Busan High Level Forum. The Geographical Journal, 180(1), 27-38. doi:10.1111/j.1475- 4959.2012.00490.x McCloskey, S. (2015). From MDGs to SDGs: We need a critical awakening to succeed. In S. McCloskey (Ed.), Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review (pp. 186-194). Canada: Centre for Global Education. McGee, R. (2002). Participating in Development. In U. Kothari & M. Minogue (Eds.), Development Theory and Practice: Critical Perspectives (pp. 92-116). London: Palgrave. McGillivray, M. (2004). Is aid effective? Paper presented at the Foundation for Development Co-operation Financing Development Colloquium, Surfers Paradise, Gold Coast, Australia. www.oecd.org/dev/34353462.pdf McGillivray, M., Feeny, S., Hermes, N., & Lensink, R. (2006). Controversies over the impact of development aid: It works; it doesn't; it can, but that depends. Journal of International Development, 18(7), 1031-1050. doi:10.1002/jid.1335 McGregor, A. (2009). New possibilities? Shifts in post-development theory and practice. Geography Compass, 3(5), 1688-1702. doi:10.1111/j.1749- 8198.2009.00260.x McGregor, A., Challies, E., Overton, J., & Sentes, L. (2013). Developmentalities and donor–NGO relations: Contesting foreign aid policies in New Zealand/Aotearoa. Antipode, 45(5), 1232-1253. doi:10.1111/anti.12017
285
McKee, K. (2009). Post-Foucauldian governmentality: What does it offer critical social policy analysis? Critical Social Policy, 29(3), 465-486. doi:10.1177/0261018309105180 McKinlay, R. D., & Little, R. (1977). A foreign policy model of U.S. bilateral aid allocation. World Politics, 30(1), 58-86. doi:10.2307/2010075 Menocal, A., & Rogerson, A. (2006). Which way the future of aid? Southern civil society perspectives on current debates on reform to the international aid system. Working Paper 259. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- files/2029.pdf Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M.-Y., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G., & Muhamad, M. (2001). Power and positionality: negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(5), 405-416. doi:10.1080/02601370120490 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis - An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oak: Sage Publications. Miller, D. (2011). Sachs, Easterly and the banalit of the aid effectiveness debate: Time to move on. Mapping Politics, 3(2010-2011), 72-86. Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. (Eds.). (2013). Introduction to the geopolitics of foreign aid (Vol. 1). United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing. Minca, C. (2009). Postmodernism/Postmodern geography. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (pp. 363-372). Oxford: Elsevier. Ministry for National Planning, Fiji Government. (2009). Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio-Economic Development 2010-2014. Suva. Retrieved from http://www.fiji.gov.fj/getattachment/Govt--Publications/Peoples- Charter/RSSED.pdf.aspx. Ministry of Economy, Fiji Government. (2016). Economic and Fiscal Update: Supplement to the 2016-2017 Budget Address. Suva, Fiji: Government Printing Department. Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development. (1980). Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development Report for the Years 1971-1979. Parliamentary Paper No.47 of 1980. Retrieved from Suva: National Archives of Fiji. Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development. (1983). Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development Annual Report for the Years 1980-1981, Parliament of Fiji, Parliamentary Paper No.36 of 1983. Suva. Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development, Fiji Government. (1984). Ministry of Fijian Affairs and Rural Development Annual Report for the Year 1982, Parliament of Fiji, Parliamentary Paper No.59 of 1984. Suva. Ministry of Finance. (2009). Economic and Fiscal Update: Supplement to the 2010 Budget Address. "Strengthening the foundations for Economic Growth and Prosperity.". Suva, Fiji: Government Printing Department. Ministry of Finance. (2010). Economic and Fiscal Update: Supplement to the 2011 Budget Address. "Enhancing Economic Growth and Inclusive Development.". Suva, Fiji: Government Printing Department. Ministry of Finance, Fiji Government. (2011). Economic and Fiscal Update: Supplement to the 2012 Budget Address. "Empowered Fijians and a Modern Economy.". Suva, Fiji: Government Printing Department.
286
Ministry of Finance, Fiji Government. (2012). Economic and Fiscal Update: Supplement to the 2013 Budget Address. "Investing in Our Future.". Suva, Fiji: Government Printing Department. Ministry of Finance, Fiji Government. (2013). Economic and Fiscal Update: Supplement to the 2014 Budget Address. "Building a Smarter Fiji.". Suva, Fiji: Government Printing Department. Ministry of Finance, Fiji Government. (2014). Economic and Fiscal Update: Supplement to the 2015 Budget Address. "Turning Promises into Deeds.". Suva, Fiji: Government Printing Department. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. (1994). Supplement to the 1995 Budget Address. Suva, Fiji: S.T.Ravono, Government Printer. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. (1995). Supplement to the 1996 Budget Address. Suva, Fiji: S.T.Ravono, Government Printer. Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Fiji Government. (2006). Economic and Fiscal Update: Supplement to the 2007 Budget Address. "Partnership for Sustained Growth.". Suva, Fiji: Government Printing Department. Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Fiji Government. (2008). Economic and Fiscal Update: Supplement to the 2009 Budget Address. "Raising Economic Growth and Alleviating Poverty.". Suva, Fiji: R.S.Oli, Acting Government Printer, Government Printing Department. Ministry of Finance National Planning and Sugar Industry, Fiji Government. (2007). Economic and Fiscal Update: Supplement to the 2008 Budget Address. "Building a Platform for Quick Recovery and Sustainable Growth.". Suva, Fiji: Government Printing Department. Ministry of Finance, N. P. a. S. I., , Fiji Government. (2007). Sustainable Economic and Empowerment Development Strategy (SEEDS) 2008-2010: A Better Fiji for All. Retrieved from http://www.pacificdisaster.net/pdnadmin/data/original/FJI_FNPSI_2010_seeds.p df. Ministry of Provincial Development and Multi-Ethnic Affairs, Fiji Government. (2008). Ministry of Provincial Development, Annual Report for the Year 2006, Parliament of Fiji, Parliamentary Paper No.27 of 2008. Suva, Fiji: M.M.Cama, Acting Government Printer. Ministry of Regional Development, Fiji Government. (2003). Ministry of Regional Development, Annual Report for the Year 2000. Suva, Fiji: V.Nareki, Government Printer. Ministry of Regional Development, Fiji Government. (2005). Ministry of Regional Development, Annual Report for the Year 2002, Parliament of Fiji, Parliamentary Paper No.55 of 2005. Suva, Fiji: V.Nareki, Government Printer. Ministry of Regional Development, Fiji Government. (2006). Ministry of Regional Development, Annual Report for the Year 2003, Parliament of Fiji, Parliamentary Paper No.121 of 2005. Suva, Fiji: V.Nareki, Government Printer. Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs, Fiji Government. (1995). Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs Annual Report for the Year 1995, Parliament of Fiji, Parliamentary Paper No.46 of 1996. . Suva: Pio B. Tikoisuva, Government Printer. Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs, Fiji Government. (2000). Creating Opportunities Through Community Development, Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs, Department of Regional Development
287
Annual Report for the Year 1998, Parliament of Fiji, Parliamentary Paper No.92 of 1999. Suva, Fiji: Pio Bosco Tikoisuva, Government Printer. Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs, Fiji Government. (2002). Ministry of Regional Development & Multi-Ethnic Affairs Annual Report for the Year 1999, Parliament of Fiji, Parliamentary Paper No.20 of 2002. Suva: M.M.Cama, Acting Government Printer. Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development & National Disaster Management. (2014). Strategic Operating Procedures Review Update. Suva, Fiji. Ministry of Rural Development, Fiji Government. (1987a). Ministry of Rural Development Annual Report for the Year 1985, Parliamentary Paper No.15 of 1987, Parliament of Fiji. Suva, Fiji: I.B.Ravatu, Government Printer. Ministry of Rural Development, Fiji Government. (1987b). Ministry of Rural Development Annual Report for the Year 1986, Parliament of Fiji, Parliamentary Paper No.20 of 1987. Suva. Ministry of Rural Development & Rural Housing, Fiji Government. (1992). Ministry of Rural Development & Rural Housing, Annual Report for the Year 1988, Parliamentary Paper, No.3 of 1992, Parliament of Fiji. Suva: S.T.Ravono, Government Printer. Ministry of Rural Development and Rural Housing, Fiji Government. (1992). Ministry of Rural Development and Rural Housing Annual Report for the Year 1989, Parliamentary Paper No.6 of 1992. Suva: S.T.Ravono, Government Printer. Mitlin, D. (2002). Understanding urban poverty: What the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers tell us. Retrieved from London: http://pubs.iied.org/9321IIED.html Montesquieu, C. L. (1750). The Spirit of the Laws. New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1949. Moore, T. G. (1994). Core-periphery models, regional planning theory, and appalachian development. The Professional Geographer, 46(3), 316-331. doi:10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00316.x Morris, M., Leung, K., Ames, D., & Lickel, B. (1999). Views from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgement. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781-796. doi:10.5465/AMR.1999.2553253 Morrissey, O. (2002). Aid effectiveness for growth and development. Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion- files/622.pdf Mosley, P., Harrigan, J., & Toye, J. (1991). Aid and Power: The World Bank and Policy-based Lending. London; New York: Routledge. Mosley, P., Hudson, J., & Horrell, S. (1987). Aid, the public sector and the market in less developed countries. Economic Journal, 97(387), 616-641. doi:10.2307/2232927 Mosley, P., Hudson, J., & Verschoor, A. (2004). Aid, poverty reduction and the 'new conditionality'. Economic Journal, 114(496), F217-F243. doi:10.1111/j.1468- 0297.2004.00220.x Mosse, D. (2005). Global governance and the ethnography of international aid. In D. Mosse & D. Lewis (Eds.), The Aid Effect: Giving and Governing in International Development (pp. 1-36). London and Ann Arbor: Pluto Press. Mosse, D. (2006). Global governance and the ethnography of international aid. In D. Mosse & D. Lewis (Eds.), The Aid Effect: Giving and Governing in International Development (pp. 1-36). London: Pluto Press. Mosse, D., & Lewis, D. (Eds.). (2005). The aid effect: Giving and governing in international development. London: Pluto Press. 288
Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is Another Way for Africa. Allen Lane, London: Penguin Group. Mullings, B. (1999). Insider or outsider, both or neither: some dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting. Geoforum, 30(4), 337-350. doi:10.1016/S0016- 7185(99)00025-1 Murray, W. E., & Overton, J. (2011). The inverse sovereignty effect: Aid, scale and neostructuralism in Oceania. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 52(3), 272-284. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8373.2011.01468.x Nabobo-Baba, U. (2006). Knowing and Learning: An Indigeneous Fijian Approach. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies. Nabobo-Baba, U. (2008). Decolonising framings in Pacific research: Indigenous Fijian Vanua research framework as an organic response. Alternative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 4(2), 140-154. Nainoca, W. (2011). The influence of the Fijian way of life (bula vakavanua) on community-based marine conservation (CBMC) in Fiji, with a focus on social capital and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). (Doctor of Philosophy), Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://mro.massey.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10179/2670/01_front.pdf?seque nce=2&isAllowed=y Naisilisili, S. (2011). 'Iluvatu: An Exploratory Study of Cu'u Indigenous Knowledge and Implications for Fijian Education. (Doctor of Philosophy), The University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji. NAO, National Audit Office. (n.d.). Analytical framework for assessing Value for Money. Retrieved from https://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/National_Audit_Office__Analytical_framew ork_for_assessing_Value_for_Money.pdf Narsey, W. (2008). Quantitative Analysis of Poverty in Fiji. Retrieved from Suva: Retrieved from https://narseyonfiji.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/the- quantitative-analysis-of-poverty-in-fiji.pdf Narsey, W. (2014, 26 July). The facts on poverty and social justice. The Fiji Times. Retrieved from https://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/the-facts-on- poverty-and-social-justice-the-fiji-times-26-july-2014/ Narsey, W., Raikoti, T., & Waqavonovono, E. (2010). Preliminary Report: Poverty and Household Incomes in Fiji in 2008–09 (based on the 2008-2009 Household Income and Expenditure Survey). Retrieved from Suva: http://www.spc.int/nmdi/reports/Fiji_HIES_2008-09.pdf Native Affairs Ordinance. (1894a). Ai vola ni lawa i taukei: Ka vakatekivu e nai vakatekivu ni yabaki e 1877 ka yacova nai otioti ni yabaki e 1893 kei na lawa ni matanitu eso sa baleti ira nai taukei "me vaka na nona lewa na kovana." Ai vola vou ni lewa. (Regulations of the Native Regulations Board, 1877-1893. Passed by the Native Regulation Board and Approved by the Legislative Council). Suva, Fiji: Edward John March, Government Printer. Native Affairs Ordinance. (1894b). Regulations of the Native Regulation Board: 1887- 1895. Suva, Fiji: Edward John March, Government Printer. Native Affairs Ordinance. (1926). Colony of Fiji. Regulations of the Native Regulation Board: 1912-1920. Suva, Fiji: S.Bach, Government Printer. Native Affairs Ordinance. (1936). Colony of Fiji. Regulation of the Native Regulation Board: 1927-1939. Suva, Fiji: J.J.McHugh, Government Printer. Nayacakalou, R. (1975). Leadership in Fiji. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
289
Nayacakalou, R. (1978). Tradition and Change in the Fijian Village. Suva: South Pacific Social Sciences Association in association with the Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific. NCBBF, National Council for Building a Better Fiji. (2008). Fiji: People's Charter for Change, Peace and Progress. Suva. Retrieved from http://www.lcil.cam.ac.uk/sites/default/files/LCIL/documents/transitions/Fiji_3_ Peoples_Charter_for_Change.pdf. Nelson, N., & Wright, S. (Eds.). (1995). Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. NHMRC, National Health and Medical Research Council. (2007) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (Updated May 2015). The National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Nicole, R. (2011). Disturbing History: Resistance in Early Colonial Fiji, 1874-1914. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. Niemeyer, S. J. (2013). Deliberative democracy and the media. Retrieved from http://deldem.weblogs.anu.edu.au/2013/02/14/deliberative-democracy-and-the- media/ North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112. doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.97 OECD. (2008). The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf OECD. (2014). Compare your contry: ODA 1960-14 trends. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.compareyourcountry.org/oda?cr=20001&cr1=oecd&lg=en&page=1. OECD. (2015). DAC Members. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/dacmembers.htm. OECD. (2016). Countries, Territories and Organisations Adhering to the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. The Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/busanadherents.htm OECD, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). Better aid managing: Practices of DAC member countries. Retrieved from Paris: http://www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews/35051857.pdf OECD, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2012). What is aid? In B. Keeley (Ed.), From Aid to Development: The Global Fight Against Poverty (pp. 46-65). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264123571-en. Ohnuki-Tierney, E. (1984). "Native" anthropologists. American Ethnologist, 11(3), 584- 586. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2008). Interviewing the interpretive researcher: A Method for addressing the crises of Representation, legitimation, and praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7(4), 1- 17. doi:10.1177/160940690800700401 Orb, A., Eisenhauer, L., & Wynaden, D. (2001). Ethics in Qualitative Research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33(1), 93-96. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00093.x Overton, J. (1988). A fijian peasantry: Galala and villagers. Oceania, 58(3), 193-211. doi:10.1002/j.1834-4461.1988.tb02272.x Overton, J. (1999). Vakavanua, vakamatanitū: discourses of development in Fiji. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 40(2), 173-186. doi:10.1111/1467-8373.00090 290
Overton, J., & Murray, W. E. (2016). Aid and the 'circle of security'. In J. Grugel & D. Hammett (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of International Development (pp. 433-450). London: Palgrave Macmillan: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Overton, J., Murray, W. E., & McGregor, A. (2013). Geographies of aid: A critical research agenda. Geography Compass, 7(2), 116-127. doi:10.1111/gec3.12026 Pabon, L., Umapathi, N., & Waqavonovono, E. (2012). How geographically concentrated is poverty in Fiji? Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 53(2), 205-217. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8373.2012.01485.x PACLII, Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute. (1978). Fijian Affairs Act [Cap 120]. Retrieved from http://www.paclii.org/fj/legis/consol_act_OK/faa117/. Papanek, G. F. (1973). Aid, foreign private investment, savings and growth in less developed countries. Journal of Political Economy, 81(1), 120-130. doi:10.1086/260009 Parsons, T. (1957). The distribution of power in american society. [The Power Elite., C. Wright Mills]. World Politics, 10(1), 123-143. doi:10.2307/2009229 Peet, R. (1998). Modern Geographical Thought. Oxford: Blackwell. Pieterse, J. N. (1998). My paradigm or yours? Alternative development, post- development, reflexive development. Development and Change, 29(2), 343-373. doi:10.1111/1467-7660.00081 Plattner, M. (2010). Populism, pluralism and liberal democracy. Journal of Democracy, 21(1), 81-92. Poirine, B. (1998). Should we hate or love MIRAB? The Contemporary Pacific, 10(1), 65-105. Pollard, S. (2013). Pollard's Pacific reflections (Version 6). Development Policy Centre, ANU, Canberra. Retrieved from https://devpolicy.anu.edu.au/pdf/2012/policy_briefs/Pollard's_Pacific_Reflectio ns.pdf Preston, P. W. (1996). Development Theory: An Introduction. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers. Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Solutions when the solution is the problem: Arraying the disarray in development. World Development, 32(2), 191-212. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.08.009 Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches (2nd ed.). London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. Qalo, R. R. (1984). Divided We Stand. Local Government in Fiji. Suva, Fiji: The Institute of the Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific. Qalo, R. R. (1997). Small Business: A Study of a Fijian Family - The Mucunabitu Iron Works Contractor Cooperative Society Limited. Fiji: Mucunabitu Education Trust. Qian, N. (2014). Making progress on foreign aid. Retrieved from http://aida.wss.yale.edu/~nq3/NANCYS_Yale_Website/resources/papers/Aid_2 0140816_FINAL.pdf Rabinow, P. (Ed.) (1991). The Foucault reader: An introduction to Foucault's thought. London: Penguin. Raco, M. (2005). Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable communities. Antipode, 37(2), 324-347. doi:10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00495.x Radelet, S. (2006). A primer on foreign aid. Working Paper No. 92. Retrieved from http://www.cgdev.org/files/8846_file_WP92.pdf
291
Raghbhendra, J., Dang, T., & Sharma, K. L. (2009). Vulnerability to poverty in Fiji. International Journal of Applied Econometrics and Quantitative Studies, 6(1), 51-68. Rahnema, M. (1992). Participation. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Books. Rahnema, M., & Bawtree, V. (Eds.). (1997). The Post-development Reader. Dhaka, Bangladesh: The University Press Ltd. Rajan, R., & Subramanian, A. (2005). Aid and growth, What does the cross-country evidence really show? Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2005/wp05127.pdf Rapley, J. (1996). Understanding Development: Theory and Practice in the Third World. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Ratuva, S. (2013a). Appeasement, scams and tension: Affirmative action programs, 1999 to 2006. Politics of Preferential Development: Trans-Global Study of Affirmative Action and Ethnic Conflict in Fiji, Malaysia and South Africa (pp. 141-170). Canberra, Australia: ANU E Press, The Australian National University. Ratuva, S. (2013b). Politics of Preferential Development: Trans-Global Study of Affirmative Action and Ethnic Conflict in Fiji, Malaysia and South Africa. Canberra: Australia National University E-Press. Ratuva, S. (2015). The interface between affirmative action and neoliberalism: The case of Fiji. Cultural Dynamics, 27(1), 135-154. doi:10.1177/0921374014564653 Ravuvu, A. (1983). Vaka I Taukei: The Fijian Way of Life. University of the South Pacific, Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies (IPS). Ravuvu, A. (1988). Development or Dependence: The Pattern of Change in a Fijian Village. Suva: The University of the South Pacific. Ravuvu, A., & Thornton, A. (2016). Beyond aid distribution: Aid effectiveness, neoliberal and neostructural reforms in Pacific Island countries. In M. Kelly & V. Jakupec (Eds.), Assessing the Impact of Foreign Aid: Value for Money and Aid for Trade (pp. 79-95). New York: Academic Press, Elsevier. Regenvanu, R. (2009). The traditional economy as source of resilience in Vanuatu. Paper presented at the Pacific Islands and the World Conference, Brisbane, Australia. Retrieved from http://milda.aidwatch.org.au/sites/default/files/Ralph%20Regenvanu.%20Traditi onal%20economy%20as%20a%20source%20of%20resistance%20in%20Vanuat u.pdf Research Planning Unit, Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development & National Disaster Management. (2013). Workshop Report on Rural Development: Where have we been? Where are we now? Where to from here? Suva, Fiji. Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity, and Accountability. Buckingham; Philadephia: Open University Press. Richards, L. (2009). Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Riddell, R. (2014). Does foreign aid really work? An updated assessment, . Retrieved from http://devpolicy.org/reports/DP-33-Does-foreign-aid%20really-work-an- updated-assessment.pdf Rika, N., Tuiseke, N., Tuiloa, M., & Finau-Tavite, S. (2008). Accounting and accountability by provincial councils in Fiji: the case of Namosi. Australasian Accounting Business & Finance Journal, 2(1), I,15-36. 292
Robinson to Carnavon (16 October 1874). [Despatch No.7]. Rodgers, J. (2013). Small islands, big challenges: rethinking the Pacific aid architecture. Retrieved from http://devpolicy.org/small-islands-big-challenges-rethinking-the- pacific-aid-architecture-20131023/ Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2002). Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. NBER Working Paper No. 9305. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w9305.pdf Rojas, C. (2004). Governing thruogh the social: Representations of poverty and global governmentality. In W. Larner & W. Walters (Eds.), Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces (pp. 97-115). London & New York: Routledge. Roodman, D. (2004). The anarchy of numbers: Aid, development and cross-country empirics. Working Paper No. 32. Retrieved from http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/2745_file_The_Anarchy_of_Numbers_f inal.pdf Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), 305-320. Rose, N. (1999). Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York: Cambridge University Press. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173-205. doi:10.2307/591464 Rostow, W. W. (1971). The Stages of Economic Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roth, G. K. (1953). Fijian Way of Life. London: Oxford University Press. Routledge, D. (1985). Matanitu: The Struggle for Power in Early Fiji. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies in association with the Fiji Centre Extension Services, University of the South Pacific. Ruttan, V. W. (1984). Integrated rural development programmes: A historical perspective. World Development, 12(4), 393-401. doi:10.1016/0305- 750X(84)90017-2 Sachs, J. D. (2001). Tropical underdevelopment. NBER Working Paper 8119. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w8119 Sachs, J. D. (2005). The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of our Time. New York: Penguin Group. Sachs, J. D., & Warner, A. M. (1997). Natural resource abundance and economic growth. Retrieved from http://www.cid.harvard.edu/ciddata/warner_files/natresf5.pdf Sachs, W. (Ed.) (1992). The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. London: Zed Books. Santos, E. (2012). What is deliberative democracy? Retrieved from http://deldem.weblogs.anu.edu.au/2012/02/15/what-is-deliberative-democracy/ Satterthwaite, D. (2002). The ten and a half myths that may distort the urban policies of governments and international agencies. Retrieved from UK: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu- projects/drivers_urb_change/urb_infrastructure/pdf_city_planning/IIED_Satterth waite_Myths_complete.pdf Scheurich, J. J. (1997). Research Method in the Postmodern. London; Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
293
Schmaljohann, M., & Prizzon, A. (2014). The age of choice: Fiji and Vanuatu in the new aid landscape. Retrieved from United Kingdom: Schulz, B. (2001). Poverty and development in the age of globalization: The role of foreign aid. In F. Wilson, N. Kanji, & E. Braathen (Eds.), Poverty Reduction: What Role for the State in Today's Globalized Economy? (pp. 95-109). London; New York: Zed Books. Schuurman, F. J. (1993). Introduction: Development Theory in the 1990s. In F. J. Schuurman (Ed.), Beyond the Impasse: New Directions in Development Theory (pp. 1-41). London & New Jersey: Zed Books. Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171-196. doi:10.1080/03066150902820503 Scoones, I., & Wolmer, W. (2003). Introduction: Livelihoods in crisis: Challenges for rural development in Southern Africa. IDS Bulletin, 34(3), 1-14. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2003.tb00073.x Seers, D. (1971). Development in a Divided World. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Seeto, J., Kan, L., Madraiwiwi, J., Manueli, P., Delana, L., & Vodivodi, S. (2002). Review of the Fijian Administration: Volume 1 & 2. Retrieved from Suva: National Archives of Fiji. Sen, K. (2007). Civil Society perspectives on the Paris Declaration and aid effectiveness, INTRAC, Policy Briefing Paper 14. Retrieved from http://www.intrac.org/data/files/resources/302/Briefing%20Paper%2014%20- %20Civil%20society%20perspectives%20on%20the%20PD%20and%20AE.pdf Seruvakula, S. (2000). Bula Vakavanua. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific. Severino, J.-M. (2012). Aid is dead. Long live aid! Field Actions Science Reports,(Special Issue 4). Severino, J.-M., & Ray, O. (2009). The end of ODA: Death and rebirth of a global public policy. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/1421419_file_End_of_ODA_FINAL.pd f Shah, A. (2014). Foreign aid for development assistance. Global issues: Social, political, economic and environmental Issues that affect us all. Retrieved from http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/foreign-aid-development-assistance. Shanin, T. (1997). The idea of progress. In M. Rahnema & V. Bawtree (Eds.), The Post- Development Reader. London: Zed Books. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (1997). Policy: A new field of anthropology. In C. Shore & S. Wright (Eds.), Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power (1st ed., pp. 3-39). Oxfordshire, England: Routledge. Sindzingre, A. (2007). The multidimensionality of poverty: An institutionalist perspective. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Poverty (pp. 52-74). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Siwatibau, S. (1997). Strategic Planning and Decision Making Machinery for National Development in Fiji. Smith, G. H. (1997). Kaupapa Maori: Theory and Praxis. (Doctoral dissertation), The University of Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2292/623 Smith, K. (2011). Non-DAC donors and humanitarian aid: Shifting structures, changing trends. Retrieved from Somerset, UK: http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/wp- content/uploads/2011/07/GHA-non-DAC-donors-humanitarian-aid1.pdf 294
Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books. Smith, L. (2004). Building Research Capability in the Pacific for the Pacific by Pacific Peoples. In T. Baba, O. Mahina, N. Williams, & U. Nabobo-Baba (Eds.), Researching the Pacific and Indigenous Peoples: issues and perspectives. Auckland: Centre for the Pacific Studies, The University of Auckland. Smith, R. G. (2009). Structuralism/Structuralist geography. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (pp. 30-38). Oxford: Elsevier. Smyth, R. (2004). The roots of community development in colonial office policy and practice in Africa. Social Policy & Administration, 38(4), 418-436. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9515.2004.00399.x Soesastro, H. (2006). Sustaining East Asia's economic dynamism: How aid worked. Retrieved from Paris: Spate, O. H. K. (1959). The Fijian People: Economic Problems and Prospects (Vol. Fiji Legislative Council Paper No.13 of 1959). Suva: Fiji. Stake, R. E. (1994). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stenson, K. (2005). Sovereignty, biopolitics and the local government of crime in Britian. Theoretical Criminology, 9(3), 265-287. doi:10.1177/1362480605054811 Stenson, K. (2008). Beyond Kantianism - Response to Critiques. Social Work & Society, 6(1), 42-46. Stern, E., Altinger, L., Feinstein, O., Maranon, M., Ruegenberg, D., Nils-Sjard, S., & Nielsen, N. (2008). Thematic Study on the Paris Declaration, Aid Effectiveness and Development Effectiveness. Retrieved from http://daraint.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/10/41807824.pdf Stiglitz, J. (2002, April 14). Overseas aid is money well spent. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/download/opeds/Overseas_Aid_ is_Money_Well_Spent.htm Stokke, O. (2009). The UN and Development: From Aid to Co-operation. Bloomington and Indianapolis: IN: Indiana University Press. Stuckler, D., McKee, M., & Basu, S. (2013). Six concerns about the data in aid debates: Applying an epidemiological perspective to the analysis of aid effectiveness in health and development. Health Policy and Planning, 28(8), 871-883. doi:10.1093/heapol/czs126 Sultana, F. (2007). Reflexivity, Positionality and Participatory Ethics: Negotiating fieldwork dilemmas in international research. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 374-385. Tamang, R. (2009). Geopolitics and shifts in development aid policies: The effects on poverty in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(2), 44-53. doi:10.5539/jsd.v2n2p44 Tamasese, K., Peteru, C., Waldegrave, C., & Bush, A. (2005). Ole Taeao Afua, the New Morning: A qualitative investigation into samoan perspectives on mental health and culturally appropriate services. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(4), 300-309. doi:10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01572.x Te Ava, A., Airini, & Rubie-Davies, C. (2011). Akarakara akaouanga i te kite pakari o te kuki airani: Culturally responsive pedagogy. Pacific-Asian Education: The Journal of the Pacific Circle Consortium for Education, 23(2). 295
Thakur, M. (2014). Understanding Ruralities: Contemporary debates CAS Working Paper Series. New Delhi: Centre for the Study of Social Systems, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Thaman, K. H. (1992). Looking Towards the Source: A Consideration of (Cultural) Context in Teacher Education. In C. Benson & N. Taylor (Eds.), Pacific Teacher Education Forward Planning Meeting: Proceedings (pp. 98-103). Suva: Institute of Education, University of the South Pacific. Thaman, K. H. (1997). Kakala: A Pacific Concept of Teaching and Learning. Keynote address. Australian College of Education National Conference, Cairns. Thiele, R., Nunnenkamp, P., & Dreher, A. (2007). Do donors target aid in line with the Millennium Development Goals? A sector perspective of aid allocation. Review of World Economics, 143(4), 596-630. doi:10.1007/s10290-007-0124-x Thorbecke, E. (2007). Multidimensional poverty: Conceptual and measurement issues. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Poverty (pp. 3-19). UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Thornton, A. (2009). Garden of Eden? The impact of resettlement on squatters' ‘agri- hoods’ in Fiji. Development in Practice, 19(7), 884-894. doi:10.1080/09614520903122311 Thornton, A., Binns, T., & Kerslake, M. (2013). Hard times in Apia? Urban landlessness and the church in Samoa. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 34(3), 357-372. doi:10.1111/sjtg.12040 Thornton, A., Kerslake, M., & Binns, T. (2010). Alienation and obligation: Religion and social change in Samoa. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 51(1), 1-16. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8373.2010.01410.x Tignor, R. L. (2006). W. Arthur Lewis and the Birth of Development Economics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Tisdell, C. (2002). Globalisation, development and poverty in the Pacific Islands: The situation of the least developed nations. International Journal of Social Economics, 29(12), 902-922. doi:10.1108/03068290210447969 Tisdell, C. (2014). The MIRAB model of small island economies in the Pacific and their security issues: A draft. Working Papers on Social Economics, Policy and Development School of Economics 57, The University of Queensland. Tortora, P., & Steensen, S. (2014). Making earmarked funding more effective: Current practices and a way forward. Retrieved from Paris: http://www.oecd.org/dac/aid- architecture/Multilateral%20Report%20N%201_2014.pdf Townsend, P. (2006) What is poverty? An historical perspective. Poverty in Focus: What is Poverty? Concepts and Measures (pp. 5-6). Brazil: UNDP International Policy Centre (IPC). Tuwere, I. (2002). Vanua: Towards a Fijian Theology of Place. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies of the University of the South Pacific and College of St John the Evangelist. Umans, L., & Arce, A. (2014). Fixing rural development cooperation? Not in situations involving blurring and fluidity. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 337-344. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.03.004 UN, United Nations. (2000). Millennium development goals. UN, United Nations. (2002, 18-22 March, 2002). Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development. Paper presented at the International Conference on Financing for Development, Moneterrey, Mexico. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/monterrey/MonterreyConsensus.pdf. 296
UNDP. (2014). The state of human development in the Pacific: A report on vulnerability and exclusion in a time of rapid change. Retrieved from UNDP Pacific Centre, Fiji: http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Environment%20and%20Energy /Climate%20Change/Capacity%20Development/UNDP%20Report%20SOCIAL %20EXCLUSION%20SUMMARY%202014.pdf UNICEF. (2014). Global Aid Architecture. Retrieved from http://www.educationandtransition.org/guidance/global-aid-architecture/ Utoikamanu, S. (2012, November). Impacts of aid: The effect of institutional practices and procedures. In A.Stunnerberg (Chair). How do institutionalised practices and procedures on both sides of the aid relationship affect ‘aid effectiveness’? Symposium conducted for the What Can We Learn Project. Vaioleti, T. (2006). Talanoa research methodology: a developing position on Pacific research. Waikato Journal of Education, 12, 21-33. Vaka'uta, N. (2009). Talanga: Theorizing a Tongan mode of interpretation. Paper presented at the Talanoa Oceania Conference, 29 September-1 October 2008, United Theological College, Parramatta, Sydney, Australia. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/117718010900500109 Vaka, S., Brannelly, T., & Huntington, A. (2016). Getting to the heart of the story: Using Talanoa to explore Pacific Mental Health. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 37(8), 537-544. doi:10.1080/01612840.2016.1186253 Valentinov, V. (2008). Explaining the rise of rural governance in Europe. European Planning Studies, 16(8), 1161-1165. doi:10.1080/09654310802315856 Veitayaki, J. (2008). Breaking Fiji's coup culture through effective rural development. In B. V. Lal, G. Chand, & V. Naidu (Eds.), Fiji Twenty Years On (2nd ed., pp. 39-56). Lautoka: Fiji Institute of Applied Studies. VeneKlasen, L., & Miller, V. (2002). A New Weave of People, Power and Politics: The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation. Oklahoma: World Neighbors. VNSO, Vanuatu National Statistics Office. (2012). Alternative indicators of well-being for Melanesia. Retrieved from Port Vila: Retrieved from http://vanuatuculturalcentre.vu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Alternative- Indicators-Vanuatu.pdf Waitt, G. (2005). Doing Discourse Analysis. In I. Hay (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (pp. 163-191). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Wallace, T. (2009). On the road to Accra, via Canada and County Kerry. Development in Practice, 19(6), 759-765. doi:10.1080/09614520903026959 Walters, W. (2012). Governmentality: Critical Encounters. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Ward, N., & McNicholas, K. (1998). Reconfiguring rural development in the UK: Objective 5b and the new rural governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 14(1), 27- 39. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(97)00045-4 Ward, R. G. (1964). Cash cropping and the fijian village. The Geographical Journal, 130(4), 484-500. doi:10.2307/1792260 Ward, R. G., & Spate, O. H. K. (1990). Thirty years ago: A view of the Fijian political scene confidential report to the British colonial office, September 1959. The Journal of Pacific History, 25(1), 103-124. doi:10.1080/00223349008572628
297
Wathne, C. (2008). Accra Agenda for Actions: sound-bites or solutions? Blog Retrieved from http://www.odi.org/comment/1935-accra-agenda-action-sound-bites- solutions Watts, M. (2003). Development and Governmentality. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 24(1), 6-34. doi:10.1111/1467-9493.00140 WCED, (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Common Future. Retrieved from New York: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common- future.pdf Webb, D., & Collis, C. (2000). Regional development agencies and the 'New Regionalism' in England. Regional Studies, 34(9), 857-864. doi:10.1080/00343400020002985 West, F. (1961). Political Advancement in the South Pacific: A Comparative Study of Colonial Practice in Fiji, Tahiti and American Samoa (pp. 1-40). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. White, H., & McGillivray, M. (1995). How well is aid allocated? Descriptive measures of aid allocation: A survey of methodology and results. Development and Change, 26(1), 163-183. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00547.x White, P., Hodges, A., & Greenslade, M. (2013). Guidance on measuring and maximising value for money in social transfer programmes - second edition. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/2 04382/Guidance-value-for-money-social-transfers-25Mar2013.pdf Williams, G. (2004). Evaluating participatory development: tyranny, power and (re) politicisation. Third World Quarterly, 25(3), 557-578. doi:10.1080/0143659042000191438 Williamson, J. (1990). What Washington means by policy reform. In J. Williamson (Ed.), Latin American Adjustment: How Much Has Happened? Washington D.C.: Institute for International Economics. Willis, K. (2005). Theories and Practices of Development. London: Routledge. Winchester, H. P. M. (1996). Ethical issues in interviewing as a research method in human geography. Australian Geographer, 27(1), 117-131. doi:10.1080/00049189608703161 Winters, M. S., & Martinez, G. (2015). The role of governance in determining foreign aid flow composition. World Development, 66, 516-531. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.020 Wood, G. (1985). The politics of development policy labelling. Development and Change, 16(3), 347-373. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.1985.tb00214.x Woods, N. (2008). Whose aid? Whose influence? China, emerging donors and the silent revolution in development assistance. International Affairs, 84(6), 1205-1221. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00765.x Woodward, K., Dixon, D. P., & Jones III, J. P. (2009). Poststructuralism/Poststructuralist Geographies. In R. Kitchin & N. Thrift (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (pp. 396-407). Oxford: Elsevier. Wright, R. (2005). A Short History of Progress. Cambridge, MA: Da Carpo Press. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Ziai, A. (2009). Aid and power – the next generation. The Journal of Development Studies, 45(5), 815-823. doi:10.1080/00220380902910173
298
Zimmermann, F., & Smith, K. (2011). More actors, more money, more ideas for international development co-operation. Journal of International Development, 23(5), 722-738. doi:10.1002/jid.1796 Zorn, J. (2003). Custom then and now: the changing Melanesian famiily. In A. Jowitt & T. N. Cain (Eds.), Passage of Change: Law, Society and Governance in the Pacific (pp. 95-124). Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University: Pandanus Books.
299
Appendices
Appendix 1: Accra Agenda for Action
Appendix 2: Attributes of the 50 people interviewed
Appendix 3: Social groupings in Nakorosule village
Appendix 4: Vakadidike (Fieldwork) implementation plan and interview schedule
Appendix 5: Participant Information Sheet and Guiding Questions (Fijian and English Version)
Appendix 6: Self-Help Scheme - Project Proposal Form
300
Appendix 1: Accra Agenda for Action
Source: OECD (2008)
301
Appendix 2: Attributes of the 50 people interviewed Key Informant Interviews (10) Pseudonym Role in Rural/Regional Sector Employment Location Sex Charles AppointedDevt. Minister State Elected City M Government politician Elijah Appointed Minister State Elected City M Government politician Jeremy Project officer State Bureaucrat City M Government Marion Project officer State Bureaucrat City F Government Peter Leader of Government State Elected City M Government politician Richard Leader of Government State Elected City M Government politician Russell Project leader State Bureaucrat City M Government Thomas Project Officer Local Bureaucrat Constituency M Government Timothy Project Officer Local Bureaucrat Constituency M Government William Local Government Local Bureaucrat Constituency M leader Government
Talanoa Participants (40) Formal talanoa participants (5) Pseudonym Traditional role/clan Yavusa Age Group Location Sex
Jope Nakoroduadua Men Village M Gavidi Nakoroduadua Men Village M
Mere Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Women Village F
Alacia Bati (Traditional Loma Women Village F warrior) Jone Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Men M
Informal talanoa participants (30 in their ‘spaces’ attending to tasks) Seini Nakoroduadua Youth Village F
Teresia Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Youth Village F
Sainimili Loma Youth Village F
Jope Nakoroduadua Youth Village M
Ilaitia Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Youth Village M
Bola Loma Youth Village M
302
Lusi Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Women Village F
Lepani Nakoroduadua Men Village M
Jesoni Loma Men Village M
Penioni Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Men Village M
Moape Loma Men Village M
Jolame Loma Men Village M
Jonetani Loma Men Village M
Remi Nakoroduadua Men Village M
Naipote Nakoroduadua Men Village M
Voreqe Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Men Village M
Timoci Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Men Village M
Sitiveni Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Men Village M
Anaseini Loma Women Village F
Amelia Loma Women Village F
Makelesi Loma Women Village F
Viniana Nakoroduadua Women Village F
Raisina Nakoroduadua Women Village F
Torika Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Women Village F
Asenaca Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Women Village F
Salote Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Women Village F
Sainiana Nakoroduadua Women Village F
Venina Nakoroduadua Women Village F
Unaisi Loma Women Village F
Alisi Loma Women Village F
Jiutasa Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Men Village M
Informal talanoa participants (5 via participant observation)
Laisa Loma Women Village F
303
Lusi Turaga (Chiefly bure) Waimaro Women Village F
Manasa Nakoroduadua Men Village M
Rusiate Loma Men Village M
Simione Loma Youth Village M
Source: Interview log
304
Appendix 3: Social groupings in Nakorosule village
Yavusa Mataqali
Loma Nasau Loma Solia Saravi Namatavurai
Nakoroduadua Nakorosule Village Nakoroduadua Sarava (Yalewa) Nabuca (Extinct)
Waimaro Naulucavu Waimaro Lase Wiricago
Source: Interview log
305
Appendix 4: Vakadidike (Fieldwork) implementation plan and interview schedule A. Implementation Plan
1. Vakayacori na veivosaki kei na veivakadonui ni vanua. (Present research intentions and seek approval from the Vanua) a) Researcher’s father to go do the vakaraitaki (formally present the intentions of fieldwork and seek approval) b) Turaga ni Vanua to be present (Leaders/Head of the Vanua) Vunivalu (Titluar chief and head of village) Turaga ni mataqali (Elders of the yavusa and mataqali) Turaga ni Koro (Village headman/spokesperson) Agenda
a) Vakaraitaki
2. Researcher to present to Bose ni Koro (Village meeting) - Me vakaraitaki kina nai tuvatuva ni vakadidike (To present the intentions of research and duration of research) Agenda
a) Lotu (Prayer and hymn to commence village meeting) b) Vosa ni Veikidavaki (Special mention of visitors in the meeting) c) Village particulars/issues discussed d) Researcher introduction and presentation to the koro (village) on research intentions and duration of stay e) Distribution of proposed research (talanoa) schedule at the meeting
3. Consultation/Village Profile and Information gathering with the following village committees: i) Lotu (Church) a) Komiti (Members of Church Committee) b) Soqosoqo ni Turaga (Men’s Group) c) Soqosoqo ni Marama (Women’s Group) d) Mataveitokani (Youth) e) Matawilivola ni siga tabu (Sunday School) f) Talatala (Church Pastor) ii) Koro (Village) a) Komiti (Village Development Committee) b) Soqosoqo Vakamarama (Women’s Group) c) Youth iii) Koronivuli (School Committee) a) Komiti (Members of School Committee) b) Qasenivuli (Teachers)
4. Finalisation of talanoa schedule and informing selected participants a) Set time frame for talanoa schedule b) Inform selected participants accordingly 306
B. Number of talanoa participants selected from social groups within the village: (40)
1. Talanoa with Turaga ni Vanua, Head of Yavusa, Head of Mataqali (Titular chief and heads of social groupings within village) (3) a) Turaga ni Vanua (Turaga ni Vanua, Turaga ni Yavusa, Turaga ni Mataqali) (1) b) Turaga ni Mataqali c) Turaga ni Yavusa (1) d) Turaga ni Koro (1)
2. Selection of matavuvale (household) participants by social groupings: (40) a) Waimaro (4 mataqalis/clans): (13) Naulucavu (4) Waimaro (3) Lase (3) Wiricago (3)
b) Loma (5 mataqalis/clans): (15) Loma (3) Nasau (3) Solia (3) Saravi (3) Namatavurai (3)
c) Nakoroduadua (2 mataqalis/clans): (12) Nakoroduadua (9) Sarava (Yalewa) (3) Nabuca (Extinct)
3. Selection of participants by committee membership: (22) i) Lotu (Church Committee) a) Komiti (Members of Church Committee) (2) b) Soqosoqo ni Turaga (Men’s Group) (3) c) Soqosoqo ni Marama (Women’s Group) (3) d) Mataveitokani (Youth) (3) e) Matawilivola ni siga tabu (Sunday School) (2) f) Talatala (Church Pastor) ii) Koro (Village Committee) a) Komiti (Village Development Committee) (2) b) Soqosoqo Vakamarama (Women’s Committee) (2) c) Youth (2) iii) Koronivuli (School Committee) a) Komiti (Members of School Committee) (2) b) Qasenivuli (Teachers) (1)
Note: Because heads within the village and members of committees are also a part of the social groupings within the village, the numbers add up to more than the total interviews.
307
C. Finalised Interview Schedule
June Mon Tues Wed Thurs Friday 17th June
Week 3 Vakaraitaki and approval from Vanua for fieldwork in th th (13 -19 ) Nakorosule
August Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Week 3 Talanoa Talanoa with B1(d) with th st (15 -21 ) B1(a)
Week 4 Consultation/Village profiling and information Talanoa gathering with Church, Village and School with B1(c) nd th (22 -28 ) Committees
September Returned to Canberra and finalised talanoa schedule and the selection of participants from village profiling data collected. (Week 1- 4)
October Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Week 1 Returned to Fiji. (3rd-9th)
Week 2 Attended Fieldwork Orientation within village setting. Visiting kinsmen in the village soli observations three Yavusa; meeting up with relatives and carrying out th th (10 -16 ) (fundraiser); commenced very informal talanoa with different households. Researcher getting acquainted and also learning about different Distribution traditional roles and different traditional obligations within of talanoa traditional structure in village. Researcher also participating schedule to in various village obligations and being immersed into the selected ‘bula va koro’ (village way of life). participants
Week 3 Formal Informal Bose va koro: 20/10 talanoa talanoa th rd (17 -23 ) with Mere with (Researcher presented (Evening) Anaseini intentions of research (Morning) and duration; distribution of proposed talanoa schedule)
308
Week 4 Informal Informal Informal Informal talanoa talanoa talanoa talanoa th th (24 -30 ) with Lepani with Amelia with with (Early and Viniana Torika, morning) Makelesi and Raisina Asenaca (Lunch (Lunch and Salote time) time) (Lunch time)
November Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
Week 1 Informal Informal Informal talanoa talanoa talanoa st (Oct 31 - with with with th 6 ) Sainiana Unaisi and Sitiveni and Venina Alisi (Early (Lunch (Lunch morning) time) time)
Week 2 Informal Informal talanoa talanoa th th (7 -13 ) with Remi with Jesoni and Naipote (Evening) (Evening)
Week 3 Informal Informal Informal Informal talanoa talanoa talanoa and talanoa th th (14 -20 ) with with participant with Penioni Jonetani observation Voreqe (Morning) (Late with (Breakfast) afternoon) Manasa (Afternoon)
Week 4 Informal Informal Informal Informal talanoa and talanoa talanoa talanoa st th (21 -27 ) participant with Jope with Jope, session observation and Gavidi Ilaitia and with Jiutasa with (Evening) Bola (Dinner) Rusiate (Morning; (Afternoon) out in plantation)
December Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun
309
Week 1 Informal Informal talanoa and talanoa and th (28 Nov- participant participant th 4 ) observation observation with Laisa with Lusi (Morning) (Lunch time)
Week 2 Informal Informal Informal talanoa and talanoa talanoa th th (5 -11 ) participant with with observation Seini, Timoci with Teresia (Lunch Sainimere and time) (Morning) Sainimili (Out in the plantation)
Week 3 Formal Informal Informal Vakavina- talanoa talanoa and talanoa th th (12 -18 ) with Alacia participant with vinaka (Evening) observation Moape and by with Jolame researcher Simione (Early (Evening) to village morning)
Source: Interview log
310
Appendix 5: Participant information sheet and guiding questions (Fijian and English Version)
VAKADIDIKE VEITALANOA ME BALETA NA VEIVAKATOROCAKETAKI E NA LOMA NI KORO
Na research qoi me baleta tiko na veivakatorocaketaki e na taudaku ni korovakavavalagi, na veivakatorocaketaki e dau cakava na matanitu se o ira na vei matanitu e so, kei na vei mata soqosoqo e ra dau soli veivuke mai na vei korokoro.
Na noqu gole tiko mai qo, au mai vaka dikeva tiko na kena sa mai caka na veivakatorocaketaki e na koro. Na kena vinaka….se so beka na ka e sega soti ni vinaka; na veisau e sa kauta mai na veivakatorocaketaki e na taudaku ni korovakavavalagi e na bula I na koro.
E va tiko na kena i naki ni noqu vakadidike:
1. Me dikevi kina na nomuni kila na i taukei me baleta na vakasama ni veivakatorocaketaki – na nomuni kila na kena yavu, kena i balebale, kei na nomu rai baleta na bula raraba. 2. Na cava e nomuni nanuma na i taukei me baleta na nomuni cau tiko ki na veivakatorocaketaki, na yaga ni nomuni cau tiko e na sasaga ni veivakatorocaketaki. 3. Meu dikeva na vakatagedegede ni nomu ni kila me baleta na veivakasama e so ka umani e na vakasama ni veivakatorocaketaki. 4. Me dikevi na nomuni gagadre me baleta na kena maroroi na bula vakaitaukei E wase vaka va tiko na noqu vakadidike oqo:
Part I: TUKUTUKU ME BALETI KEMUNI
1. Yaca: 2. Tikini siga sucu kina/Yabaki: 3. Vanua e sucu kina: 4. Nomuni vakaitikotiko: 5. Cakacaka cava ni qarava 6. Tutu vaka vanua
Part II: NA I VAKATAGEDEGEDE NI NOMUNI KILA NA I BALEBALE NI VEIVAKATOROCAKETAKI
1. Na cava na i balebale ni veivakatorocaketaki? Vakamacalataka vakacava? Dua tale na vosa e rau tautauvata? Vakacava na veivakatorocaketaki e na taudaku ni korovakavavalagi? 311
2. Vakamacalataka mada e so na vakasama e okati e na lalawa ni veivakatorocaketaki raraba. (Na cava o bau kila tu e na ka ra tukuna tiko me baleta na veivakatorocaketaki e na taudaku ni korovavalagi? 3. Na cava e nomuni nanuma baleta na veivakaotorocaketaki ka sa yaco tiko mai me tekivu mai na gauna ni tu vakai koya (1970) me yacova mai qo? (Na gauna o tubu cake tiko mai kina) 4. E tu beka e so na gacagaca ni veivakatorocaketaki ka koni sega soti ni taleitaka, se so na veisau ko ni gadreva? 5. Tukuna mada se mataqali veivakatorocaketaki vakacava ko ni gadreva? 6. Na cava na i vurevure se sala ni nomuni kila na veika lelevu e so ni veivakatorocaketaki e na noda vanua? (Bula vaka i lavo, bula vaka i taukei, bula tiko bulabula, bula bula raraba). 7. E na i vakatagedegede ni nomuni kila na i balebale ni veivakatorocaketaki, kei na veivakatorocaketaki sa yaco tiko mai, na cava o rawa ni kaya me baleta na vakatagedegede ni veivakatorocaki ya e na nomuni matavuvale? E sa veivuka sara e na bula e na lewe ni nomu matavuvale; e na nomu i tikotiko/tiko bulabula; e na bula raraba ni nomu matavuvale? Vacava e na loma ni koro? 8. E na kena dau mai caka na vei project ni veivakatorocaketaki, e cava e so na nomu nanuma e yavutu e dau vakavuna na kena rawa vaka vinaka se na kena sega ni rawa vakavinaka na veivakatorocaketaki e dau mai caka? 9. E na nomuni rai, o cei e dau lei nona na kena vinaka na veivakatorocaketaki e dau caka mai e na taudaku ni korovavalagi? 10. Rawa ni o tukuna e dua na kena vakaraitaki na kena vakayacori dua na project kasa mai raica na lewe ni koro e na kena vinaka vei ira nodra bula e na veisiga? Rawa ni o vakasama taka tale ga e dua e sega ni vaka votukana? 11. E na nomu rai, na project cava se veivakatorocaketaki cava e vinaka vei iko? 12. E na veika o sa wasea oqo, e vacava na vakatagedegede ni nomu vakacegui mai na projects e so ni veivakaotrocaketaki e dau kau mai?
Part III: BULA VEIMALIWAI VAKAITAUKEI
1. Koni nanuma beka ni tiko e dua na i vakarau ni bula se i tovo ni bula e duidui kina na i taukei, se na cava beka na i vakarau ni bula vakaitaukei. 2. Koni nanuma beka ni tu na yavutu e so ka i takele se i vakadei ni bula vakaitaukei? Vakamacalataka. Na nomuni veimaliwai, tutu vakavanua. 3. E dodonu beka me’ra maroroi tu na veiyavu oqori? Na cava na yavu ni nomu I sau ni taro? 4. Na vei oga vakaitaukei cava soti koni dau vakaitavitaki kemuni kina? 5. Koni dau cau se vakaitavi vakacava e na vei oga oqori? 6. Koni sa bau raica rawa beka e so na veisau e na bula ni vei maliwai vakavanua/vaka I taukei me tekivu mai na gauna ni tu vakai koya ni noda vanua? 7. Koni nanuma beka ni sa veisau na I vakarau ni nomuni vakaitaivi e na vei oga vakaitaukei e so mai na gauna koni sa mai tiko kina eke? Na cava e vuna? 8. E sa bau lako mai vei kemuni na vakanananu ni biuta na koro, baleta na vei colacola e so, o sa vaka colati tiko kina e na koro?
312
9. E na tutu vakavanua kei na bula veimaliwai vakaitaukei, e na nomu raica, e sa bau dua na ka e kauta mai e na veivakatorocakataki kina na nomuni tiko raraba? 10. E na nomuni rai, e cava e so na veika vivinaka se veika ca e kauta mai na bula veimaliwai vakaitaukei e na sasaga ni veivakatorocaketaki? 11. Na cava na nomu rai ena kena vukea na veivakatorocaketaki, na bula vakavanua? 12. E na veika o sa varaitaka tiko qo, na cava na nomu rai e yavutu ni kena rawa e dua na sasaga ni veivakatorocaketaki? 13. E tu tale beka e so na vakasama me baleta na veivakatorocaketaki ko ni gadreva mo ni talanoa kina?
Part IV: BULA VAKA I LAVO
1. Na cava soti na veika o dau vakaitavi kina ena veisiga? (Daily activities) 2. Na cava nomuni vurevure ni lavo? 3. E cava e so na ka o ni dau vakayagataka kina na i lavo ko ni rawata mai? Rawa ni davidavia valalai me laurai e vica lako ka ni vuli, lotu, na nomu bula ena veisiga/vakamatavuvale, na kakana….E so tale na ka? 4. Kemuni kakana ni kania e na vei siga, rawa ni vakamacalataka, na ka ni kania e na katalau, vakasigalevu, kei na va galo? 5. Na nomuni bula e na veisiga, au kerea mo ni vakamacalataka mada na cava so na I tavi o ni vakaitavi taki kemuni kina?
313
TALANOA PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET AND GUIDING QUESTIONS (English Version)
Using Fiji as a case study, these guiding questions are drawn largely from the conceptual argument that increasing poverty among rural communities is not only a result of limitations in aid funding or rural development foci. Rather, inappropriate policies shaped by ‘power relations’ and the ‘system’ through which official development assistance (ODA) is governed and functions influences and impacts rural development practices and outcomes.
To gauge micro-level perspectives on the effectiveness of ODA funded rural development projects, these guiding questions should take 45 minutes and is split into the following sections under these themes:
Section 1: Information about the participant
Section 2: General views about the conceptions/definitions of development, progress and aid effectiveness
Section 3: Views on the concepts of traditionalism and the role of internal dynamics (traditional structures, power relations, community system) in fostering development and maintaining social benefits of rural livelihoods in Fiji
Section 4: Views on the effectiveness of rural-ODA based on participant’s direct engagement with the selected aid program/project
All questions (except those in Section 1) are guiding questions to guide the researcher in engaging a ‘talanoa’ discussion with participants.
All responses to the survey are strictly anonymous and will remain secure.
Section 1: About the participant 1. Sex [ ] Male [ ] Female [ ] Other [ ] Don’t want to answer
314
2. Age [ ]
3. How would you rate your level of awareness/knowledge of community/village aid-funded programs as a whole? [ ] Very strong [ ] Strong [ ] Average [ ] Weak [ ] Very weak
4. What is your main occupation? [ ] Government employee [ ] Subsistence [ ] Private sector employee [ ] Household work [ ] Self-employed [ ] Unemployed [ ] Voluntary/Unpaid [ ] Out of labour force/retired
5. How would you rate your involvement in community development efforts? [ ] Very active [ ] Active [ ] Not active
6. From the list below, which best describes your role in the community’s well-being? [ ] Decision-maker (in a formally organised group or committee) [ ] Member of a formally organised group or committee in the community [ ] Traditional leadership role (on village/community affairs) [ ] Traditional role (exclusively on home affairs)
7. How long have you lived in this village/community? [ ] Less than a year [ ] 1-5 years [ ] 5-10 years [ ] 10-20 years [ ] 20+ years
Section 2: Understandings of aid effectiveness at the community level As part of my research, I am seeking to understand how individuals at the community level define and conceive concepts related to aid effectiveness. These questions refer to broader perceptions of aid effectiveness and what it means to participants as beneficiaries at the primary (micro) level. 1. How would you define development? What about rural development? 2. What would you consider as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ development? 3. Are you familiar with the term aid effectiveness or does the term aid effectiveness mean anything to you? 4. In terms of your understanding of aid effectiveness for development, how would you rate your individual household’s wellbeing based on that? What about the community’s wellbeing?
315
5. How do you think you came to hold that view on aid effectiveness or how do you think you came to understand aid effectiveness in the way you have just described?
Section 3: Integrating internal dynamics of traditionalism with mainstream aid modalities These next set of questions explore intra-community dynamics and how these are bound together in the pursuit of rural livelihood strategies that ensure livelihood sustainability. 1. In the design, setup and implementation of Project ABC [insert aid project name], how have performative aspects in community living [explain this to participant] and livelihood activities that you value being integrated? 2. What would you consider as key factors that impact the success or failure of rural development projects the most? 3. In terms of traditional governance, to what degree does your traditional structure impact well-being in your community? 4. In your view, what are some positive and negative contributions that social and cultural norms/influences can bring to development efforts? What are the trade- offs? 5. What traditional mechanisms are there at the community level to ensure the success of project implementation? 6. Based on what you’ve shared here, what would constitute a successful development project? What would be its key elements?
Section 4: Aid effectiveness for rural development These next set of questions refer to the effectiveness of aid spending in the selected projects in terms of poverty reduction [livelihood sustainability and well-being] and how this has translated at the micro level. 1. In general, what are your views on rural development efforts [give examples of this to the participant] and the contributions that they make to your community or to your wider province? 2. For the aid project ABC [insert project name once selected] that I am interviewing you for, what role did you have in the design/setup or implementation of the project? 3. How has the project contributed to the development of your community? 4. Besides the contributions you’ve mentioned, in your view, what are some negative impacts (if any) that have emerged for your community as a result of this project? 5. Do you feel that the project has met your individual household needs as well? If so, in what way has it met your household needs? If not, could you explain how it hasn’t met your household needs? 6. In your view, who benefits the most from rural development efforts? 7. In aid effectiveness research, poverty reduction outcomes are now used as the baseline to determine the success of projects. How do you define poverty reduction and what would you consider as positive poverty reduction measures? 8. In terms of poverty reduction efforts, what project/program activities do you value the most? 9. Based on what you have shared here, how satisfied are you with development efforts brought into your community to address the community’s development needs? [Follow up question: In your view, how do you feel about the sustainability of this [insert project name] project? Has it improved your 316
rural well-being and standard of living? Or have there been no changes to these from the setup of this project? Or has rural well-being and standard of living degraded since the implementation of this project?] Please explain.
317
Appendix 6: Self-Help Scheme – Project Proposal Form
Source: Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development and National Disaster Management (2018)
318
Source: Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development and National Disaster Management (2018)
319
Source: Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development and National Disaster Management (2018)
320
Source: Ministry of Rural & Maritime Development and National Disaster Management (2018)
321