From the Anthropology of Development to the Anthropology Of

From the AnthropologyofDevelopment to the AnthropologyofGlobal Social Engineering

Thomas Bierschenk Department of Anthropology and Modern African Studies, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Forum Universitatis 6, D-55099 Mainz

Abstract. With thetransformation of development policy to global structural policy,the ‘old’ anthropology of development must become an anthropology of global social engineering. This involvesthe challengeoffocusing on the entire policy chain –from the production of development policy models in the context of the development agencies, to the different points of translation (for example,state ministries in the recipient countries and large international NGOs)and local intervention. From this perspective, the new development policy emerges as one of the contemporaryforms of producing the world. Interesting approaches existinGermany for such an ethnography of global social engineering. They have considerable implications for the entire discipline and its knowledge production practices. [Ethnography,Globalization, Epistemology, Development, Social Engineering]

From the 1980s, adynamic anthropology of development emerged in Germany,the focus of which was the ethnographicstudy of development projects and brokers and research on the local consequences of development aid (Bierschenk 2014). The strengths of this ‘old’anthropology of development lay in its deconstruction of linear ideas about the implementationofdevelopment projects. One premise was anon-normative conception of development: development is simply what the actors in the field designate as such and the social world in which they move. In accordance with Mal- inowski’s fundamental methodologicalparadigm for anthropology,Ialso treat ‘development’anemic, or actor’s concept, in this text. This German anthropology of development is integrated into averystrong Eur- opean network. It shares with European colleagues an approach comprising, to use the happy phrase coined by Crewe and Axelby (2013), an anthropology of development based on anthropology in development: many of its proponents have personal practical experience in the development world. Quite distinct from this German-Eur- opean network, an applied orientation exists in German-language development anthropology that rarely features at international level and focuses predominantly on the ethical issues surrounding development policy (Antweiler 2004; Bliss 2004, see http:/entwicklungsethnologie.org/); it is not being treated in this paper (however,see Bierschenk 2014). Nevertheless,the relationship of many German anthropologists to ‘development’is characterized by aparadox: until well into the 1980s the question as to whether ‘devel-

Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014) 73–98 2014 Dietrich Reimer Verlag 74 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014) opment’was actually alegitimate object for anthropology was highly disputed within the discipline. This dispute has, in effect, been resolved in the last three decades during which German anthropology caught up with global developments (Bierschenk, Krings, and Lentz 2013). German anthropology has become an anthropology of globalization while German anthropologists remain primarily interested in the local impacts of the globalizing forces ‘out there’. Today,German anthropology is mainly an anthropology of “Local Action in Africa (and elsewhere, TB) in the Context of Global Influences” (to refer to the title of acollaborative research programme at the University of Bayr- euth from 2000 to 2007). The anthropology of development in Germany has become differentiated in the course of this process. Instead of auniform research object, i. e. ‘development’, today,individual global policies are researched in transnational policy fields: for example, agricultural and environmental policies (Münsterand Münster 2012; Weisser et al. 2013), education policies (Fichtner 2010), health policies (Dilger and Hardon 2011; Kroeker 2012; Park 2012), gender policies (Feuerbach 2011), child policies (Alber 2012), cultural policies (Röschenthaler and Diawara 2011), immigra- tion and isolationist policies (Drotbohm 2011), legal policies (Eckert et al. 2012; Ran- deria 2003), resource policies (Hoinathy and Behrends 2014), security policies (Kirsch 2010), administrative policies (Werthmann and Schmitt 2008), etc. At the same time, development anthropology in Germany has unbounded itself: it is no longer ahyphe- nated anthropology but has arrived in the ‘center’ofthe discipline, so to speak, as one field within the anthropology of globalization. This anthropological interest in development and global structural policy corre- sponds to the relatively clearly defined occupational field of the anthropologicaldevel- opment expert –which is identified as acareer aspiration by many undergraduate students and an area of professional activity actually attained by quite afew of them (Barthel and Bierschenk 2013). The battle for the recognition of anthropology’s use- fulness for development by development practitioners, which has been waged in Ger- many since the 1970s, has been largely won. There is widespread consensus today that development projects and policies need to be based on detailed knowledge of the social dynamics on which development interventions are based, and that, for the countries of the global South, anthropology is often the only disciplinethat can deliver this type of knowledge. The paradox lies in the fact that the unbounding and mainstreaming of development anthropology in Germany largely coincide with avague sense of unease with the concept of ‘development’. This unease is not being explored theoretically,however.It does not originate from areflective examinationofpost-colonialtheory(which re- ceives verylittle attention in Germany,see Ziai 2010b; Münster 2012). Indeed, it is not even expressed in written form; it tends to arise more in conversations and, moreover,implicitly.What appears to be involved here is alegacy of the vague discomfort about modernism that was characteristic of German anthropology up to the 1980s (Gingrich 2005; Haller 2012). The paradoxical effect of this is that even the many young anthropologists in Germany who are nowstudying the forms and effects of glo- Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 75 bal social engineering are reluctant to allowtheir research to be described ‘anthropology of development’. Anthropologists are also hardly involved in the rare interdisciplinary German centers and courses for development research. If these centers and courses are not already monodisciplinary, they tend to be dominated by economists, and/or political scientists or geographers who do not generally perceive anthropology as an interesting dialogue partner. In this contribution, Iwill argue that the transformation of development policy since the 1980s from aproject-based approach focusing on capital transfers to global structural policy impacts the anthropology of development.1 The age of ‘development’ which began after the Second World Wardid not come to ahalt after 1990 (contrast Ziai 2010a). The central development agencies, e. g. World Bank, KfW (the German government development bank), GIZ (German Federal Agency for International De- velopment), Brot für die Welt (Bread for the World, Protestant Development Service) continue to exist, and the volume of financial transfers has increased, and still exceeds remittances and foreign investments in Africa.2 Moreover,the main targets of global structural policy remain the states and societies of the global South. However,after 1990, the development-policy approaches expanded: the keywords associated with this expansion include sectoral approaches,budgetaryaid, structural policy,good governance, new public management,Millennium Development Goals, etc. With this change in development policy,the ‘old’anthropology of development must also expand to include the ethnographic research of global policies and become an anthropology of global social engineering. Methodologically,this involves the challenge of focusing on the entire policy chain –from the productionofdevelopment policy models in the context of the development agencies, to the different translation points (for example, state ministries in the recipient countries and large international NGOs) and local intervention points. From this perspective, the new development policy emerges as one of the contemporary forms of producing the world –along with others such as, for example, market, finance, media, religion. Interesting approaches exist in Germany for such an ethnography of global social engineering. They have considerable implications for the entire discipline and its knowledge production practices.

1 Empirically,this contribution is rooted primarily in African Studies, afact that will become clear from the examples presented and literature cited. It builds on previousreflections (Elwert and Bierschenk 1988; Bierschenk, Elwert, and Kohnert 1991, 1993; Bierschenk 2008, 2014), my practical experience in the development world (mainly with ILO and GIZ) and it incorporates many (mostly French-language) discussions on this topic held in the context of APAD (www.association-apad.org/), see, in particular,Olivier de Sardan 2001, 2005). Fortheir critical comments on earlier versions of this text, Iwould like to thank Andrea Behrends, Nora Brandecker,Sarah Fichtner,Jeannett Martin, Ursu- la Rao, EvaSpies and Katja Werthmann. Iwould also like to thank Susan Cox for the translation from Germanand Alessa Wilhelm for research and editorial assistance. 2 http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/globalisierung/52829/ entwicklungszusammenarbeit 76 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014)

However,Iwill argue here that the potential of such an approach is not currently being exploited to the full. In the spirit of this thematic issue of the Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, which marks 100 years of university anthropology in Germany,this text has two aims: first, to iden- tify the particular style of the German anthropology of development and position it in the international context; and, second, to formulate aprogramme for a‘new’anthropology of development against the backdrop of the German debate.3

The Ethnographic Research of TravellingBlueprints

Using the central concept of the “travelling model”, Behrends, Park, and Rottenburg (2014) recently made asuggestion as to howthese practices for producing the world through global social engineering can be expressed. What is essentially involved here is the observation that experts constantly generate models in the context of global social engineering which are then sent travelling around the world, or sometimes take off on such travels themselves. In the course of these journeys, the models stop over in different places –for example, in other development agencies, governments, global and local NGOs, etc. –where they are decoded and re-coded. They then continue their journey in amodulated form. Building on Callon and Latour (1981), this process is referred to as “translation”; typically,aseries of translations arise in the course of these journeys. Similar to the way in which the models do not emerge from nothing, these translation processes are never completed in the strict sense so that the observer is always dealing merely with extracts of translation chains which are spatially and temporally incom- plete and connect to form networks. In contrast to the theories of modernization or dependency,assumptions are not made here in relation to the direction of the ‘travel’; it must not necessarily go from the (global) North to the South. Instead the direction is treated as an empirical question. Accordingly,the focus of the research is the production, adaptation, creative transformation and ‘forwarding’ofmodels. This radical practice- and actor-oriented approach understands all stages in the translation chain as ‘local contexts’(that is not only those in the global South usually researched by German anthropologists).Ittreats all actors involved in the translation chain as equivalent apriori.Whether and why individual actors have greater possibili- ties for producing models, sending them travelling or converting them –that is, the question regarding the varying endowment and allocation of power –is, again, an empirical question.

3 The term ‘German’remains somewhat elusive in this contribution. Iamprimarily concerned here with the contributionsofGerman-language authors (who are mostly referred to here), irrespective of the languageinwhich they were published, however.The question as to whether such athing as national disciplinarytraditions exist is explored towards the end of the text. Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 77

However,itappears to me that the concept of the ‘model’displays atendency for unbounding;hence the question arises as to what it does not actually cover.Thus Iwill replace it with the concept of the ‘blueprint’which originates from the engineering sciences. In the metaphorical sense, the originally purely technological term ‘blueprint’ stands for a(technical or organizational) plan (of action). The level of refinement and sophistication of such ‘plans’can differ considerably; in the course of their ‘travels’ around the world, they are repeatedly copied, changed and transferred to other processes or fields on their travels around the world. Therefore referring to ‘travelling blueprints’clarifies the connection with social engineering. Although it is not always admitted, the ‘travelling models’(or ‘blueprints’) approach is linked with various older approaches and develops them further using adif- ferent theoretical idiom: for example, Pressman and Wildavsky’s (1984 [1973]) sociology of implementation,the aforementioned project anthropology of the 1980s and 1990s, which was also influenced by these authors (Bierschenk 2014) and was aimed at the study of selective appropriation and ‘unpacking’ofdevelopment projects in the course of the implementationprocess, anthropological studies on ‘interfaces’(Long and Long 1992; Long 1989) and intermediary social roles (from Gluckman 1948 to Boissevain 1974), and individual approaches from the anthropology of public policies (Shore and Wright 2011).4 The consequence of such an approach in relation to research practice is that all of the actors along the translation chain in these coupled transnational policy arenas come into focus. It is no longer sufficient to merely consider the local actors, who are the target groups of the blueprints. Adapting the blueprints and re-coding them at local level are the preferred focus of anthropologists. Multinational, state and private development bureaucracies, the state apparatuses and private organizations (NGOs) in the ‘recipient countries’, and the experts, development brokers and norm entrepreneurs must be of equal interest as the objects of ethnographic research. The research in Germany has provided some interesting contributions on this topic which, however, do not deal with all elements of the translation chains with equal intensity.

4 This travelling blueprintsapproachiscurrently being tested in variousresearch projects being carried out in Germany.Worthy of mention here primarily are the“Adaptation and Creativity in Africa –Technologies and Significations in the Production of Order and Disorder”(http://www. spp1448.de/)programme, whose sub-projects examinedifferent global policies, for example in the areas of climate,criminality,health, security, infrastructure and resources. Asimilar approachusing an albeit different theoretical idiom is adopted by the project “Models, practicesand cultures of school institutionsinWest Africa/Modèles, pratiques et cultures scolaires en Afrique de l’Ouest francophone” (http://www.ifeas.uni-mainz.de/1070.php), which concerns the production and local adaptation of educational policy models. 78 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014)

AnthropologyofDevelopment Agencies and Discourses

Hence, development agencies, development experts and their practices and discourses should become the object of ethnographic research on development.Ifthe ‘development machine’isnot simply considered as ablack box, in which organizational blueprints are mysteriously generated, the social practices surrounding the generation of these discourses in the development policy agencies are also of interest. In this context, ‘development policy agencies’include not only multinationalinstitutionslike the World Bank and national ones like the GIZ, but also major international NGOs like Oxfam and Bread for the World, which play an important role in the productionof discourse in the development world. The premise of this kind of ethnographic analysis of development agencies should be that conclusions cannot be drawn directly about practices from blueprints or policies (referred to as ‘discourse’in‘critical’development research). Instead, practices have their own, non-derived, ontologicalstatus and should be treated as an empirical problem. Therefore, the question as to whether they correspond to the blueprints or,as suggested by the sociology of organizations, contradict, at least partly,and thwart them, is completely open. Seen from this perspective, discourses are themselves the products of practices which should be examined (Mosse 2013b). Development policy agencies are not anew object of research for anthropology (Chauveau 1985). As far back as 1988, the Dutch anthropologist Quarles van Ufford and his colleagues studied development aid organizationsasbureaucracies with the classical operating methods and contradictions characteristic of this type of organization (Quarles van Ufford, Kruyt, and Downing 1988). These and other studies (Arce 1993) have shownthat, like any other organization, development agencies are at best only “loosely coupled”(Weick 1976) and not governed from the top, and that the function of policy discourse is less to regulate practices than to justify them for particular audiences, moreover often ex post facto (Mosse 2004). Iwould add to this the observation that, as input-oriented organizations, development agencies are characterized by aparticularly high degree of sensitivity to criticism, as they can only fail on the ideological level and not on the practical one (Hanke 1996). They counter this criticism with “repressive tolerance”(aterm adopted here from Marcuse 1969[1965]): they display ahigh capacity for integrating critics and criticism into their policy discourse with limited effect on practices. In other words, even if we concede that the approaches of the big international development agencies, and most of the smaller ones, are based on alogic of rendering political issues technical, that does not mean that they succeed. In fact, one serious argument put forwardinthe African development debate has been that, irrespective of the different approaches chosen by the development agencies, Afri- can elites have always succeeded in politicizing them to their ownadvantage (van de Walle 2001). Therefore, it would appear quite plausible to assume that the current policy and sectoral approaches to development face the same local strategies of side- tracking, unpacking and selective appropriationwhich development anthropologists Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 79 highlighted for the more traditional development project approaches long ago (Bier- schenk 1988; Crehan and von Oppen 1988; Elwert and Bierschenk 1988; Lentz 1988; Olivier de Sardan 1988). Overall, however,agencies and professions agencies in the field of development remain under-researched. Some partial ethnographies of the World Bank by professional ethnographers exist (Fox 2000; Goldman 2001; Mosse 2005, 2013a). However,even such partial ethnographies appear to be lacking for other larger multi- and bilateral agencies. As Quarles van Uffordbemoaned almost 30 years ago, anthropologists still frequently refuse to “don pinstripe suits”(oral communication). Access is amajor un- solved issue here; however this problem is less acute if the object of enquiryisnot so much an institution in itself as its professionals.Hence, many ethnographies of development policy institutionsalso appear to originate from actors who swapped the role of researcher for that of practitioner,atleast temporarily (e. g. Rottenburg and Mosse). In this field, anthropology ‘in’development is an almost essential precondition for an anthropology ‘of’development. German and German-language authors have contributedlittle to this ethnography of development agencies up to now. Although they are not based on primaryempirical research, the political scientist Stefanie Hanke’s (1996) observations on the World Bank are nevertheless of particular interest for anthropological analysis. Hanke’s central thesis, following Luhmann, is that the World Bank should be primarily considered as aself-referential system, in which the unspoken spotlight is on the conservation of the system in acomplex and ambiguous environment. The organization absorbs this uncertainty through the repeated allocation of new roles to itself,something that can be observed over and over again in the history of the World Bank. Hence, the World Bank’s changes in discourse express a‘posterior rationality’,according to which practices are what creates apolicy.Interms of the organizational structure, this is reflected in the division between the strategy departments and countrydesks, which have little to do with each other.The supposed advantage of this is that criticism of one department does not pose arisk to the overall organization. Hence, this “loose coupling” (Weick 1976) constitutes the basis for the stability of the organization. Thus, the World Bank cannot fail in the strict sense; it simply redefines its objectives.

Development Experts

Logically,afocus on development institutions must be complemented by the consideration of the actors at work within them, that is, the development experts. Experts resemble scientists in that they are academicallytrained, work with scientific methods and maintain adialogue with academic disciplines. Unlike academics, however,their activity is directly aimed at the improvement of practices. Of course, this distinction can naturally only be made in relative terms and presupposes anon-normative understanding of science that is not necessarily shared by all academics or all disciplines. The 80 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014) distinction concerns the form of knowledge production and cannot, therefore, be tied to individuals as scientists can also work temporarily as experts. RichardRottenburg (2002, 2009) made aremarkable contribution to the ethnography of development experts. His empirical example concerns the attempts by the German development bank KfW to make waterworks more efficient through reorga- nization. As Rottenburg shows, these attempts failed due to afundamental paradox of the development world, the constitutive core of which consists in apower relation between ‘developed’and ‘underdeveloped’societies which is systematically denied, however,bythe partnership rhetoric peculiar to this world. The fact that these double binds do not allowthe development world to implode is due to another constitutive characteristic:the denial of the political nature of the aid. Political problems are defined as technical ones, something –albeit overlooked by Ferguson (1990) –which is in the interests of all of the participants,i.e.the recipients as much as the donors. The discursive double bind and collusive intertwining of ‘givers’and ‘takers’are coupled with another characteristic of the development world, i. e. its structurally-determined lack of coordination capacity.The development world is characterized by ahierarchy of nested oppositions: between givers and takers, between amultiplicity of institu- tional actors within these major categories, between different organizational units within these institutions(the classic example of which is the conflict between the head- quarters and field offices), and between the individual projects funded by one and the same donor.The structural heterogeneity of the donor world, in turn, erodes the ad- ministrations of the recipient countries and consequently hinders the coherent national development policy it claims to promote. If they want to succeed, all of the participants in this game must be masters in role ambivalence.The fundamental contradictions remain unresolved as all partners have their ownstrong motivations for allowing projects to continue under any circumstances. Therefore, project trajectories are astory of continuous hypocrisy and compulsion. Rottenburg’s reflections on the paradoxes of a‘participatory’development policy are further developed by EvaSpies (2003, 2009, 2010) in her study on German development aid workers in Niger.Intoday’s ‘world of development’, participatory development continues to appear not only as the fairest but also the most cost-effective approach to development. As is the case with other central concepts in the development world, moral and economic valuations appear to be in harmony in this ‘dogma of participation’, aharmony that makes such approaches difficult to attack. This dogma im- plies an ethics of understanding otherness, which claims to constitute the entire identity of the on-site development workers and to shape their non-professional forms of interaction with the ‘others’along with the professional interaction. Butwhy do development workers have so little private contact with the indigenous populations? Spies explains this through the inconsistency of the dogma which, on the one hand, formulates the aim that the otherness of the strangers should be overcome in their capacity as ‘people to be developed’(because development is understood as alignment with the developers), but also demands, on the other hand, that this otherness be exploited through Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 81 participation precisely for this development.Inthis approach, “the other”isonly recog- nized to the extent that it can be integrated into the ‘own’. Because, however,the Niger- ien actors implement other models in their approach to others –more pragmatic models which are based on the social position of the development workers and specific interaction situations –the dogma formulates paradoxical action requirements for the development workers: they are supposed to both conserve and minimize the distinction from the others in their contact with them. There are alimited number of ways to react to this double bind. The most common is the exit option,which explains why non-professional contact between development workers and the indigenous population is so rare in Niger (and elsewhere). It could be added here that the participative approach, which is ‘power blind’sotospeak, also reinforces hierarchical structures at local level. Hüsken’s (2006) ethnography on the “tribe of experts”isbased on adual role as development policy consultant and researcher.His study of the professional environment of German development experts in the Arab region identifies howthese experts attempt to compensate for the deficits of their ownorganizations and complexity of the relationships in their countryofassignment by adopting alarge number of informal practices und culturally essentialist discourses. Anew challenge for this kind of ethnography of experts and for the subject of anthropology as awhole arises from the fact that, today,agrowing proportion of development experts are themselves anthropologists. Nowadays, anthropologists not only work at the project level but also –inconsiderable numbers –inmajor development agencies. Aprofessional profile appears to be emerging that could be designated as ‘cultural engineer’. As cultural experts, anthropologists –who have been involved in German development policy since the 1990s –ensure that products, e. g. microfinance services, health services, agricultural consultancy,find aculturally adapted form. In contrast, today’s cultural engineers analyze cultures using the tools of anthropology (for example ritual analysis) with aview to changing local practices, for example female genital mutilation (Feuerbach 2011). As part of this process, social practices and their cultural and symbolic forms are indeed taken seriously,but only with aview to trans- forming them all the more successfully,or, in the understanding of the interveners, to ‘humanize’them. Academic anthropology has scarcely examined this phenomenon which considerably complicates the anthropological critique of development policy.

AnthropologyofPublic Services in the Global South

The states of the global South remain central actors of social engineering in the current phase of development policy.They are the main target groups of global public policies. Nowadays, development policy generally means the co-production of public services (education, health, security,resource protection, etc.) by international, state-national and private actors (global, national and local NGOs). Today,development policy agencies are no longer concerned with dismantling (as they were under the “Washing- 82 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014) ton consensus”) but with reforming the state under the above-mentioned banners of good governance und new public management. However,even their supporters generally acknowledge that these reforms have failed (Bierschenk and Olivier de Sardan 2014). More often than not, the reformers are at aloss to understand the organizational processes concealed behind the perceived deficiencies in the public services of Southern countries.Reforms are rarely examples of evidence-based policies, in which the exact identification of problems leads to tailor- made proposals for reform. Instead, they are attempts at the full-scale transposition of organizational models developed somewhere else as solutions to specific problems found elsewhere. Leaving aside the open question as to just howsuccessful new public management reforms have been in the OECD countries, for the countries of the Glo- bal South it could be argued that such reforms are more often than not acase of solutions looking for problems (Naudet 1999). This unsatisfactorysituation has led to calls by political and administrative scientists for the more empirically grounded and theoretically relevant study of Southern bureaucracies (Copans 2001; Darbon 1985). However,inGermany at least, it is anthropologists rather than political scientists who have set themselvesthe challenge presented here (for an overview,see Bierschenk and Olivier de Sardan 2014, chap- ter 2). Their work focuses on the mundane practices of state-making from three key, inter-related points of entry: the ethnography of public servants, the deliveryofpublic services and goods, and the accumulation of public administrationreforms. These ethnographic perspectiveshave identified, in particular,the high degree of fragmentation of public services in the global South (Anders 2010). The origins of this fragmentation can be extrapolated on aconsistently historical basis with the help of the concept of sedimentation: ‘blueprints’from different eras have been sedimenting in African public bureaucracies, since the colonial period and forming unstable connec- tions with other blueprints originating from different periods. This results, for example, in aforestry service in West Africa being simultaneously characterized by the repressive organizational culture of the colonial period while also being expected to practice ‘participatory forestry’today (Blundo 2014). The heterogeneity is, therefore, asedimented result of the relevant state and donor policies. Moreover,due to the in- creasing speed of the reforms of the last two decades, it has tended to intensify. Accordingly,states can be understood metaphoricallyas‘building sites’with alarge number of different and, in part only loosely connected, ‘buildings’(=organizational models) at different stages of completion. Numerous, often foreign, architects can be found wandering around these building sites who attempt to structure the site based on the plans they have developed elsewhere, or through the erection of ‘prefabricated buildings’. However,given their large numbers, their divergent opinions and their lack of coordination, the architects themselvesare amain source of confusion. At the same time the building site is populated by local actors who have their ownviews about the suitable use of the individual ‘buildings’and trytoadapt them to their needs on their owninitiative. Accordingly,what is of ethnographic interest here are the construction Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 83 plans (travelling models), the processes for their translation to local situations by ‘norm entrepreneurs’(see below) and, finally also, their conflict-ridden appropriation by local actors (for empirical applicationsofthese perspectives in the education, police and justice sectors, see Badou 2013; Beek 2014; Budniok 2012; Göpfert 2014; Tama 2011).

Non-Governmental Organizations, Development Brokers and Norm Entrepreneurs

Non-governmental organizations as development policy actors have existed under this concept since the beginning of the development period, that is, since the end of the Second World War. (In amore general sense, they have existed since the early 19th century,since the advent of the idea of social engineering.) Up to the 1990s the NGO sector was dominated by the charity organization type (Neubert 1990), that is by organizations that complement or even replace the state in the provision of public services (e. g. education, health). In the 1990s, in particular,great hopes for a‘different’development policy were associated with NGOs, which are classified semantically using the problematic term ‘civil society’. This different development policy was supposed to be more participatory,better adapted to local conditions, more culturally sen- sitive, more flexible, less bureaucratic, and ultimately more effective than the development policy operated by the state. Anthropologicalresearch has shown, however,that development policy operated by NGOs cannot evade the paradoxes and contradictions associated with this policy field (Brüntrup-Seidemann 2010). The establishmentofNGOs has primarily been favored by the donors who were looking for local private partners, with the help of whom they could provide effective and efficient support to the poor.This resulted in the establishment of numerous ‘reserve’local NGOs, which usually have no resources of their own and have averybroad and diffuse substantive orientation. The primaryaims of the NGO founders –frequently well-educated (former) civil servants, academics or school leavers –istofind aremunerated position on the market for development services, and the promotion of their ownjobs. Therefore, NGOs portray areality about themselves that meets the expectations of the donors, while the donors spend alot of money and energy on creating ‘real’NGOs. Although the NGOs maintain the discourse about ‘participation’and ‘civil society’, they are actually operated as private companies. Local NGOs do not necessarily support civil society values or promote civil society action. They are also not suited per se to providing better services than the state. In other words, the donors work on the basis of a‘blueprint NGO’ derived from European-American experiences, to which the local actors adapt discursively but which does not necessarily correspond to the organizational models that exist locally and the interests of the local actors. Hence, phenomena are reflected, so to speak, at local level, in the NGO’srelationship with its target groups, that can also be encounteredon higher levels of the development configuration, such as donor orientation, top-down approaches, over-funding,the ‘herdinstinct’ofthe donors and concentration on afew 84 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014) fields of activity,competition between donors for the same clients, asymmetrical communication strategies, lack of transparency,failure to sanction irregular behavior,etc. The development practitioners working on the ground are often completely aware of these fictions; however,this practical awareness does not become part of the official donor discourse. Whereas up to the 1980s development aid was primarily defined as atransfer of resources (capital and technical knowledge), today,‘development’also means the transfer of norms. This involves the attempt to alter social practices through the condition- ing of the recipients, which is sometimeshighly detailed and could be referred to as ‘conduct of conduct’following Foucault (e. g. 1994:237). This broadening of resource transfer to norm transfer is reflected in the differentiation of the organizational land- scape of the NGOs. The watchdog organization (also referred to as advocacy organization) can nowbefound alongside the service-type NGO and is gaining in significance. The function of these watchdog organizations is to ‘feed’international norms –inrela- tion to democracy,women’s rights, children’s rights, the environment, etc. –into local systems and, accordingly,discipline the local state which the donors distrust. Thus, beyond resource mobilization (Beck 1990), the personnel of the local NGOs nowalso assume the function of norm socialization (Fichtner 2012). They are development brokers or norm entrepreneurs,orboth simultaneously.The term ‘broker’, which has long been used in anthropology (Boissevain 1964), was first applied to the anthropology of development in the 1990s and led to the emergence of the term ‘development broker’(Bierschenk, Chauveau, and Olivier de Sardan 2000; Lewis and Mosse 2006). Development brokers are social actors, who are rooted in asocial arena, in which they play amore or less direct political role, who function as mediators, and who mobilize the external resources from the development aid for the corresponding social space. They organize the interface (Long 1989) between the target groups and the donors; they are viewed as representativesofthe local population,whose ‘needs’ they convey to the institutionswhich provide the technical and financial aid. Farfrom being the merely passive objects of an aid logic, the local development brokers are key figures in an active quest for ‘projects’and resources. To the extent that the typology of the NGOs is expanding from resource-mobilizing charity organizations to norm-conveying watchdog organizations, the typology of the middlemen has also expanded. Global norms do not translate themselves into local contexts of their ownaccord; this translation process is the outcome of the social practices of ‘translators’. Development brokers are nowbecoming norm entrepreneurs. 5 In

5 As Sarah Fichtner (2012) has shown, the term ‘norm entrepreneur’ which was developed in political science (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998) has considerable analytical potential if it is cleansedofits sta- tist, legalist and normative biases, its fixation on ‘successful’ cases of norm transfer,and its blindness to power,and if it is focused strictly on practices(instead of oscillating betweenand actor and institu- tional level). The term ‘norm engineer’ could also be explored in this context. Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 85 amuch-cited essay,which however overlooks the entire anthropological literature on middlemen, Merry(2006) studies this phenomenon based on the example of the implementation of women’s rights in local societal settings. In acontribution coming from Germany based on the example of global education policy,Fichtner (2012) demonstrated that the norm socialization carried out by norm entrepreneurs resembles a process of negotiation and translation that does not progress in alinear fashion. The transfer and implementation of norms are determined not only by the duration and the intensity of the norm socialization,but also by the different world views, institu- tional affiliations and actor interests involved. The NGO activists are not, therefore, the simple representativesofacivil society (a term whose application to many social situations in the global South is problematic as it presupposes clear divisions between market, politics and a‘tertiarysector’). In the watchdog NGOs, in particular,they tend to be experts in designated areas of social engineering. Forexample, to be able to hold their ownwith the oil companies, NGO representatives who campaign for the greater accountability of oil companies in poor African countries must have considerable knowledge of all areas of oil production and corporate social responsibility.The same applies to the activists from NGOs who support better access to justice for poor women, oppose corruption in state action and support children’s rights. Success in these often highly specialized areas requires not only intensive technical knowledge but also extensive global networks (in which this knowledge is also acquired for the most part). Frequent changes between jobs with international organizations, the state, local and international NGOs are not uncom- mon. The distinction between watchdog NGOs with their norm entrepreneurs and charity NGOs with their brokers who acquire external resources, should, of course, be understood in terms of ideal-types. On the one hand, the activity of norm entrepreneurs can also be considered from the perspective of the active mobilization of earned in- come. Accordingly,anti-corruption campaigns in the countries of the global South have nowbecome an activity from which norm entrepreneurs can earn aliving. On the other hand, the empirical situations cannot always be clearly divided in analytical terms. Forexample, NGOs that support the rights of indigenous peoples help acertain blueprint (‘indigenous people’) on its travels; seen from this perspective,their activists are norm entrepreneurs.Onthe other hand, however,recognition as ‘indigenous people’isaprecondition for the allocation of international aid, which makes the activists into development brokers (Pelican 2010; Röschenthaler and Diawara 2011).

Local Appropriation and Recoding

Finally,ofcourse, the local appropriation and recoding of global travelling blueprints ‘out there’isremains of considerable interest. It is in this area, perhaps, that the Ger- man anthropology of development produced its most solid results –beitinthe form 86 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014) of project anthropology (Bierschenk and Elwert 1988) or in the form of the anthropology of local development policy institutions. Forexample, Beck (1997) identified the “peasantisation”ofthe “rational blueprint” (p. 82) of an ideal-type development bank in Sudan: to be effective, the original bureaucratic idea of howadevelopment bank should function had to be adapted to the societal conditions and local codes on the ground without these informal forms of functioning being reflected in the formal organizational structure. Similar vernacularization processes were described by Beek (2014) and Göpfert (2014) based on the example of the Ghanaian and Nigerien police. In its precise recording of wide-ranging and contradictory local practices and its interest in the life worlds of local actors, the German anthropology of development has developed an important contrasting perspective to approaches, in which local histories are forced into amaster narrative of aglobal hegemonic project and according to which global models (such as ‘neoliberalism’for example) emerge out of nowhere on remote shores like ghost ships with devastating consequences for the ‘locals’. However,recent studies take more explicit account of the fact that the locally negotiated models have along journey along atranslation chain behind them. Hence, Lena Kroeker (2012) focused on howarecommendationfor action (concerning the conditions under which HIV-infected women can breastfeed their babies) migrates from the global to the local level and howitisrecoded in the process. In the course of this migration, the original ‘blueprint’isconfronted with local ‘blueprints’, for example the beliefs of the elderly women in relation to breastfeeding. Following more detailed examination, their local knowledge emerges as nothing more than the sedi- mented result of older ‘universal’knowledge: the old women present the young mothers with the recommendations for action that they had received from the WHO and other global health agencies when they were young mothers themselves. Similarly,Rao and Greenleaf (2013) analyze the local recoding of ‘neoliberal’projects based on the example of abiometric project in India which aims to facilitate the clear identification of India’s inhabitants through the establishment of auniversal bio- metric database (UID); with 430 million records, this project represents the world’s biggest biometrical experiment. Based on the example of Delhi, the authors show that this project cannot be simply understood as ‘conduct of conduct’but that it opens up unpredicted social negotiation spaces in which the project, which is ‘unpacked’atdif- ferent levels, is loaded with new social meaning and thwarted as aresult.

Local Ideas about Development

Finally,anethnographic perspective demonstratesthat development is not simply a hegemonic project imposed by ‘the West’on‘the South’. Instead, it is amaster narrative, to which many different voices contribute. Since the late colonial times, and particularly in Africa, it has been amobilizing concept for amultitude of actors, from African peasants to national elites and international agencies (Cooper and Packard Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 87

1997). This idea has not lost its mobilizing force today and is inscribed in both national constitutions and the popular imagination (for asimilar argument, see Edel- mann and Haugerud 2005). Irrespective of the topics they originally arrive with to work on in their African, Asian or Latin American field locations, few anthropologists will fail to quickly grasp the centrality of ‘development’(or its absence) in local discourses and for local practices. In other words, anthropologists who disdain or ‘critique’development without attempting to grasp its local meanings simply miss out on alarge slice of the local realities. However,local ideas of development (or,more generally,the good life and desir- able future) appear to me to be an under-researched area (for two older attempts see Lentz 1995; Streiffeler and Mudimba 1997). The question arises whether and under which conditions such local ideas also act as blueprints, and to which destinations they travel.

Anthropology of Global Social Engineering and General Anthropology

Empirical studies on travelling blueprints in the context of global social engineering not only extend our knowledge about the production of world, they are also extremely important for the further development of the epistemic practices of anthropology as a discipline. To conclude this contribution, Iwill outline these challenges that a‘new’ anthropology of development poses for the productionofanthropological knowledge.

Reciprocal Social Science

If implemented consistently,anapproach whose unit of research constitutes translation chains and not merely individual stations in the translation process would eliminate the differentiation between anthropology ‘elsewhere’(Völkerkunde,i.e. Ethnologie) and anthropology ‘athome’(Volkskunde,today often called Europäische Ethnologie or even, veryconfusingly, Kulturanthropologie), which remains aconstitutive distinction in German anthropology.Ifthe concept of local action is taken seriously,itcannot be applied exclusively to social practices in the global South. Practices are always local. The practices involved in the production of blueprints, e. g. for combating aids or im- proving primaryschool education,are just as interesting as the ways in which they are recoded overseas. Hence, the ethnography of the ‘developers’isjust as interesting as that of those ‘tobedeveloped’(Lavigne Delville 2011).6

6 However,for reasonsofpracticability,lack of resourcesand alack of languageskills, the elimination of the German Völkerkunde/Volkskunde divide would also run the risk of anthropology mainly becoming an ‘anthropology at home’(Krings 2013). If one considers the situation in other countries, for ex- 88 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014)

Furthermore, if one understands ‘development’asone of many world-making practices which unfold locally,have aglobal resonance and are linked with each other in wide-ranging ways, the traditionalboundaries between the classical ‘hyphenated anthropologies’which shape the university programmes, must also dissolve. The anthropology of development takes place on the interface of many traditional sub- areas of the discipline: astudy on the role of norm entrepreneurs in the area of human rights promotion belongs to the anthropology of law,astudy on the representation of poverty in the South in the self-presentations of development-policy organizations comes under media anthropology,astudy on the humanitarian role of churches is classified as anthropology of religion –atthe same time, such studies belong to the field of the anthropology of development. Reciprocal social science means more, however,than abalance between anthropology ‘over there’and anthropology ‘athome’and the elimination of ‘hyphenated anthropologies’. Symmetryalso means researching ‘onanequal footing’with researchers from the global South. In the course of such forms of cooperation, it emerges particularly clearly howproblematic the traditionalboundaries between disciplines have become. When an Indonesian and aGerman researcher work on atopic like ‘religion and politics’inGermany and Indonesia, both jointly and comparatively and using the same references (which by no means all originate from the canon of anthropological theory) and the same ethnographic methods, when is the German researcher an anthropologist and the Indonesian researcher asociologist and vice versa? Such trans- cultural research cooperation with their “inclusive epistemology”(Schlehe 2013) pio- neer as they offer the possibility of mutual translations and overcoming binary polar- izations. They enable the systematic breakdown of the rigid categories of ‘own’and ‘other’, with which anthropology worked in the past, and the charge of post-colonialism which is sometimes still levelled at the discipline.

Historicization, Regionalization and Comparison

One of the most conspicuous characteristics of development policy is its structural am- nesia (Norris 1993). Development policy has autopian core: it does not generally understands itself as “intervention in dynamic systems”(Elwert and Bierschenk 1988), but is based on the idea of being able to draw the blueprints on a‘blank page’sotospeak. Historians are opening up, if only tentatively,tothe historyofdevelopment policy. They have produced aseries of studies to which anthropologists must also refer.Inthis

ample the USA, this danger is entirely real. The elimination of the Völkerkunde/Volkskunde divide must not only result in Völkerkundler/Ethnologen also engaging in the anthropology of Europe (something that many of them already do), the Volkskundler must also be called on to look beyond the edge of Europe (something that rarely occurs in Germany,see Welz 2013). Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 89 context, historians appear to stress the continuities between colonial and post-colonial development policy (Büschel and Speich 2009; Hödl, Hodge, and Kopf 2014). Hence, they have succeeded in demonstrating that the conflict that has endured to the present day between modernist approaches,which pleaded for akind of green revolution avant la lettre ,and participative approaches, which aimed to start with the local knowledge of the farmers, already existed among colonial development experts. However,this great emphasis on continuity often overlooks the agency of the local actors. The fact that these often pursued their owndevelopment strategies has been demonstrated mainly by anthropologists working from an historical perspective (e. g. Chauveau 1994, 1985, 1992 [orig. 1982]; Chauveau and Dozon 1985; Chauveau, Dozon, and Richards 1981). Rather than working on the assumption of atimeless development regime, studies like these demand the detailed investigation of howdevelopment policies arise, endure and change along with the historicizationofdevelopment policy (Le- wis 2009). Development policy must be situated by anthropologists not only temporally but also regionally.First, in international ethnographic development research, the different positions between applied development research, anthropology of development based on anthropology in development and the critique of development are veryunevenly distributed between the USA and Europe (Bierschenk 2014). Second, individual development policy institutions and the ‘donors’’ national development policies cannot be simply assumed as being identical. The question as to which differences exist, for example, between the GIZ and the World Bank and the nature of the role they play in the development machine must be treated as an empirical one. This raises the question as to whether something akin to national ‘schools’(or at least ‘tints’) exists in development research –which are influenced by aspecial style of national public debate on ‘development’and by the specific fieldwork experience of the national anthropologists. Third, and finally,with reference to Fardon (1990), the question arises whether different field situations also produce theoryindifferent ways. German development anthropologists carryout their research predominantly in Africa. This is related to the general orientation of the disciplineinGermany,which, overall, has aparticular affi- nity with Africa (Bierschenk, Krings, and Lentz 2013). At the same time, sub-Saharan Africa is still the main recipient of ODA. The debate about development appears to assume entirely varied tints, depending on whether the focus is Africa, India or Central Asia. Some of the comparative dimensions that could be examined with aview to ex- plaining these different shades include the degree of extraversion of states and society, in particular vis-à-vis foreign development agencies and itself linked to the relative strength and weakness of states and their differential “cunningness”(Randeria 2007), the relative strength of social movements, and, obviously,different class formations. Although it is, therefore, also asingle global (sub-)discipline, the anthropology of development also has different “ways”(Barth et al. 2005). Language divides play amajor,and insufficiently theorized, role in the characterizationofthese “ways”. Therefore, it would be more correct to refer in the plural to anthropologies of development. 90 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014)

Interdisciplinarity and Anthropological Expertise

The anthropology of development particularly challenged the traditional disciplinary boundaries from the outset. More than other areas of anthropology,ananthropology of development is only conceivable in an interdisciplinary orientation. The objects of research in the anthropology of development are “transfer objects”(Austen 2007) to a particular extent, that is empirical phenomena that result from atranslation process, which often took place in the past in the context of imperialism and colonialism. These transfer objects are based on complex expert knowledge (for example, that of lawyers, oil engineers, doctors, media specialists), with which anthropologists must en- gage intensively. In this context, the anthropology of development deals with abody of literature and sources that presents aparticular epistemological challenge. In the field of anthropology of development, the majority of the literature is available in the form of expert literature compiled by practitioners from the development institutions. Although this actor literature takes the form of analytical literature and is based on scientific investigation, unlike academic literature it has anormativeobjective: it is usually published to justify aparticular policy and constantly shifts from descriptive to normative state- ments and back again. This is equally applicable to the publications of the World Bank, UN organizations and the GIZ (which anthropologists like to critique) as to those of the NGOs involved in the fight against the destruction of the environment through oil production in the Niger Delta (with which anthropologists tend to sym- pathize). The traditional distinction between primary sources and secondary literature is no longer effective in such situations as, strictly speaking, expert literature should not be treated as secondaryliterature but as aprimary source, or as an expression of emic views in the sense of the Malinowskian paradigm. This differentiation between academic and actor literature should, of course, only be understood in ideal-typical terms. The boundaries are fluid and cannot be identified based on the author –asingle author can produce written policy recommendations on some occasions and academic analysis on others. The differentiation criteria are, instead, the degree of distance from the object and the normativity contained in the text. The fact that only relative distinctions can be involved here makes the identification all the more difficult. With its particular sensitivity to changing perspectives, anthropology is better positioned for uncovering these distinctions than other disciplines like the political or legal sciences, for example, which support astronger normative understanding of academic practice.

Anthropologists as experts

However,Ihave already drawn attention to the fact that anthropology has hitherto scarcely confronted the fact that, today,itisalso practiced by experts and thus produces Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 91 expert knowledge itself.Ahitherto largely unused opportunity for greater self-reflection arises here in the entirely practical sense of the ethnographic research of the roles, practices and functions of development anthropologists who operate outside of academe.

Methods

Both cooperation with other scientists and the productionofexpertise are putting considerable pressure on anthropology to justify and rethink its methodological arsenal. In fact, development and applied anthropologists who work for non-academic institutions have always been held, and felt, much more accountable about their methods than purely academic anthropology,and have consequently developed afar more explicit methodological arsenal. They have combined quantitative with qualitative methods, added sociological and historical approaches to classical participant observation, and have been much more open towards interdisciplinary work than most academic anthropologists are likely to have been until veryrecently (Bennett 1996). The approach involving an anthropology of translation chains championed here also presents aconsiderable challenge for the discipline’s methodologicalarsenal. Up to the present day,anthropology’s methodology has been based on the figure of the “anthropologist as hero”(Sontag 1994 [orig. 1963]). The travelling models approach requires not only multi-sited ethnography (which is more often demanded than practiced in anthropology,Marcus 1995), but also teamwork, including in the field. This is aconsiderable methodological challenge which the discipline has made little headway in assuming (for an attempt, see Bierschenk and Olivier de Sardan 1997).

Anthropological Research, Social Practice and Ethics

Anon-normative understanding of development constitutes astarting point of this text. As in other fields of empirical social research, in the field of development, the identification of facts should be kept as separate as possible from their evaluation. Making such aplea against overhasty value judgments does not, however,mean deny- ing that the debate about development takes place in ahighly value-loaded space. In- deed, the anthropology of development raises an old question, with which the social sciences have grappled with since their inception: howcan social analysis be combined with political praxis and moral responsibility. The anthropology of development cannot shy away from –and must indeed address –the question of moral and political values in the name of methodological rigor –something our students remind us of constantly,lest we forget. However,bringing up the question of values must not necessarily lead to a‘do-not- touch’(e. g. development) position. It does not have to mean aprimaryorexclusive focus on questions of ethics either –asischaracteristic of the debates within the ap- 92 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014) plied orientationofGerman development anthropology (http://entwicklungsethnologie.org/). Such afocus gives the impression that ethical dilemmas only arise through intervention, and not through representation,which is the main business of academic anthropology.Such aview would involve aretreat behind the post-colonial debate, however.Instead, the ethical questions around practical intervention inspire aspecial sensitivity to ethical questions in relation to research practice and raise questions of representation,self-positioning and the relationality of knowledge with particular ur- gency.This ethical and epistemological sensitivity of the anthropology of development is, in my opinion, one of its special strengths. As Isee it, there are no theoreticala-priori solutions to these ethical dilemmas; there can only be practical and ad hoc ways of dealing with them. As development anthropologists are not only researchers but also teachers, afurther consideration comes into play: that of our responsibility towards our students. Most of them will not remain in academia, nor is becoming full-time Attac activists arealistic option for the majority of them. Consequently,a‘do-not-touch’position towards development –beittheoretically justified or based on avague sense of discomfort –isasirre- sponsible as the unreflective teaching of intervention techniques as proposed by some ‘development studies’programmes. As with other fields of practice, it appears to me that the correct road to take is one that critically engages with development and estab- lishes the optimal degree of distance.

References

Alber,Erdmute 2012: Kinderhandel in Westafrika? Nationale Kinderschutzinitiativen und die Proble- matik der Mädchenarbeit in Nordbenin. In: Heinz Heinen (ed.), Kindersklaven –Sklavenkinder. Schicksale zwischen Zuneigung undAusbeutung in der Antike und im interkulturellen Vergleich. Stuttgart: Steiner,pp. 43–62. Anders,Gerhard 2010: In the Shadow of Good Governance. An Ethnography of Civil Service Re- form in Africa. Leiden: Brill. Antweiler,Christoph 2004: Akademische Ethnologie und Entwicklungsethnologie: ungleiche Ge- schwister. Entwicklungsethnologie 13(1+2):23–39. Arce, Alberto 1993: Negotiating Agricultural Development: Entanglements of bureaucrats and rural pro- ducers in Western Mexico, Wageningen Studies in Sociology. 34.Wageningen: Agricultural University. Austen, Gareth 2007: Reciprocal Comparison and African History: TacklingConceptual Eurocen- trism in the Study of Africa’s Economic Past. African Studies Review 50(3):1–28. Badou, Agnes O. 2013: Socialisation professionnelle et gestion des carrières des agents de sécurité publique au Bénin.Dr. phil. dissertation, Department of Anthropology and African Studies, Johannes Gu- tenberg University Mainz. Barth, Frederik; Gingrich, Andre; Parkin, Robert; Silverman, Sydel 2005: One Discipline, Four Ways. British, German, French and American Anthropology. The Halle Lectures.Chicago, Ill.: Chicago University Press. Barthel, Janine; Bierschenk, Thomas 2013: Ethnologie und außerakademische Praxis. Eine Bibliographie der deutschsprachigen Literatur,Working Paper of the Department of Anthropologyand African Stu- dies, Johannes Gutenberg University.Nr. 142.Mainz: Ifeas [http://www.ifeas.uni-mainz.de/92.php]. Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 93

Beck, Kurt 1990: Entwicklungshilfe als Beute. Über die lokale Aneignungsweise von Entwicklungs- hilfemaßnahmen im Sudan. Orient. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Politik und Wirtschaft 31:583–601. Beck, Kurt 1997: Die Verbäuerlichung der Bank –Oder: Vonden Niltalbauern lernen. In:Manfred Schulz (ed.), Entwicklung: Theorie –Empirie –Strategie: Festschrift für Volker Lühr.Hamburg: LIT,pp. 81–98. Beek, Jan2014: BoundaryWork. The Police in Ghana.Dr. phil. dissertation, Department of Anthro- pology and African Studies, Johannes GutenbergUniversity Mainz. Behrends, Andrea; Park, Sung-Joon; Rottenburg, Richard 2014: Travelling Models in African Conflict Resolution: Translating Technologies of Social Ordering.Leiden: Brill. Bennett, John W. 1996: Applied and Action Anthropology: Ideological and Conceptual Aspects. Cur- rent Anthropology 37(1):23–53. Bierschenk, Thomas 1988: Development Projects as Arenas of Negotiation of Strategic Groups. A Case Study from Benin. Sociologia Ruralis 28(2–3):146 –60. Bierschenk, Thomas 2008: Anthropologyand Development. AHistoricizing and Localizing Approach, Working Papers, Department of Anthropologyand African Studies, Johannes Gutenberg University. No.87 .Mainz [http://www.ifeas.uni-mainz.de/workingpapers/AP87a.pdf]. Bierschenk, Thomas 2014: Entwicklungsethnologie und Ethnologie der Entwicklung: Deutschland, Euro- pa, USA, Working Paper of the Department of Anthropologyand African Studies of the Johannes Gu- tenberg University Mainz. 150 .Mainz: Ifeas. Bierschenk, Thomas;Chauveau, Jean-Pierre; Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre 2000: Courtiers en dével- oppement. Les villages africains en quête de projets.Paris: Karthala &APAD. Bierschenk, Thomas; Elwert, Georg 1988: Aid and Development (Sociologia Ruralis vol. 28, 2–3). As- sen: VanBorcum. Bierschenk, Thomas; Elwert, Georg; Kohnert,Dirk 1991: Langzeitfolgen der Entwicklungshilfe. Em- pirische Untersuchungenimländlichen Westafrika. Africa Spectrum 16:155–180. Bierschenk, Thomas; Elwert, Georg; Kohnert, Dirk 1993: Einleitung: Entwicklungshilfe und ihre Folgen. In: Thomas Bierschenk and GeorgElwert (eds.), Entwicklungshilfe und ihre Folgen. Ergeb- nisse empirischer Untersuchungen im ländlichen Afrika.Frankfurt/Main: Campus,pp. 7–39. Bierschenk, Thomas;Krings, Matthias; Lentz, Carola 2013: Wasist ethno an der deutschsprachigen Ethnologie der Gegenwart?In: Thomas Bierschenk, Matthias Krings and Carola Lentz (eds.), Ethnologie im 21. Jahrhundert.Berlin: Reimer,pp. 7–34. Bierschenk, Thomas;Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre 1997: ECRIS:Rapid Collective Inquiry for the Identification of Conflicts and Strategic Groups. Human Organization 56(2):238–244. Bierschenk, Thomas; Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre 2014: States at Work. Dynamics of African Bureau- cracies.Leiden: Brill. Bliss, Frank 2004: Entwicklungsethnologie in Deutschland. Eine persönliche Bilanz nach 20 Jahren. Entwicklungsethnologie 13(1–2):207 –227. Blundo, Giorgio 2014: Seeing Like aState Agent: The Ethnography of Reform in Senegal’s Forestry Services.In: Thomas Bierschenk and Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan (eds.), States at Work. Dy- namics of African Bureaucracies.Leiden: Brill, pp. 69–89. Boissevain, Jeremy 1964: Factions, Parties and Politics in aMaltese Village. American Anthropologist 66:1275–87. Boissevain, Jeremy 1974: Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions.London: Blackwell. Brüntrup-Seidemann,Sabine 2010: Entwicklungsmakler,Kleinunternehmer,Dienstleister? Nichtregie- rungsorganisationen in Benin, Mainzer Beiträge zur Afrikaforschung. Bd 23.Köln: Köppe. Original edition,Diss. Univ.Hohenheim 2009. Budniok, Jan2012: The Politics of Integrity.Becomingand Being aJudge in Ghana.Dr. phil. dissertation, Department of Anthropology and African Studies,JohannesGutenberg University Mainz. Büschel, Hubertus; Speich, Daniel 2009: Entwicklungswelten. Globalgeschichte der Entwicklungszusam- menarbeit.Frankfurt/Main: Campus. 94 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014)

Callon, Michel; Latour,Bruno 1981: Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: HowActors Macro-Structure Reality and HowSociologists Help Them to Do So.In: Karin Knorr-Cetina and Aaron V. Ci- courel (eds.), Advances in Social Theoryand Methodology. Towards an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies.London: Routledge &Kegan, pp. 277–303. Chauveau,Jean-Pierre 1985: Mise en valeur coloniale et développement. In:Pierre Boiral, Jean-Fran- çois Lanteri and Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan (eds.), Paysans, experts et chercheurs en Afrique noire: sciences sociales et développement rural.Paris: CIFACE-Karthala, pp. 143–166. Chauveau,Jean-Pierre 1992 [1982]:Pour une sociologie historique du développement. In: ORS- TOM(ed.), Institutions et pratiques du développement. Intineraires.Paris: ORSTOM, pp. 13–24 (extractedfrom: Chauveau et al.. 1982:Histoire de développer.Six opérationsdedéveloppement en Afrique Noire. Revue Tiers-Monde, XXIII, 90, avril-juin, pp. 297–344). Chauveau,Jean-Pierre 1994: Participation paysanneetpopulismebureaucratique. Essai d’histoire et de sociologie de la culture du développement. In:Jean-Pierre Jacob and Philippe Lavigne Delville (eds.), Les associations paysannes en Afrique.Paris: Karthala, pp. 25–61. Chauveau,Jean-Pierre; Dozon, Jean-Pierre 1985: Colonisation, économie de plantation et société ci- vile en Côte d’Ivoire. Cahiers de l’ORSTOM. Serie Sciences Humaines 21(1):63–80. Chauveau,Jean-Pierre; Dozon, Jean-Pierre; Richards, Jacques 1981: Histoiresderiz, histoires d’igname: le cas de la moyenne Côte-d’Ivoire. Africa 51(2):621–658. Cooper, Frederick; Packard, Randell 1997: International Development and the Social Sciences –In- troduction.In: Frederick Cooperand Randell Packard (eds.), International Development and the Social Sciences.Essays on the Historyand Politics of Knowledge.Berkeley,Ca.: University of Califor- nia Press, pp. 1–41. Copans, Jean 2001: Afriquenoire: un État sans fonctionnaires? Autrepart (20):11–27. Crehan,Kate; von Oppen, Achim 1988: Understandings of Development: an Arena of Struggle. So- ciologia Ruralis 28(2–3):113 –145. Crewe, Emma; Axelby,Richard 2013: Anthropologyand Development. Culture, Morality and Politics in aGlobalised World.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Darbon, Dominique 1985: Pour une Socio-anthropologie administrative. Revue française d’administration publique 35:457–468. Dilger,Hansjörg; Hardon, Anita 2011: GlobalAIDS Medicines in East African Health Institutions. Medical Anthropology 30(2):136–157. Drotbohm, Heike 2011: On the Durability and the Decomposition of Citizenship: the Social Logics of Forced Return Migration in Cape Verde. Citizenship Studies 15(3–4):381 –396. Eckert,Julia; Donahoe, Brian; Strümpell, Christian; Biner,Zerrin Özlem 2012: Law Against the State. Ethnographic Forays into Law’s Transformations.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edelmann, Marc; Haugerud, Angelique 2005: The AnthropologyofDevelopment and Globalization. From ClassicalPolitical Economy to ContemporaryNeoliberalism.Edited by Parker Shipton, Black- well Anthologies in Social and Cultural Anthropology .Malden: Blackwell. Elwert, Georg; Bierschenk, Thomas 1988: Development Aid as Intervention in Dynamic Systems. Sociologia Ruralis 28(2–3):99–112. Fardon, Richard 1990: Localising Strategies. Regional TraditionsofEthnographic Writing. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Ferguson, James 1990: The Anti-Politics Machine. ‘Development’, Depoliticization and Bureaucratic PowerinLesotho .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feuerbach, Melanie 2011: Alternative Übergangsrituale: Untersuchung zu Praktiken der weiblichen Ge- nitalverstümmelung im subsaharischen Afrika und deren Transformationen im Entwicklungsprozess. Wiesbaden:Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Fichtner,Sarah 2010: ALaboratoryfor Education Reform or aBattlefield of Donor Intervention? Local Debates on PrimaryEducation and theNew Study Programmes in Benin. International Journal of Educational Development 30:518–524. Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 95

Fichtner,Sarah 2012: The NGOisation of Education. Case Studies from Benin, Mainzer Beiträge zur Afrikaforschung. 31.Köln:Köppe. Original edition, diss. Univ.Mainz, 2010. Finnemore, Martha; Sikkink, Kathryn 1998: International Norm Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization 52:887–917. Foucault, Michael 1994: Dits et écrits IV.Paris: Gallimard. Fox, Jonathan 2000: The World Bank Inspection Panel. Global Governance 6(3):279–318. Gingrich, Andre 2005: The German-Speaking Countries. Ruptures, Schools and Nontraditions: Re- assessing the History of Sociocultural Anthropology in German. In:Frederik Barth, Robert Par- kin, Andre Gingrich and Sydel Silverman (eds.), One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, Frenchand American Anthropology .Chicago,Ill.: Chicago University Press, pp. 59–153. Gluckman, Max 1948: The Village Headman in British Central Africa. Africa 19:89–106. Goldman, Max 2001: The Birth of aDiscipline: Producing Authoritative Green Knowledge, World Bank-style. Ethnography 2(2):191–217. Göpfert, Mirco 2014: Enforcing the Law,Restoring Peace: An Ethnography of the Nigerien Gendarmerie, Dr.phil. dissertation, Department of Anthropology and African Studies,Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. Haller,Dieter 2012: Die Suche nachdem Fremden. Geschichte der Ethnologie in der Bundesrepublik, 1945–1990.Frankfurt: Campus. Hanke, Stefanie 1996: Weiß die Weltbank, was sie tut? Über den Umgang mit Unsicherheit in einer Organisation der Entwicklungsfinanzierung. Soziale Systeme 2(2):331–359. Hödl, Gerald;Hodge, Joseph M.; Kopf, Martina 2014: Developing Africa. Concepts and Practices in Twentieth-CenturyColonialism.Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hoinathy,Remadji; Behrends, Andrea 2014: Does RationalityTravel? Translating aWorld Bank Model for Fair Oil Revenue Distribution in Chad. In: Andrea Behrends, Sung-Joon Park and Richard Rottenburg (eds.), Travelling Models in African ConflictManagement.Translating Technol- ogies of Social Ordering.Leiden: Brill, pp.76–93. Hüsken, Thomas 2006: Der Stamm der Experten. Rhetorik und Praxis des Interkulturellen Managements in der deutschen staatlichen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit.Bielefeld: Transcript. Kirsch, Thomas 2010: DomesticatingvigilantisminAfrica.Oxford:James Curry. Krings, Matthias 2013: Interdisziplinarität und die Signatur der Ethnologie. In: Thomas Bierschenk, Matthias Krings and Carola Lentz (eds.), Ethnologie im 21. Jahrhundert.Berlin:Reimer, pp. 265–283. Kroeker, Lena 2012: From GlobalPolicies to Local Practices: Behavioural Advice for the Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV. Sociologus. Journal for Empirical Social Anthropology 62(1):47–71. LavigneDelville, Philippe 2011: Pour une anthropologie symmétrique entre ‘développeurs’ et ‘dével- oppés’. Cahiers d’Etudes africaines LI (2–3)(202–203):491 –509. Lentz, Carola 1988: Why the Most Incompetent are on the Village Council: Development Projects in an Indian Village in Ecuador. Sociologia Ruralis 28(2–3):199–215. Lentz, Carola 1995:‘Unity for Development’: Youth Associations in North-WesternGhana. Africa 65(3):395–429. Lewis, David 2009: International Development and the ‘Perpetual Present’: Anthropological Ap- proaches to the Rehistoricisation of Policy. European Journal of Development Research 21(1):32– 46. Lewis, David; Mosse, David 2006: Development Brokers and Translators. The Ethnography of Aid and Agencies.Bloomfield, CT.: Kumarian. Long, Norman 1989: Encounters at the Interface. APerspective on Social Discontinuities in Rural Devel- opment.Wageningen: Agricultural University. Long, Norman; Long, Ann 1992: BattlefieldsofKnowledge. The Interlocking of Theoryand Practice in Social Research and Development.London: Routledge. 96 Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 139 (2014)

Marcus, George 1995:Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethno- graphy. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:95–117. Marcuse, Herbert 1969 [1965]:Repressive Tolerance. In: RobertPaul Wolf, Barrington Moore and Herbert Marcuse (eds.), ACritique of Pure Tolerance.Boston, Ma.: Beacon, pp. 95–137. Merry, Sally E. 2006: Transnational Human Rights and Local Activism: Mapping the Middle. Amer- ican Anthropologist 108(1):38–51. Mosse, David 2004: Is Good Policy Unimplementable?Reflections on the Ethnography of AidPolicy and Practice. Development and Change 35(4):639–671. Mosse, David 2005: Cultivating Development. An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice.London: Pluto. Mosse, David 2013a. Adventures in Aidland. The AnthropologyofProfessionals in International Devel- opment.New York: Berghahn. Mosse, David 2013b. The Anthropology of International Development. Annual Review of Anthropol- ogy 42:227–246. Münster,Daniel 2012: Postkoloniale Ethnologie. VomObjekt postkolonialer Kritik zur Ethnogra- phie der neoliberalen Globalisierung. In: Julia Reuter and AlexandraKarentzos (eds.), Schlüssel- werke der Postcolonial Studies.Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp.191 –202. Münster,Daniel; Münster,Ursula 2012: Consuming the Forest in an Environment of Crisis: Nature Tourism, Forest Conservation and Neoliberal Agriculture in South India. Development and Change 43(1):205–227. Naudet, Jean-David 1999: Trouver des problèmes aux solutions. Vingt ans d’aideauSahel.Paris: OECD. Neubert, Dieter 1990: Nicht-Regierungs-Organisationen und Selbsthilfe in Kenia. Grundlegende Struk- turen und neuere Tendenzen.Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Norris, Edward G.1993: Die Unfähigkeit der Entwicklungshilfe, aus ihrer eigenen Geschichte zu lernen: Die vergessenen Erfahrungen der deutschen kolonialen Ackerbauschule in Togo. In: Thomas Bierschenk and Georg Elwert (eds.), Entwicklungshilfe und ihre Folgen. Ergebnisse empirischer Un- tersuchungen in Afrika.Frankfurt: Campus, pp. 143–154. Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre 1988: Peasant Logics and Development Project Logics. Sociologia Rura- lis 28(2–3):216–226. Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre 2001: Les trois approches en anthropologiedudéveloppement. Revue Tiers Monde 42(168):729–754. Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre 2005: Classic Ethnology and the Socio-Anthropology of Public Spaces in Africa. Africa Spectrum 40(3):485–497. Park, Sung-Joon 2012: Stock-outs in GlobalHealth: Pharmaceutical Governance and Uncertainties in the Global Supply of ARVs in Uganda. In: Paul Geissler,Richard Rottenburg and Julia Zenker (eds.), Rethinking Biomedicine and Governance in Africa.Bielefeld: Transcript, pp. 177–194. Pelican, Michaela 2010: Umstrittene Rechte indigener Völker:das Beispiel der Mbororo in Nord- westkamerum. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 135(1):39–60. Pressman, Jeffrey L..; Wildavsky,Aaron 1984 [1973]: Implementation. HowGreat Expectations in Washing- ton areDashed in Oakland; Or Why it is Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All, this Being aSaga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by TwoSympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Mor- als on aFoundation of Ruined Hopes. The Oakland Project.Berkeley,Ca.: University of California Press. Quarles van Ufford, Philip; Kruyt, P. Dirk; Downing, Theodore 1988: The Hidden Crisis in Develop- ment: Development Bureaucracies.Amsterdam: Free University Press. Randeria, Shalini 2003: Domesticating Neo-Liberal Discipline: Transnationalisation of Law,Frac- tured States and Legal Plurality in the South. In: Wolf Lepenies (ed.), Entangled Histories and Negotiated Universals. Centres and Peripheries in aChanging World.Frankfurt a. M.; NewYork: Campus,pp. 146–182. Randeria, Shalini 2007: TheState of Globalization, Legal Plurality,Overlapping Sovereignties and Ambiguous Alliances BetweenCivil Society and the Cunning State in India. Theory, Culture& Society 24(1):1–33. Thomas Bierschenk: Anthropology of Development 97

Rao, Ursula; Greenleaf, Graham 2013: Subverting ID From Above and Below: The Uncertain Shap- ing of India’s NewInstrument of E-governance. Surveillance and Society 11(3):287–300. Röschenthaler,Ute; Diawara, Mamadou 2011:Immaterielles Kulturgut und konkurrierende Nor- men: Lokale Strategien des Umgangsmit globalenRegelungen zum Kulturgüterschutz, Sociologus 61(1):1–17. Rottenburg, Richard 2002: Weit hergeholte Fakten. Eine Parabel der Entwicklungshilfe.Stuttgart: Lu- cius &Lucius. Rottenburg, Richard 2009: Far-Fetched Facts. AParable of Development Aid.Boston, Ma.: MIT Press. Schlehe, Judith 2013: Wechselseitige Übersetzungen. Methodologische Neuerungen in transkulturel- len Forschungskooperationen. In: Thomas Bierschenk, Matthias Krings and Carola Lentz (eds.), Perspektivenwechsel. Wasist heute ethno an der Ethnologie? Berlin: Reimer. Shore, Chris;Wright, Susan 2011: Policy Worlds: Anthropologyand the Analysis of ContemporaryPower. London:Berghahn. Sontag, Susan 1994 [1963].The anthropologist as hero. In:Susan Sontag (ed.), Against Interpretation. London:Vintage, pp. 69–81. Spies, Eva2003: Interkulturelle KontakteimRahmen derEntwicklungszusammenarbeit in Zinder (Niger). Africa Spectrum 38(3):347–373. Spies, Eva2009: Das Dogma der Partizipation. Interkulturelle Kontakte im Kontext der Entwicklungszu- sammenarbeit in Niger, Mainzer Beiträge zurAfrikaforschung. 20.Köln: Köppe. Original edition, diss. Mainz 2006. Spies, Eva2010: Partizipative Entwicklung –eine global anwendbareVorstellung von Zusammenar- beit? Journal für Entwicklungspolitik 26(3):50–72. Streiffeler,Friedhelm; Mudimba, Mbaya 1997: Endogene Entwicklungsvorstellungen in Zaire. In: Thomas Bierschenk and Georg Elwert (eds.), Folgen der Entwicklungshilfe. Ergebnisse empirischer Untersuchungen in Afrika.Frankfurt/Oder: Campus,pp. 77–99. Tama, Clarisse 2011: Les enseignants de l’école primaire au Bénin. Transformations d’un groupe profes- sionnel.Dissertation, Department of Anthropology and African Studies,JohannesGutenberg University Mainz. van de Walle, Nicolas 2001: African Economies and the Politics of Permanent Crisis, 1979–1999.Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. Weick, Karl E. 1976: Educational OrganizationsasLoosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 21:1–19. Weisser,Florian; Bollig, Michael; Doevenspeck, Martin; Müller-Mahn, Detlef 2013: Translating the ‘Adaptation to Climate Change’ Paradigm: The Politics of aTravelling Idea in Africa. The Geo- graphicalJournal 180(2):111–119. Welz, Gisela 2013: Europa. Ein Kontinent –zwei Ethnologien? In: Thomas Bierschenk, Matthias Krings and Carola Lentz (eds.), Ethnologie im 21. Jahrhundert.Berlin: Reimer,pp. 211–227. Werthmann, Katja; Schmitt, Gerald 2008: StaatlicheHerrschaft und kommunale Selbstverwaltung: De- zentralisierung in Kamerun .Frankfurt/Main: Brandes &Apsel. Ziai, Aram 2010a: From Development Discourse to the Discourse of Globalisation. Changing Forms of Knowledge About ChangeinNorth-South Relations and Their Political Repercussions. Socio- logus 60 (1):41 –70. Ziai, Aram 2010b: Postkoloniale Perspektiven auf ‘Entwicklung’. Peripherie 30(120):399–426.

Internet sources –authors not specified www.association-apad.org/ (13. 3. 2014) http://entwicklungsethnologie.org/(7. 4. 2013) http://www.ifeas.uni-mainz.de/1070.php (26. 3. 2014) www.spp1448.de/ (26. 3. 2014) www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/globalisierung/52829/entwicklungszusammenarbeit Copyright of Zeitschrift für Ethnologie is the property of Dietrich Reimer Verlag GMBH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.