Anthro of Development_Mosse 2013

AN42CH14-Mosse ARI 18 September 2013 16:32

The Anthropology ofInternational DevelopmentDavid MosseSchool of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London WC1H 0XG,United Kingdom; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2013. 42:227–46

First published online as a Review in Advance onJuly 29, 2013

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155553

Copyright c! 2013 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

Keywordsaid, donors, expert knowledge, neoliberalism, poverty, ethnography

AbstractThis review examines how international development has been studied byanthropologists, both as a particular form of institutional practice and as theterms of global economic and cultural integration. This review also explainsa shift from an anthropological critique of the discursive power of develop-ment toward the ethnographic treatment of development as a category ofpractice. It reviews research into organizational and knowledge practices, andthe life-worlds of “Aidland,” before turning to anthropological approachesto neoliberal development and the new aid architecture and, finally, to threesignificant current issues: the importance of business in development andcorporate social responsibility; the donor focus on poverty as the result ofthe failure of government, conflict, and insecurity; and the growing impor-tance of new donors such as China and India. This review concludes withcomments about how engagement with international development has en-couraged reflection on the practice of anthropology itself.

227

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


INTRODUCTIONThe anthropology of development raises core anthropological questions about human similarityand difference, Western modernity, and the terms of economic and cultural integration. Interna-tional development itself has a commitment both to the principle of difference and to similarity(Corbridge 2007, p. 179). Its narrative of progress implies that difference is a deficit to be over-come, whereas its narrative of emancipation implies that difference is sovereign self-determinationand thus present equality (Rottenburg 2009). The processes that weave around these contradic-tions in development interventions are complex, as are the debates within anthropology arounddevelopment as a (global) social imaginary and its political-economic effects. In a short review,it is impossible to do justice to both these issues. My focus is on the former: the study, broadlyspeaking, of development interventions—not particular sectors (education, agriculture, etc.) butinstitutional practices, knowledge production, and social relations.

As studied by anthropologists, international development entails social processes that are in-evitably transnational, intercultural, and multiscalar and involve the interaction and intermediationof extensive actor networks, with different logics and life-worlds. For Olivier de Sardan (2005),this characterization makes development not so much a separate object of study as a methodology,a privileged empirical pathway through “a complex set of institutions, flows and actors” (p. 2).The participation of anthropologists themselves in this field—as policy workers, consultants, oradvocates—first produced a distinction between pure and applied anthropology but now generatesnew ethnographic knowledge and epistemological debate through variants of reflective “observantparticipation” (Mosse 2006, Gow 2008, Rottenburg 2009). Building on recent more comprehen-sive reviews of the field (especially Edelman & Haugerud 2005; also see Crewe & Axelby 2013),this review examines current and interlinked trajectories of anthropology and development as itsobject of study.

First, I provide some background on the anthropological critique of the discursive powerof development before exploring the shift toward ethnographic treatment of development as acategory of practice. Second, I focus on research into organizational and knowledge practicesand the life-worlds of Aidland before turning to the neoliberal context of a new aid architecture.Finally, I discuss some current shifts: business at the center, governing at the periphery, and thearrival of new aid donors.

BACKGROUND: ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE CRITIQUEOF DEVELOPMENTAnthropology has a history inextricably entwined with imperial projects of power, improvement,and pulling people into the world system (Kuper 2005, MacFarlane 2012), but also with projectsof protection, solidarity, and liberation, which too often are occluded in its self-history of moralimprovement (Fairhead 2012). This mix produced distinctive American and European (British,French, and German) traditions of development anthropology (Bierschenk 2008). Despite a longengagement with varied open-ended meanings of development, in the 1980s anthropologiststurned to the invented idea of “big-D” development analyzed as a Foucauldian discourse “bywhich the industrialized ‘West’ has continued to exercise control over processes of global changein a postcolonial world” (Yarrow & Venkatesan 2012, p. 3; Escobar 1995).

At this key juncture, “[l]iberating anthropology from its own colonial past was inextricablylinked to the liberation of anthropology from the space mapped by the ‘development encounter’”(Yarrow & Venkatesan 2012, p. 4; Ferguson 1997), which of course placed various anthropologicalengagements in a new critical light (e.g., Escobar 1991). However, the primary concern of critical

228 Mosse

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


anthropology was not development (that is, the institutions and programs that identify themselvesas such) but rather all that Development conceals—especially strategies of power. Developmentagencies’ claims to improve the conditions of other people disguised governmental practices ofcontrol and incorporation of “dangerous borderlands” into the state’s grids or global capitalism(Ferguson 1994, Duffield 2002); and the material reordering of people’s resources (land, forest,rivers) for extraction for metropolitan profit and the imposed knowledge hierarchies led bothto dispossession and to program failure (Greenough & Tsing 2003, Scott 1998). Such political-economic effects occurred behind the antipolitics front of schemes for production or povertyreduction (Ferguson 1994).

This critical anthropology of development is profoundly influenced by Michel Foucault’s work,although the emphasis has gradually shifted from his earlier analysis of knowledge/power or dis-course to his later work on governmentality and ethics, and from the effort to deconstruct de-velopment as a historical system of thought to the interactions of various actors and systems ofknowledge (Rossi 2004a, p. 560). Li (2007b) considers a key governmental effect of development tobe what she refers to as “rendering technical,” that is, conceiving and rearranging social relationsand inherently political processes in alignment with expert designs. The idea of governmentalityhas been applied (albeit with caveats) to the variety of shifting development discourses includingthat of human rights, which Englund (2006) argues becomes disempowering in Malawi by ren-dering technical structural problems, blocking collective action for entitlements and justice fromthe state, and making the poor “prisoners of freedom.”

The explicitly bottom-up participatory approaches (partly inspired by anthropological valua-tion of indigenous knowledge) were also seen as structured by, rather than changing, relations ofpower (Cook & Kothari 2001, but see Hickey & Mohan 2004), albeit in complex ways. Theseapproaches might involve experts rendering technical (recontextualizing) indigenous knowledgeor institutions while engendering modern lifestyles and aspirations, putting in place new scales ofsocial distinction, but leaving wider structures unaltered (Pigg 1992, Mosse 2005a, Li 2007b). Inprograms that emphasized self-help empowerment or community-driven development, the ideaof governmentality in neoliberal mode (Li 2007b) offered the ethnographic advantage (Englund2006, p. 37) of simultaneous attention to faceless norms, rules, and audits of a plurality of author-ities (state and nonstate) and to the self-regulating behavior of communities or individuals—thatis, the working of intimate “government at a distance” (Rose & Miller 1992). In Agrawal’s (2005)longue-duree study of state-engendered environmental subjectivities (or environmentality) throughcommunity forestry (in Himalayan India), it was new institutional practice that changed people’sdispositions. Development as “an incitement to work upon oneself” (Pandian 2008, p. 162) throughprograms of practical and moral improvement is indeed a repeating theme, whether in forestry,agriculture, resettlement, or other schemes, either modern or missionary (Moore 2005, Pandian2009). This radical postdevelopment critique, however, ultimately concerned the political econ-omy of truth and the centrality of development, not just “as an organizing principle of social life”but in “the discursive imaginary” (Escobar 2012, pp. xii–xiii).

BEYOND CRITIQUEMoving on from development as the cloak of power, ethnographers now argue that there ismuch that “the language of disguise itself disguises” (Yarrow & Venkatesan 2012, p. 7). At worst,the instrumentalism of development’s self-representation is replaced by a “power functionalism”(Sahlins 2008, p. 12) that destroys rather than demystifies its object, development, whose agentsare denied reflexive intentionality or responsibility (Mosse 2005a, pp. 5–6). There has been a shiftto (re)engage with ethnographic meanings of development as a “category of practice” (rather than

www.annualreviews.org • Anthropology of International Development 229

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


a category of analysis), that is, to understand the way in which development “becomes producedand reproduced as a common sense part of people’s understanding of the world and their placewithin it” and how “the delineation of [development] emerges from, and produces, particularhistorical circumstances, particular cultural logics, and finally, particular subjectivities” (Curtis &Spencer 2012, p. 179), which is how these authors account for a parallel recovery of politics as anethnographic subject.

Treating development as a category of practice involves, for one thing, reflecting on critiqueitself as a kind of ethnocentric stance that unnecessarily ties insight to pessimism (Yarrow &Venkatesan 2012, p. 6; Yarrow 2011, p. 3) or takes the discursive centrality of development asself-evidently an orchestration of power with known effects. As Cooper & Packard (1997) pointout, “locating power does not show that it is determinant or that a particular discourse is notappropriable for other purposes” (p. 3). Studies of aid-funded projects [such as those by Rossi(2004b) and Mosse (2005)] show how marginalized people manipulate project discourses, forexample refusing the responsibilizing disciplines of participation while making claims (for em-ployment, capital investment, or social protection from outsiders) within a very different politicsof patronage and allegiance. Here, development as a category of practice becomes more aboutconnection than community—something that Gardner (2012) also demonstrates in her long-termstudy of the shifting fortunes brought to people in Sylhet, Bangladesh, by development as connec-tion/disconnection, inter alia, through transnational migration and the arrival of a multinationalgas-extraction company in the locality.

Attention has also turned from development as an antipolitical mask of power to developmentas the “practice of politics” (Li 2007b). Li’s historical anthropology of two centuries of layered“betterment schemes” in Indonesia reveals the governmental “will to improve” as “a project andnot a secure accomplishment” (p. 10), many times evaded and contested. Bierschenk (2008, p. 10)reminds us that the “antipolitics” international aid programs that render technical are readilypoliticized by African elites to their own advantage, and Blundo (2006) points out that the fo-cus on the state as a machinery of delivery and economic management, rather than as a politicalentity whose legitimacy derives from development, has overlooked the intimate relationship be-tween development and democracy. Studying the contentious history of fisheries in south India,Subramanian (2009) concludes that “when we look at development practice, we see a highly chargedpolitically fractious process . . . tied up with the proliferation of new democratic institutions.Development and democracy—the intertwined key words of postcolonial state formation—weremore than simply a cynical mantra for the consolidation of state power” (p. 145). The politicalengagement of postdevelopment critics is itself evidence that the meaning, direction, and con-trol of development are at the heart of contentious politics, bound up with identity, place, andbelonging.

Recent ethnography adds historicity and spatiality to anthropologies of development. BothMoore (2005) and Subramanian (2009) analyze contemporary development politics as a layeringof earlier processes. In the first case, struggles over land by Kaerezians in eastern Zimbabwe recallcolonial, nationalist, and postcolonial dispossessions and repossessions; in the second, the artisanalfishers’ fight against capitalist trawling makes sense only in terms of a history of claim makingwhereby fishers emerge as subjects of rights in relation to other groups and institutions. In bothinstances, the relational politics is distinctly spatial—embedded in landscape (Kaerezi) and spatialidentity (coastal-fisher versus inland-caste).

In these ethnographies, development, like human rights or democracy, is not considered aregime of truth “diffusing” from modern liberalism but rather provincialized as a particulardynamic cultural formation that involves identity (caste or religion), occupation, and space-making (Subramanian 2009). This interpretation is a challenge to Escobar’s (2012) treatment of

230 Mosse

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


development as the “overall discursive fact” (pp. xiii–xiv). Development is not what the West doesto “the rest” but is “part of the postcolonial predicament” (Yarrow 2011, pp. 2–3).

Indeed, anthropologists have often discovered that ideologies of development are notexperienced as culturally foreign (Pigg 1992). The significance of a British aid project in Adivasiin western India emerged from an existing cultural logic that was contiguous with historicalsocioreligious movements of self-improving change (Mosse 2005a). Such moral self-makingof development is not analyzable simply as people’s submission to a governmental “orderof power identifying their own nature as a problem” (Pandian 2008, p. 159). It may entailinfusion of existing cultural concepts (indigenous ideas of development), normative orders, moralimperatives, or theories of social change, such as the Yoruba qlaju (enlightenment) analyzedby Peel (1978). Rather as anthropologists have suggested in relation to religious conversion(Robbins 2004), development (as idea and practice) is produced through existing categories,which it then transforms. Thus, Peel sees qlaju—a particular system of metaphors and ideas aboutknowledge in relation to power—becoming progressively linked to Western education and itsplace in Nigerian social policy. In a parallel case, Pandian (2008) explains how ideologies of Tamiluzhaippu (toil) shift from suffering to self-advancement. There is no intention here to sanitize thedevelopment encounter of power. De Vries (2007) might say that the above examples illustratehow “the development industry is parasitic on the beliefs and dreams of the subjects it creates”(p. 30). His argument is, first (giving a Lacanian/Deleuzian twist to Ferguson), that developmentis a “desiring machine” and that the lack from its failures drives desire, articulated throughimagination; and second, that a true politics and critique have to take desire for developmentseriously and engage with development failure itself, not collude in the “banalization” of desire asgovernmentality.

Other researchers focus on the local negotiation of development. Gow (2008) participatedin structured community planning processes in Nasa Indian (postearthquake) resettlements inColombia to discover a reworking of national development discourse in indigenous terms as thedesire for a certain critical modernity or “counterdevelopment” (cf. Arce & Long 2000). Here,institutionalizing custom (language, law, shamanic knowledge) as “indigenous education develop-ment” is the Nasa Indians’ means to simultaneously enter the dominant society and protect theirown. More generally, the place of development within indigenous activism or social movements(such as the Indian Dalit movements) reveals development—demanded, resisted, reworked—as akey site for struggles over the terms of recognition and of citizenship (cf. Ghosh 2006, Mosse 2010),in which anthropologists may undertake deliberately partisan work with particular constituencies(Dove 1999, Gow 2008).

In specific ways that have to be studied or engaged with, various political practices come tobe translated into development discourses (national or international), which then “provide themeans by which people negotiate and frame social, cultural and political differences” (Yarrow& Venkatesan 2012, p. 9). The point, as Yarrow (2011) puts it, is that development is “not acoherent set of practices but a set of practices that produces coherence” (p. 6). What elementsand relations of power are involved, who and what the significant actors are, what purposes areserved by processes of connection/disconnection (development/counterdevelopment), and whatautonomy is achieved or lost are not known in advance.

How such processes are conceptualized varies. Moore (2005), Li (2007a), and Gould (2007), forexample, have turned to Deleuze & Guattari’s (1987) indeterministic (but empirically discovered)notion of assemblage (agencement) to capture the social and reflective processes of development. As-semblage is the flexible, contingent, and continuous work of “pulling disparate elements together”(ideas, moralities, artefacts, technologies, diffused agency, heterogeneous interests, destabilizingelements) and is “always a process of ordering not order” (Moore 2005, pp. 24, 332). [See Li


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


(2007a) on community forest management as transnational assemblage, and Schwittay (2011a) onthe financial inclusion assemblage.]

Others follow Latour (2005) to argue that the material and conceptual coherence of a de-velopment program is performed through political acts of “composition” by heterogeneousactors/actants—the causal relations of the material world as well as intentional human actions(Mosse 2005a). Latour (2004), moreover, claims “critique has run out of steam” and that weshould instead trace the policies, project designs, or technologies back to the human/object rela-tionships (“the gatherings”) from which they come, not to deconstruct them but optimistically to“strengthen their claim to reality.”

The difficulty with these “network approaches,” according to Escobar (2012), is threefold.First, although these approaches carefully trace connections, they fail to adequately sort out thosethat are powerful from those that are not (or are compromised) and therefore fail to allow apolitical economy to the network [cf. Latour’s (2005) reverse position on the methodologicalneed to “keep the social flat”]. Second, they suffer a political failure in offering no significantchallenge to what exists, and they adopt a “hermeneutics of cynicism” about the possibility of radicalchange. Third, because they choose not to perceive the uni-versality of Western development (ormodernity) and the cultural hegemony by which it becomes the translator of ideas, experiences, ordreams (that upon which counterwork must be performed), these ethnographic approaches cannotgrasp or support genuinely different perspectives as the basis for culturally variant alternatives todevelopment (Escobar 2012, p. xv). However, other anthropologists point to the significance of“engaged universals” (Tsing 2004) such as rights discourses (human rights, indigenous rights,etc.) in articulating difference, in mobilizing claims to resources or recognition, and in forgingalliances with global networks. Of course, such connections are disjunctive (“frictive”; Tsing 2004)as well as productive [as situated anthropologies of rights, codes and categories, and claims invarious fields show (e.g., Crewe & Axelby 2013, pp. 107–30; Ghosh 2006)]. In an interconnectedworld, development agendas do not only travel; they interact with historical-cultural formations ofidentity, rights, and development, which are then in turn “globalized” through advocacy chains (theactivist networks on Dalit rights and development I am currently studying being a case in point).

Having broadly set out the (not uncontested) basis for examining development as a category ofpractice, in the remainder of this review I narrow the focus to anthropological studies of the thoughtand practice of international aid organizations and their changing political-economic context.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: INSIDE THE BLACK BOXWhether as outsiders or as insiders with biographical access, anthropologists have examined theprogram practice and processes, the life-worlds, and the politics of the apparatus of interna-tional development through a growing body of so-called aidnography (Gould & Marcussen 2004,Kontinen 2004, Mosse 2011a). Theoretical influences have diversified from the Manchester School“interactionalist” focus on expert-community interfaces (e.g., Long & Long 1992) to shifting iden-tities and brokerage in development (the Francophone Africanist literature; e.g., Bierschenk et al.2002) to more recent actor-network theory approaches (Lewis & Mosse 2006a).

Opening up the black box between policy intention and social effects, and asking how de-velopment works, has produced descriptions of the inner working, organizational practices, anddiscursive repertoires of state and nongovernmental organization (NGO) bureaucracies (Hilhorst2003, Watkins et al. 2012). As Quarles van Ufford (1988) observed, bureaucracy is not itself an in-strument of policy because “bureaucracy is an independent generator of ideas, goals and interests”(p. 77). Among examples of the intermediate connecting points (and the corruption) that consti-tute programs and public services are the complex bureaucratic arrangements for donor-backed

232 Mosse

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


neoliberal reform in Senegal, studied by Blundo (2006), who shows how this project itself pro-duced (or incentivized) informal privatization, criminalization, and the rise of auxiliary revenue–controlling agents (touts and brokers). At another level, Gupta (2012) explains how writing (words,statistics, and registers) constitutes bureaucratic action while impeding delivery. Others too revealthe work of development as institutionally directed and socially agentive writing by examiningdocuments as sets of social relations or by describing the social production of numbers, whichare privileged in translocal development planning because of their capacity to strip out context(Harper 1998, Smith 2006, Rottenburg 2009, Mosse 2011a, Gupta 2012).

Organizational theory has helped anthropologists show how bureaucratic systems (NGO orstate) tend to prioritize their own internal “system goals” (of maintenance and survival) overmeeting official policy goals (Mintzberg 1979, via Quarles van Ufford 1988). Moreover, the “in-stitutional organizations” that typify the field of international development are those that arecompelled, “[to] serve first and foremost the legitimation narrative assigned to them by their[political] environment” (Rottenburg 2009, p. 68), which contains such a diversity of competinginterests that these official narratives are characterized by vagueness and ambiguity. The resultis pervasive disjuncture in development order (Lewis & Mosse 2006b). The things that makefor good policy—which legitimizes and enrolls diverse supporters and interests—are not thosethat make projects practicable; “good policy is unimplementable” (Mosse 2005a). Alternatively,as Rottenburg (2009) puts it, there is a “loose coupling” of official representations (goals, struc-tures) and actual organizational practices, which draws ethnographic attention to the trading zonesand translation practices—not the objects or actors but “what occurs between them” (p. xxvi)—that Rottenburg so skillfully explores through his fictionalized account of a donor-financed watersector–reform project in East Africa.

Ethnography shows that policy designs have to be transformed through translation (Latour2005) into the diverse interests and meanings of actors that a program brings together. Loosecoupling distributes agency and permits multiplication of the criteria of, and claims for, success,a phenomenon that Bornstein’s (2005) ethnography of religious NGOs in Zimbabwe showsallowing the state to secure legitimacy by taking credit for NGO programs. Loose couplingfacilitates international development’s contradictory commitment to difference and similarity,progress and emancipation, efficiency and local ownership, by allocating incongruous principlesto separated contexts, mediated by consultants and various “ceremonial facades” (Rottenburg2009, p. 70). Anthropologists thus describe the entirely reversible institutional processes throughwhich projects become real (i.e., produce coherence) through the work of generating andtranslating interests, enrolling supporters, and stabilizing interpretations and representations soas to match (for a while) events to prevailing policy theory, which is usually the most urgent andpractical action (Mosse 2005a).

DEVELOPMENT’S EXPERT KNOWLEDGESuch research has changed the way anthropologists view expertise and policy, especially in lightof Mitchell’s (2002) argument that as a sphere of rational intention, policy does not precedeand order practice but rather is produced by it, grounded in particular interests, contingencies,and exclusions. In a similar vein, Rottenburg (2009) insists that the “technical game” that arises indevelopment cooperation (the antipolitics discourse) “is not an instrument of hegemony, but ratherthe only code available for carrying out transcultural negotiations under postcolonial conditionsand the norm of reciprocity” (p. 142).

Other researchers focus on processes at the global centers of policy making (see the con-tributions to Mosse 2011a). Some are concerned with the interlinking of expert knowledge


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


and the power and legitimacy of key institutions [e.g., Goldman (2005) on the World Bank’senvironmental knowledge and St Clair (2006) on its economic knowledge]. Others studyextrainstitutional or transnational networks of policy-shaping experts [e.g., Wedel (2000) on thecorporate/public boundary–crossing “flex nets” shaping 1990s US economic aid to Russia]. Athird group of researchers has studied “paradigm maintenance” within and between interlinkedorganizations: the everyday practices of professionalization, ideological control, and groupthink;the self-disciplining incentives of career building (e.g., Uchiyamada 2004); or risk-dispersingreliance on templates that give development models resilience, despite contradicting evidence[as Stiglitz (2002) shows for World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) marketliberalization models], and to which international development organizations, lacking democraticaccountability to citizen beneficiaries, are especially susceptible (Wade 1996, Woods 2006).

Rich ethnography exists on the institutional shaping of policy ideas (Douglas 1986) and thesocial agency of concepts and their artifacts (documents) as translators of interests. Examplesinclude the social making of economic facts in the IMF (Harper 1998), human rights economizedas risk management at the World Bank (Sarfaty 2012), and the instrumentalization of equity(McNeill & St Clair 2011) or society as social capital (Bebbington et al. 2004); the latter concepthere works socially to protect a vulnerable group of noneconomists rather than as an instrument ofWorld Bank power through depoliticizing development (Harriss 2001). It is precisely as an effectof privileged analytical forms and aesthetics (network, bracket, matrix) that Riles (2001) analyzesprofessional knowledge in her ethnography of women’s NGO networking.

Anthropologists are, of course, also interested in the effects of international development’scontext-free “traveling rationalities” (Craig & Porter 2006), which assert the formal over thesubstantive and the categorical over the relational (Eyben 2006) and that bury political debates inresults management and the framing of self-disciplining indicators for everything from economicgrowth to governance and human rights (Merry 2011). One effect is the dominance of the universallogic of institutional economics and law, as well as the marginality of anthropology itself as acritical ethnographic discipline, even though the numbers of social scientists within agenciessuch as the World Bank have soared (from 1 in 1974 to more than 450 in 2004; Mosse 2011b).Here their role is not to clarify processes of power or loose coupling but to facilitate those ofdevelopment negotiation, especially by rendering technical “the social” for project investmentthrough conceptions such as social capital (Li 2007b). Or, when anthropology performs its earlier-allocated expert role of interpreting development failure in terms of local culture, Rottenburg(2009) notes, it “provides a valuable service to the self-staging of development cooperation” (p. 73).

Another effect of expert knowledge is the denial of history (Lewis 2009, Woolcock et al. 2011),which is the practice, as Pritchett & Woolcock (2004) put it, of “skipping straight to Weber.”This practice involves clothing institutional solutions that actually emerged from histories of trialand error, politically driven experiments, conflict, and struggle in the language of bureaucraticrationality; and part of the solution is to hide this fact (Pritchett & Woolcock 2004, p. 201). Anexample is the sort of neoliberal rewriting of the history of capitalism in rich countries that Chang(2002) describes in Kicking Away the Ladder.

In addition to exploring the social origins and undisclosed baggage of international de-velopment’s traveling rationalities, anthropologists show how these are unpacked into the so-cial/institutional interests of local collaborators, generating complex and unintended effects [seeCraig & Porter (2006) on neoliberal reform in Vietnam, Pakistan, and Uganda; Anders (2010) on“good governance” reform in Malawi; and Schwegler (2009) on pension reform in Mexico]. Theseare interpretive accounts of policy that, as Shore & Wright (2011, pp. 8, 14) propose, treat policiesas traceable actants within actor networks having complex effects at different sites—organizingcategories and action, mobilizing, demobilizing, introducing new techniques of self, producing

234 Mosse

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


contestation—while also being altered by relations with other actants (people, objects, institutions)through processes of translation across varied interests, genres, and meanings. Instead of an inde-pendent force imagined in models of policy transfer or implementation, policy is a mode of con-nection or alignment (between agents, institutions, laws, technologies, and discourses) within de-velopment’s assemblages, articulated through political economy (Shore & Wright 2011, pp. 8, 14).

SOCIAL LIFE IN AIDLANDEthnography now turns to the lives of development workers themselves—NGO employees,consultants, expatriate aid staff, volunteers, and globally networked aid professionals—and tothe social and cultural practices of Aidland (Fechter & Hindman 2011, Mosse 2011a, Fechter2012; also see Stirrat 2008). A sociology-of-science approach (Verma 2011) traces aspects ofdevelopment knowledge (e.g., epistemological closure, policy harmonization) to the socialityof aid professionals: well knit, class closed, and culturally enclaved in capital cities; globallyconnected and permanent; but locally isolated and transient (Eyben 2011, Mosse 2011a).Contrarily, Lewis’s (2011) life-history project shows that despite converging policy ideas onpoverty at home and abroad, the social-institutional boundaries between UK voluntary sectorand overseas development NGOs are entrenched.

Yarrow (2011) suggests a refiguring of the anthropology of development around the moralcomplexity and meaning making of its workers. He insists that the motivations, optimism, activisthistories, and the faith and friendships drawn from personal narratives of Ghanaian NGO leadersbe taken seriously, not displaced by political critique or an “Afro-pessimist” view of self-servingpersonal relationships (cf. Bornstein 2005). van Gastel (2011) uses life histories to trace politicallycommunicated, ambiguated, and fragmented Dutch aid policy back to the integration of private“dreams of development.” More of this literature is trying to get behind heroic or cynical rep-resentations to the social conditions of overseas aid labor (the effects of hypermobility, visibility,interstitial positions, audit pressures, worker failure, gender roles, and racialized relations),unpicking experience-framing concepts such as (in)security, “guest-hood,” and nostalgia (contri-butions to Fechter & Hindman 2011, Mosse 2011a). Some of this research foregrounds personalagency and responsibilities, processes of professional or moral selving, friendship work, and thecare of the self as an aspect of the care of the other (Fechter 2012; cf Quarles van Ufford & Giri2003).

However, as Lewis et al. (2008) note, when the whims, motivations, and failings of personalitiesbecome central in the story of development, fiction has a descriptive advantage. Fiction alsosidesteps the dilemma that the things that are of interest to the anthropologist of development—informal relationships, unanticipated events, divergent views—and from which she develops ananalysis that fulfills her professional identity are the very things that, when publicly available,threaten the reputation of development professionals or institutions. No doubt it is partlythe urgency of stabilizing inherently fragile representations in international development thatgenerates such abundant reflexive backstage self-criticism and irony, hence the many aid workerblogs (Fechter 2012) and dissident accounts published after a delay (e.g., Griffiths 2004; alsosee Mosse 2011a). This is a world of carefully negotiated knowledge into which anthropologists(with their different epistemological assumptions) must enter prepared for strong responses totheir ethnographic accounts, which claim authority but look like dangerous evaluations alignedto narratives of blame and may well mobilize objections (Mosse 2006, Lashaw 2012). Meanwhileconcern arises about whether this looking inward has diverted anthropological attention awayfrom the wider context of development within neoliberal political economy and the reproductionof (global) inequality.


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


NEOLIBERAL DEVELOPMENTBy the turn of the millennium, deregulatory adjustment and economic liberalization hadturned national development into a matter of creating the conditions for attracting mobilecapital to enclaves of production of labor-intensive goods for global markets, such as garmentsin Bangladesh and telecommunications in Bangalore (Ludden 2005); mining and oil-boominvestment hopped over large areas of “unusable Africa,” bypassing the national developmentframework (Ferguson 2005). In Collier’s (2007) influential framing, the “bottom billion”live in the unintegrated fringe or under the curse of ungoverned resource extraction. Theanthropological critique of projects and bureaucratic power has had to give way to ethnographiesof the loss of state power in the government of development; to its dispersal to NGOs, donors,social entrepreneurs, and private-sector providers (Li 2005); to state withdrawal and relianceon informal institutions (e.g., in rural Uganda; see Jones 2009); to the hollowing of the officialstate (in India), surrounded by powerful brokers, contractors, and crooks who constitute ashadow state run for private benefit (Harriss-White 2003); and to the centrality of informal“social structures of accumulation” (caste, gender, and religion) in regulating both marketsand the state (Harriss-White 2003). In the age of neoliberal reform, the terms weak state,fragile state, crisis state, and collapsed state are especially prominent in the development policylexicon.

Anthropologists are among those examining the social irrationality of a neoliberal logic thatselectively integrates into markets, reduces social protection, casualizes labor, and increases in-equality and distributional conflict, among other ill effects of capitalism in its millennial (mes-sianic, salvic) manifestation (Comaroff & Comaroff 2001, p. 2; Ferguson 2006; Greenhouse 2009;cf. Robinson 2002). Whereas Marxian perspectives emphasize the underlying advancement ofcapitalist class power (Saad-Filho & Johnston 2005), anthropologists often focus on the effects ofneoliberal forms of governmental power: the regulated autonomy and responsibilization of socialspace (Kingfisher & Maskovsky 2008). They have observed the demobilizing effect of develop-ment through marketization as the “appropriation and co-option of pre-existing cultural and socialachievements” (Harvey 2003, p. 146) that deplete numerous livelihood systems. Elyachar (2005)accordingly critiques NGO microenterprise initiatives among craftsmen in Cairo and the rubricof productive social capital that undermines relational value (evident in the “evil-eye” discourseon selfish accumulation).

However, anthropologists also find people resisting new consumer subjectivities [e.g., Coelho(2005) apropos water privatization in Chennai] and workers refusing to police themselves [asGupta (2012) observes in rural Uttar Pradesh]; although, neoliberal developments may also shapethe modes of resistance and mobilization, as (among others) Steur (2011) shows in her account ofsocial movements in Kerala that turn from socialist to indigenist form. Gupta (2012) argues thatsuch friction, also arising from gender, caste, or political alignments, “impedes and defers” therelaying of Foucault’s modalities of government in development (p. 261).

Anthropologists indeed have reason to be wary of recourse to metanarratives of neoliberalismin understanding “violence against the poor” (Gupta 2012, pp. 273–74). Gupta (2012), for exam-ple, discovers continuity in the key effect of bureaucratic arbitrariness and neglect on either side ofa major ideological policy shift from state welfare to “empowerment” in Indian projects targetingrural women and children. In parallel, Cross (2010) shows that precariousness and political sub-jectivity among workers within a so-called special economic zone in south India differ little fromthose among the informally regulated majority beyond it: Neoliberalism is unexceptional (cf. Ong2006). The normal absence of state provision, Ferguson (2010) notes, is the context of schemes ofdirect cash transfer in South Africa that use mechanisms of the market to drive poverty reduction;

236 Mosse

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


he argues that such schemes should be considered problem-solving appropriations of neoliberalarrangement in the absence of state care.

These examples show that neoliberalism, like development, fails to become a stable objectof anthropological critique (Ferguson 2010). Some apparently neoliberal practices such as auditsin China, as Kipnis (2008) explains, may even be enactments of state socialism. Mitchell (2002)challenges us to examine neoliberalism, or even capitalism, beyond the frame of its own self-representation. His studies on Egypt show that privatization and the “free market” programthere abstracted from and misrepresented the actual “multilayered political readjustment of rents,subsidies, and the control of resources” (Mitchell 2002, p. 277). His point is that all economicactivity is socio-political being dependent on forms of law, government and corporate power as wellas nonhuman elements (pp. 289–91). Further, like projects, neoliberal marketization can also beexamined as an actor network (Calıskan & Callon 2010) so as to discover asymmetries of power invaluation and the unequally distributed agencements (arrangements or assemblages) that lie behindmarket descriptions of the autonomy of calculating agencies (Calıskan & Callon 2010, p. 13).

From Wacquant (2012) comes a different point. Anthropologists will not solve the problem ofa fabricated notion of universalized market rule with the vague concept of flowing “calculative no-tions, strategies and technologies,” as Wacquant sees Ong’s (2006) “global assemblage” approach.Neoliberalism is something specific, namely a reengineering and redeployment (not dismantling)of the state, among other things, both to support commodification (the extension of markets in allspheres) and to curb the social turbulence caused by neoliberal policies of reregulation throughpenal policy (Wacquant 2012, p. 72). The resulting double-figure “centaur” state—neoliberal atthe top and penal at the bottom—is familiar to economically transforming countries such as India.Here, Gupta (2012) argues, the state has been restructured in favor of industrial capital in ways thatsharply increase inequality, first through barriers to employment for less-educated, lower-caste,rural poor in the fast-growing knowledge industries, and second through the reallocation ofproperty rights in favor of extractive industry and infrastructure in the tribal periphery (Breman2003, Padel & Das 2010). In the main, democratic pressure for legitimacy directs industrial taxrevenue to huge increases in state welfare programs. But where industrial development threatenssurvival in the tribal periphery, an armed Maoist insurgency now prompts a military “staging [of]the sovereignty of the state” and a “securitization” of development (Gupta 2012, p. 286; also seeChatterjee 2008, Shah 2010). The governance of development through market-led growth strate-gies, democratization, investment in social protection for those adversely affected, and the securiti-zation of dangerous poverty on the periphery aptly describes international neoliberal development.

THE NEW AID ARCHITECTUREBeginning in the 1980s, international development policy progressed through addition: structuraladjustment plus governance plus participation plus poverty reduction (Bierschenk 2008, p. 10). Bythe late 1990s, governments of poor countries were offered conditional finance to develop theirown overall strategies for growth and poverty reduction [through budgetary support or poverty-reduction strategy papers (PRSPs)] in line with neoliberal globalization—making “markets workfor the poor.” The overriding question was how market-led development was to be governed. Thepreferred solutions—regulatory institutions, decentralization, democratic process—were harmo-nized through new donor coordination (OECD 2005, Eyben 2007).

Anthropological analyses here return to concerns with power and discourse and, given how“transnational linkages in the movement of ideas, material resources, technologies and person-nel are critical to the care of populations,” to the debatable idea of “global governmentality”


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


(Gupta 2012, p. 239; also see Watts 2003 and Gould 2005). Gupta (2010) argues that the PRSPmeasures promoted by the World Bank and the IMF frame poverty as a national problem in waysthat remove global inequality and the political economy of capitalism from the public agenda,thereby diffusing demand for change in global institutions such as US and European agriculturalsubsidies, the externalization of pollution costs, and restrictive trade regimes. Meanwhile, Craig& Porter (2003) suggest that the ranked goals of global economic integration, good governance,poverty reduction, and safety nets “[represent] an attempt to generate a level of global to localintegration and discipline and technical management of marginal economies, governance andpopulations unprecedented since colonial times” (pp. 54–55; cf. Ferguson & Gupta 2002, p. 992).Ethnographic research on the documents and practices of PRSPs suggests the replacement ofold-style structural adjustment conditionality with the internal discipline of audits and indicatorsthat do the political work of building compliance with international financial institution (IFI) de-mands into the fabric of national administrative orders (Anders 2005, Gould 2005, Mosse 2005b,Soederberg 2006). The question of the global governance of development has taken anthropolo-gists into a range of international institutions (e.g., IFIs, the Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations, the World Health Organization, other United Nations bodies) and to thelocal framing of global norms, standards, protocols, and supranational legal regimes (e.g., patentlaw, tax law, trade liberalization, industrial licensing norms). Governance questions highlight thepolitical evasions of ethical consensus, categorical imperatives, and translations (Goldman 2005,Muller 2008, Garsten & Jacobsson 2011); scattered sovereignties and manipulations by “cun-ning states” that new development regimes produce (Randeria 2003); and the way rule makingfor global governance builds partisan interests into the universal principles and common-sensemodels while deflecting attention from monopolistic, oligopolistic, or ungovernable internationalmarkets (Soederberg 2006, Mosse 2005b).

Anthropologists examine the delicate work of reconciling disciplining aid regimes with thehigh-profile political commitment to national sovereignty and country ownership through rubricsof partnership or capacity building (Dahl 2001, Gould 2005, Mosse 2005b, van Gastel & Nuijten2005, van Gastel 2011). They find aid officials’ field experience narrowed to familiarity with“the patterns on the carpet of the Ministry of Finance” (Eyben 2011, p. 144) but also discoverinterinstitutional complexity as a new fieldwork site. Placing herself amid the electronic andsocial flow of aid harmonization, Pollard (2009) reveals that donor-coordination efforts in Jakartaso complicate relationships that doubt (about intentions and responses) itself becomes a meansthrough which institutional power operates.

CURRENT TRENDS: CORPORATIONS, CONFLICTS, AND CHINAPolitically threatened under conditions of austerity; dwarfed by the giants of climate change, therise of China, new conflicts, or transnational migration; and attacked on all sides for having perverseeffects (Easterly 2007, Moyo 2010), Western aid claims a shrinking footprint, now repurposed aspart of promoting commerce (old tied aid) or soft-power foreign relations. Three recent trendsare worth highlighting.

Business at the Center: Corporate Social Responsibility and Bottomof the Pyramid CapitalismFirst, business has moved into development. Donor programs involve more public-private part-nerships (PPPs) that use markets for service delivery in health or education [see van Gastel’s(2011) ethnography of a contraceptive marketing PPP], and at the same time, nonmarket morallogics gain visibility within corporate capitalism. This merging of aid and business draws together

238 Mosse

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


anthropologies of development and corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Rajak 2011, Gardner2012). Some anthropologists study the array of international codes and ethical standards for pro-duction and trade that are drawn into development debates under the slogan “Trade, not aid.”Studies on, for example, south Indian textiles (De Neve 2009), Costa Rican coffee (Luetchford2008), and Kenyan flowers (Dolan 2008) reveal brokerage and power inequality in accessing fair-trade markets and the disciplining of local producers by traders higher up the chain that producesethical value and serves the “redemption” of wealthier consumers (Rajak 2011, p. 7; also see DeNeve et al. 2008).

Corporations have also made themselves development agencies, setting and implementingagendas (Rajak 2011, Dolan et al. 2011, Schwittay 2011a, Gardner 2012). Rajak’s (2011, pp. 11,13, 323) point, from research on the mining giant Anglo-America, is not to judge CSR as eithera new ethical turn or a veil for profit but rather to show how the performance of CSR enablescorporations to extend authority over the social order at different levels, to tap the developmentexpertise of other institutions (states, NGOs), and to render commercial the problem of poverty—that is, to frame it in alignment with corporate agendas captured in the unintentionally revealingslogan “Make poverty business.” This goes to the heart of the wider institutional assemblage (Dolan2012, p. 4) labeled “bottom of the pyramid” (BoP) capitalism (Prahalad 2005), through which,Dolan (2012) argues, development itself is outsourced to the “under-utilised poor” through thefigure of the door-to-door sales woman bringing Coca-Cola or Avon products to retail black spotsin South Africa and Bangladesh, or Hewlett-Packard’s “digital brokers” in Costa Rica (Schwittay2011b), all working within corporate, NGO, and development agency arrangements. Such “BoPentrepreneurs” are analyzed as both instruments and beneficiaries of processes that change donor-recipient relationships, create “legibility” to global business, produce entrepreneurial subjectivitiesand recode products in ethical terms, while at the same time dividing, differentiating, and depletingaspects of social life (Dolan 2012).

Governing at the PeripherySecond, while business is centralized in mainstream development, aid donors are redirecting theirattention and resources to frontline states (e.g., Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq) and to zones of on-going conflict (inaccessible during the Cold War) on the periphery of global capitalism (Duffield2002, 2007). Treating poverty as the result of the lack or failure of government and of conflict andinsecurity (see World Bank 2011) interlinks goals of program delivery for basic needs, security,and state building, thereby blurring the distinctions between development, humanitarian relief,and military intervention (Duffield 2002, 2007; Howell & Lind 2009). The post–September 11securitization of development involves a new “liberal interventionism” that more obviously servespolitical agendas through “preemptive development” (Soederberg 2004) and ultimately aims,Duffield (2002, 2007) suggests, to render populations governable.

Behind this focus on the periphery, Duffield (2002) sees also at work the normativity of globalmarket integration that regards conflict and new wars, social regression, and criminality as the ef-fects of exclusion from globalization—an idiom of “borderland barbarianism” justifying capitalistincorporation on the grounds of security. He suggests, on the contrary, that conflict may signalresistance to or disengagement from liberal market values through forms of “flexible modern-ization” [informal transborder networks, extralegal shadow economies, even Islamist nonliberalreinvention (Duffield 2002, pp. 1,052–54; Watts 2003, pp. 7–11)]—variants of postdevelopmentstrategies of difference (Escobar 2012). This analysis also points to a wider anthropological critiqueof the way durable poverty is exceptionalized rather than understood relationally as also caused ordeepened by ordinary processes of capitalism (Mosse 2010).


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


New DonorsFinally, anthropologists have mostly assumed that international aid is about the affluent West andits “others” (Mosse 2005a, p. 1), but “[g]lobal development is no longer governed by Northerncountries, and the subjects of IFIs are as likely to include Greece and Italy” (De Hart 2012,p. 1360). Aid donors such as China, India, and Russia have entirely different histories and con-cepts of development cooperation that are only now being explored (Gray 2011, Mawdsley 2012).China’s economic diplomacy has drawn the most attention (especially in Africa), but Indian andRussian forms of development cooperation also depart from the specific moral framing [or purifi-cation (van Gastel 2011)] of aid as the unreciprocated gift (Mawdsley 2012; cf. Bornstein 2012)and focus instead on ideas of mutual benefit, South-South solidarity, and national sovereigntywhile refusing the Western aid packaging of agendas on governance, environment, or humanrights (Mawdsley 2012). However, debate on Chinese aid, or a distinctive “Beijing consensus”model of development invoked as the other of Western aid, indicates the need for a differentiatedethnographic description of alternative development meanings and relationships (Mohan 2008,Brautigam 2009). The image of Costa Rica’s national stadium, designed and constructed by theChinese from imported materials and labor, in which “China appears simultaneously as a FirstWorld donor and the quintessential Third World labourer” (De Hart 2012, p. 1371) suggests asignificant refiguring of the anthropology of development.

CONCLUSIONDevelopment may or may not be a distinctive apparatus that is separable from other historicalrelations between state, society, and culture, but it can be studied as the fraught institutional effortto make this so (or to resist it)—a scenario in which anthropologists are themselves implicatedas policy makers, project workers, advocacy activists, or critics. The usefulness (or otherwise) ofanthropology to international development would be the subject of a separate discussion. Is an-thropology the source of expertise on local culture; is it the capacity to build social knowledgeinto policy or to promote a localist stance? Such questions enter this debate (Sillitoe 2007). Theanthropology of development does something different. It offers a way of examining the dilemmasof power and knowledge, sometimes generating, along with development counterparts (agencystaff, campaign organizations, or members of communities), reflective awareness of the relationalcontext of thought and action through collaborative research for organizational learning (e.g.,Eyben 2006). Whatever such opportunities are (and a good deal more work remains to find variedconstructive modes of engagement with international development), encounters with develop-ment policy and its parallel ways of “doing knowledge” begin to question anthropology’s claimto epistemological privilege (Green 2009). These encounters introduce questions about anthro-pology’s own epistemic conduct that are explored in some interesting ethnographic experiments,such as Rottenburg’s (2009) fictionalized account, which attempts a symmetrical treatment of theanthropologist as one among many analytical voices that recount the unhappy unfolding of an aidproject in Africa.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENTThe author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that mightbe perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

LITERATURE CITED

Agrawal A. 2005. Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. Durham, NC: DukeUniv. Press

240 Mosse

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Anders G. 2005. Good governance as technology: towards an ethnography of the Bretton Woods institutions.See Mosse & Lewis 2005, pp. 37–60

Anders G. 2010. In the Shadow of Good Governance: An Ethnography of Civil Service Reform in Africa. Leiden,Neth.: Brill

Arce A, Long N. 2000. Anthropology, Development and Modernities. London: RoutledgeBebbington A, Guggenheim S, Olson E, Woolcock M. 2004. Exploring social capital debates at the World

Bank. J. Dev. Stud. 40:33–42Bierschenk T. 2008. Anthropology and development: an historizing and localizing approach. Work. pap. 87,

Dep. Anthropol. Afr. Stud., Univ. MainzBierschenk T, Chaveau JP, Olivier de Sardan JP. 2002. Local development brokers in Africa: the rise of a new

social category. Work. pap. 13, Dep. Anthropol. Afr. Stud., Johannes Gutenberg Univ.Blundo G. 2006. Dealing with the local state. The informal privatization of street-level bureaucracies in

Senegal. Dev. Change 37:799–819Bornstein E. 2005. The Spirit of Development: Protestant NGOs, Morality and Economics in Zimbabwe. Stanford:

Stanford Univ. PressBornstein E. 2012. Disquieting Gifts: Humanitarianism in New Delhi. Stanford: Stanford Univ. PressBrautigam D. 2009. The Dragon’s Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. PressBreman J. 2003. The Labouring Poor in India: Patterns of Exploitation, Subordination and Exclusion. New Delhi:

Oxford Univ. PressCalıskan K, Callon M. 2010. Economization, part 2: a research programme for the study of markets. Econ. Soc.

39:1–32Chang H-J. 2002. Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. London: AnthemChatterjee P. 2008. Democracy and economic transformation in India. Econ. Pol. Wkly. 43:53–62Coelho K. 2005. Unstating ‘the public’: an ethnography of reform in an urban water utility in South India.

See Mosse & Lewis 2005, pp. 171–95Collier P. 2007. The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It.

Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. PressComaroff J, Comaroff JL. 2001. Millennial Capitalism and the Culture of Neoliberalism. Durham, NC: Duke

Univ. PressCook B, Kothari U, eds. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? London: ZedCooper F, Packard R, eds. 1997. International Development and the Social Sciences. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressCorbridge S. 2007. The (im)possibility of development studies. Econ. Soc. 36:179–211Craig D, Porter D. 2003. Poverty reduction strategy papers: a new convergence. World Dev. 31:53–69Craig D, Porter D. 2006. Development Beyond Neoliberalism: Governance, Poverty Reduction and Political Economy.

London/New York: RoutledgeCrewe E, Axelby R, eds. 2013. Anthropology and Development: Culture, Morality and Politics in a Globalised World.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressCross J. 2010. Neoliberalism as unexceptional: economic zones and the everyday precariousness of working

life in South India. Crit. Anthropol. 30:355–73Curtis J, Spencer J. 2012. Anthropology and the political. In The Sage Handbook of Social Anthropology, Vo1. 1,

ed. R Fardon, O Harris, T Marchand, M Nuttall, C Shore, et al., pp. 168–82. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageDahl G. 2001. Responsibility and Partnership in Swedish Aid Discourse. Uppsala: Nord. Afr. Inst.Deleuze G, Guattari F. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Transl. Brian Massumi.

Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press. From FrenchDe Hart M. 2012. Remodelling the global development landscape: the China model and south-south coop-

eration in Latin America. Third World Q. 33:1359–75De Neve G. 2009. Power, inequality and corporate social responsibility: the politics of ethical compliance in

the South Indian garment industry. Econ. Pol. Wkly. 44:63–72De Neve G, Luetchford P, Pratt J, Wood C, eds. 2008. Hidden Hands in the Market: Ethnographies of Fair

Trade, Ethical Consumption, and Corporate Social Responsibility. Research in Economic Anthropology, Vol. 28.Bingley, UK: Emerald

De Vries P. 2007. Don’t compromise your desire for development! A Lacanian/Deleuzian rethinking of theanti-politics machine. Third World Q. 28:25–43


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Dolan C. 2008. Arbitrating risk through moral values: the case of Kenyan fairtrade. See De Neve et al. 2008,pp. 271–96

Dolan C. 2012. The new face of development: the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ entrepreneurs. Anthropol. Today28:3–7

Dolan C, Garsten C, Rajak D, eds. 2011. Themed Section: Ethnographies of Corporate Ethicizing. Focaal: J.Glob. Hist. Anthropol. 60:3–73

Douglas M. 1986. How Institutions Think. London: RoutledgeDove M. 1999. Writing for, versus about, the ethnographic other: issues of engagement and reflexivity in

working with a tribal NGO in Indonesia. Identities Glob. Stud. Cult. Power 6:225–53Duffield M. 2002. Social reconstruction and the radicalisation of development: aid as a relation of global liberal

governance. Dev. Change 33:1049–71Duffield M. 2007. Development, Security and Unending War. Cambridge/Malden, Mass.: PolityEasterly W. 2007. The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So

Little Good. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. PressEdelman M, Haugerud A, eds. 2005. The Anthropology of Development and Globalisation: From Classical Political

Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: BlackwellElyachar J. 2005. Markets of Dispossession: NGOs, Economic Development, and the State in Cairo. Durham,

NC/London: Duke Univ. PressEnglund H. 2006. Prisoners of Freedom: Human Rights and the African Poor. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressEscobar A. 1991. Anthropology and the development encounter: the making and marketing of development

anthropology. Am. Ethnol. 18:16–40Escobar A. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton

Univ. Press. 1st ed.Escobar A. 2012. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton

Univ. Press. 2nd ed.Eyben R, ed. 2006. Relationships for Aid. London: EarthscanEyben R. 2007. Harmonisation: How is the orchestra conducted? Dev. Pract. 17:640–46Eyben R. 2011. The sociality of international aid and policy convergence. See Mosse 2011a, pp. 139–60Fairhead J. 2012. Anthropology and “land grabs”: reflections on our history of activism. Presented at SOAS,

Oct. 10, Univ. LondonFechter A, Hindman H, eds. 2011. Inside the Everyday Lives of Development Workers: The Challenges and Futures

of Aidland. Bloomfield, CT: KumarianFechter AM, ed. 2012. Special Issue: The Personal and the Professional in Aid Work. Third World Q. 33(8)Ferguson J. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, De-politicisation and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho.

Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressFerguson J. 1997. Anthropology and its evil twin: development in the constitution of a discipline. In Inter-

national Development and the Social Sciences: Essays in the History and Politics of Knowledge, ed. F Cooper,R Packard, pp. 150–75. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

Ferguson J. 2005. Seeing like an oil company: space, security and global capital in neoliberal Africa.Am. Anthropol. 107:377–82

Ferguson J. 2006. Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. Durham, NC/London: Duke Univ.Press

Ferguson J. 2010. The uses of neoliberalism. Antipode 41(Suppl. 1):166–84Ferguson J, Gupta A. 2002. Spatializing states: towards an ethnography of neoliberal governmentality.

Am. Ethnol. 29:981–1002Gardner K. 2012. Discordant Development: Global Capitalism and the Struggle for Connection in Bangladesh.

London/Ann Arbor: PlutoGarsten C, Jacobsson K. 2011. Transparency and legibility in international institutions: the UN global com-

pact and post-political global ethics. Soc. Anthropol. 19:378–93Ghosh K. 2006. Between global flows and local dams: indigenousness, locality and the transnational sphere in

Jharkand, India. Cult. Anthropol. 21:501–34Goldman M. 2005. Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Justice in the Age of Globalization.

New Haven/London: Yale Univ. Press

242 Mosse

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Gould J. 2005. Timing, scale and style: capacity as governmentality in Tanzania. See Mosse & Lewis 2005,pp. 61–84

Gould J. 2007. (Dis)assembling development. In Anomalies of Aid: A Festschrift for Juhani Koponen,ed. J Gould, L Siitonen, pp. 269–95. Helsinki: Univ. Helsinki. http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/oldkmi/english/Anomalies.pdf

Gould J, Marcussen HS. 2004. Narratives of democracy and power. In Ethnographies of Aid: Exploring De-velopment Texts and Encounters, Vol. 24, ed. HS Marcussen, pp. 15–44. Roskilde, Den.: Roskilde Univ.Press

Gow D. 2008. Countering Development: Indigenous Modernity and the Moral Imagination. Durham, NC/London:Duke Univ. Press

Gray PA. 2011. Looking the “The Gift” in the mouth: Russia as donor. Anthropol. Today 27:5–8Green M. 2009. Doing development and writing culture: knowledge practices in anthropology and interna-

tional development. Anthropol. Theory 9:395–417Greenhouse CJ, ed. 2009. Ethnographies of Neoliberalism. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. PressGreenough P, Tsing AL, eds. 2003. Nature in the Global South: Environmental Projects in South and Southeast

Asia. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. PressGriffiths P. 2004. The Economist’s Tale: A Consultant Encounters Hunger and the World Bank. London: ZedGupta A. 2010. The construction of the global poor: an anthropological critique. In The World Social Science

Report: Knowledge Divides, ed. F Caillods, pp. 13–16. Paris: UNESCOGupta A. 2012. Red Tape: Bureaucracy, Structural Violence and Poverty in India. Durham, NC/London: Duke

Univ. PressHarriss J. 2001. Depoliticising Development: The World Bank and Social Capital. London: AnthemHarriss-White B. 2003. India Working: Essays on Society and Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge Univ.

PressHarper R. 1998. Inside the IMF: An Ethnography of Documents, Technology, and Organizational Action. Orlando:

AcademicHarvey D. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. PressHickey S, Mohan G. 2004. Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation. London: ZedHilhorst D. 2003. The Real World of NGOs: Discourses, Diversity and Development. London: ZedHowell J, Lind J. 2009. Counter-Terrorism, Aid and Civil Society: Before and After the War on Terror. Basingstoke,

UK: Palgrave MacmillanJones B. 2009. Beyond the State in Rural Uganda. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. PressKingfisher C, Maskovsky J. 2008. Introduction: the limits of neoliberalism. Crit. Anthropol. 28:115–26Kipnis A. 2008. Audit cultures: neoliberal governmentality, socialist legacy, or technologies of governing?

Am. Ethnol. 35:275–89Kontinen T, ed. 2004. Development Intervention: Actor and Activity Perspectives. Helsinki: Univ. Helsinki, Cent.

Act. Theory Dev. Work Res ., Inst. Dev. Stud.Kuper A. 2005. Alternative histories of British social anthropology. Soc. Anthropol. 13:47–64Lashaw A. 2012. How progressive culture resists critique: the impasse of NGO studies. Ethnography. doi:

10.1177/1466138112463803. In pressLatour B. 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Crit. Inq.

30:225–48Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ.

PressLewis D, Mosse D, eds. 2006a. Development Brokers and Translators: The Ethnography of Aid and Agencies.

Bloomfield, CT: KumarianLewis D. 2009. International development and the ‘perpetual present’: anthropological approaches to the

re-historicization of policy. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 21:32–46Lewis D. 2011. Tidy concepts, messy lives: defining tensions in the domestic and overseas careers of U.K.

non-governmental professionals. See Mosse 2011a, pp. 177–97Lewis D, Mosse D, eds. 2006b. Encountering order and disjuncture: contemporary anthropological perspec-

tives on the organisation of development. Oxf. Dev. Stud. 44(Spec. iss.):1–13


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/oldkmi/english/Anomalies.pdf

http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/oldkmi/english/Anomalies.pdf


Lewis D, Rodgers D, Woolcock M. 2008. The fiction of development: literary representation as a source ofauthoritative knowledge. J. Dev. Stud. 44:198–216

Li TM. 2005. Beyond “the state” and failed schemes. Am. Anthropol. 107:383–94Li TM. 2007a. Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Econ. Soc. 36:263–93Li TM. 2007b. The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics. Durham, NC:

Duke Univ. PressLong N, Long A, eds. 1992. Battlefields of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research

and Development. London: RoutledgeLudden D. 2005. Development regimes in South Asia: history and the governance conundrum. Econ. Pol.

Wkly. 40:4042–51Luetchford P. 2008. Fair Trade and a Global Commodity: Coffee in Costa Rica. London: PlutoMacFarlane A. 2012. Huxley Memorial Lecture: Anthropology, Empire and Modernity. London: Br. Mus.

http://www.sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1370572Mawdsley E. 2012. The changing geographies of foreign aid and development cooperation: contributions

from gift theory. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 37:256–72McNeill D, St Clair AL. 2011. The World Bank’s expertise: observant participation in the World Development

Report 2006, equity and development. See Mosse 2011a, pp. 103–21Merry SE. 2011. Measuring the world: indicators, human rights, and global governance. Curr. Anthropol.

52(3):S83–S95Mintzberg H. 1979. The Structuring of Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice HallMitchell T. 2002. Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressMohan G. 2008. China in Africa: a review essay. Rev. Afr. Pol. Econ. 35:155–75Moore D. 2005. Suffering for Territory; Race, Place, and Power in Zimbabwe. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. PressMosse D. 2005a. Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. London: PlutoMosse D. 2005b. Global governance and the ethnography of international aid. See Mosse & Lewis 2005,

pp. 1–36Mosse D. 2006. Anti-social anthropology? Objectivity, objection and the ethnography of public policy and

professional communities. J. R. Anthropol. Inst.12:935–56Mosse D. 2010. A relational approach to durable poverty, inequality and power. J. Dev. Stud. 46:1156–78Mosse D, ed. 2011a. Adventures in Aidland: The Anthropology of Professionals in International Development. New

York/Oxford, UK: BerghahnMosse D. 2011b. Social analysis as corporate product: non-economists/anthropologists at work at the World

Bank in Washington, D.C. See Mosse 2011a, pp. 81–102Mosse D, Lewis D, eds. 2005. The Aid Effect: Giving and Governing in International Development. London/Ann

Arbor: PlutoMoyo D. 2010. Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is Another Way for Africa. London: PenguinMuller B. 2008. The anthropology of international institutions. Presented at Eur. Sci. Found. Workshop, LAIOS,

27–29 March, Paris, Fr. http://www.iiac.cnrs.fr/laios/sites/laios/IMG/pdf/ESF_programme.pdfOECD. 2005. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Development Assistance Committee. Paris: OECDOlivier de Sardan JP. 2005. Anthropology and Development: Understanding Social Change. London: ZedOng A. 2006. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke Univ.

PressPadel F, Das S. 2010. Out of This Earth: East India Adivasis and the Aluminium Cartel. New Delhi: Orient

BlackswanPandian A. 2008. Devoted to development moral progress, ethical work, and divine favor in south India.

Anthropol. Theory 8:159–79Pandian A. 2009. Crooked Stalks: Cultivating Virtue in South India. Durham, NC/London: Duke Univ. PressPeel JDY. 1978. Qlaju: a Yoruba concept of development. J. Dev. Stud. 14:139–65Pigg SL. 1992. Inventing social categories through place: social representations and development in Nepal.

Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 34:491–513Pollard A. 2009. Power in Doubt: Aid, Effectiveness and Harmonization Amongst Donors in Indonesia. PhD thesis,

Dep. Soc. Anthropol. Univ. Cambridge

244 Mosse

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

http://www.sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1370572

http://www.iiac.cnrs.fr/laios/sites/laios/IMG/pdf/ESF_programme.pdf


Prahalad CK. 2005. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profit and EnablingDignity and Choice Through Markets. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton Sch.

Pritchett L, Woolcock M. 2004. Solutions when the solution is the problem: arraying the disarray in devel-opment. World Dev. 32:191–212

Quarles van Ufford P. 1988. The myth of rational development policy: evaluation versus policy making inDutch Protestant donor agencies. In The Hidden Crisis in Development: Development Bureaucracies, ed.P Quarles van Ufford, D Kruijt, T Downing, pp. 75–99. Tokyo/Amsterdam: U.N./Free Univ. Press

Quarles van Ufford P, Giri A, eds. 2003. A Moral Critique of Development: In Search of Global Responsibilities.London/New York: Routledge

Rajak D. 2011. In Good Company: An Anatomy of Corporate Social Responsibility. Stanford: Stanford Univ. PressRanderia S. 2003. Cunning states and unaccountable international institutions: legal plurality, social move-

ments and rights of local communities to common property resources. Eur. J. Sociol. 44:27–60Riles A. 2001. The Network Inside Out. Ann Arbor: Mich. Univ. PressRobbins J. 2004. Becoming Sinners: Christianity and Moral Torment in a Papua New Guinea Society. Berkeley:

Univ. Calif. PressRobinson WI. 2002. Remapping development in the light of globalisation: from a territorial to a social

cartography. Third World Q. 23:1047–71Rose N, Miller P. 1992. Political power beyond the state: problematics of government. Br. J. Sociol. 43:173–205Rossi B. 2004a. Order and disjuncture: theoretical shifts in the anthropology of aid and development. Curr.

Anthropol. 45:556–60Rossi B. 2004b. Revisiting Foucauldian approaches: power dynamics in development projects. J. Dev. Stud.

40:1–29Rottenburg R. 2009. Far-Fetched Facts. A Parable of Development Aid. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT PressSaad-Filho A, Johnston D. 2005. Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: PlutoSahlins M. 2008. The Western Illusion of Human Nature. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press Pam.Sarfaty GA. 2012. Values in Translation: Human Rights and the Culture of the World Bank. Stanford: Stanford

Univ. PressSchwegler T. 2009. Take it from the top (down)? Rethinking neoliberalism and political hierarchy in Mexico.

Am. Ethnol. 35:682–700Schwittay A. 2011a. The financial inclusion assemblage: subjects, technics, rationalities. Crit. Anthropol.

31:381–401Schwittay A. 2011b. The marketization of poverty. Curr. Anthropol. 52:S71–82Scott JC. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New

Haven/London: Yale Univ. PressShah A. 2010. In the Shadows of the State: Indigenous Politics, Environmentalism and Insurgency in Jharkand, India.

Durham, NC: Duke Univ. PressSillitoe P. 2007. Anthropologists only need apply: challenges of applied anthropology. J. R. Anthropol. Inst.

13:147–65Shore C, Wright S. 2011. Conceptualising policy: technologies of governance and the politics of visibility.

See Shore et al. 2011, pp. 1–25Shore C, Wright S, Pero D. 2011. Policy Words: Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power. New

York/London: BerghahnSmith D. 2006. Incorporating texts into ethnographic practice. In Institutional Ethnography as Practice, ed.

D Smith, pp. 65–88. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & LittlefieldSoederberg S. 2004. American empire and excluded states: Bush’s millennium challenge account and the shift

to pre-emptive development? Third World Q. 25:279–302Soederberg S. 2006. Global Governance in Question: Empire, Class, and the New Common Sense in Managing

North-South Relations. London/Ann Arbor: Pluto/Univ. Mich. PressSt. Clair A. 2006. Global poverty: the co-production of knowledge and politics. Glob. Soc. Policy 6:57–77Steur L. 2011. Indigenist mobilization: “identity” versus “class” after the Kerala model of development. PhD

thesis, Dep. Sociol. Soc. Anthropol ., Cent. Eur. Univ.Stiglitz J. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Stirrat R. 2008. Mercenaries, missionaries and misfits: representation of development personnel. Crit. Anthro-pol. 28:406–25

Subramanian A. 2009. Shorelines: Space and Rights in South India. Stanford: Stanford Univ. PressTsing AL. 2004. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. PressUchiyamada Y. 2004. Architecture of immanent power. Truth and nothingness in a Japanese bureaucratic

machine. Soc. Anthropol. 12:3–23van Gastel JN. 2011. The purification of aid: an ethnography of Dutch partnership policy and (broken) dreams of

development. PhD thesis, Wageningen Univ. 151 pp.van Gastel JN, Nuijten M. 2005. The genealogy of the ‘good governance’ and ‘ownership’ agenda at the Dutch

Ministry of Development Cooperation. See Mosse & Lewis 2005, pp. 85–105Venkatesan S, Yarrow T. 2012. Differentiating Development: Beyond an Anthropology of Critique. Oxford,

UK/New York: BerghahnVerma R. 2011. Intercultural encounters, colonial continuities and contemporary disconnects in rural aid: an

ethnography of development practitioners in Madagascar. See Fechter & Hindman 2011, pp. 59–82Wacquant L. 2012. Three steps to a historical anthropology of actually existing neoliberalism. Soc. Anthropol.

20:66–79Wade R. 1996. Japan, the World Bank and the art of paradigm maintenance. New Left Rev. 217:3–36Watkins SC, Swidler A, Hannan T. 2012. Outsourcing social transformation: development NGOs as organi-

zations. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38:285–315Watts M. 2003. Development and governmentality. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 24:6–34Wedel J. 2000. Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe. New York: PalgraveWoods N. 2006. The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank and Their Borrowers. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ.

PressWoolcock M, Szreter SRS, Rao V. 2011. How and why does history matter for development policy? J. Dev.

Stud. 41:70–96World Bank. 2011. World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development. Washington, D.C.:

World BankYarrow T. 2011. Development Beyond Politics: Aid, Activism and NGOs in Ghana. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave

MacmillanYarrow T, Venkatesan S. 2012. Anthropology and development: critical framings. See Venkatesan & Yarrow

2012, pp. 1–20

246 Mosse

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AN42-FrontMatter ARI 18 September 2013 17:41

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 42, 2013Contents

Perspective

Ourselves and OthersAndre Beteille ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1

Archaeology

Power and Agency in Precolonial African StatesJ. Cameron Monroe ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !17

The Archaeology of Illegal and Illicit EconomiesAlexandra Hartnett and Shannon Lee Dawdy ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !37

Evidential Regimes of Forensic ArchaeologyZoe Crossland ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 121

Biomolecular ArchaeologyKeri A. Brown and Terence A. Brown ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 159

Biological Anthropology

Agency and Adaptation: New Directions in Evolutionary AnthropologyEric Alden Smith ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 103

Teeth and Human Life-History EvolutionTanya M. Smith ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 191

Comparative Reproductive Energetics of Humanand Nonhuman PrimatesMelissa Emery Thompson ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 287

Significance of Neandertal and Denisovan Genomesin Human EvolutionJohn Hawks ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 433

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Ethnographic Research on Modern Business CorporationsGreg Urban and Kyung-Nan Koh ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 139

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Language Management/LaborBonnie Urciuoli and Chaise LaDousa ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 175

Jurisdiction: Grounding Law in LanguageJustin B. Richland ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 209

FrancophonieCecile B. Vigouroux ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 379

Evidence and Authority in Ethnographic and Linguistic PerspectiveJoel Kuipers ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 399

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Anthropologizing Afghanistan: Colonial and Postcolonial EncountersAlessandro Monsutti ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 269

Borders and the Relocation of EuropeSarah Green ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 345

Roma and Gypsy “Ethnicity” as a Subject of Anthropological InquiryMichael Stewart ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 415

Sociocultural Anthropology

Disability WorldsFaye Ginsburg and Rayna Rapp ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !53

Health of Indigenous Circumpolar PopulationsJ. Josh Snodgrass ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !69

The Anthropology of Organ TransplantationCharlotte Ikels ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !89

The Anthropology of International DevelopmentDavid Mosse ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 227

The Nature/Culture of Genetic FactsJonathan Marks ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 247

Globalization and Race: Structures of Inequality, New Sovereignties,and Citizenship in a Neoliberal EraDeborah A. Thomas and M. Kamari Clarke ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 305

The Politics and Poetics of InfrastructureBrian Larkin ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 327

The Anthropology of Radio FieldsLucas Bessire and Daniel Fisher ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 363

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Theme: Evidence

The Archaeology of Illegal and Illicit EconomiesAlexandra Hartnett and Shannon Lee Dawdy ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !37

Evidential Regimes of Forensic ArchaeologyZoe Crossland ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 121

Biomolecular ArchaeologyKeri A. Brown and Terence A. Brown ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 159

Teeth and Human Life-History EvolutionTanya M. Smith ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 191

The Nature/Culture of Genetic FactsJonathan Marks ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 247

Evidence and Authority in Ethnographic and Linguistic PerspectiveJoel Kuipers ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 399

Significance of Neandertal and Denisovan Genomesin Human EvolutionJohn Hawks ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 433

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 33–42 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 451

Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 33–42 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 455

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found athttp://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

3.42

:227

-246

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrevi

ews.o

rgby

Uni

vers

ity o

f Cal

iforn

ia -

Berk

eley

on

12/0

2/13

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Date post:	24-Oct-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	leticia-cesarino
View:	83 times
Download:	8 times