Critical review by Olivier Charnoz
James Ferguson has written an impressive monograph that sheds a raw light on the widely unquestioned 'development' discourse and institutions. The primary merit of his work is its stimulating a healthy debate about the meaning and the concrete functioning of something which is all at once a dominant discourse, practice and value that largely shapes our understanding of the world. Ferguson analysis heavily relies on Foucault's methodological insights that stress the authorless but intelligible consequences of dominant social discourses.
Ferguson's central claim is that the 'development' discourse is a specific form of knowledge which is institutionally determined to underpin the action of 'development' agencies through a well-fitted re-construction of social, economic and cultural realities. Agencies, in turn, set up projects that almost systematically 'fail on their own terms' but nonetheless have two systematic effects : expanding the bureaucratic mode of social interactions and depoliticizing political issues by using the mask of a technical discourse.
In this paper I intend to first highlight what seemed to me to be the most valuable insights of Ferguson's work, and then point out its more problematic stances. This paper therefore reflects a personal reaction to an undoubtedly stimulating work.
Positive aspects
To me, the most valuable aspects of Ferguson's work are 1) its questioning the meaning of 'development' 2) its innovative epistemological stance 3) its anthropological nature 4) its strong argument about bureaucracy reinforcement 5) its highlighting the many hidden political dimensions of the 'development' industry 6) its pointing out the 'paradox' of 'development' agencies.
· The meanings of development
The first element I appreciated in Ferguson's work is its insistence upon the fact that the concept of 'development' is widely used in a confused manner, which unduly fuses two separate things. On the one hand, 'development' refers to the process of social transition towards a capitalist industrial economy ; on the other hand, it means reduction of poverty. Ferguson could have insisted upon the fact that this confusion summarizes the heart of the 'development' ideology and already shows its 'depoliticizing' effect, insofar as it confuses a specific political program -capitalism- with a universal value - the fight against poverty.
· Innovative methodology and epistemology
Ferguson's methodology is of great interest as it avoids the apparently inescapable fight between sympathizers of the 'development discourse' who see it as a genuine and beneficial fight against poverty, and radical critics who claim that the hidden purpose of 'development' aid is to aid capitalist exploitation. Against the 'liberal' stance, Ferguson makes the empirical point that 'development' in Lesotho does no bring about any significant reduction in poverty. Against the neo-Marxist view, he notes that 'development' does not introduce any significant economic transformation.
On the epistemological level, I appreciated Ferguson's point that 'structures can take on lives of their own that soon enough overtake intentional practices'. Instead of ascribing social evolutions in Lesotho to the conscious intentions of various actors, Ferguson uses a kind complexity theory that underlines the lack of control on the part of planners over the actual outcome of their actions. The causal theory that Ferguson uses builds on Foucault's contention that discourse is a social practice that has real and consistent effects that go far beyond mystification. Ferguson's work therefore shows how unplotted, authorless 'strategies' in Foucault sense, consistently spring from the discourse on 'development'.
I also found Ferguson's analysis of the World Bank Report very rigorous and convincing. He first undertakes a close factual analysis that shows the specific twist the Bank's discourse imposes upon Lesotho's social reality and how it turns it into a aboriginal, peasant economy with strict national boundaries within which the State acts as an apolitical agent. Then Ferguson goes on to highlight the function of such a discourse: constructing a new object (a 'Less Developed Country') that calls by its very nature for action on the part of 'developers'. Finally, he points out, that this discourse is determined by the institutional context of its production. As he puts it:
"Academic analysis is of no
use to a 'development' agency unless it provides a place for the agency to plug
itself in (.) It must make Lesotho out to be an enormously promising candidate
for the only sort of intervention a 'development agency is capable of launching
the apolitical technical 'development' intervention" (p69).
Thus the conceptual apparatus of the 'development' discourse systematically transforms social issues into simple technical and apolitical problems - precisely the kind of problems the institutional apparatus needs to develop itself.
· An anthropological work
A major aspect of Ferguson's work I greatly enjoyed is the fact that it is a truly anthropological work. In first place, instead of looking at the 'development' discourse from an intellectual or historical viewpoint, he asks what its actual effects are, and answers this question through a thorough analysis of a major development project that took place in Lesotho during the period 1975-1984. This method keeps the argument on a firm empirical ground that makes it much stronger.
Moreover, it gives the reader a strong sense of the internal structures and meanings at work within the Lesotho society. Contrary to the World Bank Report, Ferguson's argument gives a picture of this society from within. In this respect, one of the chapters I enjoyed most is the 'Bovine Mystique' whereby the author provides the reader with the anthropological outlook that was crucially (but purposefully) missing in the Bank's analysis. Ferguson points out the unspoken 'barrier between livestock and cash', the use of livestock as a retirement fund and as a stock of household property, its significance in the social interactions among villagers - especially as a powerful symbolic reminder of the absent husband who left to work for the South African mining industry. Consequently I found very convincing his argument that far from being 'traditional' and 'pre-capitalist', patterns of livestock in Lesotho are fully associated with a modern migrant wage labor system.
· A convincing argument on state reinforcement
Another well argued part of Ferguson's argument is his demonstration of bureaucracy reinforcement following 'development' action. For instance, in the context of the scaling up of the Thaba-Tseka Project that was to emphasize decentralization, the Lesotho government appointed a 'District coordinator' that was actually to reinforce the hold of the Cabinet onto the newly created District. Ferguson rightly talks about a 'decentralization debacle'. The government politely accepted the decentralization and integration rhetoric only to eventually enhance its direct political control.
· Reintroducing the political dimension
Ferguson does a great job of bringing to the fore the political issues systematically forgotten by the World Bank in its analysis. The first step in this line is to recall that the State, far from being an apolitical instrument in the service of 'development', is used by many individuals, cliques, factions and class interests for their own purposes. In a nutshell, Ferguson recalls the obvious: ' the State is a political apparatus'. However one may regret the rather superficial analysis of the State, as it is always presented in Ferguson's argument as a unitary actor.
Moreover, the author rightly points out the political naivety of planners and developers that do not anticipate and systematically overlook the many political constraints, until they directly face them and find themselves unable to deal with them. Among the many examples, the lack of political insight was most striking in the the 'grazing association' project. The latter had no legal power to restrict movement of livestock and faced the unwillingness of the government to open up such a touchy political issue.
Ferguson correctly underlines the fact that politics is not only a constraint on the 'development' action but also one of its dimensions. The most striking example are of course the 'Village Development Committees' that are actual political organs of the ruling National Party. Politics is everywhere. The apolitical nature of 'development' projects that seems evident to 'developers' is always translated by the population into local politics. A clear example is the fate of the woodlot project that was ruined 'because it presented an appealing and easy target for those who wish to attack the government' (p.247).
On the whole, a major achievement of Ferguson's work is that it appropriately reestablishes the political setting without which one cannot understand the fate of the 'development' industry in Lesotho.
· The built-in paradox of 'development' agencies
Finally, I found extremely useful Ferguson's formulation of the built-in paradox of 'development' agencies, as these are supposed to entail significant social and economic changes and yet pretend not to be political in nature (p.226).
The most problematic aspects of Ferguson's argument seemed to me to be 1) the radicalism of his 'all political' thesis 2) its not fully sticking to its clearly spelled out methodology 3) its partial lack of relevance in the neo-liberal era 4) its not highlighting 'depolitization' as a worldwide trend that even affects highly developed countries.
· The 'all political' thesis
Obviously the major achievement of Ferguson's book - its emphasis on political issues- constitutes its a weakness as well. To what extent can one pretend that poverty is all about politics? Ferguson is not far from being that radical, as he dismisses as being 'largely illusory' the many technical problems pointed out by the experts (p.88). As he puts it in a final note to his Epilogue:
"My view here is that poverty is only one
among a great number of possible forms of humiliation and degradation that may
accompany powerlessness"
In this respect, I wonder whether the 'empowerment' approach that is imaginatively proposed at the end of Ferguson's book is really sustainable to the full. The author is right in pointing out the unduly forgotten political aspects of the 'development' problematic, but I have a feel that he goes to far in making it an 'all political' thing. The equation "Poverty equals Powerlessness" is not very far from the Neo-Marxist stance that was dismissed at the very beginning of the book. The Marxist influence is also significant in statements like:
" The
international apparatus is the guardian of the global hegemony, whereas
governments are guardians of the local hegemony" (p.284)
The only difference may rely in the fact that most neo-Marxists do not share Ferguson's refined causal theory (based on Foucault) and tend to emphasize the liberating power of State action, whereas Ferguson's empowerment thesis is based on a local understanding of empowerment. This bears some similarities with the ideal of small independent community of producers envisioned by the French Socialist Proudhon in the nineteenth century.
· Flaw in the methodology
I also wonder whether Ferguson managed to stick to his methodology, insofar as he pretends to des-emphasize the significance of intentions of actors, but still: 1) the Lesotho government is described as consistently striving to increase its hold on the new District 2) at the same time this expansion of bureaucracy is supposed to be the authorless end result of 'development' projects. This argument does not seem consistent, as it heavily relies on the conscious action of the State. The supposedly 'authorless strategy' boils down to a mere underlining of the political naivety of 'developers' that do not realize that they are manipulated by the government.
· Are planners so naive ?
This brings up a further question, namely whether planners are really so naive. The fact that officials are not willing to discuss political issues with the inquiring anthropologist does not mean that they are not aware of the political constraints they face. Anyhow, greater attention is nowadays paid to corruption of state elite and abuse of power, by international development agencies.
· What about the neo-liberal agenda ?
In my view the greatest limit of Ferguson's argument is that it seems much less relevant in the neo-liberal era. His contention that 'development' programs enhance the bureaucratic mode of social relations does not seem to hold in the context of 'structural adjustment programs', that are precisely designed to scale down State involvement in society. However, the second half of Ferguson's argument, namely the depoliticizing effect of 'development', holds good in a neo-liberal setting, as neo-liberalism tries to present itself as a technical solution to technical issues.
· Depolitization as a general phenomena
Finally, I think that Ferguson could have brought to the fore the fact, well known among political scientists, that 'depolitization' is a worldwide phenomena that is currently reshaping even western politics. For instance, the European Union, through first of all the European Commission, does experience the same 'depolitization' of political issues. Some political scientists even argue that the EU is witnessing a new kind of democratic regime whereby priority is given to experts' knowledge. A scientist ideology is presently trying to take over more and more European political issues.
Conclusion
Ferguson's major achievement is his fostering a needed debate about a dominant mode of thought. His argument has obviously some limitations that he sometimes acknowledges himself. Still, its core, which seems to me to be the depoliticizing effect rather than the bureaucratic one, is extremely insightful.