Anthropological Perspectives on Development: Insights from Africa

Originally written as a Lecture Delivered at Regis University, 11 Feb, 2013

Introduction

The discourse of development is all around us – and its practice(s) even more pervasive, marketed by its advocates as the ultimate answer to humanity’s woes. Development is touted by governments and powerful global institutions as the singular and most promising potential to bridge the growing chasm between the rich and the wretched of the earth. Even in the post cold era, marked by the weakening or retreat of the postcolonial state in many parts of Africa, the NGOization of the town and countryside has peaked – promoting alternative versions and visions of development (Piot 2010). But the last 50 or 60 years of development has revealed not just the tremendous challenges of bringing about social change that works for the masses, but even more troubling – the idea that development as a discourse and practice is inherently imperialistic and Eurocentric. As a powerful mediator of the relationship between the West or global North and the rest, development has attracted anthropological scrutiny for a considerable number of years. Under the ethnographic microscope, we have come to appreciate the fullness of its magical appeal and at once the fallacies upon which it is based. Thus, development is a most suitable site for exploring the intersections of the economy, culture, power, politics, social justice and happiness (cf. Escobar 1992). Its interdisciplinarity also makes it most suitable to speak to issues that involve the disciplines of history, politics, peace and justice studies, gender studies, human ecology and sociology.

In today’s lecture, I would like to examine some of the theoretical models that have dominated the anthropological debates on development. In the course of this exploration, we will demonstrate the privileged insights that anthropological approaches can bring to bear on our understanding of culture and the human quest for peace. Three key theoretical approaches will be examined – namely, modernization, dependency theory and post-development. I will discuss the basic tenets of each of the models and provide brief critiques, substantiating them with ethnographic examples from Africa, including my own fieldwork in Cameroon. By the end of this lecture, I would expect you to have gained mastery of the following:

Understood the ways in which African states have been implicated in the practice of development.
Understood some of the core theoretical approaches that have informed development discourse.
Mastered some of the critiques of these theoretical approaches.

Modernization and the Invention of Development

Development as a powerful panacea to the world’s problems first emerged in the post-WWII era – as a set of technical tools and scientific discoveries that could bring about rapid economic growth and material improvement to many parts of the world that remained undeveloped (Gardner and Lewis 1996). Hence, development is generally appreciated as something positive, connoting the ideas of change and progress. (Who wouldn’t want this?)

Some have referred to development as a process of change through which an increasing proportion of a nation’s citizens are able to enjoy a higher material standard of living, healthier and longer lives, more education, and greater control and choice over how they live. Others have described it as historical processes of commodification, industrialisation, modernisation or globalization (Edelman and Haugerud 2005). Going by these perspectives, development is isomorphic to modernization and both concepts may be used interchangeably. This can be seen in most definitions of modernization. One example states that ‘Modernization is a process of economic, social, and cultural development that is expected to lead to a level of organization and production, along with belief systems, similar to those already achieved by industrial societies, primarily based on examples from the West’ (Kearney 1997, 326). Modernization therefore echoes the same claims conceived in classical development theory – namely that in order for the rest of the world to attain the standard of living in the West, underdeveloped countries ought to modernize. So powerful and ‘seductive’ (Tsing 2000, 328) was modernization theory in the 1950s and 60s that few scholars dared question its assumptions.

In his highly influential book, The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto” (1960), Walt W. Rostow outlined a number of stages (reminiscent of 19th century evolutionism) through which societies ought to transition in order to attain modernisation. This entailed the progression or movement from (traditional) society to one characterized by high-mass consumption. This process, it was argued was tedious and lengthy but its end product was the total transformation of underdeveloped societies to fully developed ones. Modernisation would culminate in the advancement of societies’ political and legal institutions, communication, economic, educational and healthcare systems. Thus, to its proponents, modernisation was not only inevitable but it was also universal because it was rooted in scientific rationality – evidenced by the accomplishments of the industrialised West.

One of the key attributes of the development paradigm is that it can be measured in terms of economic growth usually in the form of GNP. However, this is a deeply flawed way to measure development precisely because the statistics do not often reflect the material realities of the masses in many third world countries. (What other alternative instruments have been developed around the world to measure human progress?)

One of the central assumptions of modernisation theory in the 1960s – worth exploring in depth was the idea that traditional societies were inherently inimical to development or progress. Characterised by a fatalistic ethos and rooted in kinship systems, the modern market economy could not take root in such societies. In order to develop, traditional societies must discard fatalistic thinking and embrace rational/scientific options. And this is where Africa comes in.

Africa is often finger-pointed as the one continent where real development is yet to ‘take off’. Its alleged undeveloped state, scholars of modernist persuasion have argued, can be easily blamed on African culture (take note of the singular reference to a homogeneous culture). In this scheme of things, Africa’s diverse peoples, cultures, geographies, economies, kinship systems and political organizations are invariably reduced to a single category; this tendency to reduce an otherwise complex and varied continent – what Andreasson (2005) has referred to as ‘repetitive reduction’ constitutes part of the explanatory framework proffered by some to explain Africa’s deficiencies. These deficiencies, or inabilities are perceived to be ‘internal’ or ‘intrinsic’ and therefore in need of external or modernist interventions. These reductionist assumptions are rooted in modernization theory.

In 1978, the World Bank issued a report about Lesotho in order to justify a series of loans made to the country. The report states as follows:

Virtually untouched by modern economic development… Lesotho was, and still is, basically, a traditional subsistence peasant society. But rapid growth resulting in extreme pressure on the land, deteriorating soil and declining agricultural yields led to a situation in which the country was no longer able to produce enough food for its people…. At independence, there was no economic infrastructure to speak of, industries were virtually non-existent.

James Ferguson, an anthropologist who conducted ethnographic research in Lesotho in the 1980s noted the following remarks about the World Bank’s report:

The country ceased being a subsistence economy since the mid-1800s.
Lesotho was not isolated from the market economy.
At the time of its independence, Lesotho had a modern administration, airports, roads, schools, hospitals, and markets for Western commodities.
The Report also failed to note that declining agricultural production was because the Basotho lost some of their best agricultural lands to encroaching Dutch settlers between 1840 and 1869 (Ferguson 1994, 224-225).

Ferguson (1994) proceeds to demonstrate how the World Bank’s false representation of Lesotho contributed to the failure of a development project aimed at converting Basotho men’s subsistence livestock economy into a massive commercial project. Basotho men have been reluctant to trade their livestock for cash and developers sought precisely to convince them to market their unproductive livestock through the maximization of fertile grassland (a natural resource).

Reluctance on the part of the Basotho has been easily explained by development workers as “traditional inertia” (Ferguson 1994:229). Ferguson provides a different explanation – he contends that this practice is in fact encouraged and sustained by the modern capitalist reserve economy. Whilst basic commodities – such as sugar, soap bar, radio, etc. are subject to the market fluctuations of demand and supply, livestock such as goats and cattle are subject to a different set of rules. Basotho are reluctant to convert these livestock into cash except in cases of emergencies such as the need for food, clothes or fees.

Most of them work in the mines in South Africa for periods of up to 10-11 months per year and only return home for short holidays. If a man comes home with cash in his pockets, Ferguson claims, his wife may present him with a long list of new things to buy – clothes, blankets, furniture, etc. But if he comes home with an ox, purchased with his wages, such demands would be less likely. Basotho men thus take extreme pride in their large numbers of livestock because it enables them build prestige and personal networks in the community. The livestock also symbolically assert their structural presence and prestigious social position despite their physical absence. When they return for good – due to injury, retirement or some other reason, they can convert their livestock for minimum cash if faced by acute shortages of basic necessities. Livestock thus serves as a special ‘retirement fund’ for the men because it is wealth whose value cannot easily diminish compared to cash (Ferguson 1994:230). Thus, investment livestock is not an alternative to migrant labour (as asserted by development workers) but a consequence of it.

The above example exposes some of the critiques that have been advanced against modernisation theory – namely, its failure to pay heed to local knowledge. Other criticisms that have been suggested include the following:

Its assumptions are largely ethnocentric on account of the claims that social change should follow the Western model.
It ignores the political implications of growth on the micro level (e.g. the marginalisation of women, or certain social classes, or ethnic groups (structural violence such as witnessed in Rwanda). Ferguson also refers to the depoliticization of development in Lesotho as a gross oversight of modernization).
A very powerful critique of modernisation theory is its failure to understand the real causes of underdevelopment and poverty. (They neglect historical and political factors that have negatively affected many regions of the world) – a set of critiques forcefully advanced by the dependency school in the 1970s.

Dependency Theory

Inspired by Marxist critiques of capitalism as inherently exploitative, dependency theorists contend that development is an essentially unequalizing process – whereby rich countries grow richer at the expense of the poor – in fact, resulting in the growing poverty of already poor countries (Gardner & Lewis 1996:16). “Rather than being undeveloped, they argue, countries in the South have been underdeveloped by the processes of imperial and post-imperial exploitation” (1996:16). Proponents of the dependency school argued that development and underdevelopment were two sides of the same coin. They asserted that countries of the periphery had been incorporated into the capitalist system on a deeply unequal basis –often as sources of raw materials and as ready markets for finished products. One model of this school –known as World-Systems theory was developed by Immanuel Wallerstein in the mid-1970s (Wallerstein 2004) which represented the world as characterised by a single interrelated system in which each country can be understood in terms of its relationship to the whole. Dependency theorists also argued that structures of dependency were found not only in the world economy but were replicated within peripheral regions.

‘Dependency theory therefore understands underdevelopment as embedded within particular political structures’ (Gardner & Lewis 1996:17). Hence the cures (policies) promoted by modernisation theorists can hardly work because they do not address the root causes of poverty and underdevelopment. The alternative, dependency theorists suggested, is to effect radical structural change – i.e. make a break with the ‘tyranny of growth’ advocated by the global North (Andreasson 2005). Examples abound in the literature about attempts to break away from the ‘tyranny of growth’ but one outstanding example from Africa is the case of Tanzania initiated in 1967 by that country’s founding president, Julius Nyerere.

Julius Nyerere advocated an African model of development, distinct from the recipe being advocated by the West. Launched in 1967, the Arusha Declaration became Tanzania’s development blueprint which, according to its proponents, would promote a distinct brand of African socialism. Founded on the philosophy of Ujamaa, a Swahili word for “extended family”, “kinship” or “familyhood” it proposes that a person becomes a person only through his or her people. Nyerere’s philosophy of Ujamaa sought to achieve the following:

Create an egalitarian socialist society based on cooperative agriculture.
Improve the level of education through mass literacy campaigns.
Provide free and universal education.
Emphasize economic self-sufficiency (as opposed to depending on foreign aid and investment).
Restructure village communities to create a sense of national unity.
Abolish traditional political institutions such as chieftaincies in order to promote local democracy and equality for all.

These alternatives were themselves fraught with difficulties. Nyerere’s vision of an African socialist system was abandoned in the 1980s owing to mounting criticism within and beyond Tanzania.

Several critiques have been advanced against dependency theory. One of them is that its proponents tend to treat peripheral states and populations as passive – i.e. blind to everything but their exploitation (Gardner & Lewis 1996:18). It ignores the ways in which individuals and groups strategize or draw on alternative mechanisms to maximise opportunities; how they resist dominant structures and in some cases how they enthusiastically embrace capitalist development. This notwithstanding, dependency theory has raised consciousness around the world about the politicisation of development in countries of the global South.

Anthropologists and sociologists have also pointed to some of the shortcomings of both modernisation and dependency theory – such as their essentially deterministic assumptions –rooted in rationalist epistemologies. Both models are also evolutionary – by emphasising the linear fashion in which development proceeds. Both privilege the role of the state in promoting top-down initiatives that will supposedly result in development.

Post-Development Approaches

The post-development school of development theory rejects development as a Eurocentric discourse, an imperialist project and a meaningless concept. Proponents advocate alternatives to development such as enabling communities and grassroots movements to combine elements of their ‘traditional’ culture and modernity in retaking control of their lives in the spheres of economics and politics. Control over their lives may be manifested in their opposition to global capitalism, science and other hegemonic discourses that aim to undermine the ‘autonomy’ of peoples around the world. Post-development advocates privilege the salience of indigenous knowledge as sites of empowerment and resistance against oppressive structures promoted by global institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and powerful countries in the global North. Escobar has summarised the key tenets of this school as follows:

An interest not in development alternatives but in alternatives to development, thus a rejection of the entire paradigm.
An interest in local culture and knowledge.
A critical stance towards established scientific discourses.
The defence and promotion of localised, pluralistic grassroots movements (Ziai 2004, 1046; also see Escobar 1992).

My own work for instance has examined the salience of urban grassroots organisations in Bamenda, Cameroon (Fokwang 2009). Focusing on marginalised young people’s voluntary associations, I have explored the ways in which young people seek to re-position themselves as central social actors in a cultural landscape that structures their marginalization. In my study of sport-in development, focusing on the Ntambag Brothers’ Association (NBA) – a group of young men, I show how its members use soccer as a tool to mobilize the community and other stakeholders in pursuit of the association’s objectives. One of these objectives was to contribute towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) by promoting educational access to the most underprivileged children in the community of Old Town where the association was based. I show that grassroots organisations, relying on their own resources – as opposed to state sponsor or foreign aid contribute to our understanding of the workings of post-development. Of significance is the fact that projects are designed, driven and managed by them. This approach differs from the top-down model originally advocated by proponents of modernisation theory.

But all is not rosy with grassroots movements. Several critiques have been identified with respect to the discourses and practices of grassroots organisations. One critique suggests that post-development advocates tend to romanticise the traditional culture of local communities – and in some cases, treat culture as static or authentic. Similarly, a critique might be made against the internal politics of grassroots movements which may be romanticised as inherently democratic. An examination of the internal politics of grassroots organisations reveals the presence of factions and internal hierarchies that sometimes undermine the potential for broader structural change. My analysis of the gender politics of the NBA in Old Town in relation to other female associations reveals explicit attempts by the young men in the NBA to reinvent hegemonic notions of manhood by emphasizing sport as an index their of ‘natural’ superiority compared to females in the community (Fokwang 2009).

Conclusion

In this lecture, we have critically examined three dominant approaches to the study of development in anthropology. Modernisation for instance has thrived on a reductionist approach of treating poor and developing countries as harbouring the obstacles to their own progress. Our example from Lesotho reveals how development workers, animated by the modernisation paradigm fail to take local knowledge into account, thereby leading to the perpetuation of false knowledge about so-called backwards cultures – often without addressing the root cause of poverty. Nevertheless, modernisation still retains a powerful appeal in many circles, having recycled itself in current neoliberal discourse that pride itself as the only game in town (Comaroff and Comaroff 2000) particularly, in the wake of the demise of socialist competitors. Dependency theory, despites its powerful critique, offered little options in terms of real practical alternatives and fails to account for the ways in which people resist global capitalism or embrace and pursue it. But it has nevertheless drawn attention to the fact that development practices are hardly rooted in the rational epistemologies enunciated in their discourses. Post-development approaches also provide some insightful bases through which to understand alternatives to top-down development discourse.

What we have learnt from the above exposé is that Africa’s development challenges can hardly be fully appreciated from only one approach. In addition to the above issues, an important consideration maintained by some critics is what has been referred to as the crises of governance. This is not only related to the system of patronage inherited from the colonial state and its perfection in postcolonial contexts (Berman 1998), but others are equally wary of the aid industry (Moyo 2010) that has been blamed for its role in promoting corruption and structural violence in aid-dependent economies (Uvin 1999). Any critical analysis of Africa’s development challenges must recognise the interplay of both internal and external factors, both of which are deeply entangled with current processes of globalization.

References

Andreasson, Stefan. 2005. “Orientalism and African Development Studies: the ‘reductive repetition’ motif in theories of African underdevelopment.” Third World Quarterly no. 26 (6):971-986.

Berman, Bruce J. 1998. “Ethnicity, Patronage and the African State: The Politics of Uncivil Nationalism.” African Affairs no. 97 (388):305-341.

Comaroff, J., and J. L. Comaroff. 2000. “Millenial Capitalism: First Thoughts on a Second Coming.” Public Culture no. 12 (2):291-343.

Edelman, Marc, and Angelique Haugerud. 2005. “Introduction: The Anthropology of Development and Globalization.” In The Anthropology of Development and Globalisation: from classical political economy to contemporary neoliberalism, edited by Marc Edelman and Angelique Haugerud. Oxford: Blackwell.

Escobar, Arturo. 1992. “Imagining a Post-Development Era? Critical Thought, Development and Social Movements.” Social Text (31/32):20-56.

Ferguson, James. 1994. “Development and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho.” In The post-development reader, edited by Majid Rahnema and B. Bawtree. London: Zed Books.

Fokwang, Jude. 2009. “Southern Perspective on Sport-in-Development: A Case Study of Football in Bamenda, Cameroon.” In Sport and International Development, edited by Roger Levermore and Aaron Beacom. Houndsmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gardner, Katy, and David Lewis. 1996. Anthropology, Development and the Post-modern Challenge. London: Pluto.

Kearney, Michael. 1997. “Modernization.” In The Dictionary of Anthropology, edited by Thomas Barfield, 326. Oxford: Blackwell.

Moyo, Dambisa. 2010. Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Piot, Charles. 2010. Nostalgia for the Future: West Africa after the Cold War. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tsing, Anna. 2000. “The Global Situation.” Cultural Anthropology no. 15 (3):327-360.

Uvin, Peter. 1999. “Development Aid and Structural Violence: The case of Rwanda.” Development no. 42 (2):49-56.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Ziai, Aram. 2004. “The ambivalence of post‐development: between reactionary populism and radical democracy.” Third World Quarterly no. 25 (6):1045-1060.