Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenors:
-
Rose Pinnington
(King's College London)
Maia King (King's College London)
Send message to Convenors
- Formats:
- Papers
- Stream:
- Global methodologies
- Sessions:
- Thursday 1 July, -
Time zone: Europe/London
Short Abstract:
This panel will bring together researchers who are engaging with questions of power and agency in development practice, in order to promote scholarly exchange about the different methodological, conceptual and analytical approaches that can be applied in research of this kind.
Long Abstract:
There has been extensive research on how aid and development practices can be harmful to local institutions and decision-making processes, as well as increasing calls to 'localise' development and shift power to local actors. There has been less rigorous examination of how problematic power differentials in development might be overcome, in order to enhance 'local agency'. In the studies and policy responses that do exist, there are also multiple views on what constitutes 'local agency', and how it can be measured. For instance, the 'partnership' agenda, which arose in the late 1990s, has been widely critiqued for its narrow and technocratic interpretation of 'ownership'. This has led to increasing efforts to understand the political dimensions of ownership expressed, for instance, in concepts of 'developmental leadership' and 'politically smart, locally led' aid.
This panel welcomes papers that explore questions of power and agency in donor funded programmes and development practice more broadly. It will address:
1) different approaches to conceptualising and theorising power and agency in research on development practice;
2) questions of language and discourse (e.g. what is the role of language in outcomes of relative power?)
3) whose perspectives do we encounter, or risk prioritising, when we make decisions about methods and approaches (e.g. data collection; units of analysis)?
4) the role of the researcher: how does the researcher encounter and affect power relations in the practice of development research?
The panel will aim to strengthen efforts to explore how local agency can be understood, facilitated and advanced in development thinking and practice.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Thursday 1 July, 2021, -Paper short abstract:
In this paper, we argue that how, why, and by whom “development” research is conducted must remain under constant scrutiny. Grounding our arguments on post- and decolonial critiques and our own experiences, we propose a reflexive and sociopolitically conscious approach of knowledge co-construction.
Paper long abstract:
Despite more than two decades of critical scholarly engagement, “development” is far from shedding its hierarchical, patriarchal, and colonial underpinnings. In academic research and teaching, power relations are continuously perpetuated – both implicitly and explicitly. Grounding our arguments on post- and decolonial critiques and our own experiences, we contend that how, why, and by whom “development” research is carried out must remain under constant scrutiny. We propose a reflexive and sociopolitically conscious approach of “knowledge co-construction”. Thus, we seek to decouple the myths of objective production of knowledge around “development” and provide (especially) students and early career researchers with a critical gaze.
Paper short abstract:
The "depoliticisation" framework in a power analysis of development practices is not new but there are still some missing points. This paper aims to bring back depoliticisation as an overarching framework in understanding power relations in development in the Global South.
Paper long abstract:
Since James Ferguson published his seminal work on the anti-politics in development (1990), a considerable amount of literature focusing on anti-politics tendencies of development practices in the Global South have been published with emphasising the rise of technocratic governance of civil society, increase attention on social capital and disregard the political institutions that some consider being old-fashioned. It also confirms the continuities of anti-politics tendencies by denying any political pluralism and antagonism (Jayasuriya, 2006, p. 235; Abrahamsen, 2000). However, such a body of literature does not review responses to depoliticisation in development practice. The empirical studies show that there is a strong tendency to repoliticise public affairs in the midst of a neoliberal project which the excluded social groups reclaim a new space to claim their rights (Haslam & Heidrich, 2016; Nem Singh, 2012; Haarstad, 2012, p. 4). Political participation then becomes more complicated (Stokke & Oldfield, 2005, p. 133). Hence, a new analytical framework is required on the effect of the development practice and the extension of space of depoliticisation by considering dynamic processes in different policy sectors, different tiers of governance and temporal dimensions (cf. Fawcett et al., 2017, p. 7). Moreover, further exploration is required into the effect of the institutionalisation of technocratic governance on civil society, specifically, the extent to which it affects technocratic rationality within the workings of civil society associations as well as the popular participation. The identification of depoliticisation becomes more challenging and open to more empirical investigations with a new analytical framework.
Paper short abstract:
Power is often described in relation to conflict but this is not particularly helpful in understanding processes of collaboration and inclusive development. Conceptualising power as productive could be more useful for understanding how actors can overcome collective action problems.
Paper long abstract:
The rise of political settlements analysis placed politics on a pedestal in development studies. Development partners have responded and a new era of 'politically-smart, locally-led' or 'thinking and working politically' development practices are emerging. Amidst this sea-change, Hudson and Leftwich's (2012) paper was a significant call to reject a reductive economic analysis of politics and pay greater attention to actors' agency. Yet, what 'agency' is and how 'power' should be conceptualised is contested. How development practice approaches these concepts is significant for how 'locally-led' programming is unrolled.
The term 'agency' is sometimes confused with 'power'. While all actors have agency, not all actors have power (Booth, 2014). Calls for greater attention to agency seem to be asking researchers and practitioners to consider the power of local actors. However, the concept of power needs careful consideration. In political settlements analysis, power is a zero-sum concept. Development is viewed as a conflictual process in which actors compete in pursuit of their interests and those with the greatest 'holding power' reap the greatest rewards.
However, research from the Effective States and Inclusive Development research centre and the Developmental Leadership Program points to the importance of coalitions in driving inclusive development. The narrow view of power as conflict is not helpful in explaining these changes. Expanding the concept of power so that power relations can be productive and collaborative, not just competitive is important for understanding how coalitions are formed and inclusive development occurs.
Paper short abstract:
Because unequal distributions of power shape interactions, institutions, and developmental prospects, functional development requires resolving collective-action problems of creating credible limits on exercises of power. A theory of power dynamics, thus informs developmental analysis and policy.
Paper long abstract:
This paper presents a conceptual framework regarding how unequal distributions of power condition economic and political interactions, rules, and development. It opens by defining power, with attention to its three dimensions (or faces), before proceeding to key sources—access to resources, institutionally designated positions, and ability to resolve organizational collective-action problems—and then its manifestations (de facto and de jure). Underlying theory merges a game-theoretic approach to triadic power, whereby one party exerts power by influencing relationships between two (or more) others, and gatekeeping (invisible) power—whereby a hidden party influences interactions among others by limiting access to desired transactions. Two developmental hypotheses follow: (1) Unequal distributions of power shape the creation, evolution, and demise of economic and political institutions. Moreover, because power’s third dimension involves shaping others’ conceptions of the nature or even existence of conflict, narratives and discourse shape exercises of power—especially triadic and gatekeeping power—for those in positions to do so. (2) Powerful parties, left to themselves, cannot credibly commit to refrain from using their power for their own future benefit. Myriad variations of holdup problems follow. Elites and powerful organizations may not only block potentially beneficial economic innovations or political reforms, they can maintain their positions by doing so. Jointly, these hypotheses imply an additional set of developmental collective-action problems related to establishing social mechanisms for credibly limiting exercises of power, so that the less powerful encounter reasonable prospects for investing time and resources into economic and political activity. Analysis and policy implications follow from this logic.