Working Paper 103

Z
E
F
Aram Ziai
Postcolonial perspectives on development
ISSN 1864-6638 Bonn, September 2012
1

ZEFWorkingPaperSeries,ISSN18646638
DepartmentofPoliticalandCulturalChange
CenterforDevelopmentResearch,UniversityofBonn
Editors:JoachimvonBraun,ManfredDenich,SolvayGerke,AnnaKatharinaHornidgeandConrad
Schetter

Authorsaddress

Dr.AramZiai
CenterforDevelopmentResearch(ZEF),UniversityofBonn,
WalterFlexStr.3
53113Bonn,Germany
Tel.0049(0)228734909:Fax0228731972
Email:ziai@unibonn.de
www.zef.de
2

Postcolonial perspectives on development

By Aram Ziai (Senior Researcher ZEFa)

3

Abstract:
The article deals with postcolonial works in the field of development theory and policy beyond the
widelydiscussedpostdevelopmentapproaches.Afteridentifyingfouranalyticalstrategiestypicalfor
postcolonial studies, it examines the works in question. Particular attention is given to the criticism
thatpostcolonialworkswouldneglectmaterialpractices.Thearticleconcludesthatformanyworks
this criticism is not justified, but that the empirical engagement of postcolonial approaches with
institutionsandprocessesindevelopmentpolicyisofteninaccurate,superficialandincomplete.

Development studies does not tend to listen to subalterns and postcolonial studies
does not tend to concern itself with whether the subaltern is eating (Sylvester 1999:
703)

Christine Sylvesters wellknown characterisation of the relationship between development studies
and postcolonial studies may be somewhat exaggerated, it is, however, based on a sharp
observation. This relationship also constitutes the topic of this article. The articles objective is
twofold:ontheonehanditaimstoprovideafarfromexhaustivesurveyofworksfromthearea
ofpostcolonialstudiesthatdealwithdevelopment.Usuallythistypeofworkisassociatedwiththe
postdevelopment school, which has been widely discussed by now, but here the focus is on other
authors beyond postdevelopment. On the other hand, the article will deal with one of the central
points of criticism which has been raised against postcolonial studies: that they neglect material
practices. This criticism shall be examined on the grounds of the postcolonial works in the field of
development.

Forastart,itneedstobeclarifiedwhatismeantbypostcolonialstudiesandbydevelopmentand
why the concept is placed in quotation marks. Therefore the first section of the article deals (very
briefly)withtheconceptofdevelopmentandthesecondone(equallysuperficially)withthefieldof
postcolonialstudies.Inthelatter,specificallypostcolonialquestionsandstrategiesofanalysiswillbe
examined,inordertoachievesomeorientationfacedwiththemultitudeofworksandapproachesin
this field. Subsequently the focus will be on the relationship between development studies and
postcolonial studies. Regarding the accusation of neglecting material practices and the strategies
identified beforehand, a number of postcolonial works in the area of development theory and
policywillbescrutinized.

Keywords:postcolonialstudies,developmentpolicy.
4

1 Development

A thorough historic and analytical treatise on the concept of development cannot be provided here
(see instead Nisbet 1969, Alcalde 1987, Cowen/Shenton 1996, Rist 1997, Martinussen 1997,
Nederveen Pieterse 2001, Kler/Wimmer 2006). Nevertheless, a clear definition of the concept is
indispensableinthecontextofthisarticle,anditisherewherethetroublealreadystarts,forthereis
a host of heterogeneous definitions to be found in the literature. As can be seen in the works cited
above, the discipline of development studies could not agree on a precise definition of its topic: in
part,thetermdevelopmentreferredtoevolutionaryprocessesofsocialchange(e.g.Rostow1960);
inpartitdealtwithtargetedpoliticalinterventionsintotheseprocesses(Cheneryetal.1972);usually
the change was associated with an improvement in living standards, but not always (Illich 1973); in
most cases the topic was to be found in the countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the
Caribbean and Oceania (hereafter referred to as the global South), but here we encounter some
exceptionsaswell(Sachs1999).Inthebeginningofthediscipline,thegoalwaseconomicgrowthand
industrialisation,lateritextendedtobasicneeds,povertyreductionorsustainability.Development
was measured primarily through the gross national product (GNP), like in the World Banks World
Development Reports, later indicators like formal education and life expectancy became relevant as
well,likeintheUNDPsHumanDevelopmentIndex.
Yet there was no complete conceptual disorder in development studies. For a long time definitions
wereinfluentialorevenpredominantwhichconceivedoftheideaofdevelopmentasfollowingin
the footsteps of the West (Bernstein cited by Thomas/Potter 1992: 119). Menzel understood
development explicitly as processes of economic growth, industrialisation, social differentiation
and mobilisation, mental change, democratisation and redistribution which took place in Western
Europe,NorthAmericaandlaterEastAsia,butnot(oratleastnotfully)intherestoftheworldand
forhim,thetaskofdevelopmenttheoryistoexplainthislaggingbehind(Menzel1993:132).
On an abstract level, development can thus be described as a bundle of interconnected and
normativelypositiveprocesseswhichtookplaceinsomepartsoftheearthbutnotinothers.Onthe
one hand, this can be used pragmatically as a working definition, but on the other hand provides
sufficient material for a (postcolonial but we will come to that later) critique which leads to using
the concept in inverted commas only. Because here processes which took place in Europe and the
European settler colonies in North America (and later also in some Asian countries) are constituted
as a historical norm the deviance of which is defined as in need of explanation and becomes the
foundation of a discipline. Particular historical processes are then presented as human progress
(neglecting their downsides), and ones own society as the ideal whereas other societies are
attributedthestatusofdeficientversionsofit(underdeveloped).
However,theconceptisquestionablenotonlyonthegroundsofitsEurocentrism,butalsobecause
it provides an alltoosimple pattern of perception and explanation for various social phenomena.
According to the anthropologist James Ferguson development is the name not only for a value,
butalsoforadominantproblematicorinterpretativegridthroughwhichtheimpoverishedregionsof
the world are known to us. Within this interpretative grid, a host of everyday observations are
rendered intelligible and meaningful. The images of the ragged poor of Asia thus become legible as
markers of a stage of development ... Within this problematic, it appears selfevident that debtor
ThirdWorldnationstatesandstarvingpeasantsshareacommonproblem,thatbothlackasingle
thing:development(1994:xiii).
But behind the socalled development problems there are often social phenomena whose origins
andcontextsoftenrelatedtopower,privilegeandexclusionareblurredbythischaracterisation.
The terminology implies that these problems can be solved by development institutions and
projects.Thisisastructuralproblem:becauseofthenormativeconnotationoftheconceptprocesses
5

intended to bring about development form a common ground for donor institutions, planning
ministries,concernedsocialgroupsandNGOs.Whocouldbeagainstdevelopment?Itismuchmore
difficulttofindsupportforpoliticalinitiativeswhichpointtoconflictsonthenationalorinternational
levelandsidewithmarginalised,exploitedoroppressedgroups.
Thus,toridtheconceptofdevelopmentofitsnaturalnessandtohighlightitsquestionableaspects,
theconceptisusedininvertedcommasinthisarticle.Nowletusturntothesecondcentralconcept
ofourtopic.

6

2 Postcolonial studies and their strategies of analysis

Contrary to widespread misconceptions, postcolonial studies are not postcolonial simply because
they deal with previously colonised societies. As a rule, postcolonial studies are defined through a
certaintheoreticalperspective.Regardingadefinitionofthefieldofpostcolonialstudiesithastobe
concluded that beyond the general concern with the phenomenon of colonialism and its effects
thereisnoconsensusontheprecisedelineationofthefieldofresearchmerelyonitsoftenquoted
heterogeneity (Ashcroft/Griffiths/Tiffin 1995: xv). Ashcroft, Griffiths und Tiffin primarily refer to
discursivepracticesandculturalstrategies,butdefinethefieldasthetotalityofpracticeswhich
characterisethesocietiesofthepostcolonial
1
worldfromthemomentofcolonisationtothepresent
day (1995: xv). Williams and Chrisman have a narrower understanding of postcolonial theory and
see it as the critique of the process of production of knowledge about the other (1994: 8). A
similar focus can be found in the work of Young: Postcolonial cultural analysis has been concerned
with the elaboration of theoretical structures that contest the previous dominant western way of
seeingthings.postcolonialtheoryinvolvesaconceptualreorientationtowardstheperspectivesof
knowledges,aswellasneeds,developedoutsidethewest(2003:4,6).Loomba,ontheotherhand,
wants to broaden the field beyond the analysis of structures of knowledge and regards the central
quality of postcolonial approaches in their contestation of colonial domination and the legacies of
colonialism (1998: 12). At a closer glance some of these definitions seem to be quite farreaching
andwouldalsoapplytotheworkssummarizedundertheheadingsofDependency,Imperialismand
Neocolonialism, which are examining relations of dominance and exploitation between metropolis
and satellite, centre and periphery, i.e. as a rule former colonial powers and former colonies. But
regarding their epistemological foundations and theoretical focus these works are tremendously
differentfromtheworksofSaid(1978),Bhabha(1994)andSpivak(1988),whichareusuallyseenas
theclassicexamplesofpostcolonialtheoryandwhichprimarilydealwithcolonialdiscourseandonly
in the second place with their effects on material practices. Therefore Williams and Chrisman are
justifiedincharacterisingpostcolonialstudiesascritiquesoftheproductionofknwoledgeaboutthe
Other (1994: 8). This focus on discourse analysis gives rise to the central criticism raised against
postcolonialstudiesespeciallyfromaMarxistperspective:theywouldneglectmaterialpracticesin
favour of mere representations (Dirlik 1994 has probably been the most vocal proponent of this
criticism).Thisreproachdeservescloserexaminationandwillbedealtwithinthenextsection.What
the different definitions have in common is the topic of the effects of colonialism, or colonial
continuities,whilethefocusonthelevelofrepresentationdoesnotformaconsensus.Lookingmore
closely at the works designated as postcolonial it can bes observed that the majority in fact is
concerned with the effects of colonialism on the level of presentation, with the discursive
constructionofidentities,conceptsandpracticeswhichmakepossibleandlegitimisecertainmaterial
practices.Postcolonialstrategiesofanalysiscanbeidentifiedandspecifiedusingtheexampleofthe
most wellknown representatives of postcolonial theory: Edward Said, Gayatri Spivak, Homi Bhabha
andDipeshChakrabarty.


1
Usuallythetermpostcolonial(withhyphen)referstoahistoricalstage,whereaspostcolonial(withouthyphen)refers
toaschoolofthought.
7

Orientalism and Othering
InhisstudyOrientalism(1978)EdwardSaidhasexaminedtheconstructionoftheorientinWestern
culturethroughvariouspracticesofknowledgeproduction(traveldiaries,academictreatises,novels
and other literary works). According to Said this construction is based on an ontological distinction
between the orient and (mostly) the occident (1978: 2), which made possible a homogenisation
andsteretpyisationofthisregionanditsinhabitants.ThisdistinctionallowstodefineEurope(orthe
West)asitscontrastingimage(1f)asprogressiveincontrasttoabackward,asrationalincontrast
to an irrational, as liberal in contrast to a despotic Orient and thus to achieve a positional
superiority (7). Against this background and because of countless distorted representations, Said
comestotheconclusionthatOrientalismrespondedmoretotheculturethatproduceditthantoits
putativeobject(22),i.e.theknowledgeproducedmatchedrathertheneedsanddesiresoftheWest
thantherealitiesoftheEast.Theseneedsanddesires,however,werenotonlyreferringtoidentities,
butalsotopolitics.ThepoliticalrelevanceofOrientalismwasconstitutedaboveallbythefactthatit
legitimized colonial rule over the regions of the Orient, which is why Said characterises it also as a
stylefordominatingandhavingauthorityovertheOrient(3).
If we now abstract from Saids concrete example, we can define the concept of Orientalism as the
productionofknowledge aboutculturallydefinedothers(theontologicaldistinction manifestsitself
after the demise of racist thinking predominantly through culture) which serves to constitute the
identityoftheSelfand thisisparticularlyrelevant forpoliticalscience allowsforpoliticalclaims
andexclusions.Inculturalstudies,thispracticeisoftenreferredtoasOthering:theconstructionof
analienotherwhichservesasaprojectionforthe(re)productionofonesown(positive)identity.
This kind of knowledge production has been almost omnipresent during colonialism and can be
observedevennowadays.BuildingontheworkofSaidandTodorov,StuartHallestablishedthatalso
in the colonial expansion of Europe beyond the Orient the classification of the nonWest into a
dichotomous,hierarchicalsystemofrepresentationhasservedtoconstructtheidentityoftheWest
as civilised, rational, disciplined, superior, etc. (Hall 1992, see also Melber 1992 and Nandy 1983).
Feministshavecorrectlypointedoutthatthesedichotomousascriptionsarecloselyrelatedwiththe
binary oppositions between masculine and feminine respectively culture and nature (e.g. Peterson
2003:36).
AstheconceptofOrientalismandthemoreabstractandmoregeneralconceptofOtheringimplythe
authoritytoknowandportraytheotherandtheirpossibleselfrepresentationisnegated,bothare
closelylinkedtothequestionsofSubalternityandrepresentation.

8

Subalternity and representation/articulation
In the probably most famous text of postcolonial studies Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak confronts the
question Can the Subaltern speak? (Spivak 1988) and thus investigates the ability respectively
possibilityofthemarginalisedtospeakforthemselves.ContrarytoaviewnotuncommoninGerman
socialscience(DrekonjaKornat2004),shedoesnotasserttherightandtheabilityoftheoppressed
to articulate themselves, but problematizes and even negates this possibility. Having borrowed the
termfromGramsci,Spivakseesthesubalternasclassesnotintegratedintothehegemonicorderbut
places them in the international context of a (neo) colonial division of labour. According to Spivak
postulatingthispossibility(asdoFoucaultandotherintellectualswho,havingrecognisedthepower
relationsinherentinspeakingforothershaveturnedawayfromthispractice)amountstoneglecting
the problem of ideology: the subaltern, Spivak argues, are not naturally able to articulate their
interestsasauthenticsubjects,andhereliestheresponsibilityofcriticalintellectuals.
Thecategoryofsubalternityisemployedinthesenseofseveraldimensionsofoppressionbasedon
race, class and gender: If ... in the context of colonial production, the subaltern has no history and
cannotspeak,thesubalternasfemaleisevenmoredeeplyinshadow.(82f)
Spivakillustratesthisclaimwiththeexampleofthecontroversysurroundingtheabolishmentofthe
IndianritualofwidowburningbyBritishcolonialrule:Thewomenthemselveswerehardlypermitted
a voice in this controversy, and if they were, their articulation was either appropriated by the
imperialistsideasevidenceofthebackwardnessofIndiancultureandtheliberatingroleofcolonial
rule (if they were opposed to the practice) or (if they were not) by the patriarchal side as a
commitment to the traditional role of women: Between patriarchy and imperialism, subject
constitution and objectformation, the figure of the woman disappears into a violent shuttling
which is the displaced figuration of the thirdworld woman caught between tradition and
modernization (102). Spivak concludes: The subaltern cannot speak (104), not only because she is
notgiventhepossibility,butbecauseshelackstheabilitytoarticulateherinterests.
Thetextinquiresintotheeffectsofcolonialdiscoursesontheconstructionofidentitiesandpractices
and ist answer leads to a theoretical and political positioning. Spivaks analyis is predominantly a
theoretical engagement, but does integrate material practices and economic conflicts (through
linking regional differences in inheritance law with the preactices of widowburning). She examines
not only the multiple dimensions of oppression, but connects subalternity also to the inadequate
abilitytoarticulateonesinterestsinapoliticallyeffectivewayandthusanalysestheconditionsand
obstaclesofsubalternrepresentation.

9

Hybridity
Bhabhas concept of Hybridity does not simply (as sometimes assumed) refer to a state of mixture
betweentwocultures,buttoamorecomplexspecificresultoftheprocessofcolonisation.Hisclassic
example (Bhabha 1994: 145174) refers to the report of an India catechist of the early 19
th
century
who was confronted with rather unexpected results of the British strategy to undermine Indian
culturethroughdistributingbibles:alargenumberofpeoplehadconvertedtoChristianity,buttoa
quitepeculiarversionofit,whichdecidedlyrejectedtheEnglishclaimtohavebroughttheholyscript
to India and to whom the consumption of meat amounted to unChristian, godless behaviour. The
distorted imitation of the European faith undermined British rule as the denied and oppressed
culture (here in the shape of vegetarianism) inscribed itself into the colonial presence (here in the
shapeofthebible)andtransformedit.Hybriditythusdenotestheproductivityofcolonialdiscourses,
which can through a subversive appropriation by the dominated lead to a reversal of the
dominantstrategyofnonrecognitionoftheOtheranddestabilisethecolonialauthoritysidentity.
Bhabhas analysis thus inquires into the limits and instabilities of colonial rule, into the
possibilities of appropriating its discourses and into its unintended effects. Its strategy of
analysis can be formulated as follows: Hybridity examines the ambivalences and
incoherencesofdiscoursesandthecorrespondingformationsofidentityaswellastheshifts
inmeaningrelatedtodifferentcontextsandprocessesofappropriationofthesediscourses.
So even when Bhabha focuses on the level of representations, he is also interested in the
relationbetweendiscoursesandthematerialpracticesmadepossiblebythem.

10

Provincialising Europe
Dipesh Chakrabarty (2000, 2002) coined the term provincialising Europe. His starting point is the
realisation that in history, but also in the other humanities Europe remains the sovereign,
theoreticalsubject(2000:27),whichmarkedlyinfluencestheperspectiveofthesedisciplines.
Beyond the critique of asymmetrical ignorance (nonWestern historians in academia have to be
aware of the works of Western historians, but not vice versa) Chakrabarty argues: For generations
now,philosophersandthinkerswhoshapethenatureofsocialsciencehaveproducedtheoriesthat
embrace the entirety of humanity. As we well know, these statements have been produced in
relative, and sometimes absolute, ignorance of the majority of humankind that is, those living in
nonWesterncultures(29).Inspiteofthisperspectivityhedoesnotwhollycondemnthesetheories:
The everyday paradox of Third World social science is that we find these theories, in spite of their
inherent ignorance of us, eminently useful in understanding our societies (ibid., emphasis in the
original). Yet these supposedly universalist concepts produced exclusionary and limiting effects.
Chakrabartyprimeexampleistheuncriticaladoptionoftheconceptofthenationstateasthemost
desirable form of political community by anticolonial movements. His aim is to point to the
historicity and contingency of supposedly universal European concepts and to alternatives not in
the shape of entirely rejecting modernity, but in recognising its heterogeneous and often non
Westernmanifestations.
So Chakrabarty primarily remains in the dimension of discourse as well, but also with the strategic
orientationtorenderpossiblealternativepractices,whichisofparticularrelevanceintheareaofthe
constructionofstatesandcitizenship,publicandprivatesphere.Thestrategyofanalysisvisiblehere
articulates an objective present in many postcolonial works: to show the Eurocentric imprint of
dominantconceptsontheoneandthepossibilityofotherformsofknowledgeontheotherhand.
Allfourpostcolonialwritersprovideinterestinghypotheseswhichareconvincinglylaidoutwiththe
help of concrete examples whose empirical basis is, however, rather narrow. The systematic
application of their strategies of analysis and the testing of their hypotheses seems to be a
worthwhile task. Inhowfar this task is being accomplished by postcolonial works in the field of
developmenttheoryandpolicy,willbeexaminedinthenextsection.

11

3 Postcolonial perspectives on development

Onefieldbeginswheretheotherrefusestolook(Sylvester1999:704)
It becomes obvious that there is a certain tension between development studies and postcolonial
studies. Although at first glance both have a common object (the global South and NorthSouth
relations), following Mc Ewan (2009: 2) a closer look reveals significant differences in the following
points:
Applicability: Knowledge in development studies as a rule has to abide by the principle of leading
to/being translated into practical applications and solutions. Knowledge in postcolonial studies is
often confined to the critique of representations. Both is related to different disciplinary origins
(economicsvs.literature).
Theoretical objective: In development studies the traditional aim is the transformation of society
according to expert plans and universal concepts, while postcolonial studies question theses
conceptsbecauseoftheir(alleged)Eurocentrism(theconceptofdevelopmentbeingtheclassical
example).
Methodological focus: Development studies are primarily concerned with measurable socio
economic change, mostly on the macrolevel (economic growth, purchasing power, income
distribution). Postcolonialstudiesaretoamuchhigherdegreeconcernedwithquestionsofculture,
representationsandidentitiesandwithprocessesandexperiencesonthemicrolevel.
This (admittedly somewhat schematic) portrayal certainly does no justice to all writers from the
respective fields, but is quite plausible for those who have been mentioned earlier in the text (and
countless others). For Menzel the aim of a transformation of the societies of the South in terms of
economicgrowth,industrialisation,democratisationetc.isoutofquestionandcontroversyconfined
tohowitisgoingtobeachieved.Culturaldifferenceoridentitiesorthesimplequestionwhatthose
whoaretobedevelopedthinkaboutallthisdonotplayarolehere(oratbestaninstrumentalone:
interculturaltrainingsfordevelopmentexpertsandparticipatorymethodscouldbeuseful).Onthe
otherhandSaidisfocusedontheconstructionoftheorientalOther,Spivakonthe(im)possibilityof
subaltern articulation, Bhabha on the productivity of colonial discourses and not on statistical
material on social and economic inequality in and between societies. Sylvesters reproach that the
one party would not listen to subalterns while the other would not be interested in the material
reproductionofthesubaltern,doesnotseementirelyunjustified.
Thereforethoseworksseemtobeveryinterestingandpromisingwhich(explicitlyorimplicitly)heed
Sylvesters call and take up questions of development studies from the perspective of postcolonial
studies. Some of them will be examined below.
2
The most well known of these works are certainly
those of the postdevelopment school (see e.g. Sachs 1992, Rahnema 1997a), which have voiced
fundamental criticism of the theory and practice of development from (I would argue) a
postcolonial perspective, but which have been widely discussed in the literature (Kiely 1998,
Corbridge1999,Nanda1999,NederveenPieterse2000,Ziai2004,Ziai2007a).

ShaliniRanderia:Transnationalisationoflaw,resistanceandthecunningstate
Shalini Randeria examines civil resistance against displacement and the loss of access to natural
resources under the conditions of a new architecture of unaccountable global governance (2003:

2
The landmark study by Li (2007) will not be discussed here because although she points to interesting continuities
betweenthecolonialandthedevelopmentera(referringtothewilltoimprovethelivesofothers),hercentraltheoretical
referencearetheconceptsofMichelFoucaultandnotthoseofpostcolonialstudies.
12

29) characterised by legal pluralism (40) and scattered sovereignties (29). Within the group of
postcolonial states she differentiates between weak states (like Benin or Bangladesh), which are
incapable of fulfilling their obligations towards their peoples because they lack the capacity to
discipline nonstate actors on the subnational and supranational level, and cunning states (like
India) which capitalize on their perceived weakness in order to render themselves unaccountable
both to their citizens and to international institutions (28). In the case of economic policy reform
allegedly dictated by the World Bank, she argues that cunning states like India certainly have the
capacity to decide which of the remedies prescribed in Washington for the ills of the national
economy should be administered selectively to different sections of the population (30). She also
discusses the room for maneuver the Indian state undoubtedly had in putting into practice patent
laws demanded by the WTOs agreement on intellectual property rights (TRIPs) and warns not to
misrecognizecunningstatesasweakones(34).
AtfirstglanceRanderiasargumenthaslittletodowithcolonialdiscoursesandrepresentations,but
this is a misleading impression. On the one hand, she points out that in disputes surrounding
displacement the Indian state resorts to a land acquisition policy of colonial provenance (30) by
invokingtheBritishprincipleofeminentdomain(40)againsttraditionalnormsofcommunityaccess
tolandandnaturalresources.Sowearefacedwithcolonialcontinuities(instrumentalisedbyapost
colonial state) in the area of law and related practices. On the other hand, her examples implicitly
illustrate Bhabhas theses on the instabilities of colonial rule and the possibilities of subversive
appropriation of the discourses in question. This is the case not only because the strategies of
cunning states reveal the idea of a neocolonial world order dominated by the North as
oversimplified,butinparticularbecausetheWorldBanksInspectionPanel(setupasaconsequence
of the protest against the Narmada dam projects) and its social and ecological standards became a
positivepointofreferenceforstrugglesbysocialmovementsinIndia.Atthesametime,thestateis
seen not only as an adversary, but also as a potential ally against neoliberal globalisation. Further,
thatthedoctrineofpublictrustoriginatinginUSlawandregardingthestateasatrusteerather
than as the owner of natural resources that are seen to belong to local communities (43) was
invoked by Indian movements and NGOs also illustrates the potential of a emancipatory
appropriation of norms in the context of a transnationalisation of law. Dichotomies of good civil
society and bad state or oppressing North and oppressed South are being overcome in this
argument. So even without citing him Randeria demonstrates the productivity of Bhabhas strategy
of analysis as well as the potential of a profound examination of material practices from a
postcolonialperspective.


13

Maria Eriksson Baaz: Identities and partnership in
development cooperation
BasedonpoststructuralistdiscoursetheoryandanumberofinterviewswithEuropeandevelopment
aid workers in Tanzania Maria Eriksson Baaz (2005) analyses how identities are constructed in
development discourse, in particular relating to the new prominent principle of partnership.
FollowingLaclauandMouffe,shedefinesdiscourseasastructureofrepresentationsthroughwhich
meaning and social practices are organized and as a partial, temporary closure of meaning, a
reductionandexclusionofotherpossiblemeanings(11).Identity,thesecondcrucialconcept,isseen
as a double process in which the subject is not only hailed into certain subject positions, but also
invests in a particular position ... Depending on the context and the discursive fields in which we
position ourselves, different identities are activated. (15) The author situates her work within
postcolonial theory and draws on Hall, Said and Bhabha, but takes care to distinguish it from the
postdevelopmentapproachesbecauseoftheiralltoosimpleviewofthedevelopmentindustryas
a homogenous actor of Westernisation (which is a somewhat justified but in itself oversimplified
criticism,seeZiai2004).
The authors main conclusion is that there exists a contradiction between the message of
partnership and the images of Self and partner maintained and propagated by donors and
development workers. Donor and development worker identification involves a positioning of the
Self as developed and superior in contrast to a backward and inferior Other (166) The interviews
provideampleevidencethattheAfricansarenotonlyconsistentlyportrayedasunreliable,passive
andevenirrational,but(althoughassumptionsofintellectualinferiorityaresuperificiallyrejected)as
situatedatadifferentstageofdevelopmentandenlightenment(167).ThusErikssonBaazprovides
empiricalevidencefortheactualityofpostcolonialhypothesesontheconstructionofanenlightened
WesternselfinoppositiontoabackwardnonWesternOther.YetshegoesbeyondSaidsstrategyof
analysis and follows Bhabha in pointing to the ambivalences and contradictions of these
constructionsforexamplebyinterpretingthehesitationsandreversalsintheinterviewsasefforts
to avoid terminology which could be seen as Eurocentric or racist (154) and thus as indicators of
conflicting discourses and subject positions. In this context the author remarks that some post
development writers, by placing the critics of development outside the development industry, tend
toneglecttheworkingsandinfluence oftheirown critique ...anyinfluential andsuccessfulcritique
will destabilize the opposing identity... The neglect of influence and simplistic representations of
developmentpractitionerscanthusbeseen,partly,asreflectingadestabilized,threatenedidentity,
whichfeedsaneedtodistancethealternative,criticalSelffromthemainstreamOther(169f).
In this work, little attention is paid to material practices, and it remains confined primarily to the
construction of identities (and implicitly to the legitimation of such practices). Nevertheless is
providesaconvincingempiricalapplicationofpostcolonialtheory.

14

Ilan Kapoor: Dependency theory, postcolonial critique and
development discourses
Ilan Kapoor illustrates the tension between development theory and postcolonial critique with a
comparisonbetweenthedependencyauthorsFrankandCardoso/FalettoontheoneandSaid,Spivak
and Bhabha on the other hand. Although he does identify differences between the respective
writers, he concludes that from the perspective of postcolonialism dependency theory can be
criticised for subordinating culture to political economy, perpetuating binary oppositions
(metropolissatellite, centreperiphery) and consolidating the West as the sovereign subject in
constrasttoasubjectedandpassiveSouth.Inequatingitsanalysisofhistorywiththeanalysisofthe
unequaldevelopmentofglobalcapitalism,dependencyforgetsthatitisusing(asdidMarxandLenin
beforeit)Europeasauniversalmodel.Inthissense,itisnotjustcapitalism,butthewaycapitalism
develops in Europe that is made to stand for history (Prakash) (Kapoor 2008: 10). Related to this
theoretical claim he accuses it of a tendency to flat out differences and ignoring noneconomic
relations like gender and racism (11) and of linking political agency to the frame of the nationstate
(12).Ontheotherhandhealsoarticulatesadependencycritiqueofpostcolonialapproaches,which
(unsurprisingly) focuses on ignoring respectively inadequately engaging capitalism (Spivak is partly
exemptedfromthiscritique),butwhichalsopointstoaprobleminmethod:theemphasisonlocal
discourses and action tends to result inthe neglect of broader influences and impacts (17). Kapoor
doestouchacentralissuehere.Thequestionis:istherejectionoftotalisingtheoreticalbodiesthe
pricefortheemphasisondifferenceandviceversa:isthehomogenisationofdifferencestheprice
tobepaidforglobalsocialtheory?Regardinghisstrategyofanalysisitcanbeobservedthatinhis
critique of dependency theory he employs an argument that has been described with the term of
provincialisingEurope.
Kapoor also deals with various discourses of development from a postcolonial perspective and
traces their alleged neglect of culture. He criticises the basic needs approach for artifically
separating physical necessities from needs and rights in the fields of the cultural, the social and the
political, which are implicity constructed as less important (23). Contrary to the entire
anthropologicalresearch,theapproachwouldregardthelatterasaluxurywhichthepoorcouldnot
afford.QuotingPaulStreeten,awellknownproponentofbasicneeds,Kapoorshowsthepaternalist
and technocratic bias of the approach as well as the ideological legitimation of inequality by
concentrating on absolute poverty and neglecting the relational alement and the macrostructures
(24). Yet if Kapoor goes on to criticise the discourse of structural adjustment (almost exclusively
based on secondary literatur) because of its teleology and its focus on growth (which are both not
specific to it, but elements of a general discourse of development, one should add) as Eurocentric
(26), then the previous reproach of ideology seems somewhat incoherent. Because if the
universalisation of economic categories appears problematic especially the postdevelopment
approaches have attacked the assumption of universal and infinite material needs (originating in
economics) as the silent foundation of the development project, see Esteva 1993, 1995, Latouche
1993thenwehavetoaskwhethermaterialinequalitydoesnotequallyappearproblematicmerely
on the basis of the assumption of universal material needs regardless of cultural difference. The
challengeishowtotranscendthisbasiswithoutresortingtoaculturalistlegitimationofinequality.A
workablesolutionseemsaconstructivistconceptionofculture(whichseesculturenotasstatic,but
asthedynamicresultofvalues,normsandpractices)pointingtothefactthatineveryallegedculture
thereisatbestalimitedconsensusonbasicandotherneeds.Thedilemmassolutionwouldthenbe
therathervagueobjectiveofincreasedselfdeterminationonthebasisofaclarifyingdeliberationon
prioritieswithinthegroupconcerned.
Regarding the discourse of good governance, Kapoor remarts, the adejctive conveyed a moralistic
tone,implyingnotsimplythatdevelopingcounrieshavebadgovernance,butalsothattheWestis
themodelforgoodgovernanceandWesterndonorsarethearbitratorsofwhatisgoodandbad
(30).HehighlightstheaspectofdominationoftheconceptbypointingoutthatinEuropaandNorth
15

America corruption scandals are not explained by reference to a certain culture. His strategy of
analysisshowstheconstructionofabackward(corrupt,patrimonialandpredemocratic)Other.
In the debate on human rights in development discourse Kapoor distances himself equally from a
universalismofnaturalrightsandfromaculturalrelativism.DrawingonSpivak,healsocriticisesthe
nonessentialist position of Nussbaum as reproducing elements of modernisation theory by
associatingnonWesternculturesagainwithpatriarchyandfundamentalism.Here,too,heemploysa
strategyofanalysissimilartothatofSaid.UnfortunatelythereisnotenoughspacetocoverKapoors
furtheressays(onBhabhaspostcolonialpoliticsorontherelevanceoftheHabermasMouffedebate
fortheThirdWorld).Buthismethodofprimarilyengagingtextsandconceptsandatbestindirectly
materialpracticesisaconstant.

16

Timothy Mitchell: Egypt as the object of development
discourse
Mitchells study on the construction of Egypt within development discourse (1995, 2002) constrasts
at first representations of the country by the World Bank with empirical facts and statistics,
concluding that they are dominated by a technocratic and depoliticising perspective excluding
condlicts and relations of powers the parallels to Fergusons AntiPoliticsMachine (1994) are
obvious.MitchellshowsthatthecommonrepresentationofEgyptscentraldevelopmentproblem
the fertile Nile valley in the midst of the desert cannot feed the rapidly growing population is
incompatible with the facts: population density is far below that of Belgium or South Korea (not to
mention ressource use), agricultural productivity has continuously been growing faster than the
population, and the deteriorating food situation (more and more food imports, increasing
undernutrition) is explained by Mitchell through a shift of demand towards grain: rising social
inequalityandtourismhaveshiftedeffectivedemandtowardstheconsumptionofmeat,supported
by a policy of state subsidies: the growing disparity in income between rich and poor enabled the
betterofftodivertthecountrysresourcesfromtheproductionofstablestotheproductionofluxury
items(2002:217).Onacloserlook,theallegedscarcityoflandalsoturnsouttobeaproblemofsoil
distribution and concentration, and the technocratic and managementoriented attempts to solve
the problem of the natural limits of geography and demography (222) do not touch the real
problem of social inequality. Mitchell calculates that the World Bank suggestions to copy South
Koreas model of exportoriented growth imply a fortyfold increase in nonoil exports, but there is
no evidence that Europes demand for airlifted shipments of Egyptian cut flowers and winter
tomatoes might grow by even a fraction of this amount (232). However, this suggestion indicates
that the World Bank is still constructing nationstates as discrete functional units, allowing for the
transfer of economic strategies without regard of their different position in larger economic and
historicalnetworks(231).
On top of that, Mitchell argues, development discourse constructs its object as a reality separated
from development organisations. Even if USAID operated, more or less successfully, as a form of
statesupporttotheAmericancorporatesector,whileworkinginEgypttodismantlestatesupports
(240), the organisation presented itself as an actor guided by reason external to the countrys
configuration of power. This was a structural characteristic of development discourse, in which the
WestprovidestheexpertknowledgelackinginthenonWestbutapartfromthatentirelyoverlooks
istownroleregardingquestionsofpowerandinequalityonlocal,nationalorglobalscale.
In how far can we speak of a postcolonial analysis here? On the one hand Mitchell argues that the
construction of the nonWestern Other is heavily influenced by the needs and intersts of Western
actors (and less by Egypts reality) which provides empirical evidence for Saids argument. On the
other hand he emphasises the analytical constraints resulting from the generalisation of the
Westphalian model of state which matches Chakrabartys hypothesis. So again it could be argued
that even without any explicit reference to the said authors we find an empirical application of
postcolonialstrategiesofanalysisandhypotheses.

17

Cheryl McEwan: Postcolonialism and development
Appearingmorethanadecadeaftertheimportantpostdevelopmentpublications,CherylMcEwans
course book on postcolonialism and development (2009) is a milestone in the establishment and
promotionofpostcolonialperspectivesonthetopic.Forher,thegeneralaimofpostcolonialtheory
is to show the situatedness of Eurocentric universal knowledge (34). She identifies the following
centralstrategiesofpostcolonialcritique:destabilisingdiscoursesofimperialEuropa,questioningthe
concepts related to them, especially the metaphors of space and time, and the attempt of an
alternativeknowledgeproductionbasedonthevoicesoftheoppressed(25f).Theanalyticaltasksof
provincialising Europe and subaltern articulation are quite obvious. Her critique of development
discourse is the usual one Eurocentric and powerstricken representation of the South from the
perspective of the North and corresponds the analytical strategy of othering. At the same time
sheseesasanelementofapostcolonialapproachthatdevelopmentisnotsimplyaEuropeanand
American invention because it is also shaped by agency and resistance in the South (30) an
argument already employed by Cooper (1997) and others to relativise the postdevelopment
critique.Whatisvisibleinherargumentistheattempttoovercomedichotomiesandtherecognition
ofambivalencesandpotentialsforappropriation,remindingusofBhabhasstrategyofHybridity.So
all four analytical strategies can be found in her work. For McEwan, the main difference between a
postcolonial critique of development and postdevelopment is the insight of the former that it is
impossibletostandoutsideofdominantdiscoursessuchasdevelopmentandinsteadthereisaneed
tochangethediscoursesfromwithin(106).
On numerous occasions McEwan deals with material practices and institutions of development
policy. However, the manner in which she does so is not always entirely precise and convincing. In
part,therearesomeinaccuraciesinherengagement:theWTOisnot(asclaimed)partoftheBretton
WoodsInstitutions (129), the MDGs have not been invented by the World Bank (168) the battle of
Seattledidnottakeplacein2000butoneyearearlier(196),theWorldSocialForumdoesnotalways
come together in Porto Alegre (ibid.) and the Human Development Index measures purchasing
power(notincome),schooleducationandlifeexpectancy,butnothumanliberty(91).Ontheother
handherargumentgives risetoquestions:Iftheantiglobalisationprotestsareidentifiedwiththe
postcolonial critique of development (196), both are treated rather superficially, especially in the
(incorrect,seeZiai2006)equationofneoliberalismanddevelopment.IfWorldBank,IMFandWTO
aredescribedasthetrusteesofthemodernagewhichcontrolthedistributionofressourcesinthe
South (81), the central role of national elites who after decolonisation took over the mandate of
trusteeship and often have been much more involved in the use of force in the name of
development (to which McEwan alerts us as well, 193), is neglected. If it is suggested that
developmentinstitutionsdonotcareabouthowthepoorthemselvesseepoverty(92),itisnotquite
sincerenottomentiontheinterviewsthatWorldBankresearchersconductedwith60.000pooron
just this topic.
3
And even if as is not uncommon in postcolonial critiques of development
locatingpeopleintheSouthasbeingonalowerlevelofdevelopmentiscriticisedasculturalracism
(141), would it not (in the face of widespread similar views among those concerned) be more
adequatetodifferentiateasFergusondoes(2006:176193)betweeneconomicandculturallocation
and to demand which of the two is being referred to? The appropriation of the discourse of
developmentinthesouthwasnotalwaysbasedonaconceptionofculturalinferiorityinthepursuit
of economic and technological catchingup. (In how far the focus does nevertheless imply such a
conception,asnodoubtsomepostdevelopmentproponentswouldargue,isanotherquestion.)


3
See
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0,,contentMDK:20613045~isCURL:Y~menuPK:336998~
pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:336992,00.html
18

Teivo Teivainen: The IMF as producer of knowledge and neo
colonial instrument
In his analysis of the IMF Teivo Teivainen proposes three hypotheses: One, he shows that the
contradiction between the undemocratic decisionmaking procedure of the IMF (voting rights are
distributed according to capital shares) and the democratic identity of the countries (or rather, the
states and goverments) controlling the procedure is legitimated by two elements. The first is the
doctrine of economic neutrality, presenting the IMF as a nonpolitical adviser in economic
questions, the second the assumption of the nationstate as the largest legitimate political society,
according to which the realm of international relations does not constitute any political or public
sphereinwhichdemocraticclaimscanbemade(ebd.).Thisisalucidobservation,althoughithardly
goes beyond what has been shown by Ferguson (1995), Doty (1996) or Walker (1993) (who is even
quoted here).Two,theauthordescribesthe IMFin hiscontextasamodern priestandteacherof
metaphysics, which denotes (Re) Produzenten von Wahrheitsansprchen, die auf Strategien der
Universalisierung und Neutralisierung aufbauen (108).
4
Three, in a comparison between the
situationofLatinAmericandebtorstatesinthe1920sand30sandthe1980sand90sheclaimsthat
the governments had had no room for maneuver in the latter case and throughtheconditionalities
ofthestructuraladjustmentprogramshadbeeninarelationofpoliticalservitude(132)totheIMF,
in the context of a global governance system with authoritarian elements exceeding democratic
control within the nationstate (129). In other words: the IMF is presented as a neocolonial
instrumentofdiscipliningtheSouth.
This hypothesis is certainly not completely absurd, but would be more convincing on the basis of a
moreprofoundengagementwiththeactualattemptstocircumventorreject theconditionalitiesof
structural adjustment. Such an engagement can be found in George (1988) on the one hand, who
portrays the draconic measures used by the North to threaten unwilling debtor states, but on the
otherhandinMosleyetal.(1991),whohavethoroughlyexaminedtheimplementationofstructural
adjustmentprogramsandsurprisinglyconcludedthatmanygovernmentsgotawaywithignoringthe
conditionalitiesbytheWorldBankwithoutdireconsequences.
5
Materialpracticesarethusincluded
only partially in Teivainens analysis: the reform of structural adjustment and its formal (!)
subordinationtotheprinciplesofpovertyreduction,ownershipandparticipationisnotmentioned,
just like the changed role of the IMF in the international debt regime. Its influence has significantly
decreased after many debtor states particularly in Latin America have paid back their loans, and in
thedebateaboutstateinsolvencyprocedurestheIMFwasdefinitelynottheobstacleformoderately
progressive change in the international political economy. However, the IMFmodel of a Sovereign
Debt Restructuring Mechanism (SDRM) in important aspects did not match the NGO demands for a
fairandtransparentatrbitrationprocedure(FTAP),butarulebasedsystemofinsolvencywouldbea
marked improvement compared to the status quo in which the creditors in the London and Paris
Clubs decide completely arbitrarily. The SDRMproposal of the IMF finally was defeated through a
veto of the USA, but also of the Latin American newly industrialising countries, because they were
fearingthereactionofthefinancialmarketsintheshapeofhigherinterestrates(spread)asaresult
of such a procedure which actually would have been in their interest.
6
This illustrates that the
international political economy is definitely characterised by asymmetric relations of power, but
thesecannotbesimplyreducedtotheservitudeofdebtorstatestowardstheIMF.

4
George/Sabelli (1994) manage to deliver a more convincing argument concerning the religious component of neo
liberalism.
5
ThisisexplainedthroughthepressuretolendintheWorldBank.
6
Sources for this piece of information are interviews conducted in the course of my habilitation (professoral thesis) (Ziai
2007b).
19

Teivainens criticism of the IMF is based on the evidence of relations of domination between North
andSouthreminiscentofcolonialism,andthedeconstruction
7
oftheattemptstolegitimatethem.It
could be linked to postcolonial theory and the aforementioned analytical strategies by emphasising
the identification of the constraining consequences of a westphalian conception of political
communitywhichconvergeswithChakrabartysargument.


7
The term is used here not in the sense of Derrida, but merely to denote an examination of theoretical and political
foundationsandassumptionsofaconcept.
20

Joel Wainwright: Colonial patterns, development policy and
countermapping in Belize
Starting from the postcolonial insight, that colonial rule is dependent on the production of certain
kindsofknowledge,Wainwrightinitiallyexaminesthediscoursewhichallowedforthedisplacement
andattemptstosettletheMayainCentralAmerica, inBelize.He managestoshowthatthecentral
element of this discourse namely that the agricultural system of the Maya (slash and burn
cultivation)isprimitive,inefficientanddestructiveandthereforeneedstobefundamentallychanged
in order to achieve sustainable development despite population growth can still be found nearly
untransformed in the later discourse of development as the legitimation for trusteeshiptype
interventionstosettletheindigenouspeopleandintroducenewagriculturalpractices.Inananalogy
to Orientalism he identifies the assumptions of Mayanism which provides knowledge about this
group, their essence and how to treat them. But he does not stop at the analytical strategy of
othering, Wainwright also delves into the ambivalences of colonial discourse, which manifest
primarily in the metamorphosis of the most influential and wellknown development expert of
colonial rule towards a proponent of indigenous rights after decolonisation yet who still remains
true to Mayanism. The (not very participatory) development projects targeting the Maya in the
Toledo district since 1978 were, according to Wainwright, aiming for the privatisation of communal
land, a more capitalintensive agriculture and a closer identification of the Maya with the nation
state and leading to overindebtedness of many farmers, which gave rise to a large protest
movement.Thismovementachieveddebtreliefandevenaredistributionofland,butthelatterwas
concernedwithprivatisedallotmentsgiventothemaleheadsoffamily.
Wainwrights study manages to integrate political economic and discourse analytical methods in its
analysis of domination in the dimensions of race, class and gender, but its engagement with the
practicesofcountermappingoriginatinginanticolonialgeographyisevenmoregripping.Theterm
refers to a cartography from below, and in the case of Belize the Maya communities have, in the
wakeoftheirprotest,producedanatlasinwhich theyportraytheirland,theirwayoflifeandtheir
world view in order to oppose the hegemonic perspective which disavows their culture and their
territorialclaims.However,Wainwright(whowascomplicitintheproject)doesnotreadthisatlasas
an authentic statement on Maya culture, but as an attempt to construct it, and, borrowing from
Spivak, asks the question: Can the subaltern map? (260) He shows how by no means authentic
indigenous discursive elements can be found in it, like nationalism, sustainable development,
international law and feminized nature, and how the conceptions of the cultural ecology
geographers assisting the project have influenced it, and how the selfrepresentation of the Maya
blanksoutambivalencesinfavourofaromanticisedpicturestampedby Mayanism,wheree.g.rice,
wage labour, chain saws and Christianity and other external influences simply do not appear (253).
ThemeaningofwhatconstitutesMayaspaceintheAtlasisproducedthroughasetofexclusions
(257),andthemostvisibleoftheseconcernsgenderrelations,especiallythefocusonmaleactivities,
thereproductionoftraditionalrolesandtheneglectofwidespreadmaritalviolence.Andintheend
alsothemapsintheMayaatlasarebasedonthetemplatesofcolonialcartographersonthenation
stateterritoryofBelize,formerlyBritishHonduras.
Wainwright concludes that there are no simple solutions and no outside beyond discourses of
domination and demands a decolonisation of development, to release it from the themes
inherited from Western colonialism ... capitalism, settling, and trusteeship (286) This positive
referencetorealdevelopment(284)inthesenseofanimprovementoflivingstandardsappearsas
an essentialist spot on an otherwise flawless empirically grounded postcolonial analysis of material
practicesanddiscourseslinkedtothem.

21

4 Conclusion:
In this I repeat: far from exhaustive overview the heterogeneity of postcolonial approaches
becomes obvious. Some authors like Eriksson Baaz remain on the level of discourse, others like
Mitchell include material practices in their analysis, some draw explicitly on postcolonial theory
(Wainwright, Kapoor), others have merely implicit references (Randeria, Teivainen). Regarding the
two questions posed in the introduction to this article we can conclude the following: 1. The four
analytical strategies identified orientalism and othering; subalternity and
representation/articulation; hybridity; provincialising Europe seem to be able to capture this
heterogeneity and provide orientation within it. 2. The criticism that postcolonial studies would
neglect material practices cannot be sustained if we look at postcolonial perspectives on
development. It can be observed that material practices of development policy are in many cases
part or focus of the research topic. Yet it has also become obvious that the engagement with these
practicesisofteninaccurate,superficialorincomplete.Thisholdstrueespeciallyforthemacrolevel
anditsinstitutionsRanderiahastobementionedasapositiveexception.Allinall,thepostcolonial
strategies of analysis prove to be promising and productive, but their systematic application in the
areaofdevelopmenthasonlyjuststarted.



22

5 Bibliography
Alvares,Claude1994:Science,DevelopmentandViolence.TherevoltagainstModernity.Delhi,
OxfordUniverstiyPress.
Bhabha,Homi1994:TheLocationofCulture.London,Routledge.
Berger,PeterL.1974:PyramidsofSacrifice.PoliticalEthicsandSocialChange.NewYork,BasicBooks.
Chakrabarty,Dipesh2000:ProvincialisingEurope.PostcolonialThoughtandHistoricalDifference.
Princeton,PrincetonUniversityPress.
Chenery,Hollis/Ahluwalia,MontekS./Bell,C.L.G./Duloy,JohnH./Jolly,Richard1972:Redistribution
withGrowth.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress/WorldBank/InstituteofDevelopmentStudies.
Cooper,Frederick1997:ModernizingBureaucrats,BackwardAfricans,andtheDevelopment
Concept,in:Cooper/Packard1997,6492
Cooper,Frederick/Packard,Randall(eds.)1997:InternationalDevelopmentandtheSocialSciences.
EssaysontheHistoryandPoliticsofKnowledge.Berkeley,UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Cowen,Michael/Shenton,Robert1996:DoctrinesofDevelopment.London,Routledge.
Crush,Jonathan(ed.)1995:PowerofDevelopment.London,Routledge.
Dirlik,Arif1994:ThePostcolonialAura:ThirdWorldCriticismintheAgeofGlobalCapitalism,in:
CriticalInquiry20(2),328356.
Doty,RoxanneLynn1996:ImperialEncounters.ThePoliticsofRepresentationinNorthSouth
Relations.Minneapolis,UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
ErikssonBaaz,Maria2005:ThePaternalismofPartnership.APostcolonialReadingofIdentityin
DevelopmentAid.London,Zed.
Escobar,Arturo1995:EncounteringDevelopment.TheMakingandUnmakingoftheThirdWorld.
Princeton,PrincetonUniversityPress.
Esteva,Gustavo1992:Development,in:Sachs1992,625.
Ferguson,James1994(1990):TheAntiPoliticsMachine.Development,Depoliticizationand
BureaucraticPowerinLesotho.Minneapolis,UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
Ferguson,James1995:FromAfricanSocialismtoScientificCapitalism:Reflectionsonthe
LegitimationCrisisinIMFruledAfrica,in:Moore/Schmitz(ed.)1995,S.129148
Ferguson,James2006:GlobalShadows.AfricaintheNeoliberalWorldOrder.Durham,Duke
UniversityPress.
Illich,Ivan1973:ToolsforConviviality.London,MarionBoyars.
Kabeer,Naila1994:ReversedRealities.Genderhierarchiesindevelopmentthought.London,Verso.
Kapoor,Ilan2008:ThePostcolonialPoliticsofDevelopment.London,Routledge.
Kler,Reinhart/Wimmer,Andreas(eds)2006:UnderstandingChange.Methods,Methodologiesand
Metaphors.Houndmills,PalgraveMacmillan.
Latouche,Serge1993:Inthewakeoftheaffluentsociety:ExplorationsinPostDevelopment.London,
Zed(Frenchversion1991:Laplantedesnaufrags.Paris,LaDcouverte)
Li,TanyaMurray2007:TheWilltoImprove.Governmentality,Development,andthePracticeof
Politics.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.
Martinussen,John1997:Society,StateandMarket.Aguidetocompetingtheoriesofdevelopment,
London,ZedBooks
McEwan,Cheryl2009:PostcolonialismandDevelopment.London,Routledge
Menzel,Ulrich1993:40JahreEntwicklungsstrategie=40JahreWachstumsstrategie,in:Nohlen,
Dieter/Nuscheler,Franz(eds.):HandbuchderDrittenWelt.Bd.1:Grundprobleme,Theorien,
Strategien.Bonn,Dietz,131155.
23

Mitchell,Timothy1995:Theobjectofdevelopment.AmericasEgypt,in:Crush1995,129157.
Mitchell,Timothy2002:RuleofExperts.Egypt,TechnoPolitics,Modernity.Berkeley,Universityof
CaliforniaPress.
Moore,David/Schmitz,GeraldJ.(eds.)1995:DebatingDevelopmentDiscourse.Institutionaland
PopularPerspectives.Basingstoke,Macmillan.
Nandy,Ashis(ed.)1988:Science,HegemonyandViolence.ARequiemforModernity.Tokyo,Oxford
UniversityPress.
Nandy,Ashis1992:State,in:Sachs1992,264274.
Nandy,Ashis1994:Culture,voiceanddevelopment:Aprimerfortheunsuspecting,in:ThesisEleven,
No.39,118.
NederveenPieterse,Jan2001:DevelopmentTheory:Deconstructions/Reconstructions.London:
Sage.
Nisbet,Robert1969:SocialChangeandHistory.AspectsoftheWesternTheoryofDevelopment,
Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress
Rahnema,Majid(ed.)1997a:ThePostDevelopmentReader.London,Zed.
Rahnema,Majid1997b:TowardsPostDevelopment:SearchingforSignposts,aNewLanguageand
NewParadigms,in:Rahnema1997a,377403.
Randeria,Shalini2003:CunningStatesandUnaccountableInternationalInstitutions:LegalPlurality,
SocialMovementsandRightsofLocalCommunitiestoCommonPropertyResources,in:European
JournalofSociology44(1),2760.
Randeria,Shalini/Eckert,Andreas(ed.)2009:VomImperialismuszumEmpire.Frankfurta.M.,
Suhrkamp.
Rist,Gilbert1997:TheHistoryofDevelopment.FromWesternOriginstoGlobalFaith.London,Zed.
Rostow,WaltWhitman1960:TheStagesofGrowth.Anoncommunistmanifesto.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Sachs,Wolfgang(ed.)1992:TheDevelopmentDictionary.AGuidetoKnowledgeasPower.London,
Zed.
Sachs,Wolfgang1999:PlanetDialectics.ExplorationsinEnvironmentandDevelopment.London,
Zed.
Said,Edward1978:Orientalism.NewYork,VintageBooks.
Spivak,GayatriChakravorty1988:CantheSubalternspeak?,in:Williams/Chrisman1992,66111.
Sylvester,Christine1999:Developmentstudiesandpostcolonialstudies:disparatetalesoftheThird
World,in:ThirdWorldQuarterly20(4),703721.
Teivainen,Teivo2009:Globalisierungderkonomischenberwachung:DerInternationale
WhrungsfondsalsmodernerPriester,in:Randeria/Eckert2009,105136(Englishversion:
GlobalizationofEconomicSurveillance:TheInternationalMonetaryFundasaModernPriest,in:
Passages.JournalofTransnationalandTransculturalStudies1(1999),84116.
Thomas,Alan/Potter,David1992:Development,capitalismandthenationstate,in:Allen,
Tim/Thomas,Alan(eds)1992:PovertyandDevelopmentinthe1990s.Oxford,OpenUniversity
andOxfordUniversityPress,116141.
Wainwright,Joel2008:DecolonizingDevelopment.ColonialPowerandtheMaya.Oxford,Blackwell.
Walker,R.B.J.1993:Inside/Outside.InternationalRelationsasPoliticalTheory.Oxford,Oxford
UniversityPress.
Williams,Patrick/Chrisman,Laura1994:ColonialDiscourseandPostColonialTheory:An
Introduction,in:dies.(ed.):ColonialDiscourseandPostColonialTheory.AReader.NewYork,
ColumbiaUniversityPress,120.
24

Ziai,Aram2004:Theambivalenceofpostdevelopment:betweenreactionarypopulismandradical
democracy,in:ThirdWorldQuarterly25(6),10451061.
Ziai,Aram(ed.)2007a:ExploringPostDevelopment.TheoryandPractice,ProblemsandPerspectives.
London,Routledge.
Ziai,Aram2007b:GlobaleStrukturpolitik?DieNordSdPolitikderBRDunddasDispositivder
EntwicklungimZeitaltervonneoliberalerGlobalisierungundneuerWeltordnung.Mnster,
WestflischesDampfboot.




ZEFWorkingPaperSeries,ISSN18646638
DepartmentofPoliticalandCulturalChange
CenterforDevelopmentResearch,UniversityofBonn
Editors:JoachimvonBraun,ManfredDenich,SolvayGerke,AnnaKatharinaHornidgeandConradSchetter

1. Evers,HansDieterandSolvayGerke(2005).ClosingtheDigitalDivide:SoutheastAsiasPathTowardsaKnowledge
Society.
2. Bhuiyan,ShajahanandHansDieterEvers(2005).SocialCapitalandSustainableDevelopment:TheoriesandConcepts.
3. Schetter,Conrad(2005).EthnicityandthePoliticalReconstructionofAfghanistan.
4. Kassahun,Samson(2005).SocialCapitalandCommunityEfficacy.InPoorLocalitiesofAddisAbabaEthiopia.
5. Fuest,Veronika(2005).Policies,PracticesandOutcomesofDemandorientedCommunityWaterSupplyin
Ghana:TheNationalCommunityWaterandSanitationProgramme19942004.
6. Menkhoff,ThomasandHansDieterEvers(2005).StrategicGroupsinaKnowledgeSociety:KnowledgeElitesas
DriversofBiotechnologyDevelopmentinSingapore.
7. Mollinga,PeterP.(2005).TheWaterResourcesPolicyProcessinIndia:Centralisation,PolarisationandNewDemands
onGovernance.
8. Evers,HansDieter(2005).WissenistMacht:ExpertenalsStrategischeGruppe.
8.aEvers,HansDieterandSolvayGerke(2005).KnowledgeisPower:ExpertsasStrategicGroup.
9. Fuest,Veronika(2005).Partnerschaft,PatronageoderPaternalismus?EineempirischeAnalysederPraxis
universitrerForschungskooperationmitEntwicklungslndern.
10. Laube,Wolfram(2005).PromiseandPerilsofWaterReform:PerspectivesfromNorthernGhana.
11. Mollinga,PeterP.(2004).SleepingwiththeEnemy:DichotomiesandPolarisationinIndianPolicyDebatesonthe
EnvironmentalandSocialEffectsofIrrigation.
12. Wall,Caleb(2006).KnowledgeforDevelopment:LocalandExternalKnowledgeinDevelopmentResearch.
13. Laube,WolframandEvaYoukhana(2006).Cultural,SocioEconomicandPoliticalConstraintsforVirtualWaterTrade:
PerspectivesfromtheVoltaBasin,WestAfrica.
14. Hornidge,AnnaKatharina(2006).Singapore:TheKnowledgeHubintheStraitsofMalacca.
15. Evers,HansDieterandCalebWall(2006).KnowledgeLoss:ManagingLocalKnowledgeinRuralUzbekistan.
16. Youkhana,Eva;Lautze,J.andB.Barry(2006).ChangingInterfacesinVoltaBasinWaterManagement:
Customary,NationalandTransboundary.
17. Evers,HansDieterandSolvayGerke(2006).TheStrategicImportanceoftheStraitsofMalaccaforWorldTrade
andRegionalDevelopment.
18. Hornidge,AnnaKatharina(2006).DefiningKnowledgeinGermanyandSingapore:DotheCountrySpecificDefinitionsof
KnowledgeConverge?
19. Mollinga,PeterM.(2007).WaterPolicyWaterPolitics:SocialEngineeringandStrategicActioninWaterSector
Reform.
20. Evers,HansDieterandAnnaKatharinaHornidge(2007).KnowledgeHubsAlongtheStraitsofMalacca.
21. Sultana,Nayeem(2007).TransNationalIdentities,ModesofNetworkingandIntegrationinaMultiCultural
Society.AStudyofMigrantBangladeshisinPeninsularMalaysia.
22. Yalcin,ResulandPeterM.Mollinga(2007).InstitutionalTransformationinUzbekistansAgriculturalandWater
ResourcesAdministration:TheCreationofaNewBureaucracy.
23. Menkhoff,T.;Loh,P.H.M.;Chua,S.B.;Evers,H.D.andChayYueWah(2007).RiauVegetablesforSingapore
Consumers:ACollaborativeKnowledgeTransferProjectAcrosstheStraitsofMalacca.
24. Evers,HansDieterandSolvayGerke(2007).SocialandCulturalDimensionsofMarketExpansion.
25. Obeng,G.Y.;Evers,H.D.;Akuffo,F.O.,Braimah,I.andA.BrewHammond(2007).SolarPVRuralElectrificationand
EnergyPovertyAssessmentinGhana:APrincipalComponentAnalysis.
26. Eguavoen,Irit;E.Youkhana(2008).SmallTownsFaceBigChallenge.TheManagementofPipedSystemsafter
theWaterSectorReforminGhana.
27. Evers,HansDieter(2008).KnowledgeHubsandKnowledgeClusters:DesigningaKnowledgeArchitecturefor
Development


28. Ampomah,BenY.;Adjei,B.andE.Youkhana(2008).TheTransboundaryWaterResourcesManagementRegimeofthe
VoltaBasin.
29. Saravanan.V.S.;McDonald,GeoffreyT.andPeterP.Mollinga(2008).CriticalReviewofIntegratedWater
ResourcesManagement:MovingBeyondPolarisedDiscourse.
30. Laube,Wolfram;Awo,MarthaandBenjaminSchraven(2008).ErraticRainsandErraticMarkets:Environmental
change,economicglobalisationandtheexpansionofshallowgroundwaterirrigationinWestAfrica.
31. Mollinga,PeterP.(2008).ForaPoliticalSociologyofWaterResourcesManagement.
32. Hauck,Jennifer;Youkhana,Eva(2008).HistoriesofwaterandfisheriesmanagementinNorthernGhana.
33. Mollinga,PeterP.(2008).TheRationalOrganisationofDissent.Boundaryconcepts,boundaryobjectsandboundary
settingsintheinterdisciplinarystudyofnaturalresourcesmanagement.
34. Evers,HansDieter;Gerke,Solvay(2009).StrategicGroupAnalysis.
35. Evers,HansDieter;Benedikter,Simon(2009).StrategicGroupFormationintheMekongDeltaThe
DevelopmentofaModernHydraulicSociety.
36. Obeng,GeorgeYaw;Evers,HansDieter(2009).SolarPVRuralElectrificationandEnergyPoverty:AReviewand
ConceptualFrameworkWithReferencetoGhana.
37. Scholtes,Fabian(2009).Analysingandexplainingpowerinacapabilityperspective.
38. Eguavoen,Irit(2009).TheAcquisitionofWaterStorageFacilitiesintheAbayRiverBasin,Ethiopia.
39. Hornidge,AnnaKatharina;MehmoodUlHassan;Mollinga,PeterP.(2009).FollowtheInnovationAjoint
experimentationandlearningapproachtotransdisciplinaryinnovationresearch.
40. Scholtes,Fabian(2009).Howdoesmoralknowledgematterindevelopmentpractice,andhowcanitberesearched?
41. Laube,Wolfram(2009).CreativeBureaucracy:BalancingpowerinirrigationadministrationinnorthernGhana.
42. Laube,Wolfram(2009).ChangingtheCourseofHistory?ImplementingwaterreformsinGhanaandSouthAfrica.
43. Scholtes,Fabian(2009).StatusquoandprospectsofsmallholdersintheBraziliansugarcaneandethanolsector:
Lessonsfordevelopmentandpovertyreduction.
44. Evers,HansDieter;Genschick,Sven;Schraven,Benjamin(2009).ConstructingEpistemicLandscapes:MethodsofGIS
BasedMapping.
45. SaravananV.S.(2009).IntegrationofPoliciesinFramingWaterManagementProblem:AnalysingPolicyProcessesusing
aBayesianNetwork.
46. SaravananV.S.(2009).DancingtotheTuneofDemocracy:AgentsNegotiatingPowertoDecentraliseWater
Management.
47. Huu,PhamCong;Rhlers,Eckart;Saravanan,V.Subramanian(2009).DykeSystemPlaning:TheoryandPractice
inCanThoCity,Vietnam.
48. Evers,HansDieter;Bauer,Tatjana(2009).EmergingEpistemicLandscapes:KnowledgeClustersinHoChiMinhCityand
theMekongDelta.
49. Reis,Nadine;Mollinga,PeterP.(2009).MicrocreditforRuralWaterSupplyandSanitationintheMekongDelta.
Policyimplementationbetweentheneedsforcleanwaterandbeautifullatrines.
50. Gerke,Solvay;Ehlert,Judith(2009).LocalKnowledgeasStrategicResource:FisheryintheSeasonalFloodplainsofthe
MekongDelta,Vietnam
51. Schraven,Benjamin;Eguavoen,Irit;Manske,Gnther(2009).Doctoraldegreesforcapacitydevelopment:Results
fromasurveyamongAfricanBiGSDRalumni.
52. Nguyen,Loan(2010).LegalFrameworkoftheWaterSectorinVietnam.
53. Nguyen,Loan(2010).ProblemsofLawEnforcementinVietnam.TheCaseofWastewaterManagementinCanThoCity.
54. Oberkircher,Lisaetal.(2010).RethinkingWaterManagementinKhorezm,Uzbekistan.Conceptsand
Recommendations.
55. Waibel,Gabi(2010).StateManagementinTransition:UnderstandingWaterResourcesManagementinVietnam.
56. SaravananV.S.;Mollinga,PeterP.(2010).WaterPollutionandHumanHealth.TransdisciplinaryResearchonRisk
GovernanceinaComplexSociety.
57. Vormoor,Klaus(2010).WaterEngineering,AgriculturalDevelopmentandSocioEconomicTrendsintheMekongDelta,
Vietnam.
58. Hornidge,AnnaKatharina;Kurfrst,Sandra(2010).EnvisioningtheFuture,ConceptualisingPublicSpace.Hanoiand
SingaporeNegotiatingSpacesforNegotiation.


59. Mollinga,PeterP.(2010).TransdisciplinaryMethodforWaterPollutionandHumanHealthResearch.
60. Youkhana,Eva(2010).GenderandthedevelopmentofhandicraftproductioninruralYucatn/Mexico.
61. Naz,Farha;SaravananV.Subramanian(2010).WaterManagementacrossSpaceandTimeinIndia.
62. Evers,HansDieter;Nordin,Ramli,Nienkemoer,Pamela(2010).KnowledgeClusterFormationinPeninsularMalaysia:
TheEmergenceofanEpistemicLandscape.
63. MehmoodUlHassan;Hornidge,AnnaKatharina(2010).FollowtheInnovationThesecondyearofajoint
experimentationandlearningapproachtotransdisciplinaryresearchinUzbekistan.
64. Mollinga,PeterP.(2010).BoundaryconceptsforinterdisciplinaryanalysisofirrigationwatermanagementinSouthAsia.
65. NoelleKarimi,Christine(2006).VillageInstitutionsinthePerceptionofNationalandInternationalActorsinAfghanistan.
(AmuDaryaProjectWorkingPaperNo.1)
66. Kuzmits,Bernd(2006).CrossborderingWaterManagementinCentralAsia.(AmuDaryaProjectWorkingPaperNo.2)
67. Schetter,Conrad;Glassner,Rainer;Karokhail,Masood(2006).UnderstandingLocalViolence.SecurityArrangementsin
Kandahar,KunduzandPaktia.(AmuDaryaProjectWorkingPaperNo.3)
68. Shah,Usman(2007).LivelihoodsintheAsqalanandSufiQarayateemCanalIrrigationSystemsintheKunduzRiverBasin.
(AmuDaryaProjectWorkingPaperNo.4)
69. terSteege,Bernie(2007).InfrastructureandWaterDistributionintheAsqalanandSufiQarayateemCanalIrrigation
SystemsintheKunduzRiverBasin.(AmuDaryaProjectWorkingPaperNo.5)
70. Mielke,Katja(2007).OnTheConceptofVillageinNortheasternAfghanistan.ExplorationsfromKunduzProvince.
(AmuDaryaProjectWorkingPaperNo.6)
71. Mielke,Katja;Glassner,Rainer;Schetter,Conrad;Yarash,Nasratullah(2007).LocalGovernanceinWarsajandFarkhar
Districts.(AmuDaryaProjectWorkingPaperNo.7)
72. Meininghaus,Esther(2007).LegalPluralisminAfghanistan.(AmuDaryaProjectWorkingPaperNo.8)
73. Yarash,Nasratullah;Smith,Paul;Mielke,Katja(2010).ThefueleconomyofmountainvillagesinIshkamishand
Burka(NortheastAfghanistan).Ruralsubsistenceandurbanmarketingpatterns.(AmuDaryaProjectWorkingPaper
No.9)
74. Oberkircher,Lisa(2011).StayWeWillServeYouPlov!.PuzzlesandpitfallsofwaterresearchinruralUzbekistan.
75. Shtaltovna,Anastasiya;Hornidge,AnnaKatharina;Mollinga,PeterP.(2011).TheReinventionofAgriculturalService
OrganisationsinUzbekistanaMachineTractorParkintheKhorezmRegion.
76. Stellmacher,Till;Grote,Ulrike(2011).ForestCoffeeCertificationinEthiopia:EconomicBoonorEcologicalBane?
77. Gatzweiler,FranzW.;Baumller,Heike;Ladenburger,Christine;vonBraun,Joachim(2011).Marginality.Addressingthe
rootscausesofextremepoverty.
78. Mielke,Katja;Schetter,Conrad;Wilde,Andreas(2011).DimensionsofSocialOrder:EmpiricalFact,Analytical
FrameworkandBoundaryConcept.
79. Yarash,Nasratullah;Mielke,Katja(2011).TheSocialOrderoftheBazaar:SocioeconomicembeddingofRetailand
TradeinKunduzandImamSahib
80. Baumller,Heike;Ladenburger,Christine;vonBraun,Joachim(2011).Innovativebusinessapproachesforthereduction
ofextremepovertyandmarginality?
81. Ziai,Aram(2011).Somereflectionsontheconceptofdevelopment.
82. SaravananV.S.,Mollinga,PeterP.(2011).TheEnvironmentandHumanHealthAnAgendaforResearch.
83. Eguavoen,Irit;Tesfai,Weyni(2011).RebuildinglivelihoodsafterdaminducedrelocationinKoga,BlueNilebasin,
Ethiopia.
84. Eguavoen,I.,SisayDemekuDeribetal.(2011).Digging,dammingordiverting?SmallscaleirrigationintheBlueNile
basin,Ethiopia.
85. Genschick,Sven(2011).PangasiusatriskGovernanceinfarmingandprocessing,andtheroleofdifferentcapital.
86. QuyHanhNguyen,HansDieterEvers(2011).Farmersasknowledgebrokers:AnalysingthreecasesfromVietnams
MekongDelta.
87. Poos,WolfHenrik(2011).ThelocalgovernanceofsocialsecurityinruralSurkhondarya,Uzbekistan.PostSoviet
community,stateandsocialorder.
88. Graw,Valerie;Ladenburger,Christine(2012).MappingMarginalityHotspots.GeographicalTargetingforPoverty
Reduction.
89. Gerke,Solvay;Evers,HansDieter(2012).LookingEast,lookingWest:PenangasaKnowledgeHub.


90. Turaeva,Rano(2012).InnovationpoliciesinUzbekistan:PathtakenbyZEFaprojectoninnovationsinthesphereof
agriculture.
91. GleisbergGerber,Katrin(2012).LivelihoodsandlandmanagementintheIobaProvinceinsouthwesternBurkinaFaso.
92. Hiemenz,Ulrich(2012).ThePoliticsoftheFightAgainstFoodPriceVolatilityWheredowestandandwherearewe
heading?
93. Baumller,Heike(2012).Facilitatingagriculturaltechnologyadoptionamongthepoor:Theroleofservicedelivery
throughmobilephones.
94. Akpabio,EmmanuelM.;SaravananV.S.(2012).WaterSupplyandSanitationPracticesinNigeria:ApplyingLocal
EcologicalKnowledgetoUnderstandComplexity.
95. Evers,HansDieter;Nordin,Ramli(2012).TheSymbolicUniverseofCyberjaya,Malaysia.
96. Akpabio,EmmanuelM.(2012).WaterSupplyandSanitationServicesSectorinNigeria:ThePolicyTrendandPractice
Constraints.
97. Boboyorov,Hafiz(2012).MastersandNetworksofKnowledgeProductionandTransferintheCottonSectorofSouthern
Tajikistan.
98. VanAssche,Kristof;Hornidge,AnnaKatharina(2012).Knowledgeinruraltransitionsformalandinformal
underpinningsoflandgovernanceinKhorezm.
99. Eguavoen,Irit(2012).Blessinganddestruction.ClimatechangeandtrajectoriesofblameinNorthernGhana.
100. CalloConcha,Daniel;Gaiser,ThomasandEwert,Frank(2012).FarmingandcroppingsystemsintheWestAfrican
SudanianSavanna.WASCALresearcharea:NorthernGhana,SouthwestBurkinaFasoandNorthernBenin.
101. Sow,Papa(2012).UncertaintiesandconflictingenvironmentaladaptationstrategiesintheregionofthePinkLake,
Senegal.
102. Tan,Siwei(2012).ReconsideringtheVietnamesedevelopmentvisionofindustrialisationandmodernisationby2020.
103. Ziai,Aram(2012).Postcolonialperspectivesondevelopment.

http://www.zef.de/workingpapers.html


ZEFDevelopmentStudies
editedby
SolvayGerkeandHansDieterEvers

CenterforDevelopmentResearch(ZEF),
UniversityofBonn

ShahjahanH.Bhuiyan
BenefitsofSocialCapital.UrbanSolidWaste
ManagementinBangladesh
Vol.1,2005,288p.,19.90EUR,br.ISBN3
825883825

VeronikaFuest
DemandorientedCommunityWaterSupplyin
Ghana.Policies,PracticesandOutcomes
Vol.2,2006,160p.,19.90EUR,br.ISBN3
825896692

AnnaKatharinaHornidge
KnowledgeSociety.VisionandSocial
ConstructionofRealityinGermanyand
Singapore
Vol.3,2007,200p.,19.90EUR,br.ISBN978
3825807016

WolframLaube
ChangingNaturalResourceRegimesin
NorthernGhana.Actors,Structuresand
Institutions
Vol.4,2007,392p.,34.90EUR,br.ISBN978
3825806415

LirongLiu
WirtschaftlicheFreiheitundWachstum.Eine
internationalvergleichendeStudie
Vol.5,2007,200p.,19.90EUR,br.ISBN978
3825807016

PhucXuanTo
ForestPropertyintheVietnameseUplands.An
EthnographyofForestRelationsinThreeDao
Villages
Vol.6,2007,296p.,29.90EUR,br.ISBN978
3825807733

CalebR.L.Wall,PeterP.Mollinga(Eds.)
FieldworkinDifficultEnvironments.
MethodologyasBoundaryWorkin
DevelopmentResearch
Vol.7,2008,192p.,19.90EUR,br.ISBN978
3825813833

SolvayGerke,HansDieterEvers,AnnaK.
Hornidge(Eds.)
TheStraitsofMalacca.Knowledgeand
Diversity
Vol.8,2008,240p.,29.90EUR,br.ISBN978
3825813833

CalebWall
ArgorodsofWesternUzbekistan.Knowledge
ControlandAgricultureinKhorezm
Vol.9,2008,384p.,29.90EUR,br.ISBN978
3825814267

IritEguavoen
ThePoliticalEcologyofHouseholdWaterin
NorthernGhana
Vol.10,2008,328p.,34.90EUR,br.ISBN978
3825816131

CharlottevanderSchaaf
InstitutionalChangeandIrrigation
ManagementinBurkinaFaso.Flowing
StructuresandConcreteStruggles
Vol.11,2009,344p.,34.90EUR,br.ISBN978
3825816247

NayeemSultana
TheBangladeshiDiasporainPeninsular
Malaysia.OrganizationalStructure,Survival
StrategiesandNetworks
Vol.12,2009,368p.,34.90EUR,br.ISBN978
3825816292

PeterP.Mollinga,AnjaliBhat,SaravananV.S.
(Eds.)
WhenPolicyMeetsReality.PoliticalDynamics
andthePracticeofIntegrationinWater
ResourcesManagementReform
Vol.13,2010,216p.,29.90EUR,br.,ISBN
9783643106728


IritEguavoen,WolframLaube(Eds.)
NegotiatingLocalGovernance.Natural
ResourcesManagementattheInterfaceof
CommunitiesandtheState
Vol.14,2010,248p.,29.90EUR,br.,ISBN
9783643106735

WilliamTsuma
GoldMininginGhana.Actors,Alliancesand
Power
Vol.15,2010,256p.,29.90EUR,br.,ISBN
9783643108111

ThimLy
PlanningtheLowerMekongBasin:Social
InterventionintheSeSanRiver
Vol.16,2010,240p.,29.90EUR,br.,ISBN
9783643108340

TatjanaBauer
TheChallengeofKnowledgeSharingPractices
oftheVietnameseScienceCommunityinHoChi
MinhCityandtheMekongDelta
Vol.17,2011,304p.,29.90EUR,br.,ISBN
9783643901217

PhamCongHuu
FloodsandFarmersPolitics,Economicsand
EnvironmentalImpactsofDykeConstructionin
theMekongDelta/Vietnam
Vol.18,2012,200p.,29.90EUR,br.,ISBN9783
643901675

JudithEhlert
BeautifulFloodsEnvironmentalKnowledgeand
AgrarianChangeintheMekongDelta,Vietnam
Vol.19,2012,256S.,29,90EUR,br,ISBN9783
643901958

NadineReis
TracingandMakingtheStatePolicypractices
anddomesticwatersupplyintheMekongDelta,
Vietnam
Vol.20,2012,272S.,29.90EUR,br.,ISBN9783
643901965

MarthaA.Awo
MarketingandMarketQueensAstudyof
tomatofarmersintheUpperEastregionof
Ghana
Vol.21,2012,192S.,29.90EUR,br.,ISBN9783
643902344

http://www.litverlag.de/reihe/zef
Working Paper Series
Author: Aram Ziai, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
Contact: ziai@uni-bonn.de

Published by:
Zentrum fr Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF)
Center for Development Research
Walter-Flex-Strae 3
D 53113 Bonn
Germany
Phone: +49-228-73-1861
Fax: +49-228-73-1869
E-Mail: zef@uni-bonn.de
www.zef.de