|
Editorial Deborah Eade
While much development and advocacy work is focused on official policies, aid agencies generally seek to steer clear of politics as such, fearing that they will be accused of being ideologically motivated, or that the politicisation of the aid agenda may have negative impacts on anti-poverty work. With some reason, indeed, as many of the grassroots groups and coalitions that are also involved in what is loosely called the anti-globalisation movement are accused of being long on politics, and short on policies. Organisations like trade unions and international NGOs, which are keen to be and be seen to be responsible social actors and credible political interlocutors, sometimes seem uncertain about which company to keep: if they engage in close dialogue with the international financial and trade institutions, they risk appearing to have sold out; but if they are, or appear to be, involved with street demonstrations, they will both lose any place at the discussion table and also risk losing public support for their cause.
Contributors to this issue explore some of the relationships between policies and politics, particularly in relation to the now standard claim of aid agencies to be supporting democratisation and good governance. Christopher Sabatini opens with a report on a survey of Latin American organisations that receive external funding for activities falling under such a rubric. He concludes his review with a series of questions about the meaning of international support for local groups in developing democracies and the potentially adverse effects it may have on de-linking such groups from their broader political and party system. Coming from a rather different angle, David Hirschmann describes the application of USAIDs Advocacy Index, a barometer against which the organisations it supports in this instance, in Zimbabwe are measured for the quality of their impact on the wider policy environment. Mike Pany focuses his attention on the power relations that underlie the consultancy work performed by social anthropologists, in this case when it is commissioned by the British government development agency, DFID. He expresses the concern that anthropology is used in an instrumental fashion, to facilitate the delivery of technical assistance; and that the scholarly pursuit of anthropology can be compromised as a result of universities need to seek such contracts in order to finance their academic activities. The motivation for getting involved in development work is the subject of the paper by Michael Watts, who looks at how the material conditions of working as a volunteer aid worker alongside well-paid expatriates, can affect peoples self-esteem, their status, and ultimately their sense of purpose. Angela Hale, writing about international trade policies affecting the garment industry, stresses the importance of getting beneath simplistic North vs South sloganeering in order to form a more nuanced picture of which sectors in which countries will benefit, and which will be disadvantaged, within a new régime. Her paper illustrates, however, that the fall-out of shifts in policies is invariably political in its impact. The question that arises, for development agencies, is whether their pro-poor stance is sufficient to guide them through the complex and sometimes perverse impacts a sought-after policy shift will have; or whether this can only be done by drawing upon a more cogent and comprehensive theoretical framework than most are able or willing to adopt.
 Contents
|
Abstracts Main Page |
First Abstract 
|
