Anthro of Development - Mosse 2013

ANNUAL REVIEWS
Further
Click here for quick links to Annual Reviews content online, including: Other articles in this volume Top cited articles Top downloaded articles Our comprehensive search
The Anthropology of International Development

David Mosse
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, London WC1H 0XG, United Kingdom; email: dm21@soas.ac.uk
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2013.42:227-246. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by University of California - Berkeley on 12/02/13. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2013. 42:22746 First published online as a Review in Advance on July 29, 2013 The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at anthro.annualreviews.org This articles doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155553 Copyright c 2013 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved
Keywords
aid, donors, expert knowledge, neoliberalism, poverty, ethnography
Abstract
This review examines how international development has been studied by anthropologists, both as a particular form of institutional practice and as the terms of global economic and cultural integration. This review also explains a shift from an anthropological critique of the discursive power of development toward the ethnographic treatment of development as a category of practice. It reviews research into organizational and knowledge practices, and the life-worlds of Aidland, before turning to anthropological approaches to neoliberal development and the new aid architecture and, nally, to three signicant current issues: the importance of business in development and corporate social responsibility; the donor focus on poverty as the result of the failure of government, conict, and insecurity; and the growing importance of new donors such as China and India. This review concludes with comments about how engagement with international development has encouraged reection on the practice of anthropology itself.
227
INTRODUCTION
The anthropology of development raises core anthropological questions about human similarity and difference, Western modernity, and the terms of economic and cultural integration. International development itself has a commitment both to the principle of difference and to similarity (Corbridge 2007, p. 179). Its narrative of progress implies that difference is a decit to be overcome, whereas its narrative of emancipation implies that difference is sovereign self-determination and thus present equality (Rottenburg 2009). The processes that weave around these contradictions in development interventions are complex, as are the debates within anthropology around development as a (global) social imaginary and its political-economic effects. In a short review, it is impossible to do justice to both these issues. My focus is on the former: the study, broadly speaking, of development interventionsnot particular sectors (education, agriculture, etc.) but institutional practices, knowledge production, and social relations. As studied by anthropologists, international development entails social processes that are inevitably transnational, intercultural, and multiscalar and involve the interaction and intermediation of extensive actor networks, with different logics and life-worlds. For Olivier de Sardan (2005), this characterization makes development not so much a separate object of study as a methodology, a privileged empirical pathway through a complex set of institutions, ows and actors (p. 2). The participation of anthropologists themselves in this eldas policy workers, consultants, or advocatesrst produced a distinction between pure and applied anthropology but now generates new ethnographic knowledge and epistemological debate through variants of reective observant participation (Mosse 2006, Gow 2008, Rottenburg 2009). Building on recent more comprehensive reviews of the eld (especially Edelman & Haugerud 2005; also see Crewe & Axelby 2013), this review examines current and interlinked trajectories of anthropology and development as its object of study. First, I provide some background on the anthropological critique of the discursive power of development before exploring the shift toward ethnographic treatment of development as a category of practice. Second, I focus on research into organizational and knowledge practices and the life-worlds of Aidland before turning to the neoliberal context of a new aid architecture. Finally, I discuss some current shifts: business at the center, governing at the periphery, and the arrival of new aid donors.
BACKGROUND: ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE CRITIQUE OF DEVELOPMENT

Anthropology has a history inextricably entwined with imperial projects of power, improvement, and pulling people into the world system (Kuper 2005, MacFarlane 2012), but also with projects of protection, solidarity, and liberation, which too often are occluded in its self-history of moral improvement (Fairhead 2012). This mix produced distinctive American and European (British, French, and German) traditions of development anthropology (Bierschenk 2008). Despite a long engagement with varied open-ended meanings of development, in the 1980s anthropologists turned to the invented idea of big-D development analyzed as a Foucauldian discourse by which the industrialized West has continued to exercise control over processes of global change in a postcolonial world (Yarrow & Venkatesan 2012, p. 3; Escobar 1995). At this key juncture, [l]iberating anthropology from its own colonial past was inextricably linked to the liberation of anthropology from the space mapped by the development encounter (Yarrow & Venkatesan 2012, p. 4; Ferguson 1997), which of course placed various anthropological engagements in a new critical light (e.g., Escobar 1991). However, the primary concern of critical
228 Mosse
anthropology was not development (that is, the institutions and programs that identify themselves as such) but rather all that Development concealsespecially strategies of power. Development agencies claims to improve the conditions of other people disguised governmental practices of control and incorporation of dangerous borderlands into the states grids or global capitalism (Ferguson 1994, Dufeld 2002); and the material reordering of peoples resources (land, forest, rivers) for extraction for metropolitan prot and the imposed knowledge hierarchies led both to dispossession and to program failure (Greenough & Tsing 2003, Scott 1998). Such politicaleconomic effects occurred behind the antipolitics front of schemes for production or poverty reduction (Ferguson 1994). This critical anthropology of development is profoundly inuenced by Michel Foucaults work, although the emphasis has gradually shifted from his earlier analysis of knowledge/power or discourse to his later work on governmentality and ethics, and from the effort to deconstruct development as a historical system of thought to the interactions of various actors and systems of knowledge (Rossi 2004a, p. 560). Li (2007b) considers a key governmental effect of development to be what she refers to as rendering technical, that is, conceiving and rearranging social relations and inherently political processes in alignment with expert designs. The idea of governmentality has been applied (albeit with caveats) to the variety of shifting development discourses including that of human rights, which Englund (2006) argues becomes disempowering in Malawi by rendering technical structural problems, blocking collective action for entitlements and justice from the state, and making the poor prisoners of freedom. The explicitly bottom-up participatory approaches (partly inspired by anthropological valuation of indigenous knowledge) were also seen as structured by, rather than changing, relations of power (Cook & Kothari 2001, but see Hickey & Mohan 2004), albeit in complex ways. These approaches might involve experts rendering technical (recontextualizing) indigenous knowledge or institutions while engendering modern lifestyles and aspirations, putting in place new scales of social distinction, but leaving wider structures unaltered (Pigg 1992, Mosse 2005a, Li 2007b). In programs that emphasized self-help empowerment or community-driven development, the idea of governmentality in neoliberal mode (Li 2007b) offered the ethnographic advantage (Englund 2006, p. 37) of simultaneous attention to faceless norms, rules, and audits of a plurality of authorities (state and nonstate) and to the self-regulating behavior of communities or individualsthat is, the working of intimate government at a distance (Rose & Miller 1992). In Agrawals (2005) longue-dur ee study of state-engendered environmental subjectivities (or environmentality) through community forestry (in Himalayan India), it was new institutional practice that changed peoples dispositions. Development as an incitement to work upon oneself (Pandian 2008, p. 162) through programs of practical and moral improvement is indeed a repeating theme, whether in forestry, agriculture, resettlement, or other schemes, either modern or missionary (Moore 2005, Pandian 2009). This radical postdevelopment critique, however, ultimately concerned the political economy of truth and the centrality of development, not just as an organizing principle of social life but in the discursive imaginary (Escobar 2012, pp. xiixiii).
BEYOND CRITIQUE
Moving on from development as the cloak of power, ethnographers now argue that there is much that the language of disguise itself disguises (Yarrow & Venkatesan 2012, p. 7). At worst, the instrumentalism of developments self-representation is replaced by a power functionalism (Sahlins 2008, p. 12) that destroys rather than demysties its object, development, whose agents are denied reexive intentionality or responsibility (Mosse 2005a, pp. 56). There has been a shift to (re)engage with ethnographic meanings of development as a category of practice (rather than
www.annualreviews.org Anthropology of International Development 229
a category of analysis), that is, to understand the way in which development becomes produced and reproduced as a common sense part of peoples understanding of the world and their place within it and how the delineation of [development] emerges from, and produces, particular historical circumstances, particular cultural logics, and nally, particular subjectivities (Curtis & Spencer 2012, p. 179), which is how these authors account for a parallel recovery of politics as an ethnographic subject. Treating development as a category of practice involves, for one thing, reecting on critique itself as a kind of ethnocentric stance that unnecessarily ties insight to pessimism (Yarrow & Venkatesan 2012, p. 6; Yarrow 2011, p. 3) or takes the discursive centrality of development as self-evidently an orchestration of power with known effects. As Cooper & Packard (1997) point out, locating power does not show that it is determinant or that a particular discourse is not appropriable for other purposes (p. 3). Studies of aid-funded projects [such as those by Rossi (2004b) and Mosse (2005)] show how marginalized people manipulate project discourses, for example refusing the responsibilizing disciplines of participation while making claims (for employment, capital investment, or social protection from outsiders) within a very different politics of patronage and allegiance. Here, development as a category of practice becomes more about connection than communitysomething that Gardner (2012) also demonstrates in her long-term study of the shifting fortunes brought to people in Sylhet, Bangladesh, by development as connection/disconnection, inter alia, through transnational migration and the arrival of a multinational gas-extraction company in the locality. Attention has also turned from development as an antipolitical mask of power to development as the practice of politics (Li 2007b). Lis historical anthropology of two centuries of layered betterment schemes in Indonesia reveals the governmental will to improve as a project and not a secure accomplishment (p. 10), many times evaded and contested. Bierschenk (2008, p. 10) reminds us that the antipolitics international aid programs that render technical are readily politicized by African elites to their own advantage, and Blundo (2006) points out that the focus on the state as a machinery of delivery and economic management, rather than as a political entity whose legitimacy derives from development, has overlooked the intimate relationship between development and democracy. Studying the contentious history of sheries in south India, Subramanian (2009) concludes that when we look at development practice, we see a highly charged politically fractious process . . . tied up with the proliferation of new democratic institutions. Development and democracythe intertwined key words of postcolonial state formationwere more than simply a cynical mantra for the consolidation of state power (p. 145). The political engagement of postdevelopment critics is itself evidence that the meaning, direction, and control of development are at the heart of contentious politics, bound up with identity, place, and belonging. Recent ethnography adds historicity and spatiality to anthropologies of development. Both Moore (2005) and Subramanian (2009) analyze contemporary development politics as a layering of earlier processes. In the rst case, struggles over land by Kaerezians in eastern Zimbabwe recall colonial, nationalist, and postcolonial dispossessions and repossessions; in the second, the artisanal shers ght against capitalist trawling makes sense only in terms of a history of claim making whereby shers emerge as subjects of rights in relation to other groups and institutions. In both instances, the relational politics is distinctly spatialembedded in landscape (Kaerezi) and spatial identity (coastal-sher versus inland-caste). In these ethnographies, development, like human rights or democracy, is not considered a regime of truth diffusing from modern liberalism but rather provincialized as a particular dynamic cultural formation that involves identity (caste or religion), occupation, and spacemaking (Subramanian 2009). This interpretation is a challenge to Escobars (2012) treatment of
230 Mosse
development as the overall discursive fact (pp. xiiixiv). Development is not what the West does to the rest but is part of the postcolonial predicament (Yarrow 2011, pp. 23). Indeed, anthropologists have often discovered that ideologies of development are not experienced as culturally foreign (Pigg 1992). The signicance of a British aid project in Adivasi in western India emerged from an existing cultural logic that was contiguous with historical socioreligious movements of self-improving change (Mosse 2005a). Such moral self-making of development is not analyzable simply as peoples submission to a governmental order of power identifying their own nature as a problem (Pandian 2008, p. 159). It may entail infusion of existing cultural concepts (indigenous ideas of development), normative orders, moral imperatives, or theories of social change, such as the Yoruba qlaju (enlightenment) analyzed by Peel (1978). Rather as anthropologists have suggested in relation to religious conversion (Robbins 2004), development (as idea and practice) is produced through existing categories, which it then transforms. Thus, Peel sees qlajua particular system of metaphors and ideas about knowledge in relation to powerbecoming progressively linked to Western education and its place in Nigerian social policy. In a parallel case, Pandian (2008) explains how ideologies of Tamil uzhaippu (toil) shift from suffering to self-advancement. There is no intention here to sanitize the development encounter of power. De Vries (2007) might say that the above examples illustrate how the development industry is parasitic on the beliefs and dreams of the subjects it creates (p. 30). His argument is, rst (giving a Lacanian/Deleuzian twist to Ferguson), that development is a desiring machine and that the lack from its failures drives desire, articulated through imagination; and second, that a true politics and critique have to take desire for development seriously and engage with development failure itself, not collude in the banalization of desire as governmentality. Other researchers focus on the local negotiation of development. Gow (2008) participated in structured community planning processes in Nasa Indian (postearthquake) resettlements in Colombia to discover a reworking of national development discourse in indigenous terms as the desire for a certain critical modernity or counterdevelopment (cf. Arce & Long 2000). Here, institutionalizing custom (language, law, shamanic knowledge) as indigenous education development is the Nasa Indians means to simultaneously enter the dominant society and protect their own. More generally, the place of development within indigenous activism or social movements (such as the Indian Dalit movements) reveals developmentdemanded, resisted, reworkedas a key site for struggles over the terms of recognition and of citizenship (cf. Ghosh 2006, Mosse 2010), in which anthropologists may undertake deliberately partisan work with particular constituencies (Dove 1999, Gow 2008). In specic ways that have to be studied or engaged with, various political practices come to be translated into development discourses (national or international), which then provide the means by which people negotiate and frame social, cultural and political differences (Yarrow & Venkatesan 2012, p. 9). The point, as Yarrow (2011) puts it, is that development is not a coherent set of practices but a set of practices that produces coherence (p. 6). What elements and relations of power are involved, who and what the signicant actors are, what purposes are served by processes of connection/disconnection (development/counterdevelopment), and what autonomy is achieved or lost are not known in advance. How such processes are conceptualized varies. Moore (2005), Li (2007a), and Gould (2007), for example, have turned to Deleuze & Guattaris (1987) indeterministic (but empirically discovered) notion of assemblage (agencement) to capture the social and reective processes of development. Assemblage is the exible, contingent, and continuous work of pulling disparate elements together (ideas, moralities, artefacts, technologies, diffused agency, heterogeneous interests, destabilizing elements) and is always a process of ordering not order (Moore 2005, pp. 24, 332). [See Li
(2007a) on community forest management as transnational assemblage, and Schwittay (2011a) on the nancial inclusion assemblage.] Others follow Latour (2005) to argue that the material and conceptual coherence of a development program is performed through political acts of composition by heterogeneous actors/actantsthe causal relations of the material world as well as intentional human actions (Mosse 2005a). Latour (2004), moreover, claims critique has run out of steam and that we should instead trace the policies, project designs, or technologies back to the human/object relationships (the gatherings) from which they come, not to deconstruct them but optimistically to strengthen their claim to reality. The difculty with these network approaches, according to Escobar (2012), is threefold. First, although these approaches carefully trace connections, they fail to adequately sort out those that are powerful from those that are not (or are compromised) and therefore fail to allow a political economy to the network [cf. Latours (2005) reverse position on the methodological need to keep the social at]. Second, they suffer a political failure in offering no signicant challenge to what exists, and they adopt a hermeneutics of cynicism about the possibility of radical change. Third, because they choose not to perceive the uni-versality of Western development (or modernity) and the cultural hegemony by which it becomes the translator of ideas, experiences, or dreams (that upon which counterwork must be performed), these ethnographic approaches cannot grasp or support genuinely different perspectives as the basis for culturally variant alternatives to development (Escobar 2012, p. xv). However, other anthropologists point to the signicance of engaged universals (Tsing 2004) such as rights discourses (human rights, indigenous rights, etc.) in articulating difference, in mobilizing claims to resources or recognition, and in forging alliances with global networks. Of course, such connections are disjunctive (frictive; Tsing 2004) as well as productive [as situated anthropologies of rights, codes and categories, and claims in various elds show (e.g., Crewe & Axelby 2013, pp. 10730; Ghosh 2006)]. In an interconnected world, development agendas do not only travel; they interact with historical-cultural formations of identity, rights, and development, which are then in turn globalized through advocacy chains (the activist networks on Dalit rights and development I am currently studying being a case in point). Having broadly set out the (not uncontested) basis for examining development as a category of practice, in the remainder of this review I narrow the focus to anthropological studies of the thought and practice of international aid organizations and their changing political-economic context.
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: INSIDE THE BLACK BOX

Whether as outsiders or as insiders with biographical access, anthropologists have examined the program practice and processes, the life-worlds, and the politics of the apparatus of international development through a growing body of so-called aidnography (Gould & Marcussen 2004, Kontinen 2004, Mosse 2011a). Theoretical inuences have diversied from the Manchester School interactionalist focus on expert-community interfaces (e.g., Long & Long 1992) to shifting identities and brokerage in development (the Francophone Africanist literature; e.g., Bierschenk et al. 2002) to more recent actor-network theory approaches (Lewis & Mosse 2006a). Opening up the black box between policy intention and social effects, and asking how development works, has produced descriptions of the inner working, organizational practices, and discursive repertoires of state and nongovernmental organization (NGO) bureaucracies (Hilhorst 2003, Watkins et al. 2012). As Quarles van Ufford (1988) observed, bureaucracy is not itself an instrument of policy because bureaucracy is an independent generator of ideas, goals and interests (p. 77). Among examples of the intermediate connecting points (and the corruption) that constitute programs and public services are the complex bureaucratic arrangements for donor-backed
232 Mosse
neoliberal reform in Senegal, studied by Blundo (2006), who shows how this project itself produced (or incentivized) informal privatization, criminalization, and the rise of auxiliary revenue controlling agents (touts and brokers). At another level, Gupta (2012) explains how writing (words, statistics, and registers) constitutes bureaucratic action while impeding delivery. Others too reveal the work of development as institutionally directed and socially agentive writing by examining documents as sets of social relations or by describing the social production of numbers, which are privileged in translocal development planning because of their capacity to strip out context (Harper 1998, Smith 2006, Rottenburg 2009, Mosse 2011a, Gupta 2012). Organizational theory has helped anthropologists show how bureaucratic systems (NGO or state) tend to prioritize their own internal system goals (of maintenance and survival) over meeting ofcial policy goals (Mintzberg 1979, via Quarles van Ufford 1988). Moreover, the institutional organizations that typify the eld of international development are those that are compelled, [to] serve rst and foremost the legitimation narrative assigned to them by their [political] environment (Rottenburg 2009, p. 68), which contains such a diversity of competing interests that these ofcial narratives are characterized by vagueness and ambiguity. The result is pervasive disjuncture in development order (Lewis & Mosse 2006b). The things that make for good policywhich legitimizes and enrolls diverse supporters and interestsare not those that make projects practicable; good policy is unimplementable (Mosse 2005a). Alternatively, as Rottenburg (2009) puts it, there is a loose coupling of ofcial representations (goals, structures) and actual organizational practices, which draws ethnographic attention to the trading zones and translation practicesnot the objects or actors but what occurs between them (p. xxvi) that Rottenburg so skillfully explores through his ctionalized account of a donor-nanced water sectorreform project in East Africa. Ethnography shows that policy designs have to be transformed through translation (Latour 2005) into the diverse interests and meanings of actors that a program brings together. Loose coupling distributes agency and permits multiplication of the criteria of, and claims for, success, a phenomenon that Bornsteins (2005) ethnography of religious NGOs in Zimbabwe shows allowing the state to secure legitimacy by taking credit for NGO programs. Loose coupling facilitates international developments contradictory commitment to difference and similarity, progress and emancipation, efciency and local ownership, by allocating incongruous principles to separated contexts, mediated by consultants and various ceremonial facades (Rottenburg 2009, p. 70). Anthropologists thus describe the entirely reversible institutional processes through which projects become real (i.e., produce coherence) through the work of generating and translating interests, enrolling supporters, and stabilizing interpretations and representations so as to match (for a while) events to prevailing policy theory, which is usually the most urgent and practical action (Mosse 2005a).
DEVELOPMENTS EXPERT KNOWLEDGE

Such research has changed the way anthropologists view expertise and policy, especially in light of Mitchells (2002) argument that as a sphere of rational intention, policy does not precede and order practice but rather is produced by it, grounded in particular interests, contingencies, and exclusions. In a similar vein, Rottenburg (2009) insists that the technical game that arises in development cooperation (the antipolitics discourse) is not an instrument of hegemony, but rather the only code available for carrying out transcultural negotiations under postcolonial conditions and the norm of reciprocity (p. 142). Other researchers focus on processes at the global centers of policy making (see the contributions to Mosse 2011a). Some are concerned with the interlinking of expert knowledge
and the power and legitimacy of key institutions [e.g., Goldman (2005) on the World Banks environmental knowledge and St Clair (2006) on its economic knowledge]. Others study extrainstitutional or transnational networks of policy-shaping experts [e.g., Wedel (2000) on the corporate/public boundarycrossing ex nets shaping 1990s US economic aid to Russia]. A third group of researchers has studied paradigm maintenance within and between interlinked organizations: the everyday practices of professionalization, ideological control, and groupthink; the self-disciplining incentives of career building (e.g., Uchiyamada 2004); or risk-dispersing reliance on templates that give development models resilience, despite contradicting evidence [as Stiglitz (2002) shows for World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) market liberalization models], and to which international development organizations, lacking democratic accountability to citizen beneciaries, are especially susceptible (Wade 1996, Woods 2006). Rich ethnography exists on the institutional shaping of policy ideas (Douglas 1986) and the social agency of concepts and their artifacts (documents) as translators of interests. Examples include the social making of economic facts in the IMF (Harper 1998), human rights economized as risk management at the World Bank (Sarfaty 2012), and the instrumentalization of equity (McNeill & St Clair 2011) or society as social capital (Bebbington et al. 2004); the latter concept here works socially to protect a vulnerable group of noneconomists rather than as an instrument of World Bank power through depoliticizing development (Harriss 2001). It is precisely as an effect of privileged analytical forms and aesthetics (network, bracket, matrix) that Riles (2001) analyzes professional knowledge in her ethnography of womens NGO networking. Anthropologists are, of course, also interested in the effects of international developments context-free traveling rationalities (Craig & Porter 2006), which assert the formal over the substantive and the categorical over the relational (Eyben 2006) and that bury political debates in results management and the framing of self-disciplining indicators for everything from economic growth to governance and human rights (Merry 2011). One effect is the dominance of the universal logic of institutional economics and law, as well as the marginality of anthropology itself as a critical ethnographic discipline, even though the numbers of social scientists within agencies such as the World Bank have soared (from 1 in 1974 to more than 450 in 2004; Mosse 2011b). Here their role is not to clarify processes of power or loose coupling but to facilitate those of development negotiation, especially by rendering technical the social for project investment through conceptions such as social capital (Li 2007b). Or, when anthropology performs its earlierallocated expert role of interpreting development failure in terms of local culture, Rottenburg (2009) notes, it provides a valuable service to the self-staging of development cooperation (p. 73). Another effect of expert knowledge is the denial of history (Lewis 2009, Woolcock et al. 2011), which is the practice, as Pritchett & Woolcock (2004) put it, of skipping straight to Weber. This practice involves clothing institutional solutions that actually emerged from histories of trial and error, politically driven experiments, conict, and struggle in the language of bureaucratic rationality; and part of the solution is to hide this fact (Pritchett & Woolcock 2004, p. 201). An example is the sort of neoliberal rewriting of the history of capitalism in rich countries that Chang (2002) describes in Kicking Away the Ladder. In addition to exploring the social origins and undisclosed baggage of international developments traveling rationalities, anthropologists show how these are unpacked into the social/institutional interests of local collaborators, generating complex and unintended effects [see Craig & Porter (2006) on neoliberal reform in Vietnam, Pakistan, and Uganda; Anders (2010) on good governance reform in Malawi; and Schwegler (2009) on pension reform in Mexico]. These are interpretive accounts of policy that, as Shore & Wright (2011, pp. 8, 14) propose, treat policies as traceable actants within actor networks having complex effects at different sitesorganizing categories and action, mobilizing, demobilizing, introducing new techniques of self, producing
234 Mosse
contestationwhile also being altered by relations with other actants (people, objects, institutions) through processes of translation across varied interests, genres, and meanings. Instead of an independent force imagined in models of policy transfer or implementation, policy is a mode of connection or alignment (between agents, institutions, laws, technologies, and discourses) within developments assemblages, articulated through political economy (Shore & Wright 2011, pp. 8, 14).
SOCIAL LIFE IN AIDLAND

Ethnography now turns to the lives of development workers themselvesNGO employees, consultants, expatriate aid staff, volunteers, and globally networked aid professionalsand to the social and cultural practices of Aidland (Fechter & Hindman 2011, Mosse 2011a, Fechter 2012; also see Stirrat 2008). A sociology-of-science approach (Verma 2011) traces aspects of development knowledge (e.g., epistemological closure, policy harmonization) to the sociality of aid professionals: well knit, class closed, and culturally enclaved in capital cities; globally connected and permanent; but locally isolated and transient (Eyben 2011, Mosse 2011a). Contrarily, Lewiss (2011) life-history project shows that despite converging policy ideas on poverty at home and abroad, the social-institutional boundaries between UK voluntary sector and overseas development NGOs are entrenched. Yarrow (2011) suggests a reguring of the anthropology of development around the moral complexity and meaning making of its workers. He insists that the motivations, optimism, activist histories, and the faith and friendships drawn from personal narratives of Ghanaian NGO leaders be taken seriously, not displaced by political critique or an Afro-pessimist view of self-serving personal relationships (cf. Bornstein 2005). van Gastel (2011) uses life histories to trace politically communicated, ambiguated, and fragmented Dutch aid policy back to the integration of private dreams of development. More of this literature is trying to get behind heroic or cynical representations to the social conditions of overseas aid labor (the effects of hypermobility, visibility, interstitial positions, audit pressures, worker failure, gender roles, and racialized relations), unpicking experience-framing concepts such as (in)security, guest-hood, and nostalgia (contributions to Fechter & Hindman 2011, Mosse 2011a). Some of this research foregrounds personal agency and responsibilities, processes of professional or moral selving, friendship work, and the care of the self as an aspect of the care of the other (Fechter 2012; cf Quarles van Ufford & Giri 2003). However, as Lewis et al. (2008) note, when the whims, motivations, and failings of personalities become central in the story of development, ction has a descriptive advantage. Fiction also sidesteps the dilemma that the things that are of interest to the anthropologist of development informal relationships, unanticipated events, divergent viewsand from which she develops an analysis that fullls her professional identity are the very things that, when publicly available, threaten the reputation of development professionals or institutions. No doubt it is partly the urgency of stabilizing inherently fragile representations in international development that generates such abundant reexive backstage self-criticism and irony, hence the many aid worker blogs (Fechter 2012) and dissident accounts published after a delay (e.g., Grifths 2004; also see Mosse 2011a). This is a world of carefully negotiated knowledge into which anthropologists (with their different epistemological assumptions) must enter prepared for strong responses to their ethnographic accounts, which claim authority but look like dangerous evaluations aligned to narratives of blame and may well mobilize objections (Mosse 2006, Lashaw 2012). Meanwhile concern arises about whether this looking inward has diverted anthropological attention away from the wider context of development within neoliberal political economy and the reproduction of (global) inequality.
NEOLIBERAL DEVELOPMENT
By the turn of the millennium, deregulatory adjustment and economic liberalization had turned national development into a matter of creating the conditions for attracting mobile capital to enclaves of production of labor-intensive goods for global markets, such as garments in Bangladesh and telecommunications in Bangalore (Ludden 2005); mining and oil-boom investment hopped over large areas of unusable Africa, bypassing the national development framework (Ferguson 2005). In Colliers (2007) inuential framing, the bottom billion live in the unintegrated fringe or under the curse of ungoverned resource extraction. The anthropological critique of projects and bureaucratic power has had to give way to ethnographies of the loss of state power in the government of development; to its dispersal to NGOs, donors, social entrepreneurs, and private-sector providers (Li 2005); to state withdrawal and reliance on informal institutions (e.g., in rural Uganda; see Jones 2009); to the hollowing of the ofcial state (in India), surrounded by powerful brokers, contractors, and crooks who constitute a shadow state run for private benet (Harriss-White 2003); and to the centrality of informal social structures of accumulation (caste, gender, and religion) in regulating both markets and the state (Harriss-White 2003). In the age of neoliberal reform, the terms weak state, fragile state, crisis state, and collapsed state are especially prominent in the development policy lexicon. Anthropologists are among those examining the social irrationality of a neoliberal logic that selectively integrates into markets, reduces social protection, casualizes labor, and increases inequality and distributional conict, among other ill effects of capitalism in its millennial (messianic, salvic) manifestation (Comaroff & Comaroff 2001, p. 2; Ferguson 2006; Greenhouse 2009; cf. Robinson 2002). Whereas Marxian perspectives emphasize the underlying advancement of capitalist class power (Saad-Filho & Johnston 2005), anthropologists often focus on the effects of neoliberal forms of governmental power: the regulated autonomy and responsibilization of social space (Kingsher & Maskovsky 2008). They have observed the demobilizing effect of development through marketization as the appropriation and co-option of pre-existing cultural and social achievements (Harvey 2003, p. 146) that deplete numerous livelihood systems. Elyachar (2005) accordingly critiques NGO microenterprise initiatives among craftsmen in Cairo and the rubric of productive social capital that undermines relational value (evident in the evil-eye discourse on selsh accumulation). However, anthropologists also nd people resisting new consumer subjectivities [e.g., Coelho (2005) apropos water privatization in Chennai] and workers refusing to police themselves [as Gupta (2012) observes in rural Uttar Pradesh]; although, neoliberal developments may also shape the modes of resistance and mobilization, as (among others) Steur (2011) shows in her account of social movements in Kerala that turn from socialist to indigenist form. Gupta (2012) argues that such friction, also arising from gender, caste, or political alignments, impedes and defers the relaying of Foucaults modalities of government in development (p. 261). Anthropologists indeed have reason to be wary of recourse to metanarratives of neoliberalism in understanding violence against the poor (Gupta 2012, pp. 27374). Gupta (2012), for example, discovers continuity in the key effect of bureaucratic arbitrariness and neglect on either side of a major ideological policy shift from state welfare to empowerment in Indian projects targeting rural women and children. In parallel, Cross (2010) shows that precariousness and political subjectivity among workers within a so-called special economic zone in south India differ little from those among the informally regulated majority beyond it: Neoliberalism is unexceptional (cf. Ong 2006). The normal absence of state provision, Ferguson (2010) notes, is the context of schemes of direct cash transfer in South Africa that use mechanisms of the market to drive poverty reduction;
236 Mosse
he argues that such schemes should be considered problem-solving appropriations of neoliberal arrangement in the absence of state care. These examples show that neoliberalism, like development, fails to become a stable object of anthropological critique (Ferguson 2010). Some apparently neoliberal practices such as audits in China, as Kipnis (2008) explains, may even be enactments of state socialism. Mitchell (2002) challenges us to examine neoliberalism, or even capitalism, beyond the frame of its own selfrepresentation. His studies on Egypt show that privatization and the free market program there abstracted from and misrepresented the actual multilayered political readjustment of rents, subsidies, and the control of resources (Mitchell 2002, p. 277). His point is that all economic activity is socio-political being dependent on forms of law, government and corporate power as well as nonhuman elements (pp. 28991). Further, like projects, neoliberal marketization can also be examined as an actor network (C als kan & Callon 2010) so as to discover asymmetries of power in valuation and the unequally distributed agencements (arrangements or assemblages) that lie behind market descriptions of the autonomy of calculating agencies (C als kan & Callon 2010, p. 13). From Wacquant (2012) comes a different point. Anthropologists will not solve the problem of a fabricated notion of universalized market rule with the vague concept of owing calculative notions, strategies and technologies, as Wacquant sees Ongs (2006) global assemblage approach. Neoliberalism is something specic, namely a reengineering and redeployment (not dismantling) of the state, among other things, both to support commodication (the extension of markets in all spheres) and to curb the social turbulence caused by neoliberal policies of reregulation through penal policy (Wacquant 2012, p. 72). The resulting double-gure centaur stateneoliberal at the top and penal at the bottomis familiar to economically transforming countries such as India. Here, Gupta (2012) argues, the state has been restructured in favor of industrial capital in ways that sharply increase inequality, rst through barriers to employment for less-educated, lower-caste, rural poor in the fast-growing knowledge industries, and second through the reallocation of property rights in favor of extractive industry and infrastructure in the tribal periphery (Breman 2003, Padel & Das 2010). In the main, democratic pressure for legitimacy directs industrial tax revenue to huge increases in state welfare programs. But where industrial development threatens survival in the tribal periphery, an armed Maoist insurgency now prompts a military staging [of] the sovereignty of the state and a securitization of development (Gupta 2012, p. 286; also see Chatterjee 2008, Shah 2010). The governance of development through market-led growth strategies, democratization, investment in social protection for those adversely affected, and the securitization of dangerous poverty on the periphery aptly describes international neoliberal development.
THE NEW AID ARCHITECTURE

Beginning in the 1980s, international development policy progressed through addition: structural adjustment plus governance plus participation plus poverty reduction (Bierschenk 2008, p. 10). By the late 1990s, governments of poor countries were offered conditional nance to develop their own overall strategies for growth and poverty reduction [through budgetary support or povertyreduction strategy papers (PRSPs)] in line with neoliberal globalizationmaking markets work for the poor. The overriding question was how market-led development was to be governed. The preferred solutionsregulatory institutions, decentralization, democratic processwere harmonized through new donor coordination (OECD 2005, Eyben 2007). Anthropological analyses here return to concerns with power and discourse and, given how transnational linkages in the movement of ideas, material resources, technologies and personnel are critical to the care of populations, to the debatable idea of global governmentality
(Gupta 2012, p. 239; also see Watts 2003 and Gould 2005). Gupta (2010) argues that the PRSP measures promoted by the World Bank and the IMF frame poverty as a national problem in ways that remove global inequality and the political economy of capitalism from the public agenda, thereby diffusing demand for change in global institutions such as US and European agricultural subsidies, the externalization of pollution costs, and restrictive trade regimes. Meanwhile, Craig & Porter (2003) suggest that the ranked goals of global economic integration, good governance, poverty reduction, and safety nets [represent] an attempt to generate a level of global to local integration and discipline and technical management of marginal economies, governance and populations unprecedented since colonial times (pp. 5455; cf. Ferguson & Gupta 2002, p. 992). Ethnographic research on the documents and practices of PRSPs suggests the replacement of old-style structural adjustment conditionality with the internal discipline of audits and indicators that do the political work of building compliance with international nancial institution (IFI) demands into the fabric of national administrative orders (Anders 2005, Gould 2005, Mosse 2005b, Soederberg 2006). The question of the global governance of development has taken anthropologists into a range of international institutions (e.g., IFIs, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Health Organization, other United Nations bodies) and to the local framing of global norms, standards, protocols, and supranational legal regimes (e.g., patent law, tax law, trade liberalization, industrial licensing norms). Governance questions highlight the political evasions of ethical consensus, categorical imperatives, and translations (Goldman 2005, Muller 2008, Garsten & Jacobsson 2011); scattered sovereignties and manipulations by cun ning states that new development regimes produce (Randeria 2003); and the way rule making for global governance builds partisan interests into the universal principles and common-sense models while deecting attention from monopolistic, oligopolistic, or ungovernable international markets (Soederberg 2006, Mosse 2005b). Anthropologists examine the delicate work of reconciling disciplining aid regimes with the high-prole political commitment to national sovereignty and country ownership through rubrics of partnership or capacity building (Dahl 2001, Gould 2005, Mosse 2005b, van Gastel & Nuijten 2005, van Gastel 2011). They nd aid ofcials eld experience narrowed to familiarity with the patterns on the carpet of the Ministry of Finance (Eyben 2011, p. 144) but also discover interinstitutional complexity as a new eldwork site. Placing herself amid the electronic and social ow of aid harmonization, Pollard (2009) reveals that donor-coordination efforts in Jakarta so complicate relationships that doubt (about intentions and responses) itself becomes a means through which institutional power operates.
CURRENT TRENDS: CORPORATIONS, CONFLICTS, AND CHINA

Politically threatened under conditions of austerity; dwarfed by the giants of climate change, the rise of China, new conicts, or transnational migration; and attacked on all sides for having perverse effects (Easterly 2007, Moyo 2010), Western aid claims a shrinking footprint, now repurposed as part of promoting commerce (old tied aid) or soft-power foreign relations. Three recent trends are worth highlighting.
Business at the Center: Corporate Social Responsibility and Bottom of the Pyramid Capitalism
First, business has moved into development. Donor programs involve more public-private partnerships (PPPs) that use markets for service delivery in health or education [see van Gastels (2011) ethnography of a contraceptive marketing PPP], and at the same time, nonmarket moral logics gain visibility within corporate capitalism. This merging of aid and business draws together
238 Mosse
anthropologies of development and corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Rajak 2011, Gardner 2012). Some anthropologists study the array of international codes and ethical standards for production and trade that are drawn into development debates under the slogan Trade, not aid. Studies on, for example, south Indian textiles (De Neve 2009), Costa Rican coffee (Luetchford 2008), and Kenyan owers (Dolan 2008) reveal brokerage and power inequality in accessing fairtrade markets and the disciplining of local producers by traders higher up the chain that produces ethical value and serves the redemption of wealthier consumers (Rajak 2011, p. 7; also see De Neve et al. 2008). Corporations have also made themselves development agencies, setting and implementing agendas (Rajak 2011, Dolan et al. 2011, Schwittay 2011a, Gardner 2012). Rajaks (2011, pp. 11, 13, 323) point, from research on the mining giant Anglo-America, is not to judge CSR as either a new ethical turn or a veil for prot but rather to show how the performance of CSR enables corporations to extend authority over the social order at different levels, to tap the development expertise of other institutions (states, NGOs), and to render commercial the problem of poverty that is, to frame it in alignment with corporate agendas captured in the unintentionally revealing slogan Make poverty business. This goes to the heart of the wider institutional assemblage (Dolan 2012, p. 4) labeled bottom of the pyramid (BoP) capitalism (Prahalad 2005), through which, Dolan (2012) argues, development itself is outsourced to the under-utilised poor through the gure of the door-to-door sales woman bringing Coca-Cola or Avon products to retail black spots in South Africa and Bangladesh, or Hewlett-Packards digital brokers in Costa Rica (Schwittay 2011b), all working within corporate, NGO, and development agency arrangements. Such BoP entrepreneurs are analyzed as both instruments and beneciaries of processes that change donorrecipient relationships, create legibility to global business, produce entrepreneurial subjectivities and recode products in ethical terms, while at the same time dividing, differentiating, and depleting aspects of social life (Dolan 2012).
Governing at the Periphery

Second, while business is centralized in mainstream development, aid donors are redirecting their attention and resources to frontline states (e.g., Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq) and to zones of ongoing conict (inaccessible during the Cold War) on the periphery of global capitalism (Dufeld 2002, 2007). Treating poverty as the result of the lack or failure of government and of conict and insecurity (see World Bank 2011) interlinks goals of program delivery for basic needs, security, and state building, thereby blurring the distinctions between development, humanitarian relief, and military intervention (Dufeld 2002, 2007; Howell & Lind 2009). The postSeptember 11 securitization of development involves a new liberal interventionism that more obviously serves political agendas through preemptive development (Soederberg 2004) and ultimately aims, Dufeld (2002, 2007) suggests, to render populations governable. Behind this focus on the periphery, Dufeld (2002) sees also at work the normativity of global market integration that regards conict and new wars, social regression, and criminality as the effects of exclusion from globalizationan idiom of borderland barbarianism justifying capitalist incorporation on the grounds of security. He suggests, on the contrary, that conict may signal resistance to or disengagement from liberal market values through forms of exible modernization [informal transborder networks, extralegal shadow economies, even Islamist nonliberal reinvention (Dufeld 2002, pp. 1,05254; Watts 2003, pp. 711)]variants of postdevelopment strategies of difference (Escobar 2012). This analysis also points to a wider anthropological critique of the way durable poverty is exceptionalized rather than understood relationally as also caused or deepened by ordinary processes of capitalism (Mosse 2010).
New Donors
Finally, anthropologists have mostly assumed that international aid is about the afuent West and its others (Mosse 2005a, p. 1), but [g]lobal development is no longer governed by Northern countries, and the subjects of IFIs are as likely to include Greece and Italy (De Hart 2012, p. 1360). Aid donors such as China, India, and Russia have entirely different histories and concepts of development cooperation that are only now being explored (Gray 2011, Mawdsley 2012). Chinas economic diplomacy has drawn the most attention (especially in Africa), but Indian and Russian forms of development cooperation also depart from the specic moral framing [or purication (van Gastel 2011)] of aid as the unreciprocated gift (Mawdsley 2012; cf. Bornstein 2012) and focus instead on ideas of mutual benet, South-South solidarity, and national sovereignty while refusing the Western aid packaging of agendas on governance, environment, or human rights (Mawdsley 2012). However, debate on Chinese aid, or a distinctive Beijing consensus model of development invoked as the other of Western aid, indicates the need for a differentiated ethnographic description of alternative development meanings and relationships (Mohan 2008, Brautigam 2009). The image of Costa Ricas national stadium, designed and constructed by the Chinese from imported materials and labor, in which China appears simultaneously as a First World donor and the quintessential Third World labourer (De Hart 2012, p. 1371) suggests a signicant reguring of the anthropology of development.
CONCLUSION
Development may or may not be a distinctive apparatus that is separable from other historical relations between state, society, and culture, but it can be studied as the fraught institutional effort to make this so (or to resist it)a scenario in which anthropologists are themselves implicated as policy makers, project workers, advocacy activists, or critics. The usefulness (or otherwise) of anthropology to international development would be the subject of a separate discussion. Is anthropology the source of expertise on local culture; is it the capacity to build social knowledge into policy or to promote a localist stance? Such questions enter this debate (Sillitoe 2007). The anthropology of development does something different. It offers a way of examining the dilemmas of power and knowledge, sometimes generating, along with development counterparts (agency staff, campaign organizations, or members of communities), reective awareness of the relational context of thought and action through collaborative research for organizational learning (e.g., Eyben 2006). Whatever such opportunities are (and a good deal more work remains to nd varied constructive modes of engagement with international development), encounters with development policy and its parallel ways of doing knowledge begin to question anthropologys claim to epistemological privilege (Green 2009). These encounters introduce questions about anthropologys own epistemic conduct that are explored in some interesting ethnographic experiments, such as Rottenburgs (2009) ctionalized account, which attempts a symmetrical treatment of the anthropologist as one among many analytical voices that recount the unhappy unfolding of an aid project in Africa.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any afliations, memberships, funding, or nancial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review. LITERATURE CITED
Agrawal A. 2005. Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
240 Mosse
Anders G. 2005. Good governance as technology: towards an ethnography of the Bretton Woods institutions. See Mosse & Lewis 2005, pp. 3760 Anders G. 2010. In the Shadow of Good Governance: An Ethnography of Civil Service Reform in Africa. Leiden, Neth.: Brill Arce A, Long N. 2000. Anthropology, Development and Modernities. London: Routledge Bebbington A, Guggenheim S, Olson E, Woolcock M. 2004. Exploring social capital debates at the World Bank. J. Dev. Stud. 40:3342 Bierschenk T. 2008. Anthropology and development: an historizing and localizing approach. Work. pap. 87, Dep. Anthropol. Afr. Stud., Univ. Mainz Bierschenk T, Chaveau JP, Olivier de Sardan JP. 2002. Local development brokers in Africa: the rise of a new social category. Work. pap. 13, Dep. Anthropol. Afr. Stud., Johannes Gutenberg Univ. Blundo G. 2006. Dealing with the local state. The informal privatization of street-level bureaucracies in Senegal. Dev. Change 37:799819 Bornstein E. 2005. The Spirit of Development: Protestant NGOs, Morality and Economics in Zimbabwe. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press Bornstein E. 2012. Disquieting Gifts: Humanitarianism in New Delhi. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press Brautigam D. 2009. The Dragons Gift: The Real Story of China in Africa. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Breman J. 2003. The Labouring Poor in India: Patterns of Exploitation, Subordination and Exclusion. New Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press C als kan K, Callon M. 2010. Economization, part 2: a research programme for the study of markets. Econ. Soc. 39:132 Chang H-J. 2002. Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective. London: Anthem Chatterjee P. 2008. Democracy and economic transformation in India. Econ. Pol. Wkly. 43:5362 Coelho K. 2005. Unstating the public: an ethnography of reform in an urban water utility in South India. See Mosse & Lewis 2005, pp. 17195 Collier P. 2007. The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Comaroff J, Comaroff JL. 2001. Millennial Capitalism and the Culture of Neoliberalism. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Cook B, Kothari U, eds. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Cooper F, Packard R, eds. 1997. International Development and the Social Sciences. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Corbridge S. 2007. The (im)possibility of development studies. Econ. Soc. 36:179211 Craig D, Porter D. 2003. Poverty reduction strategy papers: a new convergence. World Dev. 31:5369 Craig D, Porter D. 2006. Development Beyond Neoliberalism: Governance, Poverty Reduction and Political Economy. London/New York: Routledge Crewe E, Axelby R, eds. 2013. Anthropology and Development: Culture, Morality and Politics in a Globalised World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Cross J. 2010. Neoliberalism as unexceptional: economic zones and the everyday precariousness of working life in South India. Crit. Anthropol. 30:35573 Curtis J, Spencer J. 2012. Anthropology and the political. In The Sage Handbook of Social Anthropology, Vo1. 1, ed. R Fardon, O Harris, T Marchand, M Nuttall, C Shore, et al., pp. 16882. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Dahl G. 2001. Responsibility and Partnership in Swedish Aid Discourse. Uppsala: Nord. Afr. Inst. Deleuze G, Guattari F. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Transl. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press. From French De Hart M. 2012. Remodelling the global development landscape: the China model and south-south cooperation in Latin America. Third World Q. 33:135975 De Neve G. 2009. Power, inequality and corporate social responsibility: the politics of ethical compliance in the South Indian garment industry. Econ. Pol. Wkly. 44:6372 De Neve G, Luetchford P, Pratt J, Wood C, eds. 2008. Hidden Hands in the Market: Ethnographies of Fair Trade, Ethical Consumption, and Corporate Social Responsibility. Research in Economic Anthropology, Vol. 28. Bingley, UK: Emerald De Vries P. 2007. Dont compromise your desire for development! A Lacanian/Deleuzian rethinking of the anti-politics machine. Third World Q. 28:2543
Dolan C. 2008. Arbitrating risk through moral values: the case of Kenyan fairtrade. See De Neve et al. 2008, pp. 27196 Dolan C. 2012. The new face of development: the bottom of the pyramid entrepreneurs. Anthropol. Today 28:37 Dolan C, Garsten C, Rajak D, eds. 2011. Themed Section: Ethnographies of Corporate Ethicizing. Focaal: J. Glob. Hist. Anthropol. 60:373 Douglas M. 1986. How Institutions Think. London: Routledge Dove M. 1999. Writing for, versus about, the ethnographic other: issues of engagement and reexivity in working with a tribal NGO in Indonesia. Identities Glob. Stud. Cult. Power 6:22553 Dufeld M. 2002. Social reconstruction and the radicalisation of development: aid as a relation of global liberal governance. Dev. Change 33:104971 Dufeld M. 2007. Development, Security and Unending War. Cambridge/Malden, Mass.: Polity Easterly W. 2007. The White Mans Burden: Why the Wests Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Edelman M, Haugerud A, eds. 2005. The Anthropology of Development and Globalisation: From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Elyachar J. 2005. Markets of Dispossession: NGOs, Economic Development, and the State in Cairo. Durham, NC/London: Duke Univ. Press Englund H. 2006. Prisoners of Freedom: Human Rights and the African Poor. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Escobar A. 1991. Anthropology and the development encounter: the making and marketing of development anthropology. Am. Ethnol. 18:1640 Escobar A. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 1st ed. Escobar A. 2012. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press. 2nd ed. Eyben R, ed. 2006. Relationships for Aid. London: Earthscan Eyben R. 2007. Harmonisation: How is the orchestra conducted? Dev. Pract. 17:64046 Eyben R. 2011. The sociality of international aid and policy convergence. See Mosse 2011a, pp. 13960 Fairhead J. 2012. Anthropology and land grabs: reections on our history of activism. Presented at SOAS, Oct. 10, Univ. London Fechter A, Hindman H, eds. 2011. Inside the Everyday Lives of Development Workers: The Challenges and Futures of Aidland. Bloomeld, CT: Kumarian Fechter AM, ed. 2012. Special Issue: The Personal and the Professional in Aid Work. Third World Q. 33(8) Ferguson J. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, De-politicisation and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Ferguson J. 1997. Anthropology and its evil twin: development in the constitution of a discipline. In International Development and the Social Sciences: Essays in the History and Politics of Knowledge, ed. F Cooper, R Packard, pp. 15075. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Ferguson J. 2005. Seeing like an oil company: space, security and global capital in neoliberal Africa. Am. Anthropol. 107:37782 Ferguson J. 2006. Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order. Durham, NC/London: Duke Univ. Press Ferguson J. 2010. The uses of neoliberalism. Antipode 41(Suppl. 1):16684 Ferguson J, Gupta A. 2002. Spatializing states: towards an ethnography of neoliberal governmentality. Am. Ethnol. 29:9811002 Gardner K. 2012. Discordant Development: Global Capitalism and the Struggle for Connection in Bangladesh. London/Ann Arbor: Pluto Garsten C, Jacobsson K. 2011. Transparency and legibility in international institutions: the UN global compact and post-political global ethics. Soc. Anthropol. 19:37893 Ghosh K. 2006. Between global ows and local dams: indigenousness, locality and the transnational sphere in Jharkand, India. Cult. Anthropol. 21:50134 Goldman M. 2005. Imperial Nature: The World Bank and Struggles for Justice in the Age of Globalization. New Haven/London: Yale Univ. Press
242 Mosse
Gould J. 2005. Timing, scale and style: capacity as governmentality in Tanzania. See Mosse & Lewis 2005, pp. 6184 Gould J. 2007. (Dis)assembling development. In Anomalies of Aid: A Festschrift for Juhani Koponen, ed. J Gould, L Siitonen, pp. 26995. Helsinki: Univ. Helsinki. http://www.valt.helsinki./oldkmi/ english/Anomalies.pdf Gould J, Marcussen HS. 2004. Narratives of democracy and power. In Ethnographies of Aid: Exploring Development Texts and Encounters, Vol. 24, ed. HS Marcussen, pp. 1544. Roskilde, Den.: Roskilde Univ. Press Gow D. 2008. Countering Development: Indigenous Modernity and the Moral Imagination. Durham, NC/London: Duke Univ. Press Gray PA. 2011. Looking the The Gift in the mouth: Russia as donor. Anthropol. Today 27:58 Green M. 2009. Doing development and writing culture: knowledge practices in anthropology and international development. Anthropol. Theory 9:395417 Greenhouse CJ, ed. 2009. Ethnographies of Neoliberalism. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press Greenough P, Tsing AL, eds. 2003. Nature in the Global South: Environmental Projects in South and Southeast Asia. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Grifths P. 2004. The Economists Tale: A Consultant Encounters Hunger and the World Bank. London: Zed Gupta A. 2010. The construction of the global poor: an anthropological critique. In The World Social Science Report: Knowledge Divides, ed. F Caillods, pp. 1316. Paris: UNESCO Gupta A. 2012. Red Tape: Bureaucracy, Structural Violence and Poverty in India. Durham, NC/London: Duke Univ. Press Harriss J. 2001. Depoliticising Development: The World Bank and Social Capital. London: Anthem Harriss-White B. 2003. India Working: Essays on Society and Economy. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge Univ. Press Harper R. 1998. Inside the IMF: An Ethnography of Documents, Technology, and Organizational Action. Orlando: Academic Harvey D. 2003. The New Imperialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Hickey S, Mohan G. 2004. Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation. London: Zed Hilhorst D. 2003. The Real World of NGOs: Discourses, Diversity and Development. London: Zed Howell J, Lind J. 2009. Counter-Terrorism, Aid and Civil Society: Before and After the War on Terror. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Jones B. 2009. Beyond the State in Rural Uganda. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press Kingsher C, Maskovsky J. 2008. Introduction: the limits of neoliberalism. Crit. Anthropol. 28:11526 Kipnis A. 2008. Audit cultures: neoliberal governmentality, socialist legacy, or technologies of governing? Am. Ethnol. 35:27589 Kontinen T, ed. 2004. Development Intervention: Actor and Activity Perspectives. Helsinki: Univ. Helsinki, Cent. Act. Theory Dev. Work Res ., Inst. Dev. Stud. Kuper A. 2005. Alternative histories of British social anthropology. Soc. Anthropol. 13:4764 Lashaw A. 2012. How progressive culture resists critique: the impasse of NGO studies. Ethnography. doi: 10.1177/1466138112463803. In press Latour B. 2004. Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Crit. Inq. 30:22548 Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press Lewis D, Mosse D, eds. 2006a. Development Brokers and Translators: The Ethnography of Aid and Agencies. Bloomeld, CT: Kumarian Lewis D. 2009. International development and the perpetual present: anthropological approaches to the re-historicization of policy. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 21:3246 Lewis D. 2011. Tidy concepts, messy lives: dening tensions in the domestic and overseas careers of U.K. non-governmental professionals. See Mosse 2011a, pp. 17797 Lewis D, Mosse D, eds. 2006b. Encountering order and disjuncture: contemporary anthropological perspectives on the organisation of development. Oxf. Dev. Stud. 44(Spec. iss.):113
Lewis D, Rodgers D, Woolcock M. 2008. The ction of development: literary representation as a source of authoritative knowledge. J. Dev. Stud. 44:198216 Li TM. 2005. Beyond the state and failed schemes. Am. Anthropol. 107:38394 Li TM. 2007a. Practices of assemblage and community forest management. Econ. Soc. 36:26393 Li TM. 2007b. The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Long N, Long A, eds. 1992. Battleelds of Knowledge: The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. London: Routledge Ludden D. 2005. Development regimes in South Asia: history and the governance conundrum. Econ. Pol. Wkly. 40:404251 Luetchford P. 2008. Fair Trade and a Global Commodity: Coffee in Costa Rica. London: Pluto MacFarlane A. 2012. Huxley Memorial Lecture: Anthropology, Empire and Modernity. London: Br. Mus. http://www.sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1370572 Mawdsley E. 2012. The changing geographies of foreign aid and development cooperation: contributions from gift theory. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 37:25672 McNeill D, St Clair AL. 2011. The World Banks expertise: observant participation in the World Development Report 2006, equity and development. See Mosse 2011a, pp. 10321 Merry SE. 2011. Measuring the world: indicators, human rights, and global governance. Curr. Anthropol. 52(3):S83S95 Mintzberg H. 1979. The Structuring of Organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Mitchell T. 2002. Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Mohan G. 2008. China in Africa: a review essay. Rev. Afr. Pol. Econ. 35:15575 Moore D. 2005. Suffering for Territory; Race, Place, and Power in Zimbabwe. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Mosse D. 2005a. Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. London: Pluto Mosse D. 2005b. Global governance and the ethnography of international aid. See Mosse & Lewis 2005, pp. 136 Mosse D. 2006. Anti-social anthropology? Objectivity, objection and the ethnography of public policy and professional communities. J. R. Anthropol. Inst.12:93556 Mosse D. 2010. A relational approach to durable poverty, inequality and power. J. Dev. Stud. 46:115678 Mosse D, ed. 2011a. Adventures in Aidland: The Anthropology of Professionals in International Development. New York/Oxford, UK: Berghahn Mosse D. 2011b. Social analysis as corporate product: non-economists/anthropologists at work at the World Bank in Washington, D.C. See Mosse 2011a, pp. 81102 Mosse D, Lewis D, eds. 2005. The Aid Effect: Giving and Governing in International Development. London/Ann Arbor: Pluto Moyo D. 2010. Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is Another Way for Africa. London: Penguin Muller B. 2008. The anthropology of international institutions. Presented at Eur. Sci. Found. Workshop, LAIOS, 2729 March, Paris, Fr. http://www.iiac.cnrs.fr/laios/sites/laios/IMG/pdf/ESF_programme.pdf OECD. 2005. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. Development Assistance Committee. Paris: OECD Olivier de Sardan JP. 2005. Anthropology and Development: Understanding Social Change. London: Zed Ong A. 2006. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Padel F, Das S. 2010. Out of This Earth: East India Adivasis and the Aluminium Cartel. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Pandian A. 2008. Devoted to development moral progress, ethical work, and divine favor in south India. Anthropol. Theory 8:15979 Pandian A. 2009. Crooked Stalks: Cultivating Virtue in South India. Durham, NC/London: Duke Univ. Press Peel JDY. 1978. Qlaju: a Yoruba concept of development. J. Dev. Stud. 14:13965 Pigg SL. 1992. Inventing social categories through place: social representations and development in Nepal. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 34:491513 Pollard A. 2009. Power in Doubt: Aid, Effectiveness and Harmonization Amongst Donors in Indonesia. PhD thesis, Dep. Soc. Anthropol. Univ. Cambridge
244 Mosse
Prahalad CK. 2005. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Prot and Enabling Dignity and Choice Through Markets. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton Sch. Pritchett L, Woolcock M. 2004. Solutions when the solution is the problem: arraying the disarray in development. World Dev. 32:191212 Quarles van Ufford P. 1988. The myth of rational development policy: evaluation versus policy making in Dutch Protestant donor agencies. In The Hidden Crisis in Development: Development Bureaucracies, ed. P Quarles van Ufford, D Kruijt, T Downing, pp. 7599. Tokyo/Amsterdam: U.N./Free Univ. Press Quarles van Ufford P, Giri A, eds. 2003. A Moral Critique of Development: In Search of Global Responsibilities. London/New York: Routledge Rajak D. 2011. In Good Company: An Anatomy of Corporate Social Responsibility. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press Randeria S. 2003. Cunning states and unaccountable international institutions: legal plurality, social movements and rights of local communities to common property resources. Eur. J. Sociol. 44:2760 Riles A. 2001. The Network Inside Out. Ann Arbor: Mich. Univ. Press Robbins J. 2004. Becoming Sinners: Christianity and Moral Torment in a Papua New Guinea Society. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Robinson WI. 2002. Remapping development in the light of globalisation: from a territorial to a social cartography. Third World Q. 23:104771 Rose N, Miller P. 1992. Political power beyond the state: problematics of government. Br. J. Sociol. 43:173205 Rossi B. 2004a. Order and disjuncture: theoretical shifts in the anthropology of aid and development. Curr. Anthropol. 45:55660 Rossi B. 2004b. Revisiting Foucauldian approaches: power dynamics in development projects. J. Dev. Stud. 40:129 Rottenburg R. 2009. Far-Fetched Facts. A Parable of Development Aid. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press Saad-Filho A, Johnston D. 2005. Neoliberalism: A Critical Reader. London: Pluto Sahlins M. 2008. The Western Illusion of Human Nature. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press Pam. Sarfaty GA. 2012. Values in Translation: Human Rights and the Culture of the World Bank. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press Schwegler T. 2009. Take it from the top (down)? Rethinking neoliberalism and political hierarchy in Mexico. Am. Ethnol. 35:682700 Schwittay A. 2011a. The nancial inclusion assemblage: subjects, technics, rationalities. Crit. Anthropol. 31:381401 Schwittay A. 2011b. The marketization of poverty. Curr. Anthropol. 52:S7182 Scott JC. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven/London: Yale Univ. Press Shah A. 2010. In the Shadows of the State: Indigenous Politics, Environmentalism and Insurgency in Jharkand, India. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Sillitoe P. 2007. Anthropologists only need apply: challenges of applied anthropology. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 13:14765 Shore C, Wright S. 2011. Conceptualising policy: technologies of governance and the politics of visibility. See Shore et al. 2011, pp. 125 Shore C, Wright S, Pero ` D. 2011. Policy Words: Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power. New York/London: Berghahn Smith D. 2006. Incorporating texts into ethnographic practice. In Institutional Ethnography as Practice, ed. D Smith, pp. 6588. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littleeld Soederberg S. 2004. American empire and excluded states: Bushs millennium challenge account and the shift to pre-emptive development? Third World Q. 25:279302 Soederberg S. 2006. Global Governance in Question: Empire, Class, and the New Common Sense in Managing North-South Relations. London/Ann Arbor: Pluto/Univ. Mich. Press St. Clair A. 2006. Global poverty: the co-production of knowledge and politics. Glob. Soc. Policy 6:5777 Steur L. 2011. Indigenist mobilization: identity versus class after the Kerala model of development. PhD thesis, Dep. Sociol. Soc. Anthropol ., Cent. Eur. Univ. Stiglitz J. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton
Stirrat R. 2008. Mercenaries, missionaries and mists: representation of development personnel. Crit. Anthropol. 28:40625 Subramanian A. 2009. Shorelines: Space and Rights in South India. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press Tsing AL. 2004. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Uchiyamada Y. 2004. Architecture of immanent power. Truth and nothingness in a Japanese bureaucratic machine. Soc. Anthropol. 12:323 van Gastel JN. 2011. The purication of aid: an ethnography of Dutch partnership policy and (broken) dreams of development. PhD thesis, Wageningen Univ. 151 pp. van Gastel JN, Nuijten M. 2005. The genealogy of the good governance and ownership agenda at the Dutch Ministry of Development Cooperation. See Mosse & Lewis 2005, pp. 85105 Venkatesan S, Yarrow T. 2012. Differentiating Development: Beyond an Anthropology of Critique. Oxford, UK/New York: Berghahn Verma R. 2011. Intercultural encounters, colonial continuities and contemporary disconnects in rural aid: an ethnography of development practitioners in Madagascar. See Fechter & Hindman 2011, pp. 5982 Wacquant L. 2012. Three steps to a historical anthropology of actually existing neoliberalism. Soc. Anthropol. 20:6679 Wade R. 1996. Japan, the World Bank and the art of paradigm maintenance. New Left Rev. 217:336 Watkins SC, Swidler A, Hannan T. 2012. Outsourcing social transformation: development NGOs as organizations. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38:285315 Watts M. 2003. Development and governmentality. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 24:634 Wedel J. 2000. Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe. New York: Palgrave Woods N. 2006. The Globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank and Their Borrowers. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press Woolcock M, Szreter SRS, Rao V. 2011. How and why does history matter for development policy? J. Dev. Stud. 41:7096 World Bank. 2011. World Development Report 2011: Conict, Security, and Development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Yarrow T. 2011. Development Beyond Politics: Aid, Activism and NGOs in Ghana. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Yarrow T, Venkatesan S. 2012. Anthropology and development: critical framings. See Venkatesan & Yarrow 2012, pp. 120
246
Mosse
Contents
Perspective
Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 42, 2013
Ourselves and Others Andr e B eteille p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1 Archaeology Power and Agency in Precolonial African States J. Cameron Monroe p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 17 The Archaeology of Illegal and Illicit Economies Alexandra Hartnett and Shannon Lee Dawdy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 37 Biomolecular Archaeology Keri A. Brown and Terence A. Brown p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 159 Biological Anthropology Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology Zo e Crossland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121
Agency and Adaptation: New Directions in Evolutionary Anthropology Eric Alden Smith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 103 Teeth and Human Life-History Evolution Tanya M. Smith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191 Comparative Reproductive Energetics of Human and Nonhuman Primates Melissa Emery Thompson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 287 Signicance of Neandertal and Denisovan Genomes in Human Evolution John Hawks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 433
Linguistics and Communicative Practices
Ethnographic Research on Modern Business Corporations Greg Urban and Kyung-Nan Koh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
vii
Language Management/Labor Bonnie Urciuoli and Chaise LaDousa p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 175 Jurisdiction: Grounding Law in Language Justin B. Richland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 209 Francophonie C ecile B. Vigouroux p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 379 Evidence and Authority in Ethnographic and Linguistic Perspective Joel Kuipers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 399 International Anthropology and Regional Studies
Anthropologizing Afghanistan: Colonial and Postcolonial Encounters Alessandro Monsutti p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269 Borders and the Relocation of Europe Sarah Green p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 345 Roma and Gypsy Ethnicity as a Subject of Anthropological Inquiry Michael Stewart p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 415 Sociocultural Anthropology Disability Worlds Faye Ginsburg and Rayna Rapp p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 53 Health of Indigenous Circumpolar Populations J. Josh Snodgrass p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 69 The Anthropology of Organ Transplantation Charlotte Ikels p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 89
The Anthropology of International Development David Mosse p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 227 The Nature/Culture of Genetic Facts Jonathan Marks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 247 Globalization and Race: Structures of Inequality, New Sovereignties, and Citizenship in a Neoliberal Era Deborah A. Thomas and M. Kamari Clarke p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 305
The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure Brian Larkin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 327 The Anthropology of Radio Fields Lucas Bessire and Daniel Fisher p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363
viii
Contents
Theme: Evidence The Archaeology of Illegal and Illicit Economies Alexandra Hartnett and Shannon Lee Dawdy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 37 Biomolecular Archaeology Keri A. Brown and Terence A. Brown p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 159
Evidential Regimes of Forensic Archaeology Zo e Crossland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121 Teeth and Human Life-History Evolution Tanya M. Smith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191 The Nature/Culture of Genetic Facts Jonathan Marks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 247 Evidence and Authority in Ethnographic and Linguistic Perspective Joel Kuipers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 399 Signicance of Neandertal and Denisovan Genomes in Human Evolution John Hawks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 433 Indexes Cumulative Index of Article Titles, Volumes 3342 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 455 Errata An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 3342 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451
Contents
ix

Anthro of Development - Mosse 2013

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Anthro of Development - Mosse 2013

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ANNUAL REVIEWS

The Anthropology of International Development

BACKGROUND: ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE CRITIQUE OF DEVELOPMENT

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: INSIDE THE BLACK BOX

DEVELOPMENTS EXPERT KNOWLEDGE

SOCIAL LIFE IN AIDLAND

THE NEW AID ARCHITECTURE

CURRENT TRENDS: CORPORATIONS, CONFLICTS, AND CHINA

Governing at the Periphery

Annual Review of Anthropology Volume 42, 2013

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen