Eilish Dillon1
Contesting Narratives of Change: Understanding Power Relations in the International
Development Field in Ireland
1. Introduction.
In 2006, the Irish government published a White Paper on Irish Aid. As a new policy framing of the
Irish government's approach to development co-operation and aid, its relationships with other actors
in this field and with 'developing countries', its publication suggests a moment of change in relation
to the international development field in Ireland. In the context of significant increases in the budget
for Overseas Development Assistance in the last few years 2, it is designed to provide a framework
for Irish development co-operation in the coming years. If the White Paper and increases in the Irish
Aid budget are ‘snapshots’ of change in the international development field in Ireland, it may be
time to look at the construction of change in this field.
In this paper, I explore the construction of change in relation to development in the field of
international development in Ireland. I argue that commonly constructed narratives of change, i.e.,
that it results from increased funding to Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), that it reflects
improvements and best practice in the area of development in the light of a changing development
environment and that it is the product of consultation and partnership, consensus-building is a
limited understanding of change, one which undermines the complexities of power relations in the
field of international development in Ireland. I explore different approaches to understanding power
relations in development. In particular I focus on work inspired by Foucault and Bourdieu, both of
whom can provide crucial insights into how power works in the context of different development
‘apparatuses’ or ‘fields’. The introductory understanding of field used here is that it refers to the
actors, institutions, policies, practices, discourses and ideologies which relate to international
development in Ireland and the relations between them. Before identifying a framework for
analyzing power relations in the international development field in Ireland, I would like to discuss
narratives of change in the field of international development in Ireland, identifying some of the
limitations associated with it.
1 Kimmage Development Studies Centre
2 Figures for Irish ODA levels since 1996 are as follows: €m142 – 1996; €m157 – 1997; €m177-1998; €m230 – 1999; €m254 – 2000; €m319 – 2001;
€m422 – 2002; €m445 – 2003; €m475 – 2004; €m545 – 2005; €m734 – 2006 (White Paper on Irish Aid, p.8).
1
2. Narratives of Change in International Development in Ireland
2.1. Growth in ODA
A central discursive narrative in relation to change in International Development in Ireland relates
to change as ‘improvement’ associated with periods of growth in Overseas Development Assistance
(ODA). The OECD DAC Peer Review (2003) highlighted that “sustained economic growth up until
2002 enabled successive Irish governments to increase ODA dramatically, including when public
expenditure was under tight control and spending on domestic social services was being reduced”
(2003, p.1). Though not the ‘steady growth’ that is often suggested, growth in funding has been
associated with review and ‘improved’ policy articulation by Development Co-operation Ireland,
subsequently known as Ireland Aid and more recently as Irish Aid. It is also linked to the expansion
of the numbers, scale and range of practices of actors in the field, and what it is assumed can be
achieved through these practices. The Review of Ireland Aid (2002) for example, opens with the
statement that
The Irish official aid programme, Ireland Aid, is now twenty-eight years old. It has grown
steadily over the years from modest beginnings to its current size. In September 2000 the
Fianna Fail/Progressive Democrat Partnership Government decided that Ireland would reach
the UN target of 0.7% of GNP for expenditure on Overseas Development Assistance by the
end of 2007… This dramatic and unprecedented increase in the funding for ODA places
Ireland at the forefront of international efforts to reduce poverty and inequality and to
respond to humanitarian disasters in developing countries (Liz O’Donnell, Review of
Ireland Aid, 2002, p.2).
The publication of the White Paper on Irish Aid (2006) was also associated with the Irish
Government’s commitment to achieve the 0.7% target in Overseas Development Assistance (ODA),
but this time by 2012.
Ireland's first ever White Paper on Irish Aid is a significant milestone in the thirty-two year
history of our aid programme. It underlines the high priority we, as a nation, place on the
fight against world poverty and comes at a time of major increases in aid spending. This
White Paper emphasises the central importance of development cooperation to Ireland's
wider foreign policy, expressing as it does our longstanding commitment to human rights
and an overarching adherence to international justice. More than that, Irish Aid is saving and
improving the quality of peoples' lives on the ground – our principles brought to life. Irish
Aid works in over 90 countries throughout the world assisting the most vulnerable and
enabling them to realise the potential that circumstance and injustice constrain. It is
important, therefore, to highlight this key aspect of Ireland's foreign policy and to explain
how we intend to build on this work into the future (Dermot Ahern and Conor Lenihan,
White Paper on Irish Aid, 2006, p.4).
References to the commitment to reach the ODA target are also part of the narrative of change used
2
by many of the NGOs active in international development in Ireland, e.g., in its September 2007
publication ‘Towards 2012: A New Overseas Development Agenda for Ireland, Trócaire outlines
that
Ireland’s development programme has been growing in recent years and it has earned
widespread recognition internationally. The Government has committed itself to increasing
the aid budget to 0.7% of GNP by 2012 (three years ahead of the UN deadline), thus the next
five years will be critical for building upon achievements to date. The 2006 White Paper on
Irish Aid laid the foundations for a good quality programme and much has been done to
ensure Irish resources are well spent in the field (Trócaire, 2007, p.1).
On the other hand, it goes on to argue that “this does not mean, however, that we can afford to be
complacent. Ireland has a responsibility to deliver on its existing commitments and to expand its
programme in other areas” (2007, p.1).
There is no doubting the expansion of the development field in Ireland, in terms of the numbers of
actors involved3 and the budgets allocated to development, as reflected in this narrative construction
of growth, but simple reading of this narrative of change as related to growth in government
funding hides the complexities involved in the story. Firstly, as mentioned above, it belies the
unsteady and faltering nature of the growth in ODA. Secondly, it belies the fact that the
commitments to moving towards ‘the .7% target’ have been made more than once, and that ODA
commitments have been repeatedly revised or broken by governments since the 1980s. Thirdly, and
more significantly for my purposes, it could suggest that change, or growth in this case, is simply
externally determined. This assumes that the field grows with increased funding. Though this has
often been the case, it is not necessarily so, as increased funding can lead to the consolidation of
‘big players’ and the isolation of smaller, weaker ones. It also assumes that increased funding and an
expanded development field leads to more and better development. This is a highly problematic
assumption and it suggests the need to interrogate the structural influences of change, in relation to
the economy, as suggested by the DAC (2003) statement above, and politics, as suggested by Liz
O’Donnell’s statement (2002). Structural influences on change are important considerations when
attempting to understand the power relations associated with changes in the Irish development field,
but they need careful examination if the complexities of the story are to emerge.
2.2. Change and ‘Best Practice’
3
Dóchas, the Irish Association of Non-Governmental Development Organisations (NGDOs), now has over 30
members (from 17 in 1993) (Dóchas, 2004).
3
A second narrative of change in international development in Ireland relates to the notion that
changes in policies and practices reflect ‘best practice’, or at least ‘improvement’, in the context of
how development agents can respond to changing needs and a changing development environment.
Trócaire’s opening statement in its ‘Towards 2012’ policy statement relates to ‘the changing overseas development context’, and there Trócaire argues that “Ireland…must… respond to the changing dynamics in the international scene and seize the opportunity to position itself as a champion
of development at EU and global level” (2007, p.1). The DAC advice to Irish Aid includes statements like: “international good practice stresses the importance of…”; “Ireland is committed to addressing the challenge that…”; “Ireland should consider a range of actions…”; “After reflecting on
the appropriate institutional framework for delivering Ireland’s ODA…”; and “Promoting an evaluation culture is an objective for DCI” (2003). Such statements correspond with the promotion of efficiency and professionalism by Irish Aid, but they are more widely associated with the commonlyused phrase ‘best practice’. Indeed, when ‘looking to the future’, the White Paper on Irish Aid suggests that “development cooperation is not static; to be effective, it must adapt and develop to respond to the changing world. Irish Aid too must adapt. It has evolved over the last 30 years to meet
new development challenges, to keep up with changing best practice and to make the most of the
opportunities presented by expanding budgets” (2006, p.114).
Discourses of ‘best practice’ with regard to changes in policy and practice suggest a natural and
progressive adaptation to change in the development policy environment. This linear, rational
analysis of policy construction has been much criticized in development analysis in recent years,
with an emphasis being placed on the complex, fractured relationship between policy discourses
and development ‘needs’, for example, and between actors and the practices they adopt. A
significant contribution in this regard relates to the analysis of various types of development policy
and practice as discursive constructions with social and political dimensions (Keeley and Scoones,
2003). The evolutionary sense that characterizes development ‘best practice’ also suggests a
discourse of change as improvement, which has been much criticized by post-development theorists
(Esteva, 1993). This raises questions about whether or not current policy constructions indeed
reflect an ‘improvement’ and/or whether or not they reflect any meaningful change. These questions
suggest the need to explore change in relation to development policy and practices through an
examination of discursive continuity and change in the light of discursive power, the relationship
between discourses and practices and discourse-agency debates.
2.3. Change ‘in Consultation’
4
A third narrative of change in relation to development in Ireland relates to change as a product of
consultation and partnership, consensus-building relationships in the development field in Ireland.
In 2002, Dóchas, for example, entered into a process of developing what it calls “a strategic
partnership with Ireland Aid” (Dóchas, 2004, p. 24), and a Memorandum of Understanding was
signed between Irish Aid (Ireland Aid at the time) and Dóchas. This was designed “to enable
Dóchas to become a more actively engaged and better resourced partner of Ireland Aid, in order to
reinforce our common overarching goal of reducing poverty throughout the developing world”
(Dóchas, 2004, p.24). Dóchas sees itself as playing an important role in promoting policy dialogue
with the Irish government and the EU (Dóchas, 2006). The White Paper is constructed as a product
of consultation, e.g., it outlines that it “is not simply the product of internal dialogue, it represents
the culmination of intensive public consultation” (2006, p.5). Furthermore, partnership with NGOs
is regarded as extremely important to Irish Aid: “the Irish non-governmental sector will continue to
be a key partner for the Irish Aid programme. Poverty reduction is our shared goal; we can work
towards it in separate and complimentary ways” (2006, p.75). It argues that “our relationship with
NGOs goes beyond funding arrangements and includes policy dialogue across a range of areas”
(ibid). In the context of the “excellent reputation” (ibid) that NGOs enjoy and their “clear
advantages” (ibid), “as the programme has expanded, so too has the funding available to NGOs.
Our funding to NGOs was approximately €48 million in 2001 and had risen to over €100 million by
2005. Compared to other donors, the proportion of funding provided to NGOs is high, in the region
of 15-20% per year” (2006, p.75).
The discourse of change as reflecting dialogue, partnership and consultation raises important
questions about relationships in the international development field in Ireland. Though not
suggesting an homogenous field, i.e., from both Dóchas and Irish Aid there is an acknowledgement
of agencies working ‘together but differently’, repeated references to dialogue, partnership and
consultation can give the impression of consensus and do not take account of the tensions involved
in these ‘partnerships’, nor of the different policies, practices, positions and relationships of
different actors in the development field. Nor does it take account of the intense lobbying by
various NGOs in relation to various policy positions. Analysing the field as heterogeneous and
hierarchical allows for greater acknowledgement of the negotiations involved in change among
different actors positioned differently in the field. I will return to the analysis of field in a later
section. In the meantime, in order to move beyond this limited narrative construction of change in
the international development field in Ireland, a useful starting point is to consider different
approaches to understanding power relations in development.
3. Understanding Power Relations in the Field of International Development
5
There is a complex range of analyses and themes related to understanding power relations in
international development. Here I would like to highlight the nexus of structure, discourse and
agency as central to analyzing power relations in the development field. Debates in relation to
power are as often as overlapping and complimentary as they are divergent and contradictory. These
debates relate to the different roles and relationships of various actors in the development field, to
discursive and ideological power of development actors, and to understanding culture and
bureaucratic power within and among development organisations. These debates reflect different
perspectives in relation to power, e.g., with neo-Marxists emphasising structural constraints on
certain actors in different contexts, while other ‘radicals’, functionalists and neoliberals emphasise
the effectiveness of ‘alternative’ organisational forms and working practices in development. While
such an analysis of power takes roles and relationships as its central focus, a discourse oriented
perspective, following Foucault, focuses on the power of development discourses in shaping the
roles and relationships of various actors, as well as their development policies and practices
(Escobar, 1995). A third strand of thinking tries to bring together the best of ‘actor-oriented’ (Long,
1992) and discursive approaches, and this has manifested itself in a variety of different strands of
thinking and areas of inquiry in relation to power in development. A particularly interesting addition
to this work is recent analysis of development as a field of power following the work of Bourdieu
(1992).
3.1. Structural Power
When considering structural influences on change in the international development field, there are a
variety of issues and debates. These are crystallized in relation to responses to the structural power
of capitalist neoliberal policies in the context of globalisation (Rai, 2002). Two debates are of
significance here: the roles and relationships of the state and NGOs in development and the
professionalisation of development practice.
Analyses and critiques of the roles and relationships of the state and NGOs in development (Hulme
and Edwards, 1997) have a long history in development studies and they cover a vast range of
power-related debates. Issues such as the constraints placed on NGO radicalism by their
relationship with the state and the question of ‘who controls the development agenda?’ are
highlighted. In the context of neoliberalism, it could be argued that NGOs act as ‘pawns of the state’
in that they often fill the gaps left by the state, or act as the 'private' in development’s 'public-private
partnerships'. They are sometimes regarded as the ideological tools of donors (Hearn, 1998) and
there are questions about their accountability (Najam, 1996), for example, in the context of different
6
debates on the role of the state in the context of globalisation (Dale, 2000; Chang, 2003). It has been
argued that development relationships between the state and NGOs can reflect social contract
relationships, where donor states promote their own agenda through financing of NGO activity and
curtail this support where NGO activities are too challenging (Smith, 1990). Despite these critiques,
NGDOs have also been conceived of as playing an important role in co-operating with, challenging
and negotiating with the state on different development issues. It is important to take into account
the myriad of relationships between donor, state and civil society actors as well as the fact that
states and NGOs negotiate with and influence each other. Fuat Keyman warns that we must take
into account the “dynamic nature of the state-civil society relationship” (1997, p.80). This suggests
that any simplistic reading of state-civil Society or state-NGDO relationships will not capture the
complexities of context-specific relationships.
A similar line of critique in relation to the power of capitalist neoliberalism relates to the influence
of New Public Management on development organisations. For many commentators development
has become characterised by the same kinds of professionalised practices that are associated with
other institutional fields, e.g., specialisation of educational qualifications and professional roles,
financial accounting practices and other accountability and efficiency requirements, and market and
public relations requirements (Edwards and Hulme 1995; Fowler, 2000; Wallace, 2001 and
Hilhorst, 2003). For many, these changes are associated with 'best practice', as identified in relation
to DAC (2003) policy constructions above, but for others, questions are raised about the impact of
the instrumentalism, efficiency-orientation and measurement focus of professionalised practices on
development relationships, e.g, in relation to accountability mechanisms (Hilhorst, 2003). Wallace,
for example argues with reference to the British NGO sector that there is diversity, but
There are trends showing a growing similarity of language, procedures, and concepts of
development with those of institutional donors and decision makers within governments, the
UN and the World Bank. There are clearly tensions between the growing
'professionalisation' of development, the NGO adoption of 'new public management'
practices and approaches, and the increased focus on upward accountability and
communication on the one hand, and the commitments within these organisations to
participation, downward accountability, local empowerment, and gender equity on the other.
The managerial paradigm... runs a real danger of being remote from the social, political and
economic realities and processes that take place at country and local levels, and of ignoring
cultural patterns and local understandings (2001, p.36).
One wonders if the same could be said of the Irish NGO sector.
With regard to understanding narratives of change in international development in Ireland, debates
7
such as these suggest that a framework for understanding power relations would involve mapping
structural influences on policy change, on institutional practices and on actor networks and
relations. Though incorporating an analysis of the influence of state funding allocations to ODA on
changes in policy, practice and actor relationships in development in Ireland, a critical dimension of
this analytical framework would also involve analysing the influence of neoliberal economic
policies of Irish governments (Jacobsen et al., 2002), for example, on development policy
constructions, as well as on state-NGO relationships in Ireland. To what extent, for example, can we
understand the ‘partnership’ role of Irish NGOs to Irish Aid as one of ‘service contractor’, and what
are the implications of this role on the politics of NGO international development policy-making in
Ireland? Is the critical analysis that is brought to interrogating the ‘partnership’ agreements in
Ireland being brought to bear on the international development field in Ireland (Jacobsen et al.
2002)?
A further element of this analysis would involve interrogating the influence of donor relationships
at an international level, in the context of globalisation, on changes in development policies and
practices, e.g., the influence of the OECD DAC on development policy in Ireland and relationships
between trade policy and development policy. It is not enough to say ‘in the context of increased
ODA…..’, the origins and effects of this ‘increase’ need to be understood and located. Such an
analysis would begin to offer a critical insight into the shifting boundaries within which change is
articulated and realised in relation to international development in Ireland. At an even more
fundamental level, the link between increased ODA and ‘more and better development’ needs to be
examined.
3.2. Discourses and Power
With regard to the second issue identified above, i.e., changes in development policy and practices
and the discursive power of development, in the 1990s, a significant body of work emerged in
development research and theory which focused on power relations in development, not so much on
material structures or the roles and relationships of various actors, but in relation to development
discourses. The main focus of this work, which has become known as post-development (Sachs,
1993; Crush, 1995; Esteva, 1993; Escobar, 1995; Parpart, 1995; and Rahnema and Bawtree, 1997),
is how a discourse of development, conceived, following Foucault, as an ‘episteme’, has managed
to construct the 'Third World' and development practices related to it. According to Sachs, “the
development discourse is made up of a web of key concepts… each of them crystallizes a set of
tacit assumptions which reinforce the Occidental worldview. Development has so pervasively
spread these assumptions that people everywhere have been caught up in a Western perception of
8
reality” (1993, p.4/5). Escobar (1995) argues that this discourse is so powerful that all actors are
subjected by it and to it, that it gives aid and development a 'taken-for-grantedness', and that it coopts apparent changes in development into it, de-radicalising them. Thus, Escobar (1995) argues,
there is a discourse of development which acts as a dominating and all-embracing structure on
development policy and practice. In this view, development is a “modernist regime of knowledge
and discipline” (Gasper, 1999, p.4).
Such a discursive approach is a powerful way of looking at development in its attempt to
understand the continuity and taken-for-grantedness in development, the tendency for development
policies and practices to take on new fashions or 'buzz words or fuzz words' (Cornwall, 2007), and
the power of development representations (Chowdry, 1995). This work has given a critical insight
into the power of development discourse to mould taken for granted assumptions about
development and development relationships, and into how development policies, practices and actor
positions are shaped within a narrow ‘mainstream’ construction of development. Critically, postdevelopment theorists are critical of development. They argue that changes in policy reflect the
power of development discourse to co-opt potentially radical development notions into 'mainstream'
development, depoliticising them and rendering them not the 'real' changes they may appear to be.
This analysis of development as one, overarching, hegemonic discourse, e.g., of modernisation,
neoliberalism or Westernisation (in Latouche's (1993) terms), tries to explain the power and
persistence of certain practices and neo-colonial-type (Brigg, 2002) relationships in development,
e.g., the renewed value that has been placed on volunteering in the White Paper on Irish Aid4.
Such perspectives have been criticised for a number of reasons. From those similarly interested in
post-structuralism and discourse studies, there have been criticisms of the essentialism of Escobar's
construction of development discourse (Gasper, 1999) – some argue that not all development
reflects this neo-colonial, Westernised construction (Storey, 2000) - and of the over-reliance on
Foucault's construction of discourse. Parfitt (2002), for example, calls for the introduction of
Derrida's work into the mix, arguing that the normative bases for development need to be identified
if alternatives are not to be simplified or undermined. From neo-Marxism, there are criticisms of
Escobar's work, for example, for over-emphasising discourse to the neglect of the economy or
politics, or the material realities at work in development (Kiely, 1999). On the other hand, Escobar
seems to regard the development discourse as positioning donors and states as the drivers of
4
According to Dóchas (2006a) there are 32 references to ‘volunteering’ in the White Paper on Irish Aid. This
contrasts with 43 references to NGOs. Most of the references relate to the volunteering centre, the volunteering
corps unit in DFA and Irish Aid’s public and private sector role.
9
development, viewing NGOs as offering alternatives to development. This seems to fly in the face
of much analysis which increasingly regards NGOs and state as working together in ‘mainstream
development’, and it suggests a radicalism that is not always evident among many NGOs.
A related strand of work within post-development, and which also borrows from Foucault, is that
associated with James Ferguson (1990). For Ferguson, development is conceptualised following
Foucault as 'dispositif', a highly sophisticated anti-politics machine to which all development actors
are subjected, and which shapes development ideologies. A “dispositif is both a 'thoroughly
heterogeneous ensemble' of discursive and material elements – for example, 'discourses,
institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decision, laws, administrative measures, scientific
statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions', and so on – and the 'system of
relations... established between these elements' (Foucault, 1980, p.194) in Brigg, 2002, p.427).
Brigg (2002, p.426) argues that this concept of 'dispositif', combined with his application of the
concept of ‘normalisation’ offers greater possibilities for applying Foucault's analytics of power to
understanding development than the “anachronistic sovereign conceptualisation of power” he
associates with much post-development thinking. This is a conceptualisation of power which
highlights “the relevance of Foucault's relational conceptualisation of power and recognition that
development is synthetically bound with biopower, which operates by bringing forth and
promoting, rather than repressing, the forces and energies of human subjects” (2002, p.422). Thus,
he suggests, following Foucault, that as power is everywhere, and productive as well as destructive,
the complexities of discursive power should provide the basis for analysis rather than a limited
focus on the negative effects of certain discourses.
Despite the criticisms of post-development and the complexities associated with different
applications of Foucault's work to understanding power and development, a key dimension of any
framework of analysis of power relations in development relates to discursive power, e.g., how and
whether policy discourses represent change, the dominance (and anti-politics (Ferguson, 1990)) of
certain discourses of development, and the effects of these discourses on development practices. An
example here could include an analysis of the impact of neoliberalism on discourses and practices
of partnership and privatisation in the international development field in Ireland5.
Recent work in this regard emphasises a more context-specific and applied role for discourse
analysis. This involves questioning discursive power in the context of the power of different
5
In relation to its description of the ‘changing face of development’ the White Paper on Irish Aid suggests that “there
is increasing interest in the role of the private sector in development, including from the private sector here in
Ireland. We will continue to support efforts to strengthen private sector investment” (2006, p.31).
10
development actors to negotiate with and shape different discourses or narratives of development
(Hilhorst, 2003). In relation to understanding change and power relations in international
development in Ireland, this would suggest that an important dimension of any analytical
framework would involve exploration of discourse continuity and change, as well as analysis of the
effects of different policy discourses on development practices and relationships, e.g., to what
extent is the Irish Aid Gender Equality Policy reflective of an inclusionary rather than a
transformation discourse of gender mainstreaming?
3.3. Power and Agency
From anthropology, there is another range of material which is critical of discourse-based analysis,
and which focuses on the contestation of actors in different development contexts. Long's (1992)
work on development as a battlefield has inspired a large range of work in what he calls 'the actororiented' field. In this often ethnographically-focused work, the emphasis is on how different actors
in different contexts negotiate, manipulate, subvert and critically engage with development
discourses, practices and positionings in order to achieve multiple and creative means and ends in
the development context. This is work which tries to break down the notion of development as one
overarching hegemonic framework, identifying the multiple, plural and differentiated nature of
development actors, discourses and practices. Using the concept of 'interface', agency is highlighted
as central to understandings of development organisations and practices. One difficulty with this
approach is the tendency to over-emphasise agency to the detriment of analyses of structural or
discursive power, e.g., it is as important to understand the constraints on actors’ agency as it is to
understand what they can do.
Crewe and Harrison (1998) and Hilhorst (2003) try to address this weakness. Hilhorst (2003)
explains the continuities in development practices while arguing for an analysis of the everyday
politics of NGOs (Hilhorst, 2003, p.4). She moves away from a purely structuring analysis of
discourse acknowledging that though some discourses are powerful, the hegemonic power of
discourse cannot be assumed. “First, we should ask when and how particular discourses become
more powerful than others”, she suggests (Hilhorst 2003, p.11). Arguing after Giddens for an
understanding of 'the duality of discourse', she outlines that “discourses are both the medium and
the outcome of the practices they organise” (ibid). Thus, she uses the concept of 'social interface' to
study “the interplay of different discourses and how they are negotiated in everyday practices”
(ibid). This attempt to focus on discourses as constructive, active and powerful while
acknowledging that actors are agents and not merely subjects of discourse, has commonalities with
recent work in relation to development policy discourse construction (Keeley and Scoones, 2003).
11
In terms of the international development field in Ireland, discourse-agency based analysis of power
relations could also help to explain the emergence of new discourses. It can also help to explain
why there are differences in discursive construction among various actors in the same development
field, e.g., in relation to constructions of governance (corruption vs. radical democracy
constructions) and of poverty (reduction vs. eradication), and the place of aid in development. Such
differences usually coincide with consensus or shared discourses, e.g., related to the recent ubiquity
of the importance of policy coherence, climate change and the long-term agreement on reaching the
target of ODA. It also highlights the importance of analysing how different actors negotiate around
different discourses of change in an Irish context. Cursory analysis of responses by Dóchas and
Trócaire, for example, to the White Paper on Irish Aid would suggest that despite the language of
'welcome', these development actors are engaged in an on-going process of contestation around
different aspects of Irish government policy. Though placing less emphasis on discourse analysis,
actor-oriented analysis suggests the importance of understanding the heterogeneity of policies and
practices among different actors in international development in Ireland. Though it acknowledges
that change is influenced by actor negotiations and it acknowledges diversity within the field of
international development in Ireland in terms of actor discourses, policies and practices, such an
approach leaves unanswered some questions about different actor positions and relationships and
the tensions involved in this field among various actors positioned differently in the field. This
suggests the need to combine actor-oriented analyses with analysis of structural and discursive
power in the international field of development in Ireland.
3.4. Bourdieu and Power in the Development Field
Recently, work inspired by Bourdieu has begun to enter the critical development field (Ribeiro,
2002; Calhoun, 2006 and Navarro, 2006). Bourdieu's work was not focused on 'discourse', as
evident in the work of Foucault. Instead, Bourdieu tried to “create a theory of social practices and
human action equidistant from the opposing poles of either an overemphasis on agency or a onesided focus on structures” (Navarro, 2006, p.13). According to Calhoun, “Bourdieu's effort was not
merely to forge a theoretical synthesis, but to develop the capacity to overcome some of the
opposition between theoretical knowledge based on objectification of social life and
phenomenological efforts to grasp its embodied experience and (re)production in action. Human
social action is at once 'structured' and 'structuring', Bourdieu argued, indeed structuring because it
is structured” (2006, p.1407). In order to theorise structural and agency power, Bourdieu developed
the concepts of 'habitus', 'capital' and 'field'. The concept of 'habitus', which approximates to the
term 'disposition' or “world view” (Fowler, 1999, p.2) explains “the way society becomes deposited
12
in persons in the form of lasting dispositions, or trained capacities and structured propensities to
think, feel, and act in determinate ways” (Wacquant, 2005: 316, in Navarro, 2006, p.16). Fowler
explains that for Bourdieu, “each agent's habitus is formed by their class, but also by their gender
and their own occupational field” (1999, p.2). Applied to development, the notion of 'habitus' could
approximate to the different 'taken-for-grantededness' that different agents exhibit in relation to
constructions and understandings of development in the development field. Bourdieu uses the
concept of 'doxa' to explain the broader 'taken-for-granted' “assumptions or orthodoxies of an epoch
which are deeper in the level of consciousness than mere ideologies, but are also productive of
conscious struggles and new forms” (Fowler, 1999, p.2). This is often linked to the concept of
ideology and Foucault's understanding of discourse as 'episteme'.
In relation to the concept of 'field', Bourdieu argued that “the social world can be conceptualised as
a series of relatively autonomous but structurally homologous fields of production, circulation and
consumption of various forms of cultural as well as material resources” (Navarro, 2006, p.14).
These 'resources' are otherwise known as 'capital', in Bourdieu's terms. Though he identified various
forms of capital associated with different forms of power, Bourdieu was particularly interested in
'symbolic capital'. For him, “symbolic power...is defined in and through a given relation between
those who exercise power and those who submit to it, i.e., in the very structure of the field in which
belief is produced and reproduced. What creates the power of words and slogans, a power capable
of maintaining or subverting the social order, is the belief in the legitimacy of words and of those
who utter them” (1992, p.17).
Analysis of habitus and symbolic power in relation to change in the international development field
in Ireland suggests the importance of exploring the legitimacy of certain change claims in relation
to international development in Ireland, and how legitimacy is constructed and related to “material
interests” (Navarro, 2006). This overlaps with analyses of development ideologies and discourse
critique in the exploration of the power of certain worldviews or discourses to shape agency, e.g.,
related to development assistance and aid. This approach qualifies the discursive approach used by
Escobar (1995) in that it does not assume the hegemonic power of particular development
discursive constructions.
In this case, the legitimacy or power of different discourses are questioned and analysed in the
context of the specific development field at different times. Dóchas, for example, has criticised the
new focus in Irish Aid development discourse on ‘security’ arguing instead for an alternative
theorisation of ‘human security’. In their ‘key word’ analysis of the White Paper on Irish Aid, they
13
point out that of the 52 references to ‘security’ in the document, there is only one reference to
‘human security’ (2006). This also implies analysis of development policies which are deemed to be
legitimate at a particular time, and exploring why some policies are considered ‘appropriate’, close
to ‘best practice’ or not. While ‘best practice’ may indeed reflect radical politics, e.g., the Dóchas
exploration of accountability (Leen, 2006), this is often not the case. Banúlacht, for example, have
questioned the notion of ‘best practice’. They argue instead for the principle of ‘critical best
practice’. “This acknowledges the importance of critical dialogue in relation to what ‘best practice’
means in different contexts, and acknowledges that understandings of best practice are arrived at
through consultation, debate, negotiation, and active engagement by all stakeholders in
development cooperation and particularly those affected by development cooperation policies and
practices” (Banúlacht, 2005).
Analysis of symbolic power raises important questions about how legitimacy is shaped within
international development in Ireland and by whom. Furthermore, it suggests that a narrative of
‘change’, based on dialogue and consultation, is itself one of the legitimate narratives at work in the
international development field in Ireland. Work following Bourdieu (1992) also qualifies an easy
assumption that the structural influences on change are always evident, e.g., though a rise in ODA is
a significant structural factor in policy change in the international development field in Ireland, for
example, the symbolic power and influence of organisations such as the OECD DAC may be even
more significant.
According to Perrot et al., “Bourdieu (1986) defines a field as a set of relations and interrelations
based on specific values and practices that operate in given contexts. A field is heterogeneous by
definition; it is made up of different actors, institutions, discourses and forces in tension. Within a
field, everything makes sense in relational terms by means of oppositions and distinctions.
Strategies of cooperation or conflict among actors determine whether a particular doctrine is
hegemonic, regardless of its success or failures” (Perrot et al., 1992, 202 – 204 in Ribeiro, 2002,
p.169). According to Navarro, “fields, therefore, represent a certain distribution structure of some
types of capital and they indicate arenas of struggle around production, accumulation, circulation
and possession of goods, services, knowledge, or status and the competition among agents to
monopolise distinct capitals... at the heart of all social arrangements is the struggle for power – not
only over material resources but also over symbolic power” (2006, p.18).
Ribeiro's (2002) work on the development field as a field of power allows him to focus on how
different agents are positioned differently in the field and how the field is characterised by power
14
struggles, development dramas, as well as bureaucracies, with their own power, ideologies and
utopias. He argues that the development field is heterogeneous and that “for radical or minor
reforms of development and cooperation, a critical knowledge of development's value systems and
grammar is as crucial as laying bare its structuration as a powerfield” (2002, p.175). Bourdieu’s
concept of power field brings together structure and agency issues and suggests an analysis of the
power related to different capitals at work in the development field, e.g., funding, policy expertise,
public relations, moral authority, policy networks, partnerships etc. Acknowledging the structural
constraints on the field, Brigg explains that
The structure and dynamics of every development field are marked by different power
capabilities and interests that are articulated through historical processes of networking.
Development encompasses different political visions and positions ranging from an interest
in accumulation of economic and political power to an emphasis on redistribution and
equity. In consequence, power struggles are common among actors, within and across
institutions. Differentiated power roles operate within the web of relations and are
concretely expressed by the disparities existing between, e.g, the capabilities and actions of
the World Bank and those of a small NGO in India (2002, p.170).
In order to understand power relations in the international development field in Ireland, it is
important to understand the positions and relations of different actors in terms of the interests and
various ‘capitals’ or ‘capabilities’ at work, e.g., who is silenced and why? Who is considered to be
‘on the inside’ and ‘who is on the outside’? Whose influence counts? This analysis brings us beyond
a simplistic narrative of ‘partnership’ and ‘consensus’ towards opening up an analysis of the
tensions and hierarchies involved in the field of international development in Ireland. When
partnership is emphasised to the detriment of heterogeneity or difference, it can undermine the
political contestation at work in the field and reinforce a silencing of dissent within the development
field in Ireland.
In terms of the structural power of development, Brigg argues that “development does not mean
structural changes in power distribution” (2002, p.178), and he draws on Rist (1997) for his
explanation: “those in power have no interest to change (whatever they might say to the contrary),
and those who want change do not have the means to impose it (1997: 243)” (2002, p.178). Hence,
he presents a picture of a conservative, unchanging field which is characterised by differential
power by agents with different interests and capacities. Arguing that the development field is replete
with power brokers who “amass a great quantity of power” (2002, p.180), he concludes that
“though there are no easy solutions for the conflicts of power created by the development field, only
by changing the characteristics of the power distribution within this field will technical cooperation
and development really change” (2002, p.182). Thus, following Bourdieu, it is possible to analyse
15
the continuation and power of certain discourses and practices, not just in terms of the dominance of
discourse to ‘enrol’ and ‘co-opt’ alternatives (Escobar, 1995), but in terms of the interests and
symbolic power of various actors in the development field. This can help to explain, for example,
why there is very little public debate in the international field of development in Ireland in relation
to policy disagreements. Competing and contradictory interests both within and between
organisations can throw light on the importance of organisational culture (Lewis et al., 2003) and
the politics of bureaucracy (Staudt, 1985) dimensions of power analysis. This is often evident in the
apparently contradictory development strategies of organisations and it further questions simplistic
notions of ‘partnership’ and ‘consultation’ as evident in narratives of change.
Ribeiro’s fairly depressing, but important critique of the distribution of power in the international
development field raises important questions with regard to interests and power distribution among
actors in the field of international development in Ireland. Combined with an analysis of the
symbolic power at work in the international development field in Ireland, these insights from
Bourdieu’s work present us with critical perspectives for analysing power in development. It opens
up an analysis of narratives of change as being infused with a politics which involves structural,
discursive and agency dimensions of change.
Conclusion
In this paper I have attempted to offer an outline framework for analysing power relations in the
international development field in Ireland. Locating this framework in the context of a critique of
narratives of change as evident in the Ireland Aid Review and NGO documentation, I am suggesting
that this framework can take us beyond a limited and evolutionary construction of change, offering
the possibility of questioning the multiple structural, discursive and actor dimensions of power in
the international development field in Ireland. Focusing in particular on work inspired by Foucault
and Bourdieu, I have suggested that Bourdieu’s work presents development analysis with important
critical perspectives. The application of the analytical framework outlined here helps to look behind
‘narratives of change’, to identify structural constraints and actor relationships and to explore the
politics of policy and institutional change in international development in Ireland.
16
Bibliography
Banúlacht (2005) Banúlacht Submission to the White Paper on Development Cooperation,
Banúlacht, Dublin.
Bourdieu, P. (1992) Language and Symbolic Power, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Brigg, M. (2002) Post-development, Foucault and the colonisation metaphor. Third World
Quarterly, 23, 2, 421 – 436.
Calhoun, C. (2006) Pierre Bourdieu and Social Transformation: Lessons from Algeria.
Development and Change, 37, 6, 1403 – 1415.
Chang, H-J. (2003) Globalisation, Economic Development and the Role of the State, Zed Books,
London.
Chowdhry, G. (1995) Engendering Development? Women in Development (WID) in International
Development Regimes. In: Marchand, M. and Parpart, J.L. (Eds.) Feminism, Postmodernism,
Development. Routledge, London.
Cornwall, A. (2007) Buzzwords and Fuzzwords: Deconstructing Development Discourse.
Development in Practice, 17, 4 and 5, 471 – 484.
Crewe, E and Harrison, E (1998) The Cohesive Machine. In Crewe, E and Harrison, E Whose
Development? An Ethnography of Aid, Zed Books, London.
Crush, J. (1995) Imagining Development. In: Crush, J. (ed.) Power of Development, London and
New York: Routledge.
Dale, R (2000) Organisations and Development: Strategies, Structures and Processes, Sage, New
Delhi.(Chapters 2 – Organisations in Development)
Department of Foreign Affairs (2002) Report of the Ireland Aid Review Committee, Department of
Foreign Affairs, Dublin.
Dóchas (2004) A History of Dóchas, Dóchas, Dublin.
Dóchas (2006) Dóchas Members’ Messages on the White Paper on Irish Aid, 27th October 2006.
[Online] Available from: http://www.dochas.ie/documents/NGO_response_to_WP.pdf (Accessed:
12th Nov. 2007).
Dóchas (2006a) An NGO Response to The White Paper on Irish Aid, Dublin, 23 rd October 2006.
[Online] Available from: http://www.dochas.ie/documents/WP_Keywords.pdf (Accessed: 12th Nov.
2007).
Edwards , M. and Hulme, D. (eds.) (1995) NGOs: Performance and Accountability – Beyond the
Magic Bullet, Earthscan for Save the Children, London.
Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World,
New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Esteva, G. (1993) Development. In Sachs, W. (ed) The Development Dictionary, Zed Books,
17
Ferguson, J. (1990) The Anti-politics Machine: development, depoliticisation and bureaucratic
power, University of Minnesota University Press, London.
Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge, Travistock, London.
Foucault, M. (1976) The Will To Knowledge: The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, Penguin, London.
Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Fowler, B. (1999) Pierre Bourdieu’s Sociological Theory of Culture. Varient, 2, 8, 1-4.
Fowler, A. (2000) Beyond Partnership: Getting Real about NGO Relationships in the Aid System.
IDS Bulletin, 31(3). 1-13.
Fuat Keyman, E. (1997) Globalization, State, Identity/Difference: Towards a Critical Social Theory
of International Relations, Humanities Press, New Jersey.
Gasper, D. (1999) Essentialism In and About Development Discourse. The European Journal of
Development Research, 11, 2, 148 – 176.
Hearn, J. (1998) The NGO-isation of Kenyan Society: USAID Restructuring of Health Care.
Review of African Political Economy. 25, 75, 89.
Hilhorst, D. (2003) The Real World of NGOs: Discourses, Diversity and Development, Zed Books,
London.
Hulme, D. & Edwards, M. (1997) NGOs, States and Donors: Too Close for Comfort? Macmillan,
London.
Jacobsen, D., Kirby, P. and Ó Broin, D. (eds) (2006) Taming the Tiger: Social Exclusion in a
Globalised Ireland, Dublin: TASC at New Island.
Keely, J and Scoones, I (2003) Understanding Environmental Policy Processes, Earthscan, London.
Kiely, R. (1999) The Last Refuge of the Noble Savage? A Critical Assessment of Post-Development
Theory. The European Journal of Development Research, 11, 1, 30 – 55.
Latouche, S. (1993) In the Wake of the Affluent Society: An Exploration of Post-Development, Zed
Books, London.
Leen, M. (2006) NGO Accountability: Issues, Lessons and Challenges for Dóchas and its Members,
Dóchas, Dublin.
Lewis, D, Bebbington, A J, Batterbury, S, Shah, A, Olson, E, Shameem Siddiqi, M and Duvall, S
(2003) Practice, Power and Meaning: Frameworks for Studying Organizational Culture in MultiAgency Rural Development Projects. Journal of International Development, 15, 541 – 557.
Long, N. (1992) From Paradigm Lost to Paradigm Regained: The Case for an Actor-Oriented
Sociology of Development. In: Long, N. and Long, A. (eds.) (1992) Battlefields of Knowledge: The
Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development, Zed Books, London and
New Jersey.
18
Navaro, (2006) In Search of a Cultural Interpretation of Power: The Contribution of Pierre
Bourdieu. IDS Bulletin, 37, 6, 12 – 20.
Najam, A. (1996) NGO Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. Development Policy Review, 14,
4.
OECD DAC (2003) Ireland. Development Co-operation Review Series, OECD, Paris.
Parfitt, T. (2002) The End of Development: Modernity, Post-Modernity and Development, Pluto
Press, London.
Parpart, J. (1995) Post-Modernism, Gender and Development. In: Crush, J. (ed.) Power of
Development, Routledge, London and New York.
Rahnema, M. and Bawtree, V. (eds.) (1997) The Post-Development Reader, Zed Books, London.
Rai, S. (2002) Gender and the Political Economy of Development: From Nationalism to
Globalization, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Ribeiro, G L (2002) Power, Networks and Ideology in the Field of Development. In Fukuda-Parr, S,
Lopes, C and Khalid, M (eds.) Capacity for Development: New Solutions to Old Problems,
Earthscan and UNDP, London and Sterling Virginia.
Rist, G. (1997) The History of Development: from Western Origins to Global Faith, Zed Books,
London and New York.
Sachs, W. (ed.) (1993) The Development Dictionary, Zed Books, London.
Smith, B.H. (1990) More than Altruism: The politics of private foreign aid, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Staudt, K. (1985) Women, Foreign Assistance and Advocacy Administration, Praeger, New York.
Storey, A. (2000) Post-Development Theory: Romanticism and Pontius Pilate politics.
Development, 43, 4, 40-46.
Trócaire (2007) Towards 2012: A New Overseas Development Agenda for Ireland, Trócaire,
Maynooth.
Wallace, T. (2001) Development Management and the Aid Chain: the Case of NGOs. In Eade, D.
and Ligteringen, E. (eds.) Debating Development: NGOs and the Future – A Development in
Practice Reader, Oxfam, Oxford.
Author Information
Eilish Dillon is the co-ordinator of the MA/Postgraduate programme and a lecturer in development
studies at the Kimmage Development Studies Centre.
19