In Compromising Power: Development, Culture, and Rule in Indonesia , Li argues that it is difficult to separate between government and development, as the latter is a core part that forms the ‘state.' He mentions several authors, among them Chatterjee and Foucault, and point out that they found difficulty in assigning success of development on the governed (citizenry). They agree that development may be a result of state agencies who act through policies, but the effects of development get lost in culture and politics. The authors are in consensus that states do not perfectly execute development policies partly due to bureaucracy, which was intended to institute pragmatism of development, and government uncertainty, of which different regime want to have own development agenda. Li cites the case of Indonesia where successive regimes have resettled people to areas deemed ready for development and rule. The resettlement has not been successful because people are not ready to lose their cultures and problems associated with correctly identifying the target groups among other logistical issues.
In Development Alternatives , Sarah A. Radcliffe opines that development is a result of applications, views, compromises, and evaluation of the leading development models. She argues that whereas the Critical Development Studies (CDS) have been persistent and productive, they have failed, in their evaluation, to respond to new concerns and areas of development. The studies cannot accommodate future development issues. Radcliffe proceeds to make a case for three possible views of the future of development.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the article Is Good Policy Unimplementable? Reflections on the Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice , David Mosse highlights the disconnection between development models and how the models relate to the activities and incidences that the models are designed to raise. Mosse maintains that areas and aspects counted on during policy formulation hamper the implementation of development projects. Therefore, good policies are often not successfully implemented.
Ghazala Mansuri and Vijayendra Rao argue in their article, Community-Based and –Driven Development: A Critical Review , that community-based and –driven development programs are popular and attract funding from development agencies. However, the authors find that programs that encourage community participation fail to address poverty. Evidence shows that such developments have no real connection with the participation of the targeted communities. The elite and other external agents direct such project and the participants from the targeted communities have no control and influence over the projects.
