Influencing development aid policy and practice (David Mosse)
Submitting Institution
School of Oriental & African StudiesUnit of Assessment
Anthropology and Development StudiesSummary Impact Type
SocietalResearch Subject Area(s)
Studies In Human Society: Policy and Administration, Sociology
Summary of the impact
A theme within Professor David Mosse's anthropological research focuses
on the relationship between policy, practice and effects in international
development. His field-based ethnographic research challenges assumptions
about policy implementation and the nature of success and failure in aid
programming. His novel approach to questions of policy analysis and policy
change has been widely influential on thinking among policymakers and
practitioners across a range of organisations, sectors and countries. It
has enhanced the capacity for adaptive self-critical understanding of the
aid process among practitioners and aid organisations, while also
demonstrating the importance of researcher-practitioner engagement in
improving the delivery of aid and development programmes.
Underpinning research
Mosse joined the SOAS Department of Anthropology and Sociology in 1997
with a career that combined continuing ethnographic research in India with
work for DFID (Overseas Development Administration), Oxfam as
Representative for South India and other international development
agencies as a social development adviser.
The research discussed herein relates specifically to Mosse's body of
work on participatory development and the ethnography of aid policy and
practice undertaken since the 1990s. Central to this work is the
development of concepts, methods and the application of anthropological
analysis to international development programming.
Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice
of 2005 (output a) addresses the complex relationship between policy
intention and programme practice in development aid, the often unintended
outcomes and the unexpected role of development models, expertise, and
evaluation processes. It also offers close examination of the practice and
effects of new participatory planning approaches in development, begun in
earlier research, evidenced in output b. The research was undertaken over
12 years (1991-2003, both before and during Mosse's time at SOAS) through
long-term involvement in and ethnographic study of rural development
programmes in western India and international policy communities. Its
impact has been felt most strongly since 2007-8.
An important (although controversial) finding of the book was that the
processes that make for `good' and successful policy are not the same as
those that make its implementation possible. Rather than a prescription
for effective action, policy is primarily the means to enrol political and
other supporters. Mosse demonstrates how the actions of development
workers are actually shaped by the exigencies of organisations and the
need to maintain relationships rather than by policy; but also how
development actors at all levels work hardest to maintain coherent
representations of their actions as instances of authorised policy. These
finding are widely applicable in terms of rethinking the `gap' between
policy and practice, agency evaluations of programme success or failure,
the social-institutional effects of policy change and understanding
development impacts.
Mosse further developed the implications of this research in two volumes
and a journal special issue co-edited with David Lewis (outputs c, d and
e), and a more recent sole-edited volume, Adventures in Aidland of
2011 (output f) in which he also analyses policy knowledge processes at
the World Bank based on his work as the first anthropologist to hold a
visiting fellowship in the Bank's research department (2003-4). The edited
volumes bring together as contributors anthropologists with professional
experience in development to demonstrate across several instances how the
ethnography of development can shed light on the disjuncture between
policy and practice, and the critical role of brokers and translators in
development. The Aid Effect, in particular, demonstrates that
ethnographic insights are relevant not only for discrete projects across
different sectors but also for the execution of macro-level frameworks for
policy reform, poverty reduction and `good governance; and Adventures
in Aidland shows how the effectiveness of public policy knowledge is
influenced by the manner in which it is embedded in institutional
relationships and interests, and by the sociality of development
professionals.
As a body of work this has contributed to critical awareness of policy
and institutional processes in international development, demonstrating
the ease with which cross-cultural interactions and their impacts can be
misconceived by development policy frameworks including those explicitly
promoting participatory approaches.
References to the research
a. 2005. Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and
Practice. London & Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. (334 pp.).
2012. `Una Etnografia de las politicas de la ayuda en la Practica.'
In Beatriz Perez Galan (ed.) Antropoligia y desarrollo:discurso,
practicas y actores. Madrid: Catarata (Spanish translation of
extracts of Cultivating Development: Chapter 1: pp. 1-14,
Conclusion: pp. 240-3).
b. 2001 `People's knowledge', participation and patronage: operations
and representations in rural development. In Bill Cook & Uma
Kothari (eds). Participation — The New Tyranny? London: Zed Press.
pp. 16-35.
c. 2006 (co-editor David Lewis) Development Brokers and Translators.
The Ethnography of Aid and Agencies. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press
(288pp.).
d. 2005 (co-editor David Lewis) The Aid Effect: Giving and Governing
in International Development. London: Pluto Press. (232pp.).
e. 2006 (co-author David Lewis) 'Encountering Order and Disjuncture:
Contemporary Anthropological Perspectives on the Organisation of
Development.' [Introduction to Special Issue]. Oxford Development
Studies, 34 (1): 1-13
f. 2011 (Editor) Adventures in Aidland: The Anthropology of
Professionals in International Development. New York; Oxford:
Berghahn Press. Volume 6, Studies in Public and Applied Anthropology
(250pp.).
Outputs a and d were submitted to RAE 2008. Output f is submitted to
REF 2014
Grant that supported the research:
2001: DFID Innovations Fund Research Grant, "Linking policy to livelihood
changes through projects" £35,000.
Mosse was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in July 2013, and is
on the editorial boards of World Development,
American Ethnologist and Journal of
Development Studies.
Details of the impact
Mosse's work has been widely read and highly cited by international
development agencies, both official and NGO, and has significantly
contributed to major development programme planning and policy debate
among these and other stakeholders. Cultivating Development in
particular offers the aid sector something unprecedented: a detailed,
reflective insider analysis of longer-term processes of development
interventions. The book has provided an analytical approach to policy and
practice across fields ranging from community health to climate change,
forestry reform to microfinance (evidenced in the span of the 765 Google
citations). (1) The impact is not simply dissemination of anthropological
research on institutional processes, but enabling development
practitioners themselves to reflect in new ways on their own professional
and institutional experiences.
Early impacts of Mosse's work through World Bank and DFID learning
organisation seminars in 2002 and 2003 were extended and deepened in the
post-publication current REF assessment period. In 2008, on the basis of Cultivating
Development's contributions to better understanding community-driven
approaches to development, Mosse was invited by the World Bank to spend a
full month reviewing the work of its extensive (part DFID sponsored)
Social Development programme in Indonesia, with a view to improving the
new National Programme for Community Empowerment (PNPM), which had become
pivotal to the government's national programme for poverty reduction.
More recently, his critical work on participatory development contributed
significantly to the 2013 World Bank Policy Research Report "Localizing
Development: Does Participation Work?," which cites Mosse and most often
the arguments forwarded in Cultivating Development no less than 29
times. (2)
Further corroboration of significant impact on the World Bank is provided
in a testimonial from Scott Guggenheim, a senior social policy specialist
at the World Bank before becoming a senior social specialist for the
Australian government, (3) and recently being seconded back to the World
Bank, who has described Cultivating Development as:
"A superb book, one of those rarities that can change entire ways of
thinking. David Mosse is the first social scientist in a generation who
can successfully take cutting-edge insights from academic anthropology
and use them to explain practical problems in development."
Guggenheim has further encouraged his own staff to read the book and
applied its ideas to do team-based exercises at the organisations he has
worked for:
"We used Dr. Mosse's writings to do a hands-on exercise of trying to
distinguish what we needed to really make programs work from what we
needed so that our head office and the government could approve them.
The results were striking."
Even more significantly, Guggenheim writes:
"Dr. Mosse's work has been fundamental to the analytical framework
that our team has been using to guide these [two] massive programs....
The Afghanistan program — it's called National Solidarity — is far and
away the largest development program produced over the course of the
international period there. It reaches 30,000 communities in every part
of the country, has disbursed over US$1.1 billion, and has been a
foundation program for all of the donors hoping to help Afghanistan
survive its difficult transition, including both the civilian and
diplomatic wings of the British government. Reaching a total population
of 90 million poor people spread over three time zones, the Indonesian
program is even larger — it is the president of Indonesia's flagship
poverty program and has been the fulcrum for how the Indonesian
government has responded to both chronic crises such as the 2004 Aceh
tsunami and to the difficult challenges of transition from a military to
a democratic government."
In China (at the Beijing China Agricultural University) applied social
scientists have sought to use Mosse's approach to develop policy-relevant
analysis of development practice within China, and Chinese aid abroad. In
2008 Mosse was invited to run a development research workshop, to review
programmes in Ningxia, Chengdu and Jiangxi. In 2013, he was invited to
join the 8-person International Advisory Committee of the DFID-supported
China International Development Research Network promoting knowledge-based
policy development for Chinese development aid. Membership includes three
of China's most powerful institutions providing policy advice directly to
government: the Department of Development Aid, Chinese Academy of
International Trade and Economic Cooperation, Ministry of Commerce; The
China Center for Contemporary World Studies, International Department of
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China; and the Institute for
International Strategic Studies, Party School of the Central Committee of
the Communist Party of China. (4)
Mosse's research has generated significant discussion and debate
internationally, in development circles and more broadly. A particularly
notable recent instance appeared in the publication of conference
proceedings in a double-page spread in a leading national daily newspaper
in Senegal, Wal Fadjri L'Aurore, which has a daily print
circulation of 20,000. (5) Speaking about the shift in focus of anglophone
anthropological studies of development away from how policy is applied to
how it comes to be formulated in the first instance by international
actors, French anthropologist Jean Copans contends :
"Un chercheur symbolise, selon nous, cette nouvelle perspective, David
Mosse (...) En effet D. Mosse a rédigé ce qui est probablement l'ouvrage
le plus abouti en la matière, dans la mesure où il couvre l'ensemble du
spectre des études connues en matière de développement (...) Il est
évident que cette enquête globale est tout à fait unique en son genre
mais elle peut et doit servir de modèle ou d'inspiration pour justement
recadrer et reconfigurer l'étude du développement de A à Z". (`For
us, one researcher symbolises this perspective, David Mosse (...) Indeed,
Mosse has written what is probably the most complete work on the subject (Cultivating
Development), in the sense that it covers the whole spectrum of
well-known studies in the field of development (...) It's clear that this
comprehensive study is entirely unique in the genre but it can and should
serve as a model or an inspiration for suitably redefining and
reconfiguring the study of development from start to finish).
Sources to corroborate the impact
- Citation record for Cultivating Development:
http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=z2JajTkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
[Most recently accessed 11.11.13].
- Mansuri, Ghazala and Vijayendra Rao. 2013. Localizing Development:
Does Participation Work?, World Bank Policy Research Report. Washington,
D.C.: The World Bank.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRES/Resources/469232-1321568702932/8273725-
1352313091329/PRR_Localizing_Development_full.pdf [Most recently
accessed 11.11.13].
- Dr Scott Guggenheim, World Bank
- Correspondence and a brochure relating to the China International
Development Research Network can be provided on request.
- Copans, Jean. "Que veut dire le développement vu du Nord ou à partir
du Nord?." Walfadjri L'Aurore, June 11, 2013.