The Thaba-Tseka Project was to develop livestock. The project involved dividing eight controlled grazing blocks of 4,000 hectares each. Members of the association would be entitled to grazing privileges and their cattle that grazed on the the land would be healthier and heavier. Some benefits of these grazing blocks would be extension, research, seeding and fertilization (p.170).
The following were conditions to be part of the association:
keeping fewer but more quality animals
livestock was to be purebred
following recommended management practices
removing animals that did not qualify for the assoc.
Things started to go downhill when people (not in the association) cut the fence to let their livestock graze. When these cases were brought to court, it was ruled that the cattle association did not have the rights to the allocated grazing area. This was another problem of appropriation... the land did not belong to the people running the project. There were many other reasons why locals who qualified to be part of the association refused to join it. 1) locals did not want to say that the project was a bad idea, even though they all felt that way 2) it would be betrayal to their fellow friends if they joined because the land should be shared 3) locals were suspicious of the plan.
The project also wanted to control the movement of livestock and their grazing but the locals disagreed. It was feared that: "the government is trying to deprive us of our animals by forcing them into an area where they will be unable to find enough food, so they will die" (p. 177).
Here is a quote from the book: "the 'introduction' of livestock markets was itself expected to dramatically transform the way in which people held stock. It was imagined that the provision of market outlets for livestock would make it possible for the first time for stock owners, previously isolated from the cash economy, to evaluate their animals in terms of monetary profit and loss" (p. 179). Therefore the project set up auctions was the planners were pleased but Ferguson argues that this was not an improvement because auctions were set up by the government even before the project started since the 1950s. The project's aim to "stimulate" a livestock economy was not credible.
I found this quote interesting: "The idea that livestock could be raised on commercial principles was appealing to women because it challenged the Mystique and promised to make 'men's animals' an asset that could be freely manipulated to maximize household income" (p. 187). I wonder if the outcome of the project would have been different if women were in charge of the cattle. I guess it depends on the target audience and the amount of support in order for a project to work successfully.
Questions:
1) Would the outcome of the project have been different if local women were the target audience?
2) Would it have made a difference if the planners of the project were women?
* * *
Ch. 7 "The Decentralization Debacle"
One problem with the project was planners did not realize the effect of politics from their project. From our textbook, we know that "development" is always generally tied to government, so the project's attempt to decentralize power apolitically is not possible. Page 194 says that "bureaucracy becomes the vehicle for the exercise of a particular kind of power." This idea is seen through the Thaba-Tseka project because it tried to decentralize administration in the local district by coordinating all the "development" activities at the district level instead of dealing with the bureaucrats. The project also tried to influence policies at the district level because it was a quicker way to get more funds.
* * *
Ch. 9 "The anti-politics machine"
Even though there the project was deemed a failure there were some things that were beneficial. The government of Lesotho had a stronger presence in the area, gov. services became available, a post office, police station and immigration control office was built. There were other services such as extension, seed supply and livestock marketing, health officials who monitored childcare and nutrition. Also a stronger military presence in the area due to better roads.
Ferguson describes "development" as a "machine for reinforcing and expanding the exercise of bureaucratic state power, which incidentally takes "poverty" as its point of entry- launching an intervention that may have no effect on poverty but does in fact have other concrete effects" (p. 255-256). He talks about how development has unintended effects and that is why many people are still attracted to development projects despite a running record of failures. Ferguson says that any development project forms a coherent whole, it is an anti-politics machine. I'm trying to better understand what he's staying here: that the "development apparatus suspends politics from even the most sensitive political operations" (p. 256).
Questions:
1) From the quote that development "suspends politics from sensitive political institutions, what does Ferguson mean by political operations? Does he mean it's the government's job to handle poverty/development?
2) What do you think attracted the Canadians in tackling the Thaba-Tseka project in the first place? Do you think they were attracted to the notion that development was an anti-politics machine?
No comments:
Post a Comment