In spite of the enormous energy devoted to generating the right policy models, strangely little attention is given to the relationship between these models and the practices and events that they are expected to generate in particular contexts. The intense focus on the future, on new beginnings, is rarely moderated by an analysis of the past in development. At best, the relationship between policy and practice is understood in terms of an unintended ‘gap’ between theory and practice reduced by better policy more effectively implemented. But, what if development practice is not driven by policy? What if the things that make for god policy are quite different from those that make it implemental? What if the practices of development are in fact concealed rather than produced by policy? What if, instead of policy producing practice, practices produce policy, in the sense that actors in development devote their energies to maintaining coherent representations regardless of events.

        This latest book by Sage Publications - Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice – asks such questions of international aid, in particular of British aid for rural development in India; and does so by examining the ten year experience of one project as it falls under different policy regimes. It takes a close look at the relationship between the aspirations of policy and the experience of development within the long chain of organization that links advisers and decision makers in London with tribal villagers in western India. Its purpose is not to produce a project overview, a commentary on appropriate approaches or ‘best practices’. Nor make and evaluation, or pass judgment; it does not ask whether, but rather how development works, The approach is ethnographic, and this means examining the making and re-making of policy as well as the practices that policy legitimizes as social processes.

        In fact, this superb book addresses an important question: Is development practice actually driven by policy?

        The fact of the matter is that understanding the relationship between policy discourse and field practices has been hampered by the dominance of two opposing views on development policy. On the one hand, there is an ‘instrumental view’ of policy as rational problem solving –directly shaping the way in which development is done. On the other hand, there is a critical view that witnesses policy as a rationalising technical discourse concealing hidden purposes of bureaucratic power or dominance, which are the true political intent of development. Neither of these view does justice to the complexity of policy making and its relationship to project practice or to the creativity and skill involved in negotiating development.

        Arguably, international development is characterized by a new managerialism driven by two trends: on the one hand, a narrowing of the ends of development to quantified international development targets for the reduction of poverty, ill health and illiteracy, but, on the other, a widening of its means. Whereas until the 1980s, technology-led growth or the mechanisms of the market provided the instruments of development, today good government, prudent fiscal policy, political pluralism, a vibrant civil society and democracy are also pre-requisites of poverty reduction. In the extreme, nothing short of the managed reorganization of state and society is necessary to deliver on the enormously ambitions goal of eliminating world poverty. And, as social life is instrumentalised as ‘means’ in the new international public policy, donor-driven ideas such as social capital, civil society or good governance theorise relationships between society democracy and poverty reduction so as to extend he scope of rational design and social engineering from the technical and economic realm to the social and cultural, assisted by and imperialist economics freed from the constraints of neo-classical models. While taking on ‘the burden of Atlas’, donors have a confidence in management through policy that has never been greater. The consequence is persistent optimism about the power of policy design to solve problem, evaluation that confirm self-fulfilling prophecies about viability, and the renewed support of failing programmes ( precisely because they fail but still affirm goals and values).

                This book (that could be characterized as being asocial investigation) asks pertinent questions about international aid for rural development. This document is a compelling re-examination of he politics and ethics of engaging with development and a rare self-critical reflection practice It will be invaluable to policy makers, development workers, development researchers, social and cultural anthropologists and anyone else interested in development studies and social policy q      

Back to Contents