![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper analyses the existing and perceived rules and restrictions of the global development dispositif working to maintain inequalities in the interactions of international NGOs (INGOs) and Haitian organisations. It does so by exploring constructions of partnership and their clashing realities. Development organisations and agencies have influenced the fabric of Haitian society and politics not only by their mere presence but also by the rules they impose. The paper identifies positions of power and decision making by drawing on Foucauldian tools of discourse analysis. The analysis is based on empirical fieldwork carried out in Haiti between 2012 and 2014. It identifies a narrative of trickle-down pressures that INGOs draw upon to position themselves as intermediaries in the larger development system. By questioning these narratives, the paper provides the starting point for the development of alternatives that would enable international NGOs to assume a role that supports rather than weakens.
Notes
1. Schuller, “Invasion or Infusion?”
2. Zanotti, “Cacophonies of Aid,” 756.
3. Edwards and Hulme, Beyond the Magic Bullet.
4. Sachs, Wie im Westen so auf Erden; Rahnema and Bawtree, The Post-development Reader; and Escobar, Encountering Development.
5. Andreasson, “Thinking beyond Development”; Gibson-Graham, “Surplus Possibilities”; Matthews, “Post-development Theory”; Matthews, “What, then, should we Do?”; Matthews, “The Role of the Privileged”; McGregor, “Development, Foreign Aid and Post-development”; McGregor, “New Possibilities?”; McKinnon, “Postdevelopment”; and McKinnon, “Taking Post-development Theory to the Field.”
6. Gibson-Graham, “Surplus Possibilities,” 6.
7. Escobar, Encountering Development, 6.
8. Escobar, Encountering Development, 9.
9. Bührmann and Schneider, “Vom Diskurs zum Dispositiv,” 54.
10. Agamben, Was ist ein Dispositiv?, 9.
11. Farmer, “What happened in Haiti?,” 1.
12. Schuller, Humanitarian Aftershocks, 27.
13. Goldstein Sepinwall, Haitian History, 5.
14. Schuller, “Invasion or Infusion?”
15. Schuller, Humanitarian Aftershocks, 27.
16. Vander Zaag, “‘We do not yet have Development’,” 72.
17. Vander Zaag, “‘We do not yet have Development’,” 65.
18. Abrahamsen, “The Power of Partnerships,” 1453.
19. Pickard, “Reflections on Relationships,” 576.
20. Ibid.
21. Lister, Power in Partnerships, 3.
22. Fowler, “Building Partnerships,” 5.
23. Fowler, “Building Partnerships,” 14.
24. Fowler, “Building Partnerships,” 5.
25. Fowler, “Beyond Partnership,” 3; Maxwell and Ridell, “Conditionality or Contract”; Lewis, “Partnership as Process”; Lister, Power in Partnerships; and Fowler, “Building Partnerships.”
26. Fowler, “Beyond Partnership,” 6.
27. Keller, “The Sociology of Knowledge Approach,” 55, 48.
28. Foucault, “Archäologie des Wissens,” 697.
29. Fowler, “Beyond Partnership,” 1.
30. INGO C respondent, 2012.
31. INGO B respondent, 2012.
32. Ferguson, The Anti-politics Machine, 17.
33. PeaceBrief 23, “Haiti.”
34. Ibid.
35. Independent international consultant, 2012.
36. Whether these are real or perceived may be open to discussion.
37. Fowler, “Beyond Partnership,” 1.
38. Haitian NGO respondent, 2012.
39. INGO A respondent, 2012.
40. Ibid. INGO B respondent
41. Ibid. INGO A respondent.
42. Ibid. INGO B respondent
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid. INGO A respondent.
49. INGO publication.
50. INGO A respondent, 2012.
51. Ibid.
52. Independent international respondent, 2012.
53. INGO A respondent, 2012.
54. INGO publication, 2012.
55. Ibid.
56. INGO B respondent, 2012.
57. INGO A respondent, Ibid.
58. Shivji, The Silences in the NGO Discourse, 37.
59. Ibid.
60. INGO A respondent, 2012.
61. Ibid.
62. Schuller, Humanitarian Aftershocks, 213.
63. Schuller, Humanitarian Aftershocks, 213.
64. INGO D respondent, 2012.
65. INGO publication, 2012.
66. Haitian NGO A respondent, 2012.
67. Ibid.
68. INGO publication, 2012.
69. INGO A respondent, 2012.
70. INGO publication, 2012.
71. Ibid.
72. INGO A respondent, 2012.
73. Ibid.
74. INGO B respondent.
75. Ibid.
76. HNGO A respondent, 2012.
77. Schuller, Humanitarian Aftershocks, 185.
78. INGO respondent, 2012.
79. Ibid.
80. Ibid.
81. Schuller, Humanitarian Aftershocks, 191.
82. Foucault, Power, 340.
83. Ibid.
84. Foucault, Power, 342.
85. Schuller, Humanitarian Aftershocks, 144.
86. Sande Lie, “Post-development and the Discourse–Agency Interface,” 53.
87. Schuller, Humanitarian Aftershocks, 222.
88. Sande Lie, “Post-development and the Discourse–Agency Interface,” 54.
89. Ibid.
90. Fowler, “Beyond Partnership,” 8.
91. Ibid.
92. Ibid.
93. Ibid.
94. Ibid.
95. Ziai, “Development Discourse,” 5.