Development Aid to Water Management in Mali: The Actors, ‘Global’ Paradigms, and ‘Local’ Translations

Development aid involves a complex network of numerous and extremely heterogeneous actors. Nevertheless, all actors seem to speak the same ‘development jargon’ and to display a congruence that extends from the donor over the professional consultant to the village chief. And although the ideas about what counts as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ aid have constantly changed over time —with new paradigms and policies sprouting every few years— the apparent congruence between actors more or less remains unchanged. How can this be explained? Is it a strategy of all actors to get into the pocket of the donor, or are the social dynamics in development aid more complex? When a new development paradigm appears, where does it come from and how does it gain support? Is this support really homogeneous? To answer the questions, a multi-sited ethnography was conducted in the sector of water-related development aid, with a focus on 3 paradigms that are currently hegemonic in this sector: Integrated Water Resources Management, Capacity Building, and Adaptation to Climate Change. The sites of inquiry were: the headquarters of a multilateral organization, the headquarters of a development NGO, and the Inner Niger Delta in Mali. The research shows that paradigm shifts do not happen overnight but that new paradigms have long lines of descent. Moreover, they require a lot of work from actors in order to become hegemonic; the actors need to create a tight network of support. Each actor, however, interprets the paradigms in a slightly different way, depending on the position in the network. They implant their own interests in their interpretation of the paradigm (the actors ‘translate’ their interests), regardless of whether they constitute the donor, a mediator, or the aid recipient. These translations are necessary to cement and reproduce the network.

Conflict affected peoples’ access to education: IDP pupils in Georgia

This work seeks to understand what kind of impact educational policies have had on the secondary school students among internally displaced persons (IDPs) and their identity reconstruction in Georgia. The study offers a snapshot of the current situation based on desk study and interviews conducted among a sample of secondary school IDP pupils. In the final chapter, the findings will be reflected against the broader political context in Georgia and beyond. The study is interdisciplinary and its methodology is based on social identity theory. I shall compare two groups of IDPs who were displaced as a result of two separate conflicts. The IDPs displaced as a result of conflict in Abkhazia in 1992–1994 are named as old caseload IDPs. The second group of IDPs were displaced after a conflict in South Ossetia in 2008. Additionally, I shall touch upon the situation of the pupils among the returnees, a group of Georgian old caseload IDPs, who have spontaneously returned to de facto Abkhazia. According to the interviews, the secondary school student IDPs identify themselves strongly with the Georgian state, but their group identities are less prevailing. Particularly the old case load IDP students are fully integrated in local communities. Moreover, there seems not to be any tangible bond between the old and new caseload IDP students. The schools have neither tried nor managed to preserve IDP identities which would, for instance, make political mobilisation likely along these lines. Right to education is a human right enshrined in a number of international conventions to which the IDPs are also entitled. Access to education or its denial has a deep impact on individual and societal development. Furthermore, education has a major role in (re)constructing personal as well as national identity.