Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp.

19–34

Ã
Approaching development:
an opionated review
Christian Lund
International Development Studies, Department of Society and
Globalisation, Roskilde University, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

Abstract: Development studies navigate between policy and social science; between directed
progress and change. However, the relative propinquity of social science and policy languages
sometimes masks the difference between the two. This article discusses the relationship between
development as social change and as a craft and argues for the necessity of recognizing their difference.
Moreover, as a social science, development studies also navigate between theoretical generalization
and descriptive particularism. By making a distinction between explanatory and heuristic frameworks,
development studies can be normalized as a science and thus able to study a contextual moving
target while drawing on a general or ‘grand theory’.

Key words: development theory, development practice, ‘grand theory’, heuristic framework,
inter-disciplinarity

‘Change’ is scientific, ‘progress’ is ethical; with development agencies and stakeholders,

Change is indubitable whereas progress is a facing practical development problems, and
matter of controversy. administrative and academic bureaucracies
– Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays
attempting to organize efforts, each in their
own domain.
I Introduction The article has a double ambition. Develop-
Development is an elusive concept and con- ment studies navigate between policy and
sequently development studies or develop- social science; between directed progress
ment theory is challenged on what constitutes and analysis of change, pure and simple. The
its subject matter, its objective, and its me- objectives have often been confused. It is
thods. This is simultaneously a constant source important, however, to clarify the distinction
of frustration and an invitation to define it. and thereby ‘normalize’ development studies
The present article does not pretend to be as a social science in broad terms; not in the
an equilibrated compromise containing all Kuhnian sense of paradigm loyal and puzzle
aspects of the discipline; it is a point of view solving, but in the sense of setting science apart
on how to navigate the challenges of the field from policy (Kuhn, 1970). It is, I suggest, through
based on a review of the development studies clarifying this distinction that constructive
literature, as well as encounters and dealings dialogue between rigorous analysis and political

© 2010 SAGE Publications 10.1177/146499340901000102

20 Approaching development

action can be engaged. The second ambition is level of quality research. Moreover, the
to discuss and propose an analytical approach dynamics of reproduction and transformation –
to development or social change in developing which impinge on inequality, impoverish-
societies. The approach should be understood ment and human insecurity – can be found in
in broad terms as a discussion of a series of societies all over the world, challenging the
epistemological challenges one faces, willy- conventional distinction between developed
nilly, when analyzing development. As such, and developing societies. It is not the area,
the text does not provide ‘how-to’ suggestions, nor necessarily a colonial history which quali-
but rather ‘what-to-consider’ issues to consider fies for development studies interest, but the
when working on a moving target in a changing development processes as described above.
field. The idea is to provide some reflections While the boundaries between various cat-
on how to observe theoretical and conceptual egories of societies have become fuzzy, the
rigour in the study of development and social development process remains particularly
change and, at the same time, be open to relevant and significant in post-colonial and
learning something new about the world, to historically marginal societies.
avoid sweeping theoretical generalization or As in general for the social sciences, the
descriptive particularism. research priority is set by a particular concern –
social science itself cannot tell us whether an
II The field of development issue is significant or not. This always depends
There is no shortage of definitions of develop- on the evaluative idea of the investigator, to
ment and, hence, the field of development use Weber’s words (Weber, 1963: 388; also
studies. The obvious interconnectedness of see Jackson, 2006). The research approach,
significant societal processes makes me pre- on the other hand, should be critical of its own
fer a fairly broad definition of development assumptions and aim at achieving a high level
processes as the reproduction and trans- of inter-subjectivity. It should, in principle, be
formation processes which somehow impinge possible for another researcher to analyse the
on inequality, impoverishment and human same phenomenon with the same concepts
insecurity. and methods and arrive at the same results.
The research approach should not depend on
1 Research priorities and research approach the researcher’s idiosyncrasies.
For historical reasons, development studies
have focussed particularly on post-colonial and III Development as social change
other marginal societies and the international and development as a craft
factors that influence such societies (see
Baeck, 1998; Cooper and Packard, 1997; Leys, 1 Two worlds – two concerns
1996; Sachs, 1999). Development studies no A significant feature of social sciences, and
longer pretend that such societies constitute hence development studies, is that its object
a homogeneous group, or that a single and changes and transforms over time. Contrary
special theory or conceptual framework is suf- to the natural sciences, the discovery of trans-
ficient for an understanding of development historical universal laws is not the ultimate
processes in such societies. Nor would it be objective of the scholarly enterprise, but a more
reasonable to consider development studies as historically circumscribed analysis of struc-
essentially an ‘area study’ either. Post-colonial ture and process would appear to be the con-
societies exhibit tremendous heterogeneity cerns of the social sciences. Since the objective
in structure, dynamics and trajectories, and of the social sciences is dynamic societal
adequate conceptual frameworks must gen- change in the result of human industry, there is
erally be tailor made to yield the highest an inherent tension between the social sciences

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

 Christian Lund 21

and policy; between ‘how things are’, and ‘how desire to improve conditions, notion of target
they should be’. The relative propinquity of and ambition of change as development
social science and policy languages sometimes intervention. Societal change set in motion
masks the difference between the two. The by social or political movements (workers, far-
very word, development, has a positive con- mers, landless squatters, indigenous peoples,
notation as desirable betterment and im- nationalists, religious zealots, and so on) often
provement of economic, social and political have at least as transformative a potential as
conditions in general. However, it also has any intervention. But more or less engendered
a non-normative form suggesting societal change is not the point of this particular
reproduction processes for better or for distinction, the significant difference lies in two
worse. sets of perspective, namely on either actions
As a consequence, researchers on the that make up society or on specific efforts by
one hand, and policy makers, operators and a government or its proxies to change it. This
practitioners, on the other, have a tendency also often entails a difference in the notion
to speak at cross purposes because of rather of whether development has a particular
different notions of the concept of develop- direction or not. The distinction between the
ment. One merely describes change. Here, we two notions of development may thus not be
could be dealing with issues such as increasing theoretically satisfactory in the longer run,
monetization of land transactions, rural-urban but as two perspectives on change, they may
migration, politicization of religion, increased explain why communication between different
scarcity of particular resources, and so on. In groups involved with development can be
this perspective, change is the result of the disappointing.
actions of many actors, and development is the
amalgamated result of countless negotiations. 2 The past and the future
It is therefore quite difficult – if possible at While social science research is often pre-
all – to attribute distinct agency to such occupied with questions of ‘what’ and ‘why’,
forms of change. We might term this ‘societal and the processes that determine this, the
development’. Development intervention, operational side of development are often more
on the other hand, is made up of targeted concerned with the questions of ‘how’ things
efforts at improving certain conditions. It is, are done in a better way. This difference may
for example, building infrastructure, improving seem subtle, but it is quite crucial. Researchers
social conditions, refining and reinforcing in social science basically deal with history up
politico-legal institutions, and so on. In the until the present moment, practical operators,
concept of development intervention, there on the other hand, deal with ‘history from now
is distinct agency, there is a notion of target on’. Obviously, research can be conducted in
and an ambition of purposive change, and it is view of the future, and practical development
generally ‘instigated by institutions or actors should be undertaken with experience and
who do not belong to the milieu in question knowledge of the past. But they are two fun-
but who seek to mobilize the milieu’ (Olivier de damentally different enterprises. The validity
Sardan, 2005: 25; also see Pieterse, 2001: 3). of research depends on evidence, and while it
Obviously, the distinction between societal often is a challenge to access evidence from
development and development intervention the past, it is nothing against the impossibility
only holds so far. In some situations, it is quite of sampling it from the future. If there is no
difficult to establish who or what institution evidence, and/or if there is no data, it hardly
‘does not belong’ to the milieu. But, more im- qualifies as research. Ideas about how a
portantly, the countless negotiations in societal policy will work, how a development could
development may be propelled with as much unfold, and how a conflict might intensify is

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

22 Approaching development

guesswork. Possibly intelligent and informed 3 Development as a research object

guesswork, but guesswork still. It cannot be While societal change is broader and more
assessed by normal standards of research be- encompassing than development intervention,
cause there is no evidence to hold up against in some parts of the world, the latter is so sig-
interpretations and analyses. The validity of the nificant a practice in the form of development
operational side of development comes from a aid, and macro-economic and political con-
different corner. The validity of a development ditionality, that it must constitute a primary
operation is that it engenders change – possibly object of empirical research and theoretical
along desired lines – and enables the operator concern. Conspicuously so in Africa where
to formulate new imaginative ideas about the development ‘industry’ with international
how to move from here. The purpose may aid agencies and national and international
not be to reach an ‘ideal state’ in one move,
NGOs is very significant in shaping the pol-
but to improve things sufficiently to be able
itical scene, government institutions and the
to reiterate the undertaking (see Hirschman,
practice of social actors. In such societies, aid
1967).
and aid agencies’ – ‘specific efforts to change
Social science researchers develop certain
reflexes of the trade where social criticism society’ – are actually so comprehensive
and scepticism about progress are prominent. that they shape society in a significant, yet
They seem to develop a certain professional often un-intended, way. In other parts of the
pessimism. Development policy makers and world, subtler but equally comprehensive
operators also develop certain reflexes of their effects of development intervention in terms
trade. However, these are more constructive, of treaties and conventions on trade and
forward looking and aim at betterment. Policy worker’s mobility, and so on, are also no longer
makers and operators seem therefore to develop epi-phenomena in the general development
a certain professional optimism. In a caricatured of society. Development intervention then
way, both groups are prone to develop images ceases to be a mere technical operation with
of each other: To the researcher, the operator the character of a craft which can be carried
may be vain, and naïve as the target set out in out with more or less competence, quality
plans is missed; to the operator, on the other and experience; it also becomes an object of
hand, the researcher may well be independent scientific concern. Hence, the same operation
but equally insignificant and of little proper becomes the object of ‘tool-perfection’, on
use (see Chambers, 1983; Ferguson, 1997; the one hand, and more fundamental critical
Hobart 1993; Long, 2001). Segregation of investigation, on the other. ‘Tool-perfection’
the two perspectives on development some- literature abounds. It ranges from project
times seems a tempting option, not to bother management and planning handbooks for
about practical questions of intervention if different sectors, such as water, sanitation,
you are a researcher, and not to worry about
health, education, budgeting and participa-
theoretical and conceptual hair-splitting if you
tion, and so on, to analyses of policy. For ex-
are a practitioner. However, this is not really an
ample, research edited by Black and White
option. First, while development intervention
(2004) investigates a broad set of policies aimed
is only part of a greater picture, in some
societies, it is not a marginal phenomenon at all, at achieving the Millennium Development
wherefore it deserves the increased systematic Goals set by the United Nations. This is not
and critical inquiry. Second, scientific concepts ‘tool-perfection’ in the narrowest sense,
migrate into the realm of planned intervention but still focuses on the effectiveness of specific
with consequence (see Corbridge, 2007: 200). policies. I shall here leave aside tool perfection
Let us look at development intervention as a and focus briefly on critical development re-
research object first. search on development intervention.

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

 Christian Lund 23

This research actually covers almost all (see also Finnemore, 1997). Another interest-
disciplines from economics over political ing analysis of the major international insti-
science to sociology, geography, law and an- tutions’ role in globalisation is delivered by
thropology. What makes this form of research the former chief economist of the World
critical regardless of discipline is, I guess, that Bank, Joseph Stiglitz (2002). He argues that
it investigates the effects of development institutions such as the IMF, the WTO and the
intervention beyond what was intended. World Bank are effectively unaccountable to
That is, this research goes beyond merely the millions affected by the proposed (imposed)
checking whether an intervention met targets policies and, in addition, that the policies
or not. It takes a more comprehensive look often fail to effectively address the issues of
at effects – intended or not. In short, one poverty (see also Griffin, 2003). In parallel,
could say that it also looks at the effects of Gould shows how agendas such as ‘poverty
the effects. On the macro scale, some of the reduction’ are political battlegrounds despite
neo-classical economists represent not only a their consensual appearance. The research
scepticism against development intervention demonstrates the inherently political nature of
but also mistrust against all forms of state development agencies and the power relations
intervention in industrial activities and trade of administrative technologies (Gould, 2005).
(Lal, 1983, here from Degnbol-Martinussen, Finally, Roe’s work on development narratives
1997: 263). Lal’s empirical studies from the and how facile arguments based on little, or
1960s and 1970s convinced him that inter- no, evidence stabilise development practice
vention in the economy had distorted and deserves mention as a highly original contri-
stifled it rather than promoted growth. This bution (Roe, 1994; 1999).
made him sceptical about government inter- On a smaller scale, works by Long (2001)
vention in general. More recent research and Olivier de Sardan (2005) and their as-
points to examples from Southeast Asia sociates deal with the encounter between
where government intervention vis-à-vis the outside agencies and other authorities, on
institutional framework for economic activity, one hand, and local societies, on the other,
rather than engineering the activity itself, may in the interface of development. The ap-
indeed promote growth and development (see, proaches advocate a fine-grained sociological
for example, Lauridsen, 2002). Similarly, on the or anthropological approach, with a strong
larger scale, critical research on the institutional focus on interaction and conflict. Conflict
outcomes of development policies have offered and interaction are seen as productive entry
analyses of how the pursuit of policies for the points to the description and analysis of
promotion of democracy and good governance larger systems. Development, or planned
or for poverty reduction – worthy causes intervention, is only one, albeit an important
all – have had rather insidious consequences one, of several political and economic ‘projects’
on political institutions and their practice. in a particular society. The approaches attempt
Abrahamsen (2000) thus demonstrates how to ‘normalize’ development intervention as
externally induced policies of democratization just another social and political process where
and good governance make governments more it is important to investigate what actually
accountable to donors than to their popu- happens, what people think happens, and
lations, and how this results in the perverse finally what people think ought to happen
effects of shallow democracy. Goldman’s in terms of their political and moral values.
(2005) analysis of the World Bank and its In particular, it is important to recognize
comprehensive effects in terms of governance that these are three different enquiries re-
and institutional domination similarly indicts lying on three different forms of data (see
the flagship of the development enterprise Beattie, 1959). Three of the most significant

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

24 Approaching development

works on development intervention that fall to the benefit of beneficiaries and professionals,
broadly within this class of research over on the one hand, or to see it as a socio-political
the past decades would be The Anti-Politics process with more complex consequences and
Machine. ‘Development’,De-politicization, no immediate onus for ‘making development
and Bureaucratic Power in Leshoto, by James work’, on the other. This does not make one
Ferguson (1990); Cultivating Development. enterprise inherently nobler than the other.
An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice, by Each engagement with development has its
David Mosse (2005) and The Will to Improve, particular rigour and preferred principles.
by Tania Murray Li (2007). The authors While the research approach puts a premium
examine how development interventions are on explanation and analytical clarity, the prac-
borne by a certain set of ideas – political and titioners’ approach puts a premium on targeted
moral – about what should happen. This means change, feasibility and pragmatism. But while
investigating policy statements of various professionals may work under conditions where
kinds, programmes and plans, strategies and it is essential to focus on the latter aspects to
evaluations. Ferguson, Mosse and Li also perform their tasks effectively and efficiently,
investigate the engaged actors’ ideas about I suggest that to perform such functions well,
what is going on. Mosse thus examines what it is useful to be aware of the distinction and
he terms the ‘social production of develop- be able to recognise both perspectives.
ment successes’. Out of the complex and
contingent practice of development inter- 4 The migration of words and concepts
vention certain points are validated, certain Recognition of the distinction and ability to
causalities ‘proved’ and thereby ideas of a employ both perspectives is, however, made
success are produced. Finally, the authors difficult by the subtle way the two camps
examine the effects, not only where effects communicate. As Wilson (1993) points out,
were intended, but casting a wider net they concepts wander from one side of the dividing
examine effects on organisations, institutions line and back. Generally, concepts seep
and the distribution of political power. While through from the academic, analytical side,
this research is a serious indictment of de- to the political, engaged, and operational side.
velopment intervention and in particular of However, the meaning of concepts changes as
the discrepancy between what development it goes from one camp to the other. Concepts
intervention does and what it declares it does, in academic discourses must be qualified. By
it is not an outright dismissal of development this I mean, it is explained and specified in
intervention as a means to improve the liveli- some detail what they signify. While words
hoods of poor people. But it reminds us that such as property, family, government, state,
this process is multi-layered, that every layer and wealth, and so on, have some generally
has political dimensions, and while the official accepted descriptive everyday meaning, this
agenda may be trumpeted with bombast; it is does not qualify them as concepts. Concepts
often undercut by other, less overt, agendas. come with some theoretical baggage that
Therefore, while a project may fail on its own ensures some precision. But when concepts
terms, ‘failure’ often has significant effects slip into a development agency and policy
that align well with other interests and thereby context, they are rarely qualified and thereby
becomes a ‘success’ to some. become less clear and may gain a new status as
It is evident that the practitioner/politician fund-raising buzz words or simple indicators.
and researcher perspectives on development Participation, power, sustainability, democracy,
intervention are different. It makes a differ- poverty, and so on, are all concepts that have
ence to approach development as a practical, travelled from academia to development
technical, organizational, and political operation operations. ‘Rights’ is another seemingly on

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

 Christian Lund 25

this outward journey where it may lose its level of frustration entailed often results in
conceptual quality and become a word with violence – quite the opposite, in fact. But
many competing and contradictory meanings development policies and practices are not
(see Englund and Nyamnjoh, 2004; Wilson, merely technical decisions; they are in-
1997). Another difficulty lies in the return of herently political, and intentions about the
these concepts from policy language. When social distribution of rights and resources are
development agency words find their way back embedded in any development intervention
into academic analysis to perform a precise and societal development process. Therefore,
function in critical analysis, they may seem I suggest that it is somewhat naïve to think that
crisp and accurate, but in reality, stripped of ‘had we only known better, we would have
conceptual pedigree, they often merely create done it differently’. The reforms introduced
the buzzing noise of the buzz-word. and the effective outcomes result from political
choices. The outcomes, whether close to or
5 Connections between development research further from the declared intentions, generally
and practice resonate with the interests of certain groups.
It is well known that the ambitions to make Policies are motivated as much by interests –
changes through development intervention political and organisational – as by knowledge
often encounter unanticipated reactions and and technical reason (Mosse, 2005). Moreover,
have rather unexpected results. A FAQ (Fre- inconclusive research – and let’s be fair, most
quently Asked Questions) in development research on a moving target is somehow
studies is ‘how could research possibly have inconclusive – may be used as an ‘insurance
helped planners and operators?’ Now, the gut policy’ or legitimation for decisions already
reaction of social scientists and development made. ‘We have consulted the experts and can
operators and planners alike tends to be, ‘If go ahead’ (see Hirschman, 1967: 23). This is
we had only known more, we could have not to say that research-based knowledge is
foreseen and have fine tuned the instruments’. redundant and does not have its place among
Obviously, there is some element of truth in policy makers; on the contrary, it does. Only,
this. Some basic knowledge about the context, it is in stiff competition with other motivating
about the social dynamics and political history factors, such as interests. Modesty about the
of a place may help reach targets with more potential impact of research in development
precision. However, it is not insignificant what planning would, therefore, behove us.
kinds of questions are sought and answered. Nonetheless, knowledge about social dy-
If we rush for tool perfection, we may not namics and institutional change is not inert
allow ourselves to ask the questions that technical knowledge to be computed in a de-
come before, namely to what extent and politicized operation of development; it can
to what degree of precision is it desirable to be acted upon and may thus lead to change.
regulate, and who stands to benefit from it. Information not only serves governments
For example, how big a problem is it (and for and technocrats, but also corporations and
whom) that land conflicts are rife in Africa capital, and social and political movements
and that different politico-legal institutions of all kinds. They are all policy makers, in a
are competing over jurisdiction? Is this an ac- way. Research can turn the choices of policy
ceptable way of negotiating the future rules makers and operators, corporations and
of the game? In asking such questions, I’m political movements into informed choices,
not denying that there are indeed a variety of but it cannot do the actual choosing for them.
problems associated with such land conflicts Therefore, when policy makers look to research
and institutional confusion, that the outcome for directives for intervention, they are liable to
is often socially inequitable, and that the operate as technicians for whom the choices

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

26 Approaching development

have already been made, and they often look makers who effect practice and change and for
in vain. Research rarely provides blueprints whom research is useful. Thus, a similar chal-
for immediate implementation. Instead, it is lenge of level-headed communication lies in
often a purveyor of ‘inconvenient facts’ (see research’s relations to other active stakeholders
Corbridge, 2007: 201; and Weber, 1958: 147). in society. If research is to be useful information
On the other hand, development research in an effort to change the world, then policies,
clearly reveals a multitude of endogenous politics, and interests must be laid bare and
dynamic processes unfolding all the time. It made intelligible and accessible.
frequently demonstrates that people do not
necessarily await the cue from the policy IV Development theory and
makers to act. Peoples’ actions and countless development analysis
everyday struggles and negotiations form a
variety of recorded patterns with winners and 1 Two types of theory
losers. Therefore, when searching for con- I now return to the initial ambition of this article.
structive and feasible policy choices, policy The diversity and dynamic nature of societies,
makers and operators could find worse places in general, creates a perennial challenge for the
to look to than research. What is actually going social sciences: What are the ambitions con-
on? What processes entertained by peoples’ cerning general explanatory power of theory
efforts to change their lives can be identified, and findings, and is it possible to navigate
identified with, and furthered by policy? The between sweeping theoretical generalizations
challenge for social science research vis-à-vis and descriptive particularism? The diversity
policy lies in identifying dynamics, changes, and dynamics in developing societies make the
movements and organization of interests in question inherently relevant for development
society that policy makers can underpin, sup- studies. To approach this, it is useful to start
port and further. Obviously, this means that out with a distinction between two types of
policy should relate to existing and expressed theory. Mouzelis presents a simple dichotomy
interests in society (Scott, 1998: 345). For (1995:1, see also Passeron, 2000: 42): first, we
this to happen, it is particularly important to have theory as an explanatory framework;
present research intended for policy makers, a set of interrelated substantive statements
stakeholders and operators in ways that are venturing to say something new about the
palatable to them. By this, I do not mean that social world, either for a circumscribed section
research results should be obscenely simplified, of it or, in some cases, attempting a ‘systematic
put in patronizing bullet-point catch phrases, theory of the nature of man and society’
or popularised ad nauseam. But research can be (Mills, 2000: 23). This type of theory can, in
presented in ways that relate to the priorities general, be subjected to empirical investigation,
of the policy makers and operators with the be confirmed or falsified by evidence or at
sincere intention to communicate. It requires least held up against empirical findings. The
the integrity of the researcher to not oversell second type of theoretical construct is a
certain dynamics and garnish observations set of conceptual tools which, rather than
with wishful thinking but to remain clear- telling us anything substantive about the
headed. But it may be exactly at this juncture social world, suggests ways of approaching it.
that the ‘professional pessimism’ of the re- The value of this type of theory must be as-
searcher and the ‘professional optimism’ of sessed in terms of its heuristic utility, that is,
the policy maker and operator can lead to what questions are asked and how do they
constructive communication. It is important interrogate the empirical phenomena. In short,
to keep in mind, however, that it is not merely we may ‘distinguish between substantive
(sometimes not even primarily) formal policy generalisations and generalisations that are

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

 Christian Lund 27

predominantly methodological/heuristic’ for empirical observations. For the sake of

(Mouzelis, 1995: 42). While concrete works convenience, I shall refer to them all as ‘grand
on social change contain both elements, they theory’.
are generally more inclined to either one or the The social sciences offer many substantive
other end. Let me discuss the problems and theories of this grand scale as Skinner demon-
merits of the two types of theory in turn. strates (Skinner, 1985). I am not suggesting that
‘grand theorists’ have always made universal
2 Explanatory framework claims. In fact, grand theorists often take
The classical theory by W.W. Rostow, Stages of pains to present their theories as historical and
Economic Growth (1960), is clearly a substantive circumscribed, but this tends to be disregarded
theory with a high ambition of theorizing by their most ardent followers. Hence, when
about five phases of economic growth that all grand theory of a substantive kind is employed,
societies would – sooner or later – follow. And in principle, empirical evidence either validates
with an outline of a trajectory for all societies or invalidates the theory. However, quite often,
to follow, each society could, in principle, be a more dishonest operation is undertaken
situated according to these phases of progress where empirical data is cut to fit the theoretical
on the way to Western modernity. As pointed assumptions and anticipations. If the options
out by Hansen (1997), Marxist theories regarding grand theories are validation or
similarly operate with a highly teleological distortion, should we then just abandon
(some almost with a theological) perspective, them in development studies? My suggestion
is: Not at all! However, we will need to be
although with a different end scenario. Mills
conscious of the role of ‘grand theory’ in social
criticizes different sociological traditions
science and development studies, in particular.
and, in particular, two strands of theory for
Grand theorists such as Bourdieu, Foucault,
their overarching ambitions. First, there are
Habermas, Luhmann, Marx, Rawls, and
encyclopaedic theories concerned with the
Weber, among others, are not irrelevant or
‘whole of man’s social life’ (Mills, 2000: 22).
incommensurable with research on a dynamic
Prominent figures are Marx and Weber who
context removed from the contexts that once
attempt a systematic reading of the regularities
inspired the theories. However, the task is to
of the stages of history. However, as Mills look to such theories more for their heuristic
argues, the ‘theory of man’s history can all too utility and conceptual adequacy than for their
readily become distorted into a trans-historical substantive propositions about connections or
strait-jacket into which the materials of human general causalities. In short, to understand the
history are forced’ (Mills, 2000: 22–23). politics of decentralisation in, say, Indonesia,
Secondly, Mills points to theories that attempt it may be very productive to look to Weber
a comprehensive systematic set of statements for the questions he asks about legitimacy, and
about the nature of man and society. Mills rather less rewarding to look at the (ultimately
brings out Parsons as a leading example historically contingent) answers he provides.
(Parsons, 1951; see also Cohen et al., 1975). Likewise, to understand the political economy
The ambition of this theoretical endeavour of rural Africa, it may be very productive to
is to identify supposedly invariant features of look to Marx for the questions he asks about
social life deleting history as a particularly valid power, property and control, and a lot less so
concern. While these two strands of theory to subscribe to his class analysis of nineteenth-
are quite different – one explaining history, century Europe. Equally, to understand state-
the other practically denying it – they have in society relations in highland Peru, it may be a
common the ambition to provide a large-scale good idea to look to Foucault for the questions
explanatory and interpretative framework he asks about discourse and power, and less

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

28 Approaching development

inspiring to transplant his work on prisoners on the other hand, moves from the particular
and punishment in eighteenth-century France evidence to more general statements about
to the Andes. Studying a moving target – social dynamics. This, obviously, has the op-
development – we can often learn as much posite limitations; what can indeed be inferred
from how questions have been asked in from a singular case if context is so significant.
other circumstances as from the answers – Conclusions arrived at by inductive reasoning
soon dated – they yielded. Grand theory is are generally less certain than the actual
a wellspring of ideas of how to approach the initial observation, and they are contextually
world, just as are (other) empirical studies circumscribed. The difficulty is, of course,
with more circumscribed claims to their to assess the range of validity, but most of
validity. This way, works – such as by Rostow the time, we are not looking for completely
cited above – should not merely be dismissed universal laws of the social anyway, but are
because the answers they provide may have quite happy with explanations which are
limited value; it may be redeemed because of historically circumscribed; that is, valid for a
the heuristic quality of the questions it offers. particular period of time and a particular region.
This leads me to the other kind of theory. However, inductive reasoning has one distinct
advantage over deduction, namely that it can
3 Heuristic framework provide good examples which have substantive
Social science is by nature (no pun intended) as well as implicit methodological propositions.
provisory. For development studies, this is no Thus, from examples, we can harvest good
less true. Its subject matter changes – develops – questions for our own inquiry. This is where
over time, and the ambitions of adding small the inductive reasoning pairs well with seeing
bricks to the edifice of science in the image theorization as a heuristic activity of ‘reading’
of natural sciences is, in my view, vain. No other research for concepts and questions
sooner than the theories about the post-war (to engage with this huge debate, see, for
bi-polar world were developed did social and example, Kuhn, 1970, Mills 2000, Passeron,
political changes make them historical. And 2006 and Sayer, 1992). Conceptual tools and
theories about class structures and state incisive questions to investigate historical
building have been challenged by the process realities have a lot of mileage whereas the
of globalization and the institutionalization of propositions of substantive theories have
the development aid system. Changes in social variable expiry dates and seem to have less
and political realities necessarily invite new new knowledge to offer out of their context.
research and new attempts at making sense of A theory like Development Sociology – Actor
them. In my opinion, the consequence is that Perspectives by Norman Long (2001) has
research on changing social phenomena and a different ambition from Rostow’s. Long
on change itself calls for research approaches, wants to generate useful concepts for the
which privilege inductive over deductive investigation of development processes.
reasoning. Simply put, deductive reasoning Conceptual tools such as interface, network
moves from a general or universal principle to configurations etc. thus provide a lens for
particular truths. However, the very diversity approaching society without making far-
of the developing world – well, the world – reaching assumptions about the substantive
tends to defeat any long-range utility of nature of the interfaces, networks, and so
strict deduction. Deduction tends to leave us on. Obviously, the inductive, empirical ap-
with very abstract ideas. Moreover, strongly proach has pitfalls as well. Description of the
deductive reasoning carries with it the risk unique features of a particular social con-
of permanent ‘re-discovery’ of the model in figuration (and every social configuration has
the empirical material. Inductive reasoning, unique features) is not sufficient for a social

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

 Christian Lund 29

science analysis. Ideographic description where concrete historical context, and the concepts
the analysis does not, through concepts, from economics, politics, law, geography, an-
relate to a wider picture, or does not pro- thropology and sociology in order to conduct
pose patterns or suggest structures, becomes an intelligent reading of societal development
insignificant, inconsequential and hence un- which relates to a wider context and history.
interesting as social science (See Moore, 1987, There seems to be a consensus that the
1993, 2005; Passeron, 2006: 154–68). Thus, perspectives from several disciplines are helpful
while the empirical, historical context defines in order to establish comprehensive knowledge
the problem to be described and analysed, it about concrete phenomena. However, there is
must be dealt with in a way that resonates no consensus about how different disciplines
with a wider set of issues in different or wider should co-habit. ‘Inter-disciplinarity refers to a
contexts to qualify as social science. Research rigorous attempt to integrate the frameworks
is, in fact, a constant movement back and forth of different disciplines and to explore research
between the specifics of contextualization questions which would not otherwise arise
and more general reasoning. It is possible to within the boundaries of a single discipline’
conduct this pendulous movement between a (Harriss, 2002: 494 n1). As Jackson argues,
specific context and more abstractly reasoned this is the ‘source of much that is original in
general questions of one particular discipline, development research, it is also, however, at
say, political science. Or, one can go scrumping risk of a lowest common denominator effect,
in several orchards. where only relatively straightforward re-
search questions are posed’ (Jackson, 2002:
4 Combined approaches 499). Multi-disciplinarity, on the other hand,
Development studies are driven by a concern Jackson argues, refers to parallel disciplines in
about inequality and poverty. Concretely, close conversation about the same problem,
however, this involves a broad range of issues. and this has the advantage of the theoretical
Problems like inequality are multidimensional development of each discipline. One notes how
and cannot be the preserve of a single dis- the distinction echoes the tension between
cipline (Jackson, 2002: 449). Development practitioners and policy makers with pressing
studies are, therefore, at the confluence of needs for relevant – ‘straightforward’ –
different disciplines such as economics, politics, knowledge, on the one hand, and social sci-
sociology, geography and anthropology. Let entists with pressing needs to earn brownie
me take an example from my own research points through publication in discipline-based
to illustrate this: land conflicts in Niger and journals and good performance in peer
Ghana. Land conflicts are multidimensional. evaluations, on the other. In reality, however,
When people struggle over land, it is not disciplines rarely remain ‘parallel’ when they
merely to secure a livelihood. Elements of are in close conversation. It often makes
belonging and political identity also play a role. more sense to see them as cognate disciplines
Therefore, insight into people’s perceptions which overlap in their topical investiga-
about space, rights and interests are as im- tions as well as in their theoretical jurisdic-
portant as their socio-economic situation. tions. Particular topical as well as theoretical
Moreover, knowledge about the political and ideas and their methodological ramifications
organisational structures of the administration have often appeared in different disciplines at
and the customary institutions as well as of roughly the same time. To me, it suggests that
the processual aspects of law is very useful the strict segregation of disciplines is justified
(Lund, 1998; 2008). In short, this means that less by the inherent logics of the investi-
research on this topic, ideally, should constitute gated issues or the theoretical orientation
movements back and forth between the than by academic and institutional interests,

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

30 Approaching development

tradition and convenience. Moreover, it aspirations of history, anthropology, geog-

seems unlikely that disciplines that engage in raphy, sociology, political science and eco-
close conversation with others should remain nomics. The point is not that one discipline is
un-affected by this and not develop partly forcibly superior to the other; it is all too easy to
as a result of it. It may therefore be difficult fall into rather infantile debates about whether
to situate concrete development research as economics is superior to, say, sociology; each
either inter- or multi-disciplinary. I attempt no discipline has specific methods, and rigour, and
endorsement of one form of co-habitation of imagination must be legitimate requirements
disciplines above the other, nor am I implying of any discipline. However, different modes
that inter/multidisciplinarity turns all disciplines of reasoning make each discipline inclined to
into one. In my view, there are two reasons engage with different forms of data, to procure
why development studies require a combined it differently, and to manipulate and synthesize
approach to tackle a research problem: the it differently.
reasoning and the data. Let me return to my own research field once
more to exemplify the variation in reasoning
5 Reasoning and data and data it suggests. The field of local politics
Passeron argues that the social sciences are and conflicts over landed property lends itself
the empirical sciences of historical reality. to virtually the whole gamut of social science.
A discipline is essentially historical when its The evolution of the political system and
statements cannot be severed from the con- property relations invite a narrative approach
text from which data was drawn. It is the where time, sequencing and conjunctures
distinguishing feature of social sciences, which, organize a variety of data. This may be archival
contrary to natural sciences, cannot ‘control material, established historical accounts, and
for context’ (Passeron, 2006: 145–54). Despite interviews about settlement, land acquisition,
this fundamental commonality, however, dif- transfers and conflict. Conflicts over land and
ferent disciplines within the social sciences politics may, on the other hand, appeal to the
have different preferred ways of reasoning and, sociological and anthropological reasoning
consequently, differ widely in use of data. At about different fora or institutional theatres for
one end of the spectrum, we find disciplines, conflict resolution and the possible emergence
such as history, that take pains to moor their of new institutions. Interesting data may
interpretations to a particular spatial and include different repertoires of justification of
temporal context. At the other end, we have claims. It may encompass information on how
disciplines, such as economics, with an in- the repertoire relates to different spheres of
clination for ‘experimental reasoning’ where people’s universe and their understanding of
data is abstracted, stripped of contextual custom, power, justice, the state, and so on.
noise, in order to facilitate comparison and This may lend itself to typologies of institutions
quantification. and processes. The institutional competition
Thus, some disciplines are narrative in between different political authorities and
nature, others focus on the spatial distribution the establishment of de jure and de facto juris-
of different phenomena, some are more prone dictions beg a political and legal approach.
to synthesis and typologies, others again Legislation, court proceedings and policy
prefer to reason in terms of comparative documents in combination with cases of con-
analysis, and some argue in terms of statistics testation and dispute would fuel the data set.
and correlations. Passeron argues that social Spatial location of the property in question
science reasoning is various combinations of and land use are equally significant. Finally, the
these forms, which find their purest (though distribution of economic costs and benefits of
never completely pure) articulation in the this process is highly relevant. Data on prices

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

 Christian Lund 31

and values of land and transactions would give 20–22). A crude overview runs like this: Struc-
some idea about the creation and distribution tural analyses tend to assign interests and
of wealth. And facts about formal and informal capacities to whole collectivities and to explain
credit systems would provide knowledge behaviour of individuals and groups primarily
about the functioning of the economic system. through their relation to the collective in ques-
Combining different approaches originating tion. This line of explanation can be found in
in different disciplinary quarters thus allows history as well as economics, in political science
engagement with different kinds of data and as well as anthropology, and in geography
consequently for comprehensive analyses. as well as sociology. The rational analyses tend
However, such combinations also introduce to explain behaviour and resulting change with
some epistemological tensions. I shall point to the deliberate choices made by individuals
two challenges. First, some of the ‘feeder- ranging from persons, over organizations
disciplines’ of development studies are inclined to states. Choices are often explained with
to ‘particularize’ and others to ‘universalize’, reference to interests, opportunities and con-
and the challenge is to strike a convincing bal- straints. This line of reasoning competes with
ance. However, in most cases, there is not structural explanations by attributing decisive
simply one conclusion to research, but several. weight to agency. But it is not a competition
There is a nested hierarchy of conclusions, between disciplines; it takes place within
where the most concrete may be very precise them. Phenomenological approaches will give
and substantiated by a wealth of evidence, crucial weight to individuals’ experience as a
but also be somewhat circumscribed to motivating factor for action. Here, symbols
the precise context. On the other hand, the of identity, belonging, and exclusion are
more general conclusions with a wider scope examined for their meaning and effect on
can often be drawn from the same research. change. Similarly, focusing on the individual
They will be more abstract and refer to a is the cultural approach. It tends to attribute
gradually de-contextualized set of observations causal power to norms, values and beliefs
with a decreasing degree of specificity. There that individuals absorb from the surrounding
is no absolute and optimal balance between culture.
particularizing and universalizing ambitions Again, no discipline is the single home
for social science analysis. The litmus test for of these approaches; they inform political
any social science research is to what degree as well as economic research (see, for example,
the findings and statements at various levels of Chabal and Daloz, 1999; and Hyden, 1983).
abstraction and generalization are convincing. The fifth approach is what McAdam, Tarrow
This is, in fact, an empirical question. and Tilly actually advocate. Here, social
A second complication with a compre- movements are seen as learning entities that
hensive analysis drawing on different dis- operate and improvise within given structures
ciplines lies with the possibility that the selected of economy and politics with a certain set of
disciplines have different, incommensurable, political repertoires. In a way, the authors are
explanatory emphasis. How is social action ‘recovering structuralists’ trying to see not
explained in the different theories? This one single behavioural pattern, but patterns
does not follow the particular disciplines in a of patterns of social processes. The point of
very systematic way, but runs through all of displaying these lines of explanation is not to
them (Boudon, 1986; McAdam et al., 2001). say that one is inherently superior to another.
McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly mark out five Rather, the point is that research which com-
overlapping but competing explanations of bines different disciplines – development
change: structural, rational, phenomenological, studies par excellence – runs a particularly high
cultural and relational (McAdam et al., 2001: risk of constructing contradictory arguments.

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

32 Approaching development

This should not discourage us, however. Again, studies is, in the best of cases, production of
the test for any social science research is to new substantive knowledge about empirical –
what degree the explanations are actually real – phenomena which stands out from both
credible and make sense. policy prescription and mere description by
the rigorous approach to the topic through
V Concluding remarks a particular theoretical lens and with precise
Problems of development and change pose concepts. This should not entail disciplinary or
political as well as non-normative analytical methodological monogamy. It is generally more
challenges. As a consequence, there is an fruitful to start out with the research problem
inherent risk that policy makers and practi- and the profit from the different disciplines’
tioners from one camp, and researchers from topical convergence and methodological
another – professional optimists and pessimists, complementarity. It is rather a plea for
respectively – tend to misunderstand and mis- ‘methodological opportunism’ (see Katzenstein
represent each other. While words migrate et al., 1995). Various forms of data may
from one camp to the other, the meaning converge to form a more comprehensive
only seemingly survives the transport, and argument and interpretation. The major
a dialogue de sourds is often the result. This contribution of the theoretical orientation is
gap is not going to be easy to close by any exactly to identify research issues in empirical
measure. Strong institutional interests pull problems and provide certain concepts to
the practitioners towards ‘solutions’ to con- facilitate an investigation in order to elicit new
crete problems and lead them to search for knowledge. This knowledge can then be seen
‘straightforward knowledge’, whereas other as an argument or a substantive theory for a
institutional interests pull researchers in a particular historical and geographical context.
different direction. Researchers’ inconvenient In the social sciences, the question of proving
facts – if theorized for specific publication a point is not one of all or nothing, but rather
purposes – can make for poor dialogue with one of more or less likely with argument and
stakeholders, practitioners and policy makers. reasoning based on the context of relevant
Yet, there is potential for constructive com- elements for the question at issue. The con-
munication if both sides recognize each others’ textual, historical situation of the argument,
logics and concerns. Indeed, if researchers and the meticulous recording of relevant data
were to present their findings in terms of social and events, is the only remedy to undergird
processes and dynamics in relation to policy its plausibility. However, these substantive
concerns, and if policy makers, practitioners propositions of the theories still represent the
and stakeholders were to look to research for less-durable and less-transferable element,
inconvenient facts rather than directives for whereas the approach and the questions raised
action, a more sincere and hence constructive have a wider compass. That is, the heuristic
communication could be the result. qualities of the substantive propositions are
The second issue taken up in this article transcendental, while the substantive pro-
has been to discuss an analytical approach positions themselves are circumscribed. Good
to development and social change. The field research will have both qualities and will know
of development is vast, the issues many and the difference between them.
the research approaches to these issues are as To conclude, development studies, like
varied as the social sciences themselves. The other social sciences, is a product of political
approach is therefore a consequence of the and ethical concerns. For development studies,
problem one investigates. Nonetheless, I shall these concerns are inequality, impoverishment
venture a few points. Work in development and human insecurity. To do justice to these

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

 Christian Lund 33

concerns, however, the academic and scientific Englund, H. and Nyamnjoh, F., editors. 2004: Rights
practices – the research approach – must and the politics of recognition in Africa. Zed Books.
Ferguson, J. 1990: The anti-politics machine. ‘Development’,
observe standards and principles of critical depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Leshoto.
scrutiny and context sensitive systematic University of Minnesota Press.
conceptualisations and deliver it in reasoned ——— 1997: Anthropology and its evil twin. ‘Development’
language. in the constitution of a discipline. In Cooper, F. and
Packard, R., editors, International development and
the social sciences. Essays on the history and politics of
Acknowledgements knowledge. University of California Press, 150–75.
This article has benefited tremendously from Finnemore, M. 1997: Redefining development at the
the ongoing methodological and theoretical World Bank. In Cooper, F. and Packard R., editors,
discussions at the Friday-seminar at the International development and the social sciences. Essays
Graduate School of International Development on the history and politics of knowledge. University of
California Press, 203–27.
Studies, Roskilde University. Grateful thanks Goldman, M. 2005: Imperial Nature. The World Bank and
are also owed to Jesse Ribot and this journal’s Struggles for Social Justice in the Age of Globalization.
reviewers for valuable comments. The usual New Haven/London, Yale University Press.
disclaimers apply. Gould, J., editor, 2005: The new conditionality. The politics
of poverty reduction strategies. Zed Books.
Griffin, K. 2003: Economic globalization and institutions
References of global governance. Development and Change 34,
Abrahamsen, R. 2000: Disciplining democracy. Develop-
789–807.
ment discourse and good governance in Africa. Zed
Hansen, T. 1997: Store faser, små historier. (Big phases,
Books.
small stories). Den Ny Verden 30, 13–28.
Baeck, L. 1998: ‘Thematisation and canon building in
Harriss, J. 2002: The case for cross-disciplinary ap-
post-war development studies’. Discussion paper
proaches in international development. World Devel-
98:01, Center for Economic Studies, Katholieke
opment 30, 487–96.
Universiteit Leuven.
Hirschman, A.O. 1967: Development projects observed.
Beattie, J.H.M. 1959: Understanding and explanation
Washington D.C., The Brookings Institution.
in social anthropology. British Journal of Sociology
10, 45–60. Hobart, M. (ed.), 1993: An Anthropological Critique
Black, R. and White, H., editors. 2004: Targeting of Development. The Growth of Ignorance. London,
development. Critical perspectives on the Millennium Routledge.
Development Goals. Routledge. Hyden, G. 1983: No shortcuts to progress. African de-
Boudon, R. 1986: Theories of Social Change. A Critical velopment management in perspective. Heinemann.
Appraisal. Polity Press. Jackson, C. 2002: Disciplining gender? World Development
Chabal, P. and Daloz, J-P. 1999: Africa works. Disorder 30, 497–509.
as a political instrument. James Currey. ——— 2006: Feminism spoken here. Epistemologies for
Chambers, R. 1983: Rural development. Putting the last interdisciplinary development research. Develop-
first. Longman. ment and Change 37, 525–47.
Cohen, J., Hazelrigg, L.E. and Pope, W. 1975: De- Katzenstein, P., Evans, P., Scott, J., Rudolph, S.H.,
Parsonizing Weber – A critique of Parsons inter- Przeworski, A., Skocpol, T. and Kohli, A. 1995:
pretation of Weber’s sociology. American Sociological The role of theory in comparative politics: A sym-
Review 40, 229–41. posium. World Politics 48(1), 1–49.
Cooper, F. and Packard, R. 1997: International de- Kuhn, T. 1970 [1960]: The structure of scientific revolu-
velopment and the social sciences – Introduction. tions. 2nd ed. Chicago University Press.
In Cooper, F. and Packard R., editors, International Lal, D. 1983: The poverty of ‘Development Economics’.
development and the social sciences. Essays on the Institute of Economic Affairs.
history and politics of knowledge. University of Lauridsen, L. 2002: Coping with the triple challenge
California Press, 1–41. of globalisation, liberalisation and crisis. The role of
Corbridge, S. 2007: The (im)possibility of develop- industrial technology policies and technology insti-
ment studies. Economy and Society 36, 179–211. tutions in Thailand. European Journal of Development
Degnbol-Martinussen, J. 1997: Society state and mar- Research 14, 101–25.
ket. A guide to competing theories of development. Leys, C. 1996: The rise and fall of development theory.
Zed Books. EAEP/Indiana University Press/James Currey.

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

34 Approaching development

Li, T.M. 2007: The Will to Improve. Governmentality, Passeron, J-C. 2006 [1991]: Le raisonnement sociologique.
Development and the Practice of Politics. Durham/ Un espace non-poppérien de l’argumentation (Socio-
London, Duke University Press. logical Reasoning. A non-Popperian Space for Argu-
Long, N. 2001: Development sociology. Actor perspectives. mentation). Michel Albin.
Routledge. Pieterse, N. 2001: Development theory. Deconstructions/
Lund, C. 1998: Law, power and politics in Niger. Land reconstructions. Sage Publications.
struggles and the rural code. LIT Verlag/Transaction Roe, E. 1994: Narrative policy analysis. Duke University
Publishers. Press.
——— 2008: Local politics and the dynamics of property in ——— 1999: Except Africa. Remaking development, re-
thinking power. Transaction Publishers.
Africa. Cambridge University Press.
Rostow, W.W. 1960: Stages of Economic Growth. An
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S. and Tilly, C. 2001: Dynamics
Anti-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge, Cambridge
of contention. Cambridge University Press.
University Press.
Mills, C.W. 2000 [1959]: The sociological imagination. Sachs, W. 1999: Planet dialectics. Explorations in environ-
Oxford University Press. ment and development. Zed Books.
Moore, S.F. 1987: Explaining the present – theoretical Sayer, A. 1992: Method in social science. A realist approach.
dilemmas in processual ethnography. American 2nd ed. Routledge.
Ethnologist 14, 727–36. Scott, J.C. 1998: Seeing like a state. How certain schemes
——— 1993: The ethnography of the present and the to improve the human condition have failed. Yale
analysis of process. In Borofsky, R., editor, Assessing University Press.
cultural anthropology. McGraw Hill, 362–74. Skinner, Q. 1985: The return of Grand Theory. In Skinner,
——— 2005: Comparisons: possible and impossible. Q., editor, The return of Grand Theory in the human
Annual Review of Anthropology 34, 1–11. sciences. Cambridge University Press, 1–20.
Mosse, D. 2005: Cultivating development. An ethnography Stiglitz, J. 2002: Globalization and its discontents.
of aid policy and practice. Pluto Press. Penguin.
Mouzelis, N. 1995: Sociological theory. What went wrong? Weber, M.(1958) [1919]: Science as a vocation. In
Diagnosis and remedies. Routledge. Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W., editors, From Max
Olivier de Sardan, J-P. 2005: Anthropology and devel- Weber. Essays in sociology. Oxford University Press,
opment. Understanding contemporary social change. 129–56.
——— (1963) [1904]: ‘Objectivity’ in social sciences and
Zed Books.
social policy. In Natanson, M., editor, Philosophy of the
Parsons, T. 1951: The social system. The Free Press.
social sciences. Random House, 355–418.
Passeron, J-C. 2000: Le raisonnement sociologique.
Wilson, F. 1993: Faust: Udvikleren [Faust: The de-
La preuve et le contexte (Sociological reasoning.
veloper]. GRUS 38, 23–33.
The proof and the context). In Michaud, Y., editor, Wilson, R. 1997: Human rights. Culture and context. In
Qu’est-ce que la société?(What is society?) Editions Wilson, R., editors, Human rights, culture and context.
Odile Jacob, 38–51. Anthropological perspectives. Pluto Press, 1–27.

Progress in Development Studies 10, 1 (2010) pp. 19–34

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.