Use of Anthropology in Developing Sustainable Projects

Use of Anthropology in Developing Sustainable Projects

Murshedul Arafin¹ & Jubayer Ahmed²

¹Assistant Professor and Program Coordinator of BBA and MBA, Department of Business Administration, City University and Final Semester Student of MDS 20 (Thesis), Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka.

²Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, City University

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.7011065

Received: 20 October 2023; Revised: 06 November 2023; Accepted: 09 November 2023; Published: 08 December 2023

ABSTRACT

A multitude of divergent interpretations exist about sustainability, the most of which originate from enduring European customs surrounding the use of natural resource management. Anthropology is based on the same ontology that caused the global ecological crisis, which marked the beginning of the new era in which we live. We can offer a different perspective on the concept of sustainability by recognizing that anthropologists have a responsibility to demonstrate the importance of social, cultural, and ontological diversity for resilience, adaptation and sustainable innovation.

Keywords: Sustainable Project, Development, Sustainability, Anthropology.

INTRODUCTION

Development refers to the process of change in which an increasing proportion of the population enjoys a higher material standard of living, a healthier and longer life, more education, more control and choice over their lifestyle (Frey & Stutzer, 2002). It is generally accepted that development depends on increasing labor productivity, which can be achieved through the application of science, technology, and more efficient forms of economic and management organization. Nearly all government leaders are committed to promoting such development. However, business leaders, policy makers and academics disagree on the relative importance of technological, economic and political barriers to development and thus the priorities for achieving them (Nath, 2012).

‘Development’ was defined by President Truman in 1949 as a logical strategy for post-war reconstruction in the ‘underdeveloped’ parts of the world, based on the provision of international financial aid and modern economic assistance (Williams, 2013). It first acquired its official meaning when used as part of the rationale for technology transfer. Development has subsequently been strongly associated primarily with economic growth. However, there has also been a growing recognition that although an economy may form a precondition for development attention has to be paid to other issues such as income and asset. This is provided to reduce inequality, support for human rights and social welfare, and the sustainable stewardship of environmental resources. The Human Development Index developed by the United Nations Development Programme in early 1990s has addressed such concerns, by combining gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, life expectancy and a measure of educational attainment.

Arturo Escobar (1988) argues that as a set of ideas and practices ‘development’ has historically functioned over the twentieth century as a mechanism for the colonial and neo-colonial domination of the South by the North (Escober, 1995). This is exemplified by people who use the term while working in development institutions, that are involved in the process redistribution of global wealth and recreating the power dynamics of neocolonialism (Cornwall 2002).

Sustainability is the restoration of natural or man-made global production processes by replacing depleted resources with resources of equal or greater value without affecting or endangering natural biological systems.  Sustainable development combines concern about the resilience of natural systems with the social, political and economic challenges facing humanity (Kahle and Gurel-Atay 2014). In 1980, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published its Global Conservation Strategy, contains one of the first references to sustainable development as a global priority, and introduced the term ‘sustainable development’- (Sachs 2015). Two years after later, the United Nations World Charter for Nature formulated the five principles for the conservation of nature, by which human behavior in relation to nature should be directed and judged. In 1987, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development published “Our Common Future”, commonly referred to as the Brundtland Report. This report contained one of the most widely used definitions of sustainable development today (WCED, 1987).

Objectives

1. Understand and critically evaluate key theories, concepts and debates in the anthropology of development and sustainability.
2. Become familiar with how anthropological perspectives contribute to the study of global challenges.
3. Acquire the ability to understand social and environmental changes from different perspectives and in different institutional and regional contexts.
4. The framework can be used in the context of day to-day development practice, with reference to typical project and program stages, making use of familiar development tools.
5. Develop the capacity for conceptual and ethical reflection about what and how anthropologists can contribute in practice.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Some anthropologists select the ideas, processes and institutions of development as their field of study, but such work has tended to be highly suspicious, otherwise if its approach in interrogation is not critical, in its approach (Pelto & Pelto, 1978).  The structure of inquiry. Cambridge University Press. At one level, anthropological work on development has flowed from many anthropologists’ long-standing concerns with the social and cultural effects of economic change in the less developed areas of the world. Such work has shown how the incorporation of local communities into wider capitalist relations of production and exchange has profound implications. For example, Wilson’s (1942) work in Zambia in the late 1930s showed the ways in which industrialization and urbanization processes were structured by colonial policies that discouraged permanent settlement and led to social instability, as massive levels of male migration took place back and forth between rural and urban areas. Long (1977) established that- ‘actor-oriented’ work in Peru explored local, small-scale processes of growth, entrepreneurialism and diversification in an area of stagnation, challenging macro-level structural analyses by focusing on the complexity and dynamism of people’s own strategies and struggles. Arce and Long (2000) understanding social and economic change, thus: an ethnography of how dominant developmental processes are fragmented, reinterpreted and embedded. He advocates the role of anthropologists in promoting an understanding of ‘localized modernity’ through research into modernity.

However, the concept of development predates 1949. Larrain (2013) argues that while there have always been economic and social changes throughout history, the recognition of “progress” and the belief that it should be encouraged was only within certain historical circumstances. Such ideas were first developed during what he called the “age of competitive capitalism” (1700-1860).

Closely linked to the concepts of progress and enlightenment were key to colonial discourse, especially in the late colonial period (1850-1950), where the ‘natives’ were structured as backwards or children, and the colonists were progressives. (Said, 1978: 40). Thus, while economic gain was the driving force behind imperial conquest, colonial rule in the 19th and 20th centuries included the need to transform communities through the introduction of European education, Christianity, and new political and bureaucratic systems (Mair, 1984: 2). Development discourse in the 1990s was formulated in such a racist manner, but it often dealt with similar topics. “Good government,” institution building, and gender training are just three of his topics of current trends driving “desirable” social and political change.

METHODOLOGY

However, some evaluation tasks are firmly rooted in the participatory end of the spectrum. They use community-based methods for assessment, which are primarily guided by the local populace. Naturally, a dedication to being inclusive and community-driven does not always mean that the process won’t be appropriated by outside developers or by local elites. It’s possible that community-based strategies won’t result in everyone participating. However, a variety of people can be encouraged to participate in assessment activities and share their in-depth understanding of their local contexts with outsiders by using the tools listed below.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

The most fundamental and well-known variation of community-based assessment is called participatory rural appraisal (PRA). Although “Rapid Rural Appraisal” (RRA) was initially designed as a low-cost method for professionals to conduct an on-the-ground assessment of local conditions, appraisal approaches have changed over the years to place more emphasis on locals conducting their own assessments. Locals are encouraged by PRA to express what they know about their own local context. It makes use of a variety of practical tools that individuals can use to analyze and share their knowledge with others. Among them are system-mapping and stakeholder engagement tasks that can be completed by individuals with low literacy levels and conveyed across linguistic barriers. Although frequently still centered on conveying local expertise to external decision-makers.

Participatory Visual Methods (PSM)

Community-based assessment instruments frequently promote reflection on the current state of affairs before looking into potential avenues for change. By utilizing visual aids that go beyond words and numbers to “show” what things are like in a given context, participatory visual methods can be an especially effective means of motivating individuals and groups to reflect on their current circumstances. Participatory video, digital storytelling, photo elicitation, or “photo voice”—which uses photography to convey experiences or goals—are examples of popular visual methods. These techniques can be applied in many different contexts, but they usually entail people or groups capturing their observations or experiences visually and then reflecting on them and their significance—sometimes in the form of a tale or narrative procedures for assessment that use. Visual methods assessment processes can be self-organizing or externally facilitated, and they can aim to share the findings with external audiences or not.

Participatory Statistics (PS)

Development policy makers are known to favor “hard data” when making decisions. A context-sensitive and pertinent method of providing hard data from a community base is through participatory statistics. Through the use of participatory statistics, individuals who are intimately acquainted with their own local contexts are mobilized to gather quantitative data on metrics that are important to them. As such, they present a potentially potent tool for community-based assessment. New possibilities for data collection and sharing have been made possible by recent technological advancements like smart phones, specialized apps, and cloud computing. As a result, users of infrastructure, resources, or services can now instantly record data based on their observations and upload it into a shared dataset. This may make it possible for a sizable number of people to take part in evaluating the standard, state, or accessibility of the infrastructure, resources, or services that are currently available.

SWOT and Gap Analyses

Including tools designed for business analysis in a toolkit for development work informed by anthropology might seem strange. However, practical assessment tools such as gap analysis and SWOT analysis operate under the premise that individuals are aware of their own context and goals. Thus, they mesh well with an anthropological focus on the knowledges and actors. SWOT is simply an acronym for ‘strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats’. It offers an organized means for attendees of an assessment workshop to express their personal evaluations of their existing circumstances. Discussing present strengths and weaknesses as well as what they signify in terms of future opportunities and threats can be facilitated by using a basic SWOT grid. Gap analysis characterizes the area or gap between “where we are” and “where we want to be,” whereas SWOT concentrates on “where we are.” Thus, gap analysis begins to suggest a possible agenda for change, going beyond assessment. As long as workshop participants have broadly similar situations and interests, SWOT and gap analyses can be used to delve deeply into local knowledge and understanding of current situations and desired change trajectories.

Implementation Tools: Life on the Development Landscape

In development work, anthropologists typically find that there is a significant disconnect between strategy and execution. There may be little correlation between what is anticipated and what actually occurs during the design phase of a project. Development programs are carried out within intricate social environments; they are not implemented in a vacuum. The interactions between development actors with disparate agendas, logics, and institutional modes of operation ultimately determine what actually transpires.

It is therefore difficult to characterize implementation on any kind of spectrum, in contrast to assessment and design. Implementation is fluid and frequently quite erratic. Even though development work is characterized by institutional norms that promote the appearance of well-planned and predictable outcomes, a significant portion of actual activities is spontaneous and motivated by opportunity, regardless of how they are documented in final reports.

When it comes to implementation, an anthropological approach looks at how individuals, groups, and organizations interact on a daily basis and how that influences the actual outcomes of projects, programs, and policies. The dynamics of relationships impact the outcomes just as much as the initiatives’ structure. Development professionals with years of experience have developed tools to handle relationship dynamics in their work. An anthropological approach to implementation can be applied with these tools.

Anthropologists in Development: Access, Effects and Control

One of the most important functions of developmental anthropology is its ability to deconstruct developmental assumptions and power relations. Let’s look at some case studies that show different levels and forms of inequality and how this affects people’s access to the ‘benefits’ of development resources.

Case 1: Albania: Distinctive Availability of Agricultural Resources in the Post-Communist Period

In Albania, for four decades before 1990, a strictly isolationist, totalitarian communist regime did its best to eliminate rural economic inequality by introducing a system of collective farming (Kureta, 2010).  Enver Hoxha’s Stalinist government was repressive and inefficient, but it had a comprehensive welfare system that met the people’s basic material needs and provided adequate medical and educational facilities for most of the population. In agriculture, for example, despite low levels of production and serious neglect of long-term environmental problems, agricultural inputs such as tractor plows and fertilizers were available and agronomists provided advise to cooperatives. In 1990, after unrest in the rest of Eastern Europe, the government was finally overthrown in largely peaceful protests. The political system collapsed, ushering in a new era of development of social democracy and cowardly capitalism. During the fall of the government, there was a spontaneous and violent mass uprising, not against the communists themselves, but against all the physical traps of the old regime. Village schools, health centers and other infrastructure elements were destroyed by angry villagers (Powell, 2007).

The Mali Southern Project was established in 1977 to develop the southern region of Mali, a landlocked country in the western Sahel. It was extended for another five years in 1983 and was funded primarily by foreign aid $61 million out of a total of $84 million (Thompson, 2003).  The project increased the agricultural viability of the region by boosting production of staple crops such as maize and sorghum, promoting rural development associations, and improving living standards in rural areas through basic health services and water supply. It was intended to enhance The project area includes 3500 villages spread from arid areas to relatively fertile areas that covered a wide range of ecological conditions.

Case 2: Land Rights in Calcutta: Household Inequality

A study of the effects of physical improvements in Calcutta’s ‘basti’ (slums) shows that the poorest residents were disadvantaged rather than benefited by the improvements. (M. Foster, 1989). Thus, slum improvement is ostensibly a physical social or political It has different effects on different groups depending on where you are. When there is a hierarchical relationship within the same municipality. Without considering these differences at the planning stage and treating all slum-dwellers as if they had equal access to their own homes, such projects would have a detrimental impact on the vulnerable. Foster (1989) argues that many of Basti’s poorest residents will eventually be forced to relocate to remote areas of the city, as it will lead to unexpected rent increases. Therefore, with the appraisal of statutory arrestees, there is an increase in squatter settlements not affected by the slum improvement program.

Case 3: Bangladeshi Women’s Credit Groups: Household Inequality

In 1975, the Bangladesh government introduced a program of rural women’s cooperatives in 19 selected counties administered by the Integrated Rural Development Programme (Islam, 2019). These women’s cooperatives were established in villages and were structured on the model of existing male farmers’ committees. Each cooperative was governed by a management board elected by its members. They represented the cooperative in her two-week training sessions in the areas of health, nutrition, family planning, literacy, vegetable farming, livestock and poultry and food processing, and shared their knowledge with other members of the village. However, their main focus has been on granting small loans to boost members’ earning power in relation to their training (Cornforth, 2004).

In a village studied by Rozario (1992), the loans were the main reason why women joined cooperatives. If loan attracted the interest rate of 12.5% ​​for principal amount of Tk 500. The women groups preferred this because it was half the bank loan rate in Bangladesh.

According to Rozario’s research, loans intended to be used by women to earn their own income were either spent were taken by their husbands. Loans taken by the poorest women were often used on basic household items such as food, clothing and medicine. But these women rarely invested their loans in growing vegetables and raising poultry. They told Rosario they didn’t know what to expect. They just signed a form to collect the loan. So many loans remained unpaid, and women claimed they had no control over their husbands’ decisions or ability to repay, that the husband’s signature was required before the loans were finally granted (Kabeer & Tasneem, 2018).

Recent evidence from elsewhere in Bangladesh suggests that similar processes remain common in loan programs that finance women (Karim, 2011). Women and men do not have equal access to domestic resources, so loans borrowed by women are sometimes passed on to their husbands.  Moreover, since it is the woman’s responsibility to feed and clothe her family, the money allocated to generate income is spent on the reproductive needs of the household. Women from wealthier families who are more isolated appear to have less control over their credit. This may be because the purda (women’s segregation) traditional ideology prevents such women from entering the market and other public male dominated (Papanek, 1973).

An Anthropological Framework for Development Practice

The anthropological framework was designed as a flexible tool that emphasizes a reflective, practice. It is defined as the process of actively paying attention to the ideas and working methods that guide our own practice. Anthropologist Rosalind Iben defines reflexivity as the process of consciously “attending to different points of view” and “making the usual uncertain.” perspective of others (Tribe, 2002).

In this connection, development work is about creating and catalyzing change. All development initiatives, whether policy documents, program proposals, or project log frames, all boil down to the core objective of trying to make some change (Steiber & Alänge 2015).

Anthropologists argue that all human-made changes are caused by some entitiy or entities. Government agencies, community organizations, multinational individuals, communities and organizations are the forces behind economic and social change. Cooperrider & Dutton. 1999).  They have economic, social and environmental impacts. An anthropological approach to development practice recognizes that change is a social and cultural process. Initially, this means putting people and not topics, problems, policies, projects, technologies, or ideas, at the center of development practice. Anthropological approaches pay attention to how interactions between people and their organizations affect the nature of change (Sillitoe, 1998).

The Dominant Framework: Problems, Targets, Solutions

Frameworks are useful training tools because they tell you what to focus on. No one can focus on everything at once. It’s a way to understand complexity and focus on what’s really important to the task at hand. A simple representation of a common framework in professional development practice is shown in FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1: Dominant Practice Framework for Development Work

This framework provides in diagram provides a compelling, logical view of how development works. First, a problem or set of problems is defined and identifies the target group that is experiencing this problem, for example, you may be a farmer struggling to access the market or families without access to fresh produce or clean water.

An Anthropological Framework: Contexts, Actors and Resources

Putting people at the center of development practice requires a major reorganization. It shifts scope and focuses on people, their organizations, and the specific situations in which they operate. FIGURE 2 shows what an anthropological framework for development work might look like. Instead of a defined “development problem”, anthropological frameworks focus on the context in which development occurs. Each context is a combination of interrelated issues and opportunities that enable and limit change. In the anthropological developmental framework, change initiatives are defined by context, not by problem.

The framework focuses on the knowledge and institutions of different development actors, which we consider central to all change processes. Anthropologists reveal the existence of a variety of knowledge beyond the expertise of specialists and of institutions beyond the dominant institutions of development practice. Instead of off-the-shelf solutions and abstract change theories, the focus of this framework shifts to collaboratively crafted solutions and embedded change processes.

FIGURE 2: An Anthropological Framework for Development Work

The framework in FIGURE 2 represents a practical way to reframe how we think about development work. It shifts the focus from problems to contexts; from target groups to development actors; and from technical solutions to a creative engagement with diverse knowledge and institutions. Instead of seeing advancement activities as working in confinement from their setting, an anthropological approach gets it that all arranged alter takes put on a bigger ‘development landscape’. This landscape definitely influences how alter happens and who benefits.

The Development Landscape

FIGURE 2 shows what an anthropological approach to development practice might look like. Some development professionals and organizations are already familiar with this kind of contextualized, human-centric approach to development work. They design projects, programs and policies with people and situations in mind. However, the primary framework in development practice still relies heavily on what was described in FIGURE 2. Mainstream development policies, programs, and projects revolve around expert-driven theories of change that promise predictable solutions regardless of problems, target groups, and contexts.

The main difference between FIGUREs 1 and 2 is that FIGURE 1 focuses only on the key elements of development intervention and ignores the outside ‘scope’ of development. FIGURE 2, on the other hand, shows that development initiatives always take place in specific social and physical contexts and will always affect outcomes. FIGURE 2 therefore looks at development interventions in terms of their relationship to the broader development landscape.

Development in Context

Development work is usually organized around problems to be solved, if it’s not difficult to restructure them. In the reflection exercise an anthropologist can use three questions to guide the transition from problem to context.

1 In this context, is this a critical issue?

2 If yes, how are they related to other issues and opportunities?

3 What enables or hinders change in this context?

FIGURE 3 Reframing Problems in Context

Asking questions on three important things:

1 The first question avoids the danger of assuming a problem where none exist. This is surprisingly common. Even within the same country, industry, or type of community, what is a serious problem in one situation is often not a problem at all in another. Environments, economic bases, or social systems can be very different. Likewise, what developers consider to be a serious problem may not be as serious, especially when compared to other problems people face.

2 The second question recognizes that development problems do not arise in isolation, but are related to other aspects of the physical and social environment. Children’s inability to attend school can be related to economic pressures, health problems, accessibility to public transport, social disenfranchisement, and many more. Although the symptoms may look the same, the underlying problem may be completely different. Asking “how” the problem relates to other problems and opportunities reveals that the problem may have different root causes and therefore different solutions. This allows development work to address the cause, not just the symptom.

3 The third question recognizes the dynamic connection between problems and other parts of people’s lives. The question, “What enables or hinders change?” reveals opportunities for integrated development solutions in unexpected places. For example, how is women’s health related to land ownership and local governance? What is the relationship between the detention of minority youth and the structure of the judiciary?

Unpacking Actors

Development actors are smart, varied, and positioned inside specific environments. An anthropological framework focuses on development actors of FIGURE 2, whereas conventional development work begins with pre-defined target groups of FIGURE 1. Change is created, resisted, and navigated by a variety of actors, as this anthropological perspective acknowledges.

One of the major conflicts that exist in development work is the effort to include issues of participation, stakeholder engagement, social diversity, and other issues into the mainstream development framework. This conflict may be resolved by concentrating on development actors. Only developers really take action inside the mainstream development framework, which is centered around the views of developers on issues and potential solutions. Even when they ‘participate,’ other actors remain on the receiving end and are positioned as ‘targets’ as opposed to independent players. It is practically hard to generate genuine stakeholder involvement and participation from inside this framework.

An anthropological framework acknowledges the existence of other actors in the landscape in addition to development experts and policy makers. Change is also effected by other actors. The development process itself is reframed when one sees a landscape full of agents with agency, instead of developers and passive target groups. It is not assumed who will work with us; in fact, it could be more helpful to ask, “Who will work with us?”

Moreover, the actors exhibit diversity, although the target groups appear uniform. While designating a certain group as the “target” of a development project is simple, the process of doing so hides the variety that exists within it. Each target group has different members who differ in a variety of ways, including gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, career, education, location of residence, politics, and life situations (parents, jobless people, refugees, etc.). Members of the same “target group” may range significantly in terms of their interests, resources, and degree of flexibility due to their diverse identities and social standing. Moving from target groups to actors is more than just a vocabulary change; it signifies a fundamentally new perspective on the individuals and groups engaged in development processes. The presumptive social roles—developers as active providers and developees as passive recipients—are upended. Because of how ingrained these social roles have grown, some players have even started to regard themselves as target groups that just get assistance from outside sources. By shifting the emphasis from target groups to actors, we can see that they are real actors with agency. However, if acting like a developer is the only way to gain access to the resources under their control, then acting like a shrewd actor may entail “playing along” with the categories of developers.

One simple way for a reflective practitioner to change the focus of development work from target groups to actors is to pose the following question:

1 Who are the significant individuals and organizations in the context of our work?

2 Already, what are they doing?

3 In what social sense are they positioned, and what will a change signify for them?

FIGURE 4: From Target Groups to Actors

Focusing on the stakeholder rather than the target audience does several important things.

1 The first question recognizes that development processes and initiatives always take place in a social setting. Social environments typically have more relevant people and organizations than developers expect. Not only do they have different perspectives on each proposed change process, they also have many existing relationships with each other.

2. The second question recognizes that multiple individuals, communities, and organizations have the agency or capacity to effect change. Rather than focusing on developers who are responsible for “doing everything”, anthropological frameworks focus on those within the development landscape who may be potential allies (or adversaries) in the course of change efforts. Consider different stakeholders. about the solution.

3 The third question recognizes that all actors have a particular social status that influences the types of resources they can access and the influence they can mobilize. their social status – being female, being gay, having a college degree, or belonging to a particular ethnic group or family.

Knowledge and Logics

Various development stakeholders do not see it that way. The way a consulting professional perceives a problem can be very different from the way an experienced farmer perceives a problem. This is because they approach issues from different cultural perspectives and know different things. The “logical” answer is not always the same. Everyone may have important insights, but they vary. Like the old blind man and elephant trope, different development actors perceive the problem and its solution from different angles.

The following questions can be used in reflective development practices to shift focus from expert-driven solutions to more integrated knowledge processes.

1 Anyone know this?

2 What do you know?

3 How does this change the way we see problems and/or solutions?

Reorienting multiple development knowledge greatly increases the knowledge resources available to developers as they search for practical solutions.

FIGURE 5: From Technical Solutions to Co-Innovation

1. The first question recognizes that many different development actors can directly and productively contribute to development solutions. Knowledge for development lives in unexpected places: Beyond industries, places and social divides. Anthropologists in particular have shown that disadvantaged groups have their own knowledge and logic that are not always shared by professionals who want to help them. Being intellectually end owned is important, first step in ensuring that the development solution is based on a true understanding of the problem and need.
2. The second question explores lessons learned from working with various development stakeholders. Asking “What do you know?” Do more than simply gather information to try to understand the logic that drives people’s choices and beliefs on what is possible. The logic behind our work is not necessarily shared by everyone we work with. Also, strategies that are logical in one context may not necessarily be logical in another. For example, in situations where there are few economic or social safety nets, managing risk may be a more logical solution than increasing production. Asking what others know helps you avoid serious development mistakes.
3. Finally, the third question recognizes the power of knowledge to transform practice. In particular, the question “How does this change things?” Shift focus away from expert-led solutions and make room for solutions that can be co-engineered directly with people and organizations that traditionally rely on outside expertise. Anthropological frameworks challenge the dynamics embedded in development work when expertise reigns and local voices are silenced. A respectful dialogue between different forms of knowledge is not only more inclusive, but also makes solutions more likely to work.

Since finding solutions is ultimately the practical goal of our work, development professionals are naturally drawn to them. New types of solutions are made possible by an openness to recognize, hear, and incorporate various types of knowledge. It is feasible to jointly develop solutions that are both technically sound and make sense in specific settings by bringing various types of knowledge into conversation (Eversole, 2018).

Institutions and Change

Institutions are the frameworks, laws, and customs that direct behavior. Long-standing institutional arrangements tend to alter slowly, to the profit of some and the cost of others. The significance of history in development work cannot be overstated, as past connections still have resonance in contemporary organizations. Why are some nations represented on the UN Security Council while others are not? Why do certain families have generations of political leadership reflected in them while other families have never even polled? Unquestioned institutional relational logics can sustain historical injustices far into the modern day.

The goal of development work is to bring about useful, beneficial change. According to FIGURE 1, the mainstream framework for development work, change may be planned and implemented by mobilizing specific activities and inputs for specific target groups in order to produce certain outputs and, in the end, desired results or solutions. Therefore, change is viewed by mainstream development techniques as primarily a technological process that can be planned and managed to produce desired outcomes.

This approach’s limitation is that it only looks at the specific behavior or indication that it is trying to change. Change processes never take place in a vacuum, regardless of how convincing the theory of change or the data suggests that doing this would lead to that. Every transformation occurs inside institutional frameworks. These historical organizations will shape the real course of events. What and how people can do things are shaped by institutions.

The degree to which the institutional framework supports or obstructs a change also plays a role in whether or not it occurs, in addition to the inputs given and the theory of change. Consider the notion of employing enterprise development and microfinance as a tactic to empower women. Even if a woman is interested in starting her own business and is offered resources like funding and training, these inputs—regardless of how good they are—will not be very helpful if the institutional environment makes it difficult for a woman in her social position to attend classes, accept credit, or be publicly accepted as a business owner.

An anthropological framework acknowledges that individuals in certain social situations have options and flexibility that are determined by their institutions. Institutions offer frameworks, policies, and regulations that are rather strict on who may do what, when, and how. If one does not comprehend the institutional frameworks that farmers and mothers now operate within, trying to modify a behavior (like farming practices) or an indicator (like maternal health) would, at best, result in a temporary shift that does not last the duration of the development intervention. In the worst case scenario, these programs can place the recipients in danger as they attempt to go beyond what is considered appropriate in order to satisfy various demands.

Perceiving change as a technological process of FIGURE 1 where inputs lead cleanly to outputs and outcomes ignores the ways in which institutions can facilitate or obstruct change. Change must be reframed with institutions in mind (see FIGURE 2) in order to acknowledge that it is a social and cultural process as well as a technological one. Individuals and institutions already have established methods of operation that they employ in order to complete tasks. If new and altered methods of working are not at least somewhat compatible with the old and established methods, they are not likely to be adopted. For example, local extension workers or traditional healers are more likely than professionals or organizations to discover methods to integrate new techniques locally.

Developers can shift their approach from technical processes to social and cultural processes by asking the following questions:

1 How does a person or organization function today? What institutions are there?

2 How can change be limited, especially for historically disadvantaged groups?

3 How can sustainable change be achieved?

FIGURE 6: From Managing Change to Sustaining Change

Turning attention to the role of institutions shifts their focus from “managing” change in a vacuum to enabling processes of change that can become self-sustaining over time.

1. The first query looks for existing institutions in a certain setting that are engaged in the kinds of activities that developers are interested in, such as production organization or education delivery. For outside developers, current working practices and their historical justifications are frequently invisible. Still, these establishments serve as the foundation for further reform. Instead than supposing that development work is done on a “blank slate,” asking the first question fosters an appreciation for what is currently in place and serves as the catalyst for change. By doing this, it compels reflection on how the intended change “fits” with the status quo.
2. The second question acknowledges that the leeway that various development players have may be restricted by the institutions in place. What may be done, by whom, and how can be severely limited by structures, regulations, and conventions, many of which have a long history. In order to prevent actors from being put in unsupportable situations, this inquiry aims to establish the institutional restraints on them. Additionally, it calls attention to the ways that particular groups of people may be purposefully disadvantaged by present institutions, helping to ensure that development initiatives do not unintentionally promote the same modes of operation.
3. The last query acknowledges that change can also be facilitated by the institutions in place. Assuming that local institutions don’t exist or are inherently inferior to those that come from abroad is one of the most prevalent misconceptions made by developers. After that, they bring in entirely new methods of operation that, while logical to them, are strange and sometimes incongruous with the local environment. As a result, a lot of development projects fail as soon as the developers depart the area. Beginning with the institutions that are now in place offers the possibility of more long-lasting change that is firmly ingrained in conventional methods of operation. If change can be implemented gradually and through well-established institutional channels, people are more likely to understand it.

Change never occurs in a vacuum, and an anthropological reinterpretation of development work acknowledges the centrality of institutions in any process of change. In any development setting, institutions are already there. Even the most disadvantaged socioeconomic groups have their own institutions that they use to conduct everyday business, as demonstrated by the case studies in 1, 2, and 3. However, other players involved in development sometimes entirely ignore these or even sabotage them, preferring for interactions to take place on their own institutional territory. Taking a close look at institutions can help explain why development initiatives meant to assist marginalized communities frequently end up perpetuating existing patterns of disadvantage. However, taking note of the institutions that are already there in the community may lead to fresh ideas on how to operate.

Doing Development Anthropologically

An anthropological framework for development practice has shown the ideas from anthropology.

“Understanding Development: Theory and Practice into the Twenty-First Century” and “Applying Anthropology” can be expressed in a practical way to inform development work. As seen in Figure 1, these realizations go against the conventional wisdom regarding development theory and practice. They allow us to reinterpret development as a social and cultural process (see Figure 2), illuminating how planned development activities are embedded within a broader development environment.

Anthropologists are adept at characterizing complexity, and development landscapes are complicated. But in reality, managing complexity is challenging. This chapter’s approach aims to distill intricate ideas from the anthropology of development into a straightforward instrument that can guide day-to-day development activities. This method helps identify complexity and reduce it to a reasonable level within the realistic constraints of development activity, mostly by promoting reflexivity and an openness to alternative viewpoints.

Development practice is reframed in Figure 2 in relation to a development landscape that comprises:

1. the contexts in which change occurs;
2. the diverse, savvy, and situated actors that drive development action;
3. the knowledges and logics of different actors, acknowledging the significance of bringing these knowledges and logics into dialogue; and
4. the institutions already present on the landscape, and how they facilitate or impede change.

The conventional perspective on development, which is centered on the deeds, reasoning, and organizations of developers, is refocused via the application of anthropological methods. This is replaced by a knowledge of social and economic transformation from an anthropological perspective.

By acknowledging that development actors are the ones who drive change, an anthropological approach also moves the focus of development work from target populations to development actors. The concept of “target groups” may just represent the preconceptions and assumptions of outsiders, but paying attention to actors takes into account the many social positionings that individuals and organizations attempt to influence. When it comes to development work, an anthropological method aims to comprehend the many acts that individuals and organizations are now engaged in as well as the various ways that change is likely to impact them.

An anthropological approach acknowledges that issues must be understood in context and rejects the idea of change as a technological process in which the problems of target groups can be identified and resolved in isolation from the rest of their life. It might be beneficial to comprehend the role that local context plays in problem-solving in order to prevent expensive errors in the planning and execution of development projects. Moreover, paying attention to context may highlight strengths, chances, and constructive places to start when making changes.

Multiple knowledge and institutions are already existing on the development landscape, as acknowledged by an anthropological viewpoint. In development practice, when developers’ methods of seeing, knowing, and doing tend to predominate, it can be challenging to recognize different ways of seeing, knowing, and doing. However, these institutions and knowledge bases may offer significant resources for transformation. Developers who are prepared to reflect on their own work might start to identify and value the institutions and expertise of others, and they can investigate how these can reinterpret “problems” and “solutions” in novel ways, creating opportunities for creative co-created solutions.

An anthropological framework offers a transparent perspective into real-life development landscapes where development professionals collaborate with other players who are also change agents, rather than an opaque picture of carefully controlled change. The idea that a well-designed program or policy would function as intended independent of actual circumstances is refuted by anthropological research. It challenges the notion that merely adding “social” concerns to conventional methods of operation will provide outcomes that are more inclusive. Instead, an anthropological approach centers development efforts on individuals, in all of their complexity. Instead of operating outside of the development environment, it encourages development professionals to operate inside it.

The anthropological framework presents aim to promote reflective, people-centered development practice: a practice that looks for chances for future innovation while incorporating lessons gained from previous mistakes. The framework’s basic tenet is reflexivity: the willingness to pay attention to what others have to say, respect their methods of operation, and acknowledge that the connections that lead to change go well beyond the scope of any one development project. This method of practicing can uncover unanticipated information, allies, and resources in addition to helping to prevent expensive mistakes. This framework presents a paradigm that enables development professionals to view our job as change agents from an anthropological perspective, to understand the development environment in which we operate, and to successfully traverse it.

 CONCLUDING REMARKS

It is evident from the debate above that the definition of sustainability is the ability to meet all of humanity’s requirements, both now and in the future, without endangering the environment. Achieving sustainability in the current global context is nearly unattainable for a number of reasons. Notwithstanding the challenges that may stand in our way, we may strive for a brighter future and, to some extent, avert dangers. Thus, I draw the conclusion that sustainability refers to a long-term, healthy equilibrium between the human population, their demands, and the environment. It is evident that various academics use the term “sustainable” in different ways. I believe that almost all academics agree that sustainability is a situational concept, representing the best possible balance between meeting the needs of the populace and protecting the environment. Anthropological studies of adaptation frequently depict a similar equilibrium between population and environment.

We should not be concerned in only one aspect i.e. environmental! ecological sustainability. To keep a better balance between population and resources, socio-cultural, economic, and political aspect of society should also be considered. Therefore, at present various scholars have raised issues of socio-cultural, political and economic sustainability (Pearce: 1997, Sotras: 1997, Wikan 1995).

According to Halland, local pre-modern societies followed some local rules and practices to protect their environment and manage to develop their capacity (the knowledge, skill and social values for their survival) and also trying to build cultural competency. Through cultural competency people have improved their standard of living towards a sustainable life. Sustainability is oriented towards future.

Ultimately, I draw the conclusion that sustainability is a relative and ill-defined concept. It is useful to deepen our understanding of human adaptation, but its meaning is ambiguous. The facets of sustainability are the elements of human adaptation, and they are interdependent.

REFERENCES

1. Amin, S., & Pebley, A. R. (1994). Gender inequality within households: the impact of a women’s development programme in 36 Bangladeshi villages. The Bangladesh development studies, 121-154.
2. Cooperrider, D., & Dutton, J. (Eds.). (1999). Organizational dimensions of global change (Vol. 122). Sage.
3. Cornwall, A. (2002). Making spaces, changing places: situating participation in development.
4. Cornforth, C. (2004). The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: A paradox perspective. Annals of public and cooperative economics, 75(1), 11-32.
5. Escobar, M. D., & West, M. (1995). Bayesian density estimation and inference using mixtures. Journal of the american statistical association, 90(430), 577-588
6. Eversole, R. (2018). Towards an anthropology of local and regional development practice. Human Organization, 77(4), 336-346.
7. Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2002). The economics of happiness. WORLD ECONOMICS-HENLEY ON THAMES-, 3(1), 25-42.
8. Foster, S. M. (1989). Aspects of the Late Atlantic Iron Age (Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow).
9. Gurel-Atay, E., & Kahle, L. (2014). Consumers’ Perceptions of Celebrity Values. ACR North American Advances.
10. Haaland, G., 1990 “Aid and Sustainable Development in a Dual Economy.” In Forum for Utviklingssrudier. No 1, Norway, Norsk Utenrikspolitisk Institute.
11. Haaland, G. el aI., 1979 “Interaction between Cultivation and Livestock production in Sami·Arid Africa,” In Ecological Studies. No 34
12. https://www.soas.ac.uk/courseunits/anthropology-development-and-sustainability-knowledge-power-and-inequality. [Accessed on 02 November, 2023]
13. Islam, M. S. (2019). Cooperative based rural development in Bangladesh: a revisiting. Society and Change, 13(2), 23-39.
14. Kureta, V. (2010). Economic policies shaping Market Economy in Albania. na.
15. Kabeer, N., Mahmud, S., & Tasneem, S. (2018). The contested relationship between paid work and women’s empowerment: Empirical analysis from Bangladesh. The European Journal of Development Research, 30, 235-251.
16. Karim, L. (2011). Microfinance and its discontents: Women in debt in Bangladesh. U of Minnesota Press.
17. Larrain, J. (2013). Theories of development: Capitalism, colonialism and dependency. John Wiley & Sons.
18. Long, N., & Arce, A. (2000). Anthropology, Development and Modernities. Exploring discourses, counter.
19. Long, N. (1990). From paradigm lost to paradigm regained? The case for an actor-oriented sociology of development. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanosydel Caribe/ European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 3-24.
20. Mair, L. (1984). What is development? In Anthropology and Development (pp. 1-14). Palgrave, London.
21. Nath, S. (2012). “Anthropology for Beginners”. Retrieved from http://sumananthro materials.blogspot.com/:http://sumananthromaterials.blogspot.com/2012/05/ anthropology -and-development.html
22. Papanek, H. (1973). Purdah: Separate worlds and symbolic shelter. Comparative studies in society and history, 15(3), 289-325.
23. Pelto, P. J., & Pelto, G. H. (1978). Anthropological research: The structure of inquiry. Cambridge University Press.
24. Petersen, B. V., & Bollerup, K. (2012). The Clean Development Mechanism and Its Failure in Delivering Sustainable Development. The Interdisciplinary Journal of International Studies, 8, 74-87.
25. Powell, F. W. (2007). The politics of civil society: Neoliberalism or social left?. Policy Press.
26. Pearce, D.. 1997 “Sustainable Development: The political and Institutional Challenge.” In (J. Kirkby. et. aI., ed.) Sustainable Deyelopment. London: Earthscan Publication Limited.
27. Rozario, S. (1992). Purity and communal boundaries: women and social change in a Bangladeshi village. Zed Books.
28. Steiber, A., & Alänge, S. (2015). Organizational innovation: verifying a comprehensive model for catalyzing organizational development and change. Triple Helix, 2(1), 1-28.
29. Sillitoe, P. (1998). The development of indigenous knowledge: a new applied anthropology. Current anthropology, 39(2), 223-252.
30. Sachs, J. D. (2015). The age of sustainable development. In The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press.
31. Sibson, R. (1978). Studies in the robustness of multidimensional scaling: Procrustes statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 40(2), 234-238.
32. Storaas, F., 1997 ”’The Nexus of Economic and Political Viavility,” Research ill &onomic Anthropology. 18: 115- I63.
33. Thompson, M. R. (2003). Democratic Revolutions: Asia and Eastern Europe (Vol. 5). Routledge.
34. Tribe, J. (2002). The philosophic practitioner. Annals of tourism research, 29(2), 338-357.
35. Wilson, F. G. (1942). Tocqueville’s Conception of the Elite. The review of politics, 4(3), 271-286.
36. Williams, D. (2013). International development and global politics: history, theory and practice. Routledge
37. WCED, S. W. S. (1987). World commission on environment and development. Our common future, 17(1), 1-91.
38. Wikan, U., 1995 “Sustainable Development in the Mega. Cily,” Current Anthropology. 36(4): 635·655.