NOTES

INTRODUCTION

    1. Interview with Grzegorz Kołodko, March 13, 1990.

    2. This perspective is informed by a joint research proposal with David A. Kideckel, “Foreign Aid as Ideology and Culture: The Case of Transitional Eastern Europe,” submitted to (and funded by) the National Science Foundation, 1993.

    3. Anthropologist Philip C. Parnell has conducted pioneering ethnography across levels and processes in the Philippines and Mexico. See Philip C. Parnell, “The Composite State: The Poor and the Nation in Manila,” Ethnography in Unstable Places, Carol Greenhouse, Elizabeth Mertz, and Kay Warren, eds., Duke University Press, forthcoming, and Escalating Disputes: Social Participation and Change in the Oaxacan Highlands, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 1989.

    4. Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai provides an important treatment of processes of “globalization” from the angle of actors who are profoundly affected by global processes (Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1996).

    5. Because aid is seldom conceptualized as a process and interface between social systems, the problem is little examined in much of the theory on foreign assistance, which has been formulated mainly by non-anthropologists from donor societies. (See, for example, the following economists’ critiques of the economic development field: Benjamin Higgins [A Path Less Travelled: A Development Economist’s Quest, National Centre for Development Studies 2, Australian National University, Canberra, 1989]; Tony Smith [“The Underdevelopment of Development Literature: The Case of Dependency Theory,” The State and Development, Atul Kohli, ed., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986]; and Judith Tendler [Inside Foreign Aid, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975].)

    6. Anthropologist Michael Herzfeld has explored how the outcomes of nation-state policies are influenced by actors in semi-closed environments (Michael Herzfeld, A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991).

    7. See, for example, C. M. Hann (Tazlar: A Village in Hungary, London, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1980; A Village Without Solidarity, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), David A. Kideckel (“The Socialist Transformation of Agriculture in a Romanian Commune, 1945-1962,” American Ethnologist vol. 9, no. 2, 1982, pp. 320-340; The Solitude of Collectivism: Romanian Villagers to the Revolution and Beyond, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), Martha Lampland (The Object of Labor: Commodification in Socialist Hungary, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1995), Carole Nagengast (Reluctant Socialists, Rural Entrepreneurs: Class, Culture, and the Polish State, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991), Steven Sampson (“The Informal Sector in Eastern Europe,” Telos, no. 66, winter 1986, pp. 44-46), and Janine R. Wedel (The Private Poland: An Anthropologist’s Look at Everyday Life, New York, NY: Facts on File, 1986; The Unplanned Society: Poland During and After Communism, New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1992).

    8. A. F. Robertson proposes that development agencies themselves are as worthy of study as the peasant groups with which anthropologists typically are concerned (People and the State: An Anthropology of Planned Development, Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Michael Cernea, “Sociological Knowledge for Development Projects,” Conrad Kottak, “When People Don’t Come First,” and Norman Uphoff, “Fitting Projects to People,” suggest that development ideologies affect the implementation of development projects (Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development, Michael M. Cernea, ed, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1985). Wolfgang Sachs et al discuss “knowledge as power” (ed., The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge and Power, London, United Kingdom, Zed Books, 1992) while Michael J. Watts analyzes the history of development and its language (“Development I: Power, Knowledge, Discursive Practice,” Progress in Human Geography, vol. 17, no. 2, 1993, pp. 257-272) and Arturo Escobar discusses its “invention” (“The Invention of Development,” Current History, vol. 98, no. 631, November 1999, pp. 382-386). Mark Hobart (ed., An Anthropological Critique of Development: The Growth of Ignorance, New York, NY: Routledge, 1993) establishes a relationship between development and the “growth of ignorance,” while R. D. Grillo and R.L. Stirrat (eds., Discourses of Development: Anthropological Perspectives, Oxford, United Kingdom: Berg, 1997) explore discourses of development and the relationships that arise between power, politics, and ideology in the practice of development.

    9. Arturo Escobar (“Anthropology and the Development Encounter: The Making and Marketing of Development Anthropology,” American Ethnologist, vol. 18, no. 4, November 1991; Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995) and James Ferguson (The Anti-Politics Machine: “Development,” Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho, Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1990) provide important illustrations of this point.