Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects

Finding Time for Time in Participatory

Development Projects Elise Collins

Development Officer and Researcher, 2011

Our Children Foundation, West Bengal, India

[email protected]

Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects

1

INTRODUCTION

Advocates of mainstream participatory development uphold its dedication to change that is

truly “for the people, by the people and with the people” (Kak 2007:2). Yet, the persistent gap

between a participatory rhetoric and a less than participatory development reality has been the

subject of increased scrutiny among stakeholders (Cooke & Kothari 2001:14). In both schools

of thought, the role that time perceptions, rhythms and pressures, or time climates, play in

influencing development outcomes has been largely excluded from academic inquiry.

Time so intimately permeates the human experience that its cultural specificities are easily

disregarded as universal truths (Adam 2004:3). However, inadequate attention to time

climates jeopardises participatory development‟s potential to realise a process of local-led

change as marked by its guiding principles, such as accountability, empowerment and local

knowledge. A shared sense of time scarcity sustains pressures to meet quantitative targets, as

reflected in international agreements. Accountability strengthens impending pressures on

project implementers that encourages haste at the expense of improved quality of life for end

users. Tight project time-frames propel shortcuts by project staff and limit the ability of

practitioners to learn from setbacks through critical reflection and analysis. Neither is adequate

time allocated to account for time restraints within the lives of participants or to realise that

success, as dictated by time-frames, ignores long-term, complex power negotiations within the

local community.

Pre-eminently, stakeholders in participatory development must recognise that the current

Western-based time climate of development is not universal, superior or unequivocally

effective. By prioritising time for learning through critical reflection, increased qualitative

success measures and pre and post anthropological community research, „successful

development‟ can more accurately reflect sustainable, local change for, by and with the people

that it most intimately affects.

An Introduction to Western Time

In order to address a gap in literature concerning temporal dimensions of development, the rise and

nature of Western time perceptions is outlined. While development literature has reflected an

increased awareness of the impact that temporal perceptions and pressures bear on effective

participatory development outcomes in recent years (Britton 1998:6; Mosse 2004:214; Verkoren

2008:228), the subject remains largely unexplored. To date, it appears that wholly dedicated reviews

of the relationship between time perceptions and development outcomes have yet to be published.

Literature that does consider the implications of temporal dimensions in development largely fall

within circles of development anthropology that have failed to extend beyond academic circles and

into public discourse and practise (Cardoso 2007:115). Concerning the link between time

consciousness and human action, Adam (1995:42) argues that a multitude of time perceptions exist in

the consciousness, narrative and physiology and manifest contextually through refractions of culture,

history, language, place and space. However, these temporalities have been displaced with the

overpowering domination of clock-time. In support of Nowotly‟s (1994:87) observation that new

knowledges arise under changed organisational structures, the mainstreaming of clock-time spurred a

growth in scientific knowledge that accompanied the industrial revolution. Today, a clock-based,

future-oriented time climate dominates Western tradition. Time is perceived as linear and finite and

therefore a precious resource (Rifkin 1985:60). To control its scarce supply, the West has

emphasised time precision and target-based motivations in comparison to many African and Asian

cultures, which tend to value the process of completion over the time taken (Verkoren 2008:228). In

order to examine the interplay between temporal perceptions, development pressures and actions,

and successful outcomes, the purpose of participatory development is elaborated upon.

Background to Participatory Development

International development, by definition, implies a change to the status quo (Young et al. 2009:222).

As with any change, issues of power are integral to development motives, actions and outcomes

(Dettmer 2003:123). Prior to the 1970s, international development was dominated by donor-dictated,

top-down aid programmes. Yet, widespread criticism of this approach‟s shortcomings spurred a new

paradigm of participatory development by the 1990s (Cooke & Kothari 2001: 170). In policy,

participatory development aims to replace top-down execution with grassroots planning, paternalistic

donors with facilitators and outsider expertise with local knowledge. The shift towards participatory

development also coincides with an expanded view of development beyond economic growth to

consider people‟s basic human needs (Edelman & Haugerud 2005:49), as well as broader

implications of development for social, political, and environmental dynamics (Barbier 2009:101).

Popular buzzwords, such as accountability, empowerment and local knowledge reflect idealistic

notions of success based on equal power relations between donors and recipients for local-led

change (Edelman & Haugerud 2005:49). Thus, according to the latest shift to participatory


1

development, „successful‟ development is a process of local-led change through external facilitation

that considers a web of social, political and environmental factors towards sustainable outcomes. A

deeper exploration into participatory processes reveals a persistent culture of haste, which risks

widening the gap between an egalitarian, participatory rhetoric and a donor-led reality.

Time Scarcity in International Development Agreements

Firstly, a widespread trend to benchmark success against the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

is used to demonstrate how the West‟s concept of time scarcity dominates international participatory

development agreements. The MDGs comprise of eight quantitative, time-bound goals that attempt to

measure progress towards qualitative results, in particular „poverty reduction‟ and „well being‟

(Fukuda-Parr 2008:2-3). All countries and leading development institutions have agreed to work

towards the achievement of the MDGs by 2015 and benchmark against them in their policies (United

Nations (UN) 2010). To the Western reader‟s eye, public participation towards the MDGs appears

logical: poverty is addressed through participation to achieve development targets. It also appears

efficient: the MDGs can be a powerful tool to motivate and coordinate stakeholders, monitor progress

across time and hold stakeholders accountable to an ultimate deadline (Fukuda-Parr 2008:3).

Furthermore, as United Nations‟ Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proclaims, a human tendency to

ignore suffering from a lack of basic needs must give way to concerted efforts towards the global relief

of suffering (UN 2008). Even so, success, as defined by the MDGs, rests upon an ultimate deadline

while the nature of participation that occurs to achieve success within the time-frame remains

ambiguous and underemphasised. In this way, the MDGs correspond with a future-oriented Western

tradition that perceives time as a precious resource (Rifkin 1985:60), rather than taking a process

driven emphasis as in many African and Asian cultures (Verkoren 2008:228). When the West‟s target-

driven time climate is infuses development practice, time pressures to reach quantitative targets risk

mustering a counter-productive culture of haste.

Accountability Exacerbates a Culture of Haste

While development deadlines appear logical in theory, accountability heightens donor pressures to

prove results by time limits at the expense of quality measurements of success. Unfortunately, a

heightened emphasis on international accountability may fuel time pressures at the expense of quality

outcomes, propelling a culture of haste at the expense of life enhancing change. In comparison to

former top-down approaches, participatory development heavily emphasises government

accountability to donor agencies and the international public in order to decrease the misuse of aid


2

funds for government self-interests (Easterly 2009:26; Winters 2010:226). Yet, an evaluation report

concerning a participatory humanitarian and reconstruction aid programme in Afghanistan between

2001 and 2005 indicates that the effects of heightened accountability to deadlines risks undermining

the quality of outcomes for end users (Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) Denmark 2005:1). Concluding

remarks regarding primary educational reforms epitomise how qualitative outcomes are jeopardised

from pressures to be held accountable to benchmarks. Impressive enrolment figures that met

quantitative targets failed to address meagre improvements in the education offered as well as the

facilities provided (MFA Denmark 2005:154). The report reasons that the project‟s failure results from

the haste within which a large number of interventions were implemented due to the widespread

political priority attached to the Afghanistan conflict (MFA Denmark 2005:15,53). Actually, Byrne

(1996:38) notes that a sense of urgency is shared among donors as they operationalise quantitative

development milestones, despite whether end user circumstances are acute or stable. Unsurprisingly

then, the signing of the MDGs was likewise performed in an atmosphere of mutual urgency (UN-

HABITAT 2005:5 ), thus sowing the seed for time pressures to undermine quality in order to remain

accountable to impending project targets. While accountability may improve the likelihood of target-

based measurements of success, it also increases the urgency of the time climate and a consequent

race to achieve development deadlines risks jeopardising quality outcomes for end users.

Restrictive Time-frames Create Shortcuts

A closer inspection of shortcomings on the ground reveals that restrictive time-frames perpetuate a

culture of haste, blinding fieldworkers to setbacks and spurring assessment shortcuts. Feedback from

a study of four development organisations in Bangladesh reveals that fieldworker are often relocated

to new project communities as frequently as every six months. Considering that the average amount

of time taken to build adequate trust with clients to facilitate widespread participation was

approximately six months, project time-frames constrain the ability of staff to successfully facilitate a

participatory process (Ahmad 2002:186). Time shortages also cause staff to learn about rural

conditions in vehicles, starting and ending in urban centres that are conveniently located near an

airport, a reality that Chambers (2008:31) calls rural development tourism. Throughout the 1990s,

time convenience meant that visitors of India‟s Maheshwaram watershed program needed only to

travel one hour outside of Hyderabad International Airport to complete a routinised, two-hour roadside

inspection among the most driver-friendly, flat roads in Andhra Pradesh. In reality, gully plugs were

being bypassed by water flows, devastating the hidden sloping lands with erosion. The ability to

respond to the erosion relied upon the time of donor representatives to explore beyond the

environments that were viewable from roadways and time pressures to prove accountability through

reporting meant that the unsustainable realities failed to contribute to reporting outcomes (Chambers

2008:42). In an environment of impending deadlines, it is easy to comprehend how time-poor staff risk


3

absorbing initial impressions of a community‟s wellbeing while neglecting the deeper, complex local

realities.

Time Poverty Jeopardises Learning

Even when shortcomings are identified, a lack of time dedicated to the learning process among

donors impedes upon the ability of participatory development stakeholders to improve in future

practise. Learning requires a consideration for the need to change and change may require a

reconsideration of unquestioned norms (Britton 1998:21). Yet, no incentive is provided for time-poor

non-government organisation (NGO) staff who already under pressure to reconsider their approach to

development when doing so may reveal a project that requires higher amounts of time and money

than donors allocate. In recent years, a shift in donor strategies has increased the designation of

private transnational groups, notably non-government organisations, to implement participatory

programmes. Cooley & Ron (2002:9) view the resulting competition for funding between NGOs

favourably for its ability to boost efficiency, cut waste and curb production in development output. In

reality, heightened competition adds further pressure to constantly prove accountability. As a result,

NGO staff find themselves spending large amounts of time securing funds, justifying overheads and

conducting project evaluations to account for funding at the expense of reflection, critical analysis and

knowledge-sharing activities (Goodhand 2006:144). Self-evaluations are widely promoted as a tool to

initiate learning and ensure locally relevant outcomes (Mackay 2007:105). Yet, in facing an impending

shortage of time to learn, self-evaluations risk triggering powerful defensive attitudes among staff in

order to avoid the scrutinisation of questionable, yet comfortable realities (Britton 1998:21). In an

ironic twist, avoidant attitudes among time-poor staff risks nullifying the relevance of self-evaluations

and other learning mechanisms. Little wonder that Verkoren‟s (2008:110) interview of Southern NGO

staff in India rated a lack of time above money as the largest obstacle to their ability to successfully

learn from experiences on the ground. Evidently, when „time is money‟, pressures to prove

accountability undermines the ability of time-poor staff to learn from failing projects in future practice.

Assuming Time for Participation

Perhaps most blatantly ignored is the possibility that time restrictions among local clients will inhibit

the ability of certain individuals to participate in the development process. Participatory development

implies that beneficiaries can and will find time to participate effectively in the development process.

Participatory needs assessments, notably Participatory Action Research (PAR) and Participatory

Rural Appraisal (PRA), are standard fieldwork methods applied to ensure the wants and needs of

prospect beneficiaries (Jacka 2010:104). Bailur (2007) attests that an emphasis on volunteers and


4

meetings in needs assessment activities is not only time consuming but conjures romantic notions of

communal altruism. Appadurai‟s (1990:210) study in rural agricultural communities of India supports

Bailur‟s (2007) opinion by revealing that insensitivities to work and household duties in agency

programmes undermine effective participation. Appadurai‟s (1990:210) findings lead him to conclude

that time is as valuable to the poor as the land itself. Likewise, an evaluation of participatory project

outcomes among four non-government organisations (NGOs) in Bangladesh found that time

constraints discouraged clients, most usually women, from becoming group members or attending

meetings regularly. While men usually preferred to meet in the evening after work women‟s

commitments to family responsibilities and agricultural demands varied throughout the day, making

full participation unrealistic. Moreover, during the crop processing season, work commitments left

women with little or no time to attend meetings (Ahmad 2002:187). Similar observations lead Mosse

(2004:214) to suggest that it is more useful to appreciate the impact of development projects on the

poor and on women if time is considered the most critical resource, rather than income or production.

In the end, unsuccessful participation emerges when varied time restrictions among clients

themselves are not adequately considered in development programmes.

Success Excludes Ongoing Power Negotiations

Further still, top-down definitions of success, as measures by development time-frames, fail to

capture continuous, rhythmic power reformations among participants. According to Batliwa

(2007:557), empowerment is the most widely mainstreamed catchphrase in the modern development

lexicon. Empowerment implies a need to correct power imbalances, whereby a distinct set of activities

under participation, enable end users to overcome disempowering forces until empowerment is

achieved (Batliwa 2007:557; Masaki 2004:141). Thus, the power to create and initiate empowerment

rests on donor assumptions of power transformations which are charted against time‟s linear arrow.

Yet, Foucault (1977:227) proposes an alternative view of power transformations as a perpetual, non-

linear process. In maintaining the status quo, disciplinary power regulates social norms through the

surveillance of social action. Simultaneously, disciplinary power is a point of reference from which

social standards are renegotiated through a dynamic power process. In this sense, polarising tyranny

and transformation on a development time-frame overlooks how both circumstances coexist in the

lives of allegedly disempowered citizens. A clash between social power rhythms and linear

assumptions of empowerment underpinned the perceived failure of women‟s empowerment for an

Indo-British Rainfed Farming Project in Bhil, India. The fixed project duration fell short of capturing

complex power fluctuations that characterised women‟s participation within and beyond project

discourse (Mosse 2004:87). Mosse (2004:87) alludes to underlying issues of self esteem, restricted

mobility and a lack of education, and the social rhythms through which these issues were

renegotiated were unpredictable. While the empowerment of women was deemed a failure, the failure


5

itself was constructed by time-frames rather than any enduring and evolving transformations that may

have occurred within and beyond the barriers of project time-frames. In the end, power imbalances

result from time-frames reflect the donor‟s power to determine success at the expense of recognising

long-term complexities of power renegotiations among end users.

The Westernisation of Time Consciousness

Participatory development risks masking the influence of Western time perceptions on local realities

and knowledge sharing. In addressing the West‟s cultural superiority within former top-down

approaches to development, the concept of local knowledge in participation has been mainstreamed.

Local knowledge reflects the realisation within the current paradigm that sustainable development is

achievable only if the process is led by the wisdoms and worldviews of locals, which suit their unique

circumstances (Hickey & Mohan 2004:28-29). Yet, as Durkheim (1915:9) claims, an understanding of

culture requires an understanding of its sense of time. In participatory development, like former

approaches, the persistent failure to recognise dominant Western time perspectives risks altering

local time consciousness at the expense of local-led outcomes. Crosskey and Rose (1993:116) link

rapid, top-down modernisation in Samoa since the 1970s with an altered time consciousness among

Samoans, as marked by the West‟s time linearity and precision. For the people of Tutulia, alterations

in time consciousness coincided with a decline in tapu, traditional resource management, which

recognises that ecological and traditional social rhythms dictate the time for harvesting activities.

Concurrently, „clock time‟, taimi, was popularised along with the introduction of „nine to five‟ working

days (Crosskey & Rose 1993:117). Clearly, local wisdoms within resource management techniques

were abandoned due to the subtle Westernisation of time consciousness. While funding for local

change is held by external stakeholders, locals risk abandoning conflicting temporal realities in order

to receive the benefits that they believe will be delivered. In fact, the Westernisation of time in

participatory development is more concerning than in previous approaches, given that the new

rhetoric of local knowledge conceals Western influences that alter time consciousness at the expense

of realities on the ground. Ultimately, the subtle and capricious introduction of Western time

consciousness into non-Western realities risks undercutting success, as defined by a process of local-

led change based on local realities.

Recommendations: Recognising Development’s Time Climate

Quintessentially, the culture of haste in implementing participatory development perpetuates a vicious

cycle that leaves little time for time to be explored. Yet, without recognising the dominance of a

Western time climate in policy, practise and definitions of success, stakeholders are ill-prepared to


6

respond appropriately for sustainable, local-led change. Foremost, academic inquiry into the effects of

temporal realities on development outcomes can initiate the realisation of the challenges that result

from time restraints, conflicting temporal realities and haste. In particular, the dominance of Western

time perceptions must give way to an acknowledgement that assumptions about timing, duration and

pace of life vary considerably between, and even within, cultures (Keefe 2009:208). As Rahman

(1991:20) states, people‟s sense of truth and knowledge cannot be ranked because it is relative to the

experiences of individuals. As time consciousness is intrinsically linked to the creation of knowledge

and worldviews (Allee 1997:51), people‟s sense of time cannot be ranked either. Rather than ranking

rhythms according to the speed at which they are completed, time differences must be must be

acknowledged among development practitioners, considering that the current dominance of Western-

based time risks bolstering the flawed notion that Western understandings of time are superior in

pace and rhythm. On the contrary, in recognising time differences, the current paradigm can evolve to

embrace a time climate that flexibly responds to local rhythms by encompassing multiple time

management practices, including process-driven and target-driven actions (Verkoren 2008:228). As

this essay has demonstrated, an exploration of seemingly innate time climates uncovers cultural

biases and power imbalances in favour of the West at macro and micro levels. As similar explorations

are undertaken in the experiences of key stakeholders, a basis can be formed for power imbalances

to be addressed in policy and practice.

Recommendations: Practical Considerations

In realising the importance of time climates, key practical considerations will increase the likelihood

that participation is a sustainable and local led process. Firstly, the mainstream emphasis on

quantitative global measures must be balanced with alternative qualitative measurements to define

successful development. In the Kingdom of Bhutan, planning procedures are based on Gross

National Happiness (GNH), which reflects that a pursuit of happiness is a central measure of well

being in national policy (CBS 2008). International promotion and application of success milestones

similar to GNH can help stakeholders recognise the complexity of social, economic and environmental

factors that contribute to development outcomes. Thus, holding development implementers

accountable to both qualitative and quantitative measures will diffuse pressures from a target-focused

climate by encouraging process-focused attitudes. Additionally, prior to formalising project time-

frames, anthropological research can uncover rhythms and time restrictions within prospect

communities in order to consider these rhythms in formulating appropriate project durations.

Moreover, the rhythms through which social changes manifest themselves must be accommodated

through flexible time-frames and a long-term supervision of these changes over time (Masaki 2004:

136) Even so, if a perpetual culture of haste prevails, qualitative measures risk reflecting the values of

the researchers rather than participants (Kilby 2006) and time pressures risk undermining the quality


7

of pre and post project social research (Masaki 2004:136). For a new awareness to grow it must form

deep roots in order to resist external pressures from mainstream approaches (Nowland-Foreman &

Stubbs 2005:76). Equally, intellectual understandings of time climates must grow from deeply-rooted

wisdoms in the experiences of development players by prioritising a cyclical process of mindfulness,

critical reflection, and appropriate reaction to ever-changing circumstances (Britton 1998:4). In this

way, a culture of learning can provide space for new time climates to dictate effective policy and

practise.

CONCLUSION

By overlooking the dominant Western time climate in participatory development, stakeholders

jeopardise the successful transformation of sustainable, local-led change from theory into

practise. In perceiving time as a scarce resource, mainstream participatory policy and practice

emphasises linear, quantitative measurement of success, marked by milestones and ever-

impending deadlines. The pressure to remain accountable to deadlines spurs an environment

of haste, whereby inadequate project time-frames perpetuate superficial fieldwork evaluations,

shortcuts and inhibited learning capacities. Moreover, time restrictions in the lives of

participants and ongoing power negotiations that transcend development deadlines fail to be

accounted for in target-driven success measures.

Recognition that development‟s western-based time climate is not universal but exists within a

multitude of perceptions and rhythms is paramount to respond to complex local realities and

facilitate grassroots change. Exploring the influences of temporal dimensions highlights a need

for practical measures to counter the culture of haste, such as international qualitative

measures, pre-project anthropological assessments and the prioritisation of perpetual critical

reflection among stakeholders at all levels. This way, successful participation can break away

from restrictive, clock-dictated action and achieve a comprehensive understanding and

appropriate reaction to complex local realities and rhythms. In addressing development‟s time

climate, stakeholders can contribute towards processes of accountability, empowerment and

local knowledge, as they uphold in theory, so that participation can provide change that is truly

for the people, by the people and with the people.


1

References

Adam, B, 1995. Timewatch: the social analysis of time. Polity Press: Cambridge. Ahmad, M.M. 2002. „Who cares? The personal and professional problems of NGO fieldworkers in

Bangladesh‟, Development in Practise, 12(2), pp.177-191. Allee, V. 1997. The knowledge evolution: Expanding organizational intelligence. Butterworth-

Heinemann: Boston. Appadurai, A. 1990. Technology and the reproduction of values in rural India. In F.A Marglin and S.A.

Marglin (eds) Dominating knowledge: development, culture and resistance. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Bailur, S. 2007. „The complexities of community participation in ICT for development projects: The

case of „our voices‟, Community participation in rural information systems project, London School of economics.

Batliwa, S. 2007. „Taking the power out of empowerment: An experiential account‟, Development in

Practise, 17(4-5), pp.557-565. Barbier, E.B. 2009. „The concept of sustainable economic development‟, Environmental Conservation,

12, 101-110. Britton, B. 1998. The Learning NGO. Occasional Papers Series, Number 17. The international NGO

Training and Research Centre. Oxford. Byrne, B. 1996. „Towards a gendered understanding of conflict‟, IDS Bulletin, 27(3), pp.31-40. Centre for Bhutan Studies, 2008. „Gross National Happines‟, accessed 9 September 2010. Available at: http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/ Chambers, R. 2008. Resolutions in Development Inquiry. Earthscan: London. Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books: London and New York. Cooley, A. and Ron, J. 2002. „The NGO scramble: Organizational insecurity and the political economy

of transnational action‟, International Security, 27(1), pp.6-39. Crosskey, P.J.D. and Rose, R,.G. 1993. Artistic heritage in a changing Pacific. CHP Production:

Honolulu. Dettmer, W.H. 2003. Strategic navigation: A systems approach to business strategy. ASQ Quality

Press: Milwaukee. Durkheim, E. 1915. The elementary forms of the religious life. Trans. J.W. Swain. Allen and Unwin:

London. Easterly, W. 2009. „How the Millennium Development Goals are unfair to Africa‟, World Development,

37(1), pp.26-35. Edelman, M. and Haugerud, A. (eds) 2005. The anthropology of development and globalization: from

classical political economy to contemporary neoliberalism. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford. Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. A. Sheridan. Peregrine:

Harmondsworth.


1

Fukuda-Parr, S. 2008. „Are the MDGs Priority in development strategies and aid programmes? Only

few are!‟, International Poverty Centre, United nations Development Programme, Working paper, 48, October 2008.

Goodhand, J. 2006. Aiding Peace? The role of NGOs in armed conflict. ITDG Publishing: UK. Hickey, S. and Mohan, G. 2004. Participation: From tyranny to transformation? Zed Books: London

and New York. Honore, C. 2003. In praise of slow: how a worldwide movement is challenging the cult of speed.

Orion: London. Jacka, T. 2010. „Women‟s activism, overseas funded participatory development, and governance: A

case study from China‟, Women’s Studies International Forum, 33, 99-112. Kak, M. 2007. Citizen participation and democratic governance, in our hands. Concept publishing:

New Delhi. Keefe, S.E. 2009. Participatory Development in Appalachia: Cultural Identity, Community and

Sustainability. The University of Tennesse Press: Knoxville. Kilby, P. 2006. „Questioning Empowerment: Lessons from women‟s groups in India‟, Participatory

Development Working Paper, No.6/03, ANU Masters of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development Program, accessed 9 September 2010. Available at: http://rspas.anu.edu.au/maapd/papers/wp-06-03.pdf

Mackay, K. 2007. „How to build better M & E Systems to support better government‟, World Bank,

Washington. Mininstry of Foreign Affairs in Denmark, 2005. „Humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to

Afghanistan 2001-2005: From Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom‟, Joint Evaluation, Evaluation Department: Denmark.

Mosse, D. 2004. Cultivating development: An ethnography of aid policy and practice. Pluto Pres:

London. Mosse, D. 2006. „Anti-social anthropology? Objectivity, objection and the ethnography of public policy

and preofessional communities‟, Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute, 12, 935-956. Nowland-Foreman, G and Stubbs, D. 2005. „Free and Equal: A review of NZAID Pacific Regional

Disability Programme for New Zealand Agency for International Development‟, accessed 9 September 2010. Available at: http://www.forumsec.org/UserFiles/File/Regional_Doc_Review_of_the_NZaid_Pacific_Helath_Sector_program.pdf?phpMyAdmin=a2498005399765db990bdeaef994e9d1

Nowotly, H. 1994. Time. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Rahman, M.A. 1991. „The theoretical standpoint of PAR‟ in O.Fals-Borda and M.A. Rahman (eds), Action and Knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research, Apex: New York, pp.13-23.

Rifkin, J. 1985. Time wars: The primary conflict in human history. Touchstone: New York.

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/maapd/papers/wp-06-03.pdf

http://www.forumsec.org/UserFiles/File/Regional_Doc_Review_of_the_NZaid_Pacific_Helath_Sector_program.pdf?phpMyAdmin=a2498005399765db990bdeaef994e9d1

http://www.forumsec.org/UserFiles/File/Regional_Doc_Review_of_the_NZaid_Pacific_Helath_Sector_program.pdf?phpMyAdmin=a2498005399765db990bdeaef994e9d1


2

UN-HABITAT, 2005. „How far is the world from the slum target?‟, Habitat Debate, 11(5), pp.5-6. United Nations, 2008. „Ban Ki-moon pledges to mobilize action to reach Millennium Development

Goals‟, accessed 2 September 2010. Available at: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25411&Cr=millennium&Cr1=development

United Nations, 2010. „We can end poverty: Millenium development goals‟, accessed 21 August 2010.

Available at: http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/bkgd.shtml Verkoren, W. 2008. The owl and the dove: Knowledge strategies to improve peacebuilding.

Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam. Winters, M.S. 2010. „Accountability, participation and foreign aid effectiveness‟, International Studies

Review, 12, pp.218-243. Young, P, Hong, P. and Ramic, J. 2009. „Development-induced impoverishment among involuntarily

displaced populations‟, Journal of Comparative Social Welfare, 25(3), pp.221-238.

Documents

Finding Time for Time in Participatory Development Projects