Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
All numbers on the makeup of Peru's republican population are wrong, the one point on which historians can agree. Peruvian governments had neither the capacity nor the will to mount thorough surveys of their scattered and elusive Andean subjects. Between the late viceregal census of 1791 (reporting a population of 1,076,000) and the first modern effort of 1876 (yielding a count of 2,699,000) lies a century of demographic no man's land, despite partial surveys claimed for 1812, 1836, 1850, and 1862. Unfortunately, historians cannot fly back in time and redo the head counts missed or mismanaged by successive governments, although this miracle has seemingly been worked for the older Incan and conquest periods.1 The best scholars can attempt at this point is to untangle the confusions of existing census documents and bring new evidence to bear on their strengths and weaknesses.
All numbers on the makeup of Peru's republican population are wrong, the one point on which historians can agree. Peruvian governments had neither the capacity nor the will to mount thorough surveys of their scattered and elusive Andean subjects. Between the late viceregal census of 1791 (reporting a population of 1,076,000) and the first modern effort of 1876 (yielding a count of 2,699,000) lies a century of demographic no man's land, despite partial surveys claimed for 1812, 1836, 1850, and 1862. Unfortunately, historians cannot fly back in time and redo the head counts missed or mismanaged by successive governments, although this miracle has seemingly been worked for the older Incan and conquest periods.1 The best scholars can attempt at this point is to untangle the confusions of existing census documents and bring new evidence to bear on their strengths and weaknesses.
The principal aim of this paper is to demythologize current notions on planned intervention. This, we believe, is indispensible for the development of a critical analysis of policy and intervention practices'. We argue that it is important to challenge the time-space definitions, normative assumptions and praxeology implied in orthodox intervention models; and we expose the limitations of certain theoretical conceptions that underpin them, giving particular attention to the theorization of commoditization, institutional incorporation and the interrelations of state and civil society. As an alternative, we propose an actor-oriented analysis that views intervention as a 'multiple reality' made up of differing cultural perceptions and social interests, and constituted by the ongoing social and political struggles that take place between the social actors involved.At the outset we need to distinguish between theoretical models aimed at understanding processes of social change and development (here we are especially concerned with agrarian change) and policy models which attempt to set out the ways in which development? can be promoted. This distinction is important but, of course, not absolute since policy models are explicitly or implicitly based upon theoretical assumptions and interpretations that are supposed to explain how change takes place or how objectives are to be achieved3. Theoretical models may address themselves to specific dimensions (e.g. rural or urban development, or political transformation) and some aim to characterize the essential elements of policy-making and implementation itself'.The interrelations between theoretical and policy models are often left unexplicated and therefore unclear. Hence it seems important to focus upon intervention practices as they evolve and are shaped by the struggles between the various participants, rather than simply on intervention models, by which we mean the ideal-typical constructions that planners, implementors or clients may have about the process. Focussing upon intervention practices allows one to take into account the emergent forms of interaction, procedures, practical strategies, types of discourse, cultural
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.