Networks as transnational agents of development

Abstract

The term network has become a hallmark of the development industry. In principle networks have the potential to provide a more flexible and non-hierarchical means of exchange and interaction that is also more innovative, responsive and dynamic whilst overcoming spatial separation and providing scale economies. Although the label networks currently pervades discourses about the relationships between organisations in development, there has been surprisingly little research or theorisation of them. This article is a critical evaluation of the claims of developmental networks from a theoretical perspective. While networks are regarded as a counter hegemonic force we argue that networks are not static entities but must be seen as an ongoing and emergent process. Moreover theory overlooks power relationships within networks and is unable to conceptualise the relationship between power and values. These observations open up a research agenda that the authors are exploring empirically in forthcoming publications.

Translocal assemblages: Space, power and social movements

“…But scale does not operate as a master narrative for SDI. The metaphor of network is also strategically deployed by the movement"s leaders, for instance in their invocation of SDI as "horizontal" and non-hierarchical, and this use of horizontality is itself attractive to donors and advocates of SDI (and on the seduction of networks, see Henry et al, 2004;Thompson, 2004). SDI"s work entails a constant shifting and sifting of spatial imaginaries of networks, hierarchies, and scales.…”

Unsettling connections: transnational networks, development and African home associations

“…Scholarly debate has provided more critical discussion of transnational networks (Cumbers et al 2008;Featherstone et al 2007) and transnational development networks (Bebbington and Kothari 2006;Henry et al 2004;McFarlane 2006). Work on African transnationalism, in particular, may use the idea of the 'network' as a heuristic device while nevertheless recognizing that networks do not exist a priori as 'unitary actors' (Faist 2008) for policy-makers simply to co-opt and utilize (Grillo and Riccio 2004;Mazzucato 2005Mazzucato , 2008.…”

“…Most attention has been paid to those networks that link local community based organizations (CBOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the Global South to a familiar development infrastructure consisting of international NGOs, donors and states (Anheier and Katz 2005;Bebbington 2000Bebbington , 2003Keck and Sikkink 1998). This professional development establishment is located in the 'West' (Henry et al 2004;Jones 2000) and uses a particular spatial conceptual framework, a particular imagined global geometry, in which development is measured using agreed indices (such as the HDI or GDP) and mapped onto national territories in order to distinguish between 'developed' and 'developing' spaces. Despite a rhetorical commitment to participatory development, the professional development establishment remains at the centre of the spatial imaginary of these transnational networks because of the reluctance to resign its historical position as the centre of agency, knowledge and resources.…”

Migration and Transnationalism: Pacific Perspectives

“…These networks are also regarded as contributing effectively to development because of the aspects of fluidity and reciprocity that are involved (Bebbington 2002;Gibson-Graham 2005;Henry, Mohan and Yancopulos 2004). In this theoretical context, two recent publications have acknowledged and referred to the long history of cultural and family connections and networking over time and space in context of migration and mobility in the Pacific.…”