THE DEVELOPMENT LACUNAE AND THE EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT 

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3: AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION

AN OVERVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to expound the focus of an Anthropocentric Develop-ment Evaluation. The essential focus of an Anthropocentric Development Evaluation derived from its epistemological perspectives includes:

• a people-centredness;
• a special focus on the marginalised, particularly
• the poor, especially the rural poor and resource-poor primary producers, and,
• women, and those in relationship with them, those in their households;
• an actor-orientedness. (In other words, seeing people as actors in their particular and wider contexts, and giving due consideration to exceptions to the norm);
• a consideration of the cultural and knowledge milieus in which people exist;
• a consideration of the limitations, risks, uncertainties and vulnerabilities people face as they attempt to live; and
• the need people have to participate in all matters which impact upon their lives.

As discussed above in Chapter 1¹⁷⁷ an Anthropocentric Development Evaluation, has two main pillars – development and evaluation¹⁷⁸ However, more important is the intention of an Anthropocentric Development Evaluation. That is, that both development and evaluation, in their own right and in their interaction with one another, have a greater concern for people and the conditions people face into as a consequence of being human beings than has been the general practice in the past. An Anthropocentric Development Evaluation, therefore, affirms the people-centred approach¹⁷⁹ lo development. However, an Anthropocentric Development Evaluation will argue that the people-centred approach has not gone far enough. For instance, when the track record of development and its evaluation to date are examined, some people have been neglected, missed out, and even avoided. Thus development and its evaluation must go beyond people-centredness and place special emphasis on people in the broad, holistic sense of the word. From the perspectives which have influenced this thesis, that special emphasis for the moment should be focused on:
=:> the marginalised, or disadvantaged, particularly,…. the poor, especially the rural poor and resource-poor primary producers, and,…. women, and with them those in their households.
Should the quality of life of the above-mentioned people improve, and/or, a strong case be made for other people who are marginalised, then the face of that special emphasis must change accordingly. Thus, all people must find inclusion and not exclusion as a consequence of that special emphasis.

centred nature of development practice. See Section 3.2..

While participation has not received enough attention in the development and evaluation debates, it is contended here that it is only once a process of going beyond both people-centredness and actor-orientation to focus on the above-mentioned people, and the requisites and consequences of human existence, that the realm of participation can be fully engaged in and achieved. When all of the above emphases have at least been considered then it could be deemed that development and its evaluation is beginning to be anthropocentric.
An Anthropocentric Development Evaluation is essentially an evaluation of development theory and practice as well as the art and science of evaluation¹⁸² In drawing the two dimensions of development and evaluation together it provides a framework for Development Evaluation. Such a framework emphasises the need for people to be at the heart of development and evaluation. This emphasis emerges through criticisms of development which contend that the human dimension has, at worst been missing, and/or at least been down played, in the development debate. In the case of evaluation, apart from a mere suggestion of participation by people, the human dimension is almost totally lacking. An Anthropocentric Development Evaluation therefore attempts to reverse this trend in both development and evaluation.
The essence of the argument which follows is twofold. In the first instance, the argument reinforces the importance of people to be the centre of all development and its evaluation, in the manner suggested above. In the second, the process of formulating the parameters of an Anthropocentric Development Evaluation is begun. This is done by developing the argument that people are intrinsic to development and its evaluation. Using that focus the next chapter takes the parameters of an Anthropocentric Development Evaluation further by providing a critique of different evaluation The purpose is to identify those methodologies which are or have a propensity toward enabling people to be central to development and evaluation.

A PEOPLE-CENTRED APPROACH

Intrinsic to an Anthropocentric Development Evaluation is the people-centred approach to development. That development should be people-centred is to state both the obvious and a paradox. The fact that development is the development of people, with the intention of unleashing the human potential in improving their quality of Iife¹⁸³ and that human development is the ultimate objective of economic development¹⁸⁴ is the obvious. The paradox lies in the fact that:
millions of individuals are still indicated as being materially and spiritually in distress – facing absolute poverty, unemployment or underemployment, and inequality¹⁸⁵ ; despite the human cost of contemporary development¹⁸⁶, little optimism exists for a solution to the African tragedy¹⁸⁷ ; the progress gained in technological advancement, particularly the case of the Green Revolution, is not commensurate with the resultant failure – in most cases leaving people worse off than they were before¹⁸⁸ ;
humanity is facing different conditions in the post-industrial era compared with  those in the industrial era¹⁸⁹ ; industrialism as the epitome of economic theory¹⁹⁰ in particular, and modern development in general, has failed dismally to bring about a sustainable, equitable development¹⁹¹ ; chrematistics¹⁹², as rationalised by neo-liberalism, and not oikonomia¹⁹³ pre-vails in policy decisions¹⁹⁴, to such an extent that even people are considered to be capital and thus disposable, resulting in the destruction of people-in-commun-ity1•s; the defects of ‘normal’ bureaucracy prevai1¹⁹⁶ ;
there has been the need for a particular ‘people-centred’ approach to emerge in the development debate, and there is still a need to stress the vital importance of a people-centred development¹⁹⁷ ; the people-centred approach emerged only as late as the 1980s¹⁹⁸ Given the existence of the above-mentioned paradox, the objectives of a people-centred development must therefore:

• ensure that the problem of development relates to the people involved in all its possible respects, making people the priority by increasing their capacities to lead full and satisfying lives¹⁹⁹ This requires a reversal of the relationship between people and production²⁰⁰ , and demanding a rejection of expansionism²⁰¹ ;
• make social organisation an explicit concern of development policies and constructing projects around people and their consequences, through a critical examination of the social dialectics of development²⁰² Hence, the satisfaction of human needs;
• the generation of growing levels of self reliance and autonomy; and,
• the establishing of organic linkages between people and (i) their social context;
• nature; and
• technology; and
• civil society and the state; and
• global processes²⁰³ become particular foci for action. The constant consideration of alternatives²⁰⁴ is a key to this action becoming reality; and
• shift the meaning of development to focus wholly on people. This implies a shift from macro to micro levels of thinking about development²⁰⁵ where peoples’ own priorities come first²⁰⁶ .
• While people-centred development is increasingly recognised as the crucial prerequisite to induce accelerated development²⁰⁷ , development for people will happen only if the causes of the paradox in the history of development are dealt with. As all causes can only be dealt with if they are known, an Anthropocentric Development Evaluation tenders the focus and level of analysis in development theory as the probable cause (while recognising the possibility of others).

There have been a number of attempts to trace the evolutionary progression of development theory. Leys²⁰⁸ is probably the most recent. What is striking from the accounts of such attempts is that there are hardly any references to people, and where there are, these refer to the leading academic figures who have postulated theories on the basis of their reflection of human history²⁰⁹ The focus never seems to be on people as they exist in reality immediately in front of these ‘people’s’ eyes. What appears to be the case is that these academic giants, including Kant, Hegel, Marx, Weber and many beyond them, have been more concerned about legitimising and articulating their analytical constructs than really understanding people as they engage in social, economic and other behaviour and thereby to postulate appropriate action for development. While it is not permissible to say that development theorists or development studies academics do not focus on people at al1²¹⁰ , what is true is that people have tended to be taken up and lost in analytical categories. Examine Hoselitz’²¹¹ contention, for instance, that the relation-ship between social change and economic development has been recognised in develop-ment theory. For Hoselitz this has happened in two ways: first, in general, by economists, ever since they concerned themselves with economic progress; secondly, in particular, when Marx stated that the capitalist mode of production was a consequence of the transformation of society giving rise to the bourgeoisie becoming the leading social class. Notice that Hoselitz gives attention to only those caught up in the relationship between social change and economic development and the bourgeoisie. He pays no attention to people outside the social change – economic development and those in other social strata. Further, consider that even Dudley Seers²¹ 2, whom Van Zyl and Beukes²¹³ commend for being a leading figure in shifting ‘development’ from economic growth to ‘a broader society-wide concept’ is guilty of locating people in such states or descriptors as ‘poverty’, ‘unemployment’ and ‘inequality’. Over the years development discourse has produced a whole range of similar categories. In the case of classical development theory it was in classes, in modernisation it was in countries, while dependency theory ranged from localities to regions to the world system²¹⁴ • It is only now, with the emergence of alternative development approaches as a result of the odd crisis, here or there, that greater attention is being paid to people.
The problem with abstract concepts in general, like ‘an expanding capitalist world-economy’ or ‘the incorporation of the periphery within the world economy’ is not any uneasiness they may engender when confronted²¹⁵ , but rather, they are historical constructs. As such they are imposed with the same limitations as history itself which, as Kierkegaard²¹⁶ put it, can only understand life back-wards, when life, in fact, is lived forwards.

CHAPTER 1: WHY AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION?
1.1. PEOPLE AND POVERTY
1.2. PEOPLE AND DEVELOPMENT
1.3. PEOPLE, DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
1.4. SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
CHAPTER 2: THE DEVELOPMENT LACUNAE AND THE EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT 
2.1. FOUR DECADES OF GOOD INTENTIONS
2.2. THE GAP BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT THEORY AND PRACTICE
2.3. THE EVALUATION OF DEVELOPMENT
2.4. QUO VADIS?
CHAPTER 3: AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION 
3.1. AN OVERVIEW
3.2. A PEOPLE-CENTRED APPROACH
3.3. FOCUS ON THE MARGINALISED
3.4. INCLUSIVITY OF ALL PEOPLE
3.5. THE ACTOR-ORIENTED APPROACH
3.6. REQUISITES AND CONSEQUENCES OF PEOPLE BEING HUMAN
3.7. COMPLEXITY AND DIVERSITY IN PEOPLE BEING HUMAN
3.8. PEOPLE AND THEIR HUMANITY: THE FOCUS OF AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION
CHAPTER 4: AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION IN RELATION TO OTHER METHODOLOGIES 
4.1. TESTING SIMILAR, YET DIFFERENT, METHODOLOGIES
4.2. ACTION RESEARCH
4.3. SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
4.4. THE COMPLEMENTARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT FIELD TOOLS
4.5. SUMMARY
CHAPTER 5: AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION IN THE CONTEXT OF A DEVELOPMENT SETTING
5.1. ORIENTATION
5.2. APPLYING AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION TO SOME DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTIONS IN NYANYADU
5.3. WHO EVALUATES?
5.4. CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6: REFLECTION 
6.1. THE FORMATION OF AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION
6.2. THE VALUE OF AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION
6.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF AN ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
ANTHROPOCENTRIC DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION – MAKING PEOPLE AND THEIR HUMANITY THE FOCUS OF DEVELOPMENT AND ITS EVALUATION