開発援助の現場における解釈コミュニティの出現

フィリピン・ダバオ市のバジャウ集落を事例に

抄録

In this paper I have attempted to give an alternative view of the discrepancy between policy and practice in development aid projects by introducing two terms, ‘interpretive community’ and ‘ubiquitous individuality’, as key concepts. To examine the two concepts empirically, I have employed a case study of development aid targeted at the Badjaos in Davao City, Philippines. The data used for this study were collected through fieldwork.
The present paper is organized into three sections following the introduction. Section I sets the framework. It provides a brief review on the recent literature on the relations between policy and practice in development studies to introduce the two key terms. First, the term ‘interpretive community’ proposed by David Mosse, a British anthropologist, is shown to explain why the highly controlled management of aid donors at the upstream of the development industry paradoxically results in creating space for downstream actors such as local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) to exercise their own autonomy in hidden manners. Second, in order to have a proper human model to match the concept of the interpretive community, the term ‘ubiquitous individuality’ coined by Motoji Matsuda, a Kyoto University professor, is applied. It is intended to overcome the donors’ strict monitoring (the theoretical ‘black box’) of the interactions between individuals and communities. Aid donors tend to methodically omit cultural and historical contexts of individuality in their client areas that are not considered pertinent to Western ideas of individuality (considered universal by the donor agencies). ‘Ubiquitous individuality’ thereby aims to uncover the existence of individuality in non-Western societies with varieties and limitations innate to their own historical and cultural contexts. This new human model enables the author to depict the process in which certain individuals appear out of the underprivileged sector to demonstrate their commitment to form the interpretive community in the face of the highly controlled management of aid donors.
Section II compares the results of the 2006 questionnaire survey of all households (183 in total) in the research site and those of the previous survey in 1998–1999. The quantitative analysis shows that despite the aid projects delivered by five religious missions/NGOs, one local NGO and two government-related agencies since 2000, only limited improvement in the living conditions could be seen. In the previous survey both non-Badjaos and Badjaos themselves had claimed that the Badjaos would need adequate education and skills training, and gainful livelihoods to improve their situation. However, the latest survey confirms that there was no significant improvement in the level of educational attainment among the Badjaos, who therefore still lacked the means to participate in the urban labor market. Likewise, there had been no substantial changes in their standard of living, which was measured by economic indices such as income, possessions of durable goods, and housing conditions.
Section III provides a descriptive analysis of the emergence of the interpretive community and ubiquitous individuality in the research site. First, it examines the nature of the goods and services brought by the missionaries and NGOs as aid. Regardless of the aid agency, this aid tended to concentrate on free food, free medication, seasonal gifts and free daycare centers for preschoolers. In other words, few resources had been directed to empower the Badjaos through education and work in the long run. On the other hand, even though their aid activities appeared to have clearly failed in terms of socioeconomic indicators, it appears unlikely that these agencies will quit. To explain this paradoxical situation, this section also provides an insight into the hidden exchanges between the middlemen who represented