Study, Power, Ethics in Development Cooperation: World Bank's “Failure” and “Complicity” of Different Knowledges

Abstract

When a development study fails to accurately comprehend a situation, there is a tendency to analyze the study's methodological problems and propose improvements. Though this happens repeatedly, studies continue to fail. No doubt, such practical efforts to improve studies is necessary, but at the same time, it is necessary to analyze the real reasons for repeated failure. For example, why have international organizations like the World Bank, with a great number of prominent researchers and advanced safeguard policies governing the quality of studies, failed to comprehend local situations at project sites? This article will tackle this question not by exploring practical possibilities to improve the quality of institutions or their policies, but by focusing on the function of the studies themselves, in order to avoid the “trap of improvement”—the vicious cycle between improvement and failure, in which the strong will to improve is a parasite of failure (Li 2007).

This paper presents a hypothesis that development studies have “instrumental effects” (Ferguson 1994) beyond their apparent objectives. The World Bank's Inspection Panel is examined as a case study in this paper because applications for inspections indicate the possibility that studies failed to accurately reflect local situations. In addition, all relevant information is publicly accessible making it possible to conduct this research. Thorough document analysis of 17 projects filed to the Inspection Panel indicates five reasons for why studies fail, and also brings to light the complicity of experts with different types of knowledge (scientific/universal and practical/contextual). This paper proposes the necessity to conduct more research on power and ethics of experts equipped with the above mentioned knowledge.