Publications
Urban renewal in Ibadan, Nigeria: World class but essentially Yoruba. AFRICAN AFFAIRS. 2021. Vol 120 (480) pp.391-415. (open access)
Contesting localisation in interfaith peacebuilding in northern Nigeria. OXFORD DEVELOPMENT STUDIES. 2020. Vol 48 (4) pp.373-386. (Free e-prints for those without institutional access here)
Making pandemic politics transparent: lessons from Nigeria. RENEWAL. 2020. Vol 28 (3) p. 24-28. (open access version here).
Transparency and mistrust: Who or what should be made transparent?
GOVERNANCE. July 2019. Vol 32 (3). pp.565-580. (open access here)
Beyond programmatic versus patrimonial politics: Contested conceptions of legitimate distribution in Nigeria. JOURNAL OF MODERN AFRICAN STUDIES. September 2019. Vol 57 (3) pp. 415-436. (open access here)
Framing and blaming: Discourse analysis of the Boko Haram uprising, July 2009 in Boko Haram: Islamism, politics, security and the state in Nigeria, ed. Pérouse de Montclos, M-A. African Studies Centre, Leiden / IFRA-Nigeria
Contesting localisation in interfaith peacebuilding in northern Nigeria. OXFORD DEVELOPMENT STUDIES. 2020. Vol 48 (4) pp.373-386. (Free e-prints for those without institutional access here)
Making pandemic politics transparent: lessons from Nigeria. RENEWAL. 2020. Vol 28 (3) p. 24-28. (open access version here).
Transparency and mistrust: Who or what should be made transparent?
GOVERNANCE. July 2019. Vol 32 (3). pp.565-580. (open access here)
Beyond programmatic versus patrimonial politics: Contested conceptions of legitimate distribution in Nigeria. JOURNAL OF MODERN AFRICAN STUDIES. September 2019. Vol 57 (3) pp. 415-436. (open access here)
Framing and blaming: Discourse analysis of the Boko Haram uprising, July 2009 in Boko Haram: Islamism, politics, security and the state in Nigeria, ed. Pérouse de Montclos, M-A. African Studies Centre, Leiden / IFRA-Nigeria
Working papers and drafts under review
PRIVATIZATION OLD AND NEW: STYLIZED NARRATIVES VERSUS CHANGING REALITIES OF THE FIRM, THE PROFIT MOTIVE AND THE STATE
Despite the changing nature of privatization in practice, privatization has typically been justified with reference to a singular stylised story about the public and private sector and how each operates: the efficient but cut-throat world of private profits contrasted with the more systematic but lumbering public sector. Yet, whilst certain discourses display remarkable continuity over time, the nature of contemporary capitalism, and the state’s role within it, have undergone remarkable changes. My contention in this paper is that this stylised narrative, and its associated imaginaries, is a poor model for how private firms actually operate, and thus is misleading as a basis for debates about the benefits and costs of privatization. I take inspiration from Chiara Cordelli in The Privatised State (2020, 4) where she observes “when it gets down to it then, government today is not what many intuitively think it is.” Just as Cordelli seeks to highlight the discrepancy between popular notions of the state, in this paper I extend this process of de-familiarising to the private sector, both the firm and the profit motive. By roughly dividing the practice of privatization into phase one, ranging the late 1970s to early 2000s, which emphasised state divestiture and phase two, which champions public-private partnerships and spans from the early 1990s to today, this paper foregrounds key shifts in the conceptualisation of the public and private sector, and the realities of states and markets under changing conditions of capitalism.
Presented at the Political Studies Association Conference hosted by Queen's Belfast on 30th March 2021 and at the Development Studies Association conference, hosted by UEA on Thursday 1st July 2021.
Despite the changing nature of privatization in practice, privatization has typically been justified with reference to a singular stylised story about the public and private sector and how each operates: the efficient but cut-throat world of private profits contrasted with the more systematic but lumbering public sector. Yet, whilst certain discourses display remarkable continuity over time, the nature of contemporary capitalism, and the state’s role within it, have undergone remarkable changes. My contention in this paper is that this stylised narrative, and its associated imaginaries, is a poor model for how private firms actually operate, and thus is misleading as a basis for debates about the benefits and costs of privatization. I take inspiration from Chiara Cordelli in The Privatised State (2020, 4) where she observes “when it gets down to it then, government today is not what many intuitively think it is.” Just as Cordelli seeks to highlight the discrepancy between popular notions of the state, in this paper I extend this process of de-familiarising to the private sector, both the firm and the profit motive. By roughly dividing the practice of privatization into phase one, ranging the late 1970s to early 2000s, which emphasised state divestiture and phase two, which champions public-private partnerships and spans from the early 1990s to today, this paper foregrounds key shifts in the conceptualisation of the public and private sector, and the realities of states and markets under changing conditions of capitalism.
Presented at the Political Studies Association Conference hosted by Queen's Belfast on 30th March 2021 and at the Development Studies Association conference, hosted by UEA on Thursday 1st July 2021.
ACCOUNTABILITY AS ACCESSIBILITY: TECHNOCRATIC, POPULAR AND POPULIST CONCEPTIONS OF GOVERNANCE IN NIGERIA AND BEYOND
Elected representatives should be accountable, but what does accountability mean? Over almost three decades of governance reforms lead by international donor institutions accountability has become a buzzword in the good governance agenda. The underlying assumption of accountability as essentially a principal-agent interaction has been surprisingly resilient, withstanding waves of critique and reform to donor programming. Insights from in-depth qualitative fieldwork in southwest Nigeria suggest that actually existing conceptions of accountability – that is, the things that politicians do that render them accountable in the eyes of their constituents – differ radically from dominant donor ideas. Accountability as accessibility expresses the importance of a relationship between rulers and the ruled as one requiring visibility and direct communication, even in the absence of those in power delivering any tangible benefits. This article elucidates a new conceptual framework to make sense of accountability as accessibility. Combining African scholarship on the post-colonial state with work on ‘conversational democracy’ in the UK, accessibility emerges as a key means by which power is made accountable, not just in Nigeria but in a variety of non-African political contexts.
Earlier versions of this paper was presented at the African Studies Association UK Conference in Cambridge in September 2016; the Oxford African Studies Seminar in February 2018; and the Normative Politics in Africa workshop, LSE 9th May 2018.
Download the working paper here-->
Elected representatives should be accountable, but what does accountability mean? Over almost three decades of governance reforms lead by international donor institutions accountability has become a buzzword in the good governance agenda. The underlying assumption of accountability as essentially a principal-agent interaction has been surprisingly resilient, withstanding waves of critique and reform to donor programming. Insights from in-depth qualitative fieldwork in southwest Nigeria suggest that actually existing conceptions of accountability – that is, the things that politicians do that render them accountable in the eyes of their constituents – differ radically from dominant donor ideas. Accountability as accessibility expresses the importance of a relationship between rulers and the ruled as one requiring visibility and direct communication, even in the absence of those in power delivering any tangible benefits. This article elucidates a new conceptual framework to make sense of accountability as accessibility. Combining African scholarship on the post-colonial state with work on ‘conversational democracy’ in the UK, accessibility emerges as a key means by which power is made accountable, not just in Nigeria but in a variety of non-African political contexts.
Earlier versions of this paper was presented at the African Studies Association UK Conference in Cambridge in September 2016; the Oxford African Studies Seminar in February 2018; and the Normative Politics in Africa workshop, LSE 9th May 2018.
Download the working paper here-->
| roelofs_2018_-_accessibility_-_working_paper.pdf |
MAKING INEQUALITY REPUTABLE: MORAL ETHNICITY AS POLITICAL THEORY
John Lonsdale’s work on moral ethnicity and political tribalism in Kenya has been influential. Building on the thought of Jomo Kenyatta and Mau Mau guerrillas, he argues that the cultivation of ‘civic virtue’ in small scale ethnic communities provides the basis for preventing abuses of political power. Less widely recognised is the political theory underlying Lonsdale’s work, primarily the idea that state power and capitalism forces a rupture between morality and politics. This paper argues that Lonsdale’s work can be understood as an example of ‘moral politics’, that is, the belief that the normative values which govern politics should be derived from those moral values forged in the family or the homestead. By comparing the essentially conservative creation myth at the heart of Lonsdale’s moral politics with those of more rationalist political theories – whether liberal or feminist – we can offer alternative answers to the important normative questions Lonsdale’s work poses. Adapting his discussion of ‘reputable inequality’ offers a fresh perspective on the relationship between personal material wealth and political power. Moreover, it sheds light on the variety of conservative, anti-egalitarian but still democratic political projects at play on the African continent today.
Paper presented at 'Patronage, Politics and the Moral Economy of Electoral Politics' panel at the African Studies Association UK, University of Birmingham, 11th September 2018. Revise and Resubmit.
John Lonsdale’s work on moral ethnicity and political tribalism in Kenya has been influential. Building on the thought of Jomo Kenyatta and Mau Mau guerrillas, he argues that the cultivation of ‘civic virtue’ in small scale ethnic communities provides the basis for preventing abuses of political power. Less widely recognised is the political theory underlying Lonsdale’s work, primarily the idea that state power and capitalism forces a rupture between morality and politics. This paper argues that Lonsdale’s work can be understood as an example of ‘moral politics’, that is, the belief that the normative values which govern politics should be derived from those moral values forged in the family or the homestead. By comparing the essentially conservative creation myth at the heart of Lonsdale’s moral politics with those of more rationalist political theories – whether liberal or feminist – we can offer alternative answers to the important normative questions Lonsdale’s work poses. Adapting his discussion of ‘reputable inequality’ offers a fresh perspective on the relationship between personal material wealth and political power. Moreover, it sheds light on the variety of conservative, anti-egalitarian but still democratic political projects at play on the African continent today.
Paper presented at 'Patronage, Politics and the Moral Economy of Electoral Politics' panel at the African Studies Association UK, University of Birmingham, 11th September 2018. Revise and Resubmit.
NEOPATRIMONIALISM 2.0: THE ROLE OF LARGE GRANT-FUNDED RESEARCH CENTRES IN PARADIGM MAINTENANCE
Recent calls to decolonise the university and, in particular, development studies, have problematised the way that knowledge about the developing world is controlled by elite institutions (Kwoba, Chantiluke, and Nkopo 2018). As new funding regimes create new organisational structures, the effect of large grant-funded research centres on the maintenance of old paradigms or the emergence of new ones has yet to receive scholarly attention. This paper explores how the neopatrimonialism paradigm (Mkandawire 2015) - the world view whereby politics in the global South is essentially characterised as driven by the personalistic power of calculative elites herding irrational but docile masses - has been sustained by the institutional structures of two large grant-funded research centres at a Russell Group University. The centres advance the concepts of moral populism and the political marketplace to rethink public authority in “more open and less normative” ways. Drawing on existing work on how policy paradigms are embedded in organisational structures, this paper argues that the hierarchical structure, insulation from internal critique and lack of academic accountability lead these centres to unconsciously engage in maintaining the neopatrimonialism paradigm.
Presented at CPAID and CRP Seminar Series, London School of Economics, 8th November 2018. Working paper available on request.
Recent calls to decolonise the university and, in particular, development studies, have problematised the way that knowledge about the developing world is controlled by elite institutions (Kwoba, Chantiluke, and Nkopo 2018). As new funding regimes create new organisational structures, the effect of large grant-funded research centres on the maintenance of old paradigms or the emergence of new ones has yet to receive scholarly attention. This paper explores how the neopatrimonialism paradigm (Mkandawire 2015) - the world view whereby politics in the global South is essentially characterised as driven by the personalistic power of calculative elites herding irrational but docile masses - has been sustained by the institutional structures of two large grant-funded research centres at a Russell Group University. The centres advance the concepts of moral populism and the political marketplace to rethink public authority in “more open and less normative” ways. Drawing on existing work on how policy paradigms are embedded in organisational structures, this paper argues that the hierarchical structure, insulation from internal critique and lack of academic accountability lead these centres to unconsciously engage in maintaining the neopatrimonialism paradigm.
Presented at CPAID and CRP Seminar Series, London School of Economics, 8th November 2018. Working paper available on request.
