Publications
TRANSPARENCY AND MISTRUST: WHO OR WHAT SHOULD BE MADE TRANSPARENT?
GOVERNANCE. July 2019. Vol 32 (3). pp.565-580. (open access)
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)
CONTESTING LOCALISATION IN INTERFAITH PEACEBUILDING IN NORTHERN NIGERIA. OXFORD DEVELOPMENT STUDIES (FORTHCOMING)
Abstract:
Amidst a ‘local turn’ in peacebuilding, donors have seized on the idea of ‘localising’ peacebuilding programmes, bringing in actors who have local knowledge and connections in order to make interventions more context-sensitive. Yet programmes premised on the fractiousness of Muslim-Christian relations, as many in northern Nigeria are, are inevitably
absorbed into over-arching narratives of global civilisational encounter. How does the local turn play out in this context of heightened international sensitivities? Drawing on the critical peacebuilding literature, this article analyses the origins of USAID’s push to localise its interfaith peace-building efforts in northern Nigeria, and the ambivalence of categorises like ‘local’ and ‘international’ in its subsequent partnership with the Kaduna-based Interfaith Mediation Centre on the TOLERANCE programme. While the categories of local and international are indeed contested and fluid, there are limits to how far local partners can successful leverage these ideas in the context of unequal power relations.
GOVERNANCE. July 2019. Vol 32 (3). pp.565-580. (open access)
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)
CONTESTING LOCALISATION IN INTERFAITH PEACEBUILDING IN NORTHERN NIGERIA. OXFORD DEVELOPMENT STUDIES (FORTHCOMING)
Abstract:
Amidst a ‘local turn’ in peacebuilding, donors have seized on the idea of ‘localising’ peacebuilding programmes, bringing in actors who have local knowledge and connections in order to make interventions more context-sensitive. Yet programmes premised on the fractiousness of Muslim-Christian relations, as many in northern Nigeria are, are inevitably
absorbed into over-arching narratives of global civilisational encounter. How does the local turn play out in this context of heightened international sensitivities? Drawing on the critical peacebuilding literature, this article analyses the origins of USAID’s push to localise its interfaith peace-building efforts in northern Nigeria, and the ambivalence of categorises like ‘local’ and ‘international’ in its subsequent partnership with the Kaduna-based Interfaith Mediation Centre on the TOLERANCE programme. While the categories of local and international are indeed contested and fluid, there are limits to how far local partners can successful leverage these ideas in the context of unequal power relations.
Working papers and drafts under review
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.
GENERALISING ELITISM: ENLIGHTENMENT AND URBAN RENEWAL IN IBADAN, NIGERIA
Recent scholarship on the African middle classes has explored how ideas of modernisation, enlightenment and social distinction have been put to work by political actors to justify diverse developmental projects. Urban renewal and the exclusionary consequences of world class cities have featured squarely in these accounts. However, recent developments in southwest Nigeria suggest that the middle class is not a ubiquitous social or political label, and that other older social imaginaries continue to do political work. This article looks at the idea of elites in discourses justifying urban renewal and demolition of roadside shops in Ibadan. Counter to the idea of elites as denoting exclusivity, progressive politicians draw on long-standing Yoruba ideas of elitism as something that can be ‘generalised’. Drawing on in-depth qualitative fieldwork, this article traces both the ‘top-down’ ideas of senior political figures and the ‘bottom-up’ response to these discourses among roadside traders. It builds on work attesting to the importance of ideas in African politics and how whether discourse succeeds or fails has electoral and material consequences.
[Revise and Resubmit]
Recent scholarship on the African middle classes has explored how ideas of modernisation, enlightenment and social distinction have been put to work by political actors to justify diverse developmental projects. Urban renewal and the exclusionary consequences of world class cities have featured squarely in these accounts. However, recent developments in southwest Nigeria suggest that the middle class is not a ubiquitous social or political label, and that other older social imaginaries continue to do political work. This article looks at the idea of elites in discourses justifying urban renewal and demolition of roadside shops in Ibadan. Counter to the idea of elites as denoting exclusivity, progressive politicians draw on long-standing Yoruba ideas of elitism as something that can be ‘generalised’. Drawing on in-depth qualitative fieldwork, this article traces both the ‘top-down’ ideas of senior political figures and the ‘bottom-up’ response to these discourses among roadside traders. It builds on work attesting to the importance of ideas in African politics and how whether discourse succeeds or fails has electoral and material consequences.
[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
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
