Development aid to water management in Mali: the actors, ‘global’ paradigms, and ‘local’ translations

The four empirical articles experiment with different theoretical concepts to present the data. Starting with a genealogical description of the Capacity Building paradigm in the first empirical article, the theorizing subsequently demonstrates that this paradigm gets translated in numerous ways. The third empirical article shows the importance of individual agency in the implementation of the IWRM paradigm, and the last relies on full-blown Actor-Network Theory to describe the network – widespread in time and space – that supports the IWRM paradigm. Although each theoretical perspective emphasizes different aspects of the data, Actor-Network Theory turns out to be the most apt tool to describe the eclectic set of data that was obtained from multi-sited ethnography, interviews, focus group discussions and documents. Regarding the research questions, the data shows that neither the Capacity Building nor the IWRM paradigm shift happened overnight; they have a long line of descent. More importantly, they needed the unrelenting work of a small number of dedicated individuals to become hegemonic and they continue to require a strong network of actors to remain so. Moreover, these paradigms are no monolithic entities; neither is their implementation. No ‘gap’ between paradigm and implementation is observed, but only a vast network of actors who collectively adhere to the paradigm and who, depending on their position in the network, interpret the paradigm differently. All actors implant their own interests in their interpretation of the paradigm (the actors ‘translate’ their interests), regardless of whether they constitute the donor, a mediator, or the aid recipient. These translations are necessary to cement and reproduce the network: actors enroll each other in the network by translating interests. The strength of a novel development paradigm depends on the strength of the network and the translations. The limitations of the reported research are obvious: it is based on a small selection of paradigms from only one aid sector. The results might not be generalizable. Moreover, the research focused on paradigms that were said to be working; no data was collected on the demise or failure of development paradigms. The latter could be the topic of future research.