Advertisement

Projecting the ‘Disadvantaged’: Project Class, Scale Hopping and the Creation of Ruralities

  • Alexandra Szőke
Chapter
Part of the GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 107)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the recent projectification of development and the results of this process for rural localities in Hungary. Drawing on anthropological fieldwork in Kislapos, a small village in Northern Hungary, the chapter discusses the collision of different views held by various actors in a development programme targeted at ‘disadvantaged micro-regions’. It shows that the new frames of rural/regional development and decentralisation led to the rise of a variety of actors who have gained supreme importance for local development in rural places. It delineates the characteristics that arise from the particular position of this new ‘project class’ by utilising the conceptual tools of scales to describe their differentiated access to knowledge, networks, ideas and other resources, as well as their different levels of agency. As such, the chapter furthers recent theorisations on the importance of geographical and social scale for the analysis of development actors and their effects on rural areas.

Keywords

European Union Intellectual Capital Local Official Local Inhabitant Project Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bódi, F. (2008). Forrásallokáció és fejlettség [Resource allocation and development]. In F. Bódi (Ed.), A helyi szociális ellátórendszer. Tanulmánygyűjtemény [The local social service system. Collected studies] (pp. 257–279). Budapest: MTA Politikai Tudományok Intézete.Google Scholar
  2. Borsos, E., Csite, A., & Letenyei, L. (Eds.). (1999). Rendszerváltozás után. Falusi Sorsforduló a Kárpát-medencében [After the system change. Changing fate of villages in the Carpathian Basin]. Budapest: Számalk Kiadó.Google Scholar
  3. Cooper, F., & Packard, R. (1997). Introduction. In F. Cooper & R. Packard (Eds.), International development and the social sciences: Essays on the history and politics of knowledge (pp. 1–41). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Csite, A. (1998). Constructing the miserable countryside (Hungary in the 1990s). In L. Granberg & I. Kovách (Eds.), Actors on the changing European countryside (pp. 231–256). Budapest: Institute for Political Science of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  5. Enyedi, G. (1980). Falvaink Sorsa [The fate of our villages]. Budapest: Magvető.Google Scholar
  6. Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Esteva, G. (1992). Development. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The development dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power (pp. 6–25). London/New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  8. Ferguson, J. (1990). The anti-politics machine: Development, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gould, J. (2004). Positionality and scale. Methodological issues in the ethnography of aid. In J. Gould & H. Marcussen (Eds.), Ethnographies of aid: Exploring development texts and encounters (IDS Occasional Papers 24) (pp. 263–290). Roskilde: University of Roskilde.Google Scholar
  10. Koós, B., & Virág, T. (2010). Fel is út, le is út: Községeink sorsa a rendszerváltás után [The way up and down: The fate of our villages after the system change]. In G. Barta, P. Beluszky, Z. Földi, & K. Kovács (Eds.), A területi kutatások csomópontjai [The nodes of regional research] (pp. 32–54). Pécs: MTA Regionális Kutatás Központja.Google Scholar
  11. Kothari, U. (2005). Authority and expertise: The professionalisation of international development and the ordering of dissent. Antipode, 37, 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kovách, I., & Kucerova, E. (2006). The project class in central Europe: The Czech and Hungarian cases. Sociologia Ruralis, 46, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kovách, I., & Kucerova, E. (2009). The social context of project proliferation – The Rise of a project class. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 11, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kovács, K. (2008). Kistelepülések lépéskényszerben [Small settlements under pressure]. In M. Mária Váradi (Ed.), Kistelepülésel Lépéskényszerben (pp. 7–29). Budapest: Új Mandátum.Google Scholar
  15. Kovács, K., & Somlyódyné, P. E. (Eds.). (2008). Függőben. Közszolgáltatás-szervezés a kistelepülések világában [In dependence. Public service delivery in small settlements]. Budapest: KSzK ROP 3.1.1. Programigazgatóság.Google Scholar
  16. Leys, C. (2004). The rise and fall of development theory. In M. Edelman & A. Haugerud (Eds.), The anthropology of development and globalization: From classical political economy to contemporary neoliberalism (pp. 109–125). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Li, T. (2007). The will to improve. Governmentality, development, and the practice of politics. Durham/London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Long, N. (2001). Development sociology: Actor perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mitchell, T. (1991). The object of development: America’s Egypt. In J. Crush (Ed.), Power of development (pp. 129–157). London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Parpart, J. (1995). Deconstructing the development ‘expert’. In M. Marchand & J. Parpart (Eds.), Feminism, postmodernism and development (pp. 221–242). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sivaramakrishnan, K., & Agrawal, A. (2003). Regional modernities in stories and practices of development. In K. Sivaramakrishnan & A. Agrawal (Eds.), Regional modernities: The cultural politics of development in India (pp. 1–63). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Szelényi, I. (1981). Urban development and regional management in eastern Europe. Theory and Society, 10, 169–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Szőke, A. (2007). The rural miracle? – The ‘1 Forint Estate Projects’ and local struggles with population decline and economic deterioration in the Hungarian Countryside. Migrationonline. http://www.migrationonline.cz/e-library/?x=1972500. Accessed 5 Apr 2007.
  25. Szörényi, I. (2010). Új funkciók a vidéki térben: sikeres vidék, de hol? (New Functions in Rural Spaces: Successful countryside, but where?). In G. Barta, P. Beluszky, Z. Földi, & K. Kovács (Eds.), A Területi Kutatások Csomópontjai [The nodes of regional research] (pp. 72–89). Pécs: MTA Regionális Kutatás Központja.Google Scholar
  26. Tovey, H. (2008). Introduction: Rural sustainable development in the knowledge society era. Sociologia Ruralis, 48, 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tsing, A. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Váradi, M. (Ed.). (2008). Kistelepülésel lépéskényszerben [Small settlements under pressure]. Budapest: Új Mandátum.Google Scholar
  29. Wedel, J. (1998). Collision and collusion. The strange case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe 1989–1998. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wiber, M., & Turner, B. (2010). Moral talk. The ontological politics of sustainable development (Working Paper No. 123). Halle Saale: Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Social AnthropologyCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for Social AnthropologyHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations