No abstract

Since the start of cash transfer programmes in developing countries in the late 1990s and its spread, studies have demonstrated a variety of outcomes comprising education, health, and nutrition for the poorest households. These studies focused on macro analysis of programmes’ outcomes but paid little attention to an indepth micro study of the everyday intersubjective accounts and actions of local community focal persons and caregivers, which construct programme outcomes. The objective of this study is to highlight the everyday concrete outcomes of a cash transfer programme in Ejisu-Juaben Municipality in Ghana. This study draws on Foucault’s notion of subjectivation and discourse to construct a conversation and membership categorisation analyses framework to explore community focal persons’ and female caregivers’ conversations from focus group discussions. The Livelihood Empowerment against Poverty cash transfer programme in Ghana is the empirical case. This article demonstrates that caregivers and poor households arehappier, practice joint decision-making, and have cohesive social relations in poor households. Thus, localised programme outcomes improved participation in the decision-making, happiness, and social cohesion of beneficiary poor households. Evaluation mechanisms for programme outcomes could consider the everyday intersubjective accounts, practices of focal persons, caregivers/beneficiaries in poor households at the micro-level. Keywords: Social Protection, Ethnography, Discourse, Subjectivation, Governmentality

In contemporary societies, corporate organisations’ discourses are progressively colonising the everyday practices of individuals or collectives in organisational settings. In Ghana, the government mobilizes state institutions’ technologies for colonising the everyday practices of staff and management of public university organisations. One of such state institutional technologies and practices is the state’s migration of university staff onto the government mechanized payroll. The question is, how do state institutions colonize and control the everyday management practices of public university organisations including employee socialization practices, and what are the ramifications? Data for this study include text in the form of letters and press releases realised from mediated interactions between government institutions and university management and workers’ unions, and talk realised from interview. The data is analysed in relation to the new public universities’ management discourse inspired by dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse studies. This study demonstrates that the discursive practices of the government institutions and the migration of the staff of SDD-UBIDS onto the government mechanized payroll, IPPD2 technology is a political strategy to control public universities. The ramifications are that such institutionalized practices curtail academic freedom and competitiveness of public universities locally and globally as employees’ competing discursive practices, contestations and enactments are ignored. The highlight of this article is that, generally, in preparing the new public university bill and implementing new public universities’ regulations in Ghana, the government and the management of public universities strategically align and go along. However, an inclusive and pluralistic discourse to shape public universities’ regulation and management in Ghana to ensure academic freedom, and a competitive national and global higher education is badly needed.

Studies of social transfer targeting practices and mechanisms, including the proxy means test (PMT) instrument, have often assumed that the essential purpose of these mechanisms is to ensure fairness, cost-effectiveness and efficiency, yet there is limited consensus on their optimal performance. This article builds on recent studies of social transfer targeting practices in developing countries by providing a better interpretation of the power dynamics involved in ‘translating’ the PMT instrument at the intersection of official, public and cultural discourses. It is a Foucault-based study that combines ethnography and discourse studies to analyse the everyday actions and practices of programme officials and caregivers. This study demonstrates that officials legitimise and translate the PMT instrument, separate individuals from families, and constitute them as objects for governmental intervention to achieve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The re-categorisation of family members into households ‘outside’ of everyday sociocultural relations and practices is contested and resisted, creating a complex system of power relationships around the PMT.

No abstract