Local in Practice: Professional Distinctions in Angolan Development Work

Abstract

Development workers employed by international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are commonly classified as national (local) or international (expatriate) staff members. The distinction is presumed to reflect the varieties of expertise required for the work and the workers’ different biographies. I examine the experiences of Angolans working in an international democratization program to demonstrate how some professionals at the lowest tiers of international development NGOs engage in social practices that strategically emphasize or conceal certain skills, kinds of knowledge, or family circumstances to fulfill industry expectations of “local staff.” Doing so allows them access to employment with international organizations and pursuit of a variety of personal and professional goals. These practices reinforce hierarchical inequalities within the development industry, however, limiting these workers’ influence over programmatic action. I argue that professional distinctions among development workers are social achievements and instruments of strategic manipulation by individuals and NGOs rather than accurate reflections of work or workers. The case study provides insight into the institutional reproduction of hierarchical inequalities and the complexly social reasons why those who suffer their limitations may act in ways that reinforce, rather than resist, unequal social structures.

Linguistic Capital and Inequality in Aid Relations

“…One of the core assumptions of the development project is that the Global North contributes to the capacity building of the Global South through the dissemination of technical knowledge and ELT (Ferguson, 1990;Lewis and Mosse, 2006;Pennycook, 1994). At the same time the crucial language skills of national staff who are able to communicate both with international staff and with local beneficiaries remain unacknowledged (Peters, 2016), even though it would be impossible to carry out any form of 'capacity building' without their linguistic support. This reflects a disregard of understanding the complexities of translation (Baker, 2012) and the fact that translators and interpreters and the work they are doing tends to be invisible (Rosendo and Persaud, 2016).…”

“…The hegemony of English as the lingua franca in the aid system is expressed in the fact that monolingual English speakers can rely on bi- or multilingual colleagues (Méndez García and Pérez Cañado, 2005) who can use their language skills as ‘bridging capital’ (Heugh, 2013). At the same time, the language skills of national staff, in particular the knowledge of other vernacular languages is essentialised, taken for granted, and made invisible (Peters, 2016). In the racialised and stratified context of aid organisations and despite being a crucial resource, bi- and multilingualism can be a source of othering (Fortier, 2017).…”

Getting Creative with Data: Managing Relationships and Quantitative Proof in an Indian NGO

“…The majority of development workers in the existing scholarship appear to be most invested in their ties to the development community as a source of employment (O'Reilly 2011), prestige (Pigg 1993), legitimacy (Oni‐Orisan 2016), or moral worth (Barman 2016). Many “local” fieldworkers actively distance themselves from the communities they work with to align more closely with the development community (Pigg 1993; Shrestha 2006) or are distanced by the education and access necessary to secure even a low‐level job in development (Kingori 2013; Peters 2016).…”

Refusing the Development NGO? Departure, Dismissal, and Misrecognition in Angolan Development Interventions

“…Moreover, proximity to Huambo City meant a larger pool of candidates to staff the Chicala Cholohanga office as well as a more enticing place to which to relocate any staff members hired from elsewhere in Angola. Huambo City was, in fact, where the families of nearly the whole of the Bié Province staff lived despite being an entire day’s drive away—most GGAP staffers working in Andulo, in Bié Province, stayed there during the work week and commuted home to Huambo City for weekends, often traversing straight through Chicala Cholohanga on the way (see Peters 2016). At only a 45-minute drive from Huambo City, most of Chicala Cholohanga’s local government employees also lived there and commuted to the municipal offices each day; the GGAP held no objection to their implementation staff doing the same and for a period of time even offered municipal officers boléias (rides, lifts) in NGO vehicles to facilitate their commutes.…”