Third World Quarterly ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctwq20 Understanding the motivations and roles of national development experts in Ghana: ‘We do all the donkey work and they take the glory’ Emmanuel Kumi & Palash Kamruzzaman To cite this article: Emmanuel Kumi & Palash Kamruzzaman (2021) Understanding the motivations and roles of national development experts in Ghana: ‘We do all the donkey work and they take the glory’, Third World Quarterly, 42:6, 1157-1175, DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2021.1877127 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1877127 View supplementary material Published online: 12 Feb 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 395 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctwq20 Third World QuarTerly 2021, Vol. 42, No. 6, 1157–1175 https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1877127 Understanding the motivations and roles of national development experts in Ghana: ‘We do all the donkey work and they take the glory’ Emmanuel Kumia and Palash Kamruzzamanb aCentre for Social Policy Studies, university of Ghana, accra, Ghana; bSouth Wales Business School, university of South Wales, Pontypridd, Cardiff, uK ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY National development experts (NDEs) play unique roles as knowledge Received 12 January 2020 brokers, translators and gatekeepers between governments, intended Accepted 13 January 2021 beneficiaries and donors on various development policies and practices. KEYWORDS Due to their local contextual knowledge, they influence development National development activities at national levels by engaging in formulation and implemen- experts (NDEs) tation of development policies. However, discussion of their motivations development and roles has been particularly limited in the existing development aid ethnography literature. Drawing on 25 semi-structured interviews with the local staff white gaze of donor agencies and non-governmental organisations, independent inequality consultants, civil servants and academics in Ghana, this article presents Ghana findings on their motivations and roles within Ghana’s development landscape. We argue that while the motivations and roles of NDEs are similar in many ways to those of Western development experts, except their contextual understanding of national development issues, their contributions to development are so far excluded within the develop- ment literature. This article contributes to the emerging aid ethnogra- phy literature by providing a more comprehensive perspective on NDEs and deepens the scholarship by asking whether the exclusion of this group is a deliberate choice or unintended mistake. The article further highlights the perspectives of NDEs on their engagement with foreign experts and its implications for national development and future research. Introduction Development, as practised internationally, often appears to be an expert-driven process. In most instances, donor countries and/or multilateral organisations fund and support assorted programmes in developing countries, involving development experts to technicalise a prob- lem (Li 2007) and devise pathways to solve that problem, followed by implementation, monitoring, evaluation and dissemination of the related activities (Wilkins and Enghel 2013). Some scholars (see Easterly 2013; Hodge 2007; Hintjens 1999; Goulet 1980) think the roles of experts often go unscrutinised, but a growing body of literature under the broad category CONTACT emmanuel Kumi kumiandy3@gmail.com; ekumi@ug.edu.gh Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1877127. © 2021 Global South ltd 1158 E. KUMI AND P. KAMRUZZAMAN of ‘aid ethnography’ (see Mosse 2011; Lewis and Mosse 2006) critically looks into the roles of development experts within the field. These works are reflexive in nature and, in part, usually reflect the transnational character of development actors, where agendas of the Western actors routinely dominate (Schuurman 2009). These works offer rich details on expert engagement, highlighting the roles and motivations of their adventures in ‘aid-land’ (Mosse 2011), offering valuable insiders’ perspectives of the challenges involved in devel- opment work at first hand, and by making mistakes and gaining insights along the way. These accounts inform readers about what the Western international experts have learned through direct experience, and claim to constitute a new development narrative (Lewis 2014). While this article acknowledges the significance of these reflexive accounts, it also aims to reveal a gap: the accounts of development experts from developing countries (to distin- guish them from Western development experts, we call them national development experts (NDEs)1 in this article) are not available/visible in this regard (see Sundberg 2019; Kamruzzaman 2017 for exceptions). While acknowledging that some studies have focussed on local brokers’ positionality and agency in the context of peacekeeping and non-govern- mental organisations (NGOs) (see Autesserre 2010; Watkins, Swidler, and Hannan 2012), we argue the existing studies have failed to critically explore the motivations and roles of NDEs in development scholarship, especially in relation to aid ethnographies. Despite these actors being one of the protagonist groups in formulating national development policies, the existing literature has failed to rigorously study them, and therefore their roles and motiva- tions remain poorly understood. At present, there have been few or no empirical studies on the roles and motivations of NDEs in the context of developing countries. For this reason, NDEs remain an important but neglected set of actors in development policy and practice. Against this backdrop, this article seeks to address the knowledge gap by answering the following research questions: What are the motivations and roles of NDEs in development policy and practice in Ghana? What has informed the apparent exclusion of NDEs’ perspec- tives from the development literature, and does this exclusion have any implications for the development studies scholarship? We answer these questions by drawing on data from interviews with 25 Ghanaian NDEs, comprising local staff of donor agencies, NGO workers, development consultants, govern- ment officials, academics and think tank representatives in delineating their motivations and roles in the national development process. It is hoped these accounts will complement the current development literature but, at times, will also challenge the practice and (un) intended exclusion of NDEs in current development scholarship, especially in aid ethnog- raphies. This allows us to make important contributions to the literature. First, by presenting rich empirical evidence from Ghana, we offer a comprehensive per- spective of the roles and motivations of NDEs which, as of now, is invisible. The lesser rec- ognition of the NDEs in Ghana and their largely widespread invisibility on the main stage of the country’s development landscape, particularly in development projects supported by external donor aid, represent an existing inequality within international development archi- tecture. The roles and motivations highlighted in this article paint a clear picture of Ghana’s NDEs who are self-aware of their roles, with a positive aspiration to contribute and take greater ownership of national development. Exploring the perspectives of NDEs on their motivations and roles in development policy and practice therefore has the potential to help re-balance the current genre of aid ethnographies predominantly produced by Western THIRD WORLD QUARTERLy 1159 development professionals and aid workers. This, we contend, would create an opportunity to diversify the identities and authorships of those who shape and control development agendas. Second, by focussing on the perspectives of NDEs, this article contributes to the debates and discussions of race and development by potentially challenging the ‘white gaze’ problem and racialised representations/inequalities in development. In doing so, the empirical find- ings add to the current reflexive practices of aid ethnographies in minimising any (un)con- scious institutional reproduction of hierarchical inequalities. We also add to the critical scholarship of development arguing that various forms of aid relationships (see Eyben 2006) can often be used to maintain the extant hierarchy of international aid architecture and to reproduce the current hegemony in which the aid giver’s knowledge is deemed to be supe- rior than the recipient’s. The remainder of this article is organised as follows. The next section reviews the literature on development experts. The focus then turns to the research context and methodology, in the third section. The fourth section presents the research findings by drawing on data from interviews conducted with NDEs in Ghana. The final section discusses the research findings, following which some key implications and areas for future research are identified. Review of the literature on development experts The concept of development largely embodies the belief that, with help from development experts, positive social change can be engineered, directed and produced at will. As Escobar (1995, 194) insists, development experts consistently promote the idea that through ade- quate planning, poor countries can more or less smoothly move along the path of progress. Easterly (2013) describes this trend as technocratic development that is predominantly ruled by experts. The relationships of aid (Eyben 2006), manifested in mainstream development practice, also highlight how Western experts and consultants regulate the development process, where expertise is deemed to exist outside of the communities targeted for devel- opment interventions, which reinforces the unequal power relationships between developed and developing countries (Kothari 2005). For this reason, discourses of development mainly operate within a largely similar configuration of Western knowledge, where development experts broker, translate, transfer and apply the recipes for development through negotia- tions, mediations, translations and interpretations (Kamruzzaman 2017; Lewis and Mosse 2006). The social construction of (under)development is extremely important in understanding the gamut of development experts’ work. Knowledge about (under)development is con- structed mainly in Western institutions (eg universities and think tanks) but also in the prac- tice of development cooperation. Within this process, development experts exercise their power to determine what should be considered (under)development. Governments and donor organisations often employ experts as agents of change who are expected to devise development based on their expertise (Evers and Gerke 2005). Development experts officially support or endorse specific concepts and strategies that are meant to promote and deliver development. They generally describe themselves as facilitators of others’ (mainly poor, marginalised and vulnerable people) development and empowerment, rather than seeking power for themselves. They often despair at the bureaucratic, top-down operations of the 1160 E. KUMI AND P. KAMRUZZAMAN donor agencies, and still tend to exhibit what Brass (1995, 521) calls ‘a quasi-mystical belief in the efficacy of any/all discourse/action from below’. However, while some recent works focus on development experts (see Kothari 2005; Lewis and Mosse 2006), concerns remain about their role in development. In practice, in most developing countries, development experts play a significant role. Goulet (1980), how- ever, describes development experts as one-eyed giants who analyse variable social condi- tions and realities but still believe and suggest universal recipes that legitimise their knowledge power and expand the intellectual subordination of common masses. This anal- ogy is critically apt because, for Goulet, the one-eyed giant possesses scientific knowledge without wisdom. In understanding the roles and motivations of development experts, knowl- edge without wisdom potentially provides a useful metaphor. This is because the history of development is about looking at global poverty and other issues as technical problems that merely require the right expert solutions. Such an approach overlooks meaningful reform and redistribution of power and resources that are propping up various inequalities within societal structures. Development experts tend to depoliticise larger issues that cause societal problems. For example, Hodge (2007, 272) explains that development experts have historically depoliti- cised poverty under the compelling logic of the ‘laws of nature’. For Escobar (1995), devel- opment experts fail to acknowledge the continued inability of development approaches to deliver results that lessen inequality and reverse deteriorations in living conditions. Thus, according to Edwards (1989, 119), experts themselves are part of these failures and the system will never be able to deliver change ‘because the attitudes of the expert prevent people from thinking for themselves’. The ability of the development experts, who have learnt to appreciate the power and influence of those at the helm of affairs in national gov- ernments and in international circles, to push their own interests through has become quite clear (Bierschenk 1988). For Easterly (2013), this represents a tyranny of experts where national governments claim to be the custodians of economic development charged with promoting growth. Development agencies and experts justify themselves as advisors to these governments on how to raise growth. However, these development experts are neither held responsible (or accountable) nor are they materially affected by the policies they advo- cate or have advocated (Harrod 1982). With institutional authority and power (such as work- ing in major donor organisations), development experts may be seen as the heirs ‘to the missionary and the colonial officer’ (Easterly 2006, 24). This view is somewhat similar to Stirrat’s (2008, 407–408) argument in which he labels development experts as mercenaries, missionaries and misfits. It is quite surprising and unsurprising at the same time that very few studies discuss the motivations and roles of NDEs, as the above arguments are entirely meant for the develop- ment experts coming from the Western countries. It is surprising because one might wonder how the motivations and roles of NDEs are not included in the development scholarship while the roles of international development experts are explored from assorted perspectives (Mosse 2011; Lewis and Mosse 2006). As knowledge and development discourses are both produced and controlled in the West, it is also not unsurprising that NDEs are being excluded and invisible in the extant development literature, leading one to ask whether development is colour-blind (White 2002). In fact, as some commentators have argued, development is often framed in ‘white gaze’ and ‘whiteness’, which helps to establish and maintain asym- metrical power relations (Pailey 2020; Kothari 2006). This echoes Harrod’s (1982) claim that THIRD WORLD QUARTERLy 1161 the vocabulary of development experts has largely been the vocabulary of domination. For this reason, although the availability of qualified NDEs (by international standards) is grow- ing, in most developing countries, there still does not exist an effective independent domes- tic demand for the services of local experts while the countries and the NDEs are largely dependent on contracts with foreign donor agencies. Comparatively, although NDEs perform similar roles for various development projects, they generally are not able to take ownership of development (Brown 2017). Through per- sonal/professional networks and their resources as locals, NDEs help foreign aid agencies and development projects to manoeuvre bureaucratic regulations, producing cost-effec- tiveness and smooth operation at the national level (Sundberg 2019). However, despite often having the same qualifications and job descriptions as their international counterparts, NDEs generally enjoy less professional authority than their international colleagues do. In fact, foreign experts often hold leadership positions in field offices and supervise local staff who have much greater experience and understanding of contextual situations than these foreign experts themselves do (Shutt 2006; Peters 2016). Moreover, the knowledge and contributions of local actors are often not as recognised as those of foreign expatriates (Peters 2016). Hintjens (1999) also observes that when local experts are recruited, they are almost always paid only a fraction of what expatriates receive, for exactly the same work. For example, McWha (2011, 30) documents the existence of pay disparities between expa- triates and local staff in Cambodia, with expatriates ‘earning 10, 20, sometimes even 100 times the local salary’. This lesser professional authority makes local staff operate more like ‘contractors’ instead of the ‘architects’ of development (Wood 2013), resulting in lesser rec- ognition of the work of the NDEs. Another key distinction between NDEs and foreign experts is that NDEs are perceived as being much more concerned about the development of their own countries compared to foreigners. For instance, several scholars (see Stirrat 2008) criticise international devel- opment experts as less motivated by a desire to ‘do good’ or an interest in foreign cultures, and more by personal profit and career advancement. In some cases, this results in produc- ing views from afar (Mosse 2005). In stark contrast, the desire to do something good for the country, and their insider knowledge of the country contexts, might expose the NDEs to suspicions of ‘local bias’ and the risk of personally losing the trust of their foreign employer (Sundberg 2019). While the existing literature offers useful insights, it has tended to focus on the workings of power between expatriates and local aid workers, along the lines of structural racism, class, ‘white supremacy’ and differential salaries (Carr et al. 2010; Pailey 2020). In doing so, it neglects the motivations and roles of NDEs, and various other dynamics including power and class relations among NDEs. In the next section, we present our research context and discuss our methodology. Research context: NDEs in Ghana Ghana has over the past few decades enjoyed accolades as a ‘donor darling country’ and an example of Africa’s ‘iconic democratisers’. In 2010, sustained economic growth resulted in the country’s graduation to lower middle-income status (Kumi 2020). However, there remain 1162 E. KUMI AND P. KAMRUZZAMAN ongoing challenges of improving democratic quality, such as accountability and transpar- ency to citizens and reducing the levels of inequality (Gyimah-Boadi 2015). The country’s political and socio-economic conditions, coupled with the limited capacity of the government to meet all its developmental needs, have created an opportunity for NDEs to engage in the Ghanaian development policy landscape through their involvement with various think tanks, research institutes, consulting firms and NGOs, and as academics. Despite recently achieving lower middle-income country status (Kumi 2020), like many developing countries, Ghana lacks the ‘expertise to make critical analyses, data assessments, and in-depth research before policy decisions are made or existing policies are evaluated’ (Abraham 2019, 155). In addition to filling this gap, development partners and the Government of Ghana are keen to promote some form of national ownership within Ghana’s development agenda (Brown 2017), and therefore rely on NDEs in this endeavour.2 These Ghanaian development workers play important roles in influencing various socio-economic policies and promoting national development. Some insist that they have become reposi- tories of ideas for the government in formulating, promoting and implementing develop- ment policies while also educating the public in popularising the broader development agenda (Abraham 2019). In some cases, they are considered ‘wizards’ in policymaking pro- cesses because of their perceived expertise in scrutinising public policies (Ayee 2000). In the public sector, for example, civil servants act as institutional entrepreneurs who get things done by developing and institutionalising performance management reforms (Ohemeng and Kamga 2020). In fact, given the increasing emphasis attached to the power of ideas and the importance of good policy in solving development problems in Ghana, the role of this group in national development cannot be underestimated as they offer insider perspectives and expert services to development interventions. However, while there is a significant body of existing literature on development profes- sionals (see Eyben 2006; Fechter 2016), this work usually focuses on what Escobar (1995) calls transnational Western middle-class experts (eg expatriates and international consul- tants) rather than on ‘subordinate development professionals’ (Heathershaw 2016) from the developing countries. Thus, the existing literature has failed to tell the stories of Ghanaian development professionals (whom we identify as NDEs in this article) working in government and donor agencies, universities, research institutes, think tanks and NGOs. To the best of our knowledge, no scholarly work focuses on the roles and motivations of NDEs in develop- ment policy and practice in developing countries, including Ghana. Ghana is a particularly interesting case for understanding the motivations and roles of NDEs in development policy and practice in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) because although it is an aid-dependent country and has established relationships with development partners including foreign experts, in recent years, President Nana Akuffo Addo has spearheaded a ‘Ghana beyond aid agenda’ by promoting economic and social transformation and reducing the country’s dependence on external donors and foreign experts. In doing so, the country aims to utilise its own human resources, including NDEs, to promote national development and ownership of development priorities (Kumi 2020). The ‘Ghana beyond aid agenda’ has opened a large window for NDEs to take on significant roles in formulating and implementing development policies to actualise the country’s vision. However, the role of NDEs in national development is not yet recognised. While acknowledging that Ghana’s case might be exceptional because of its political and economic conditions, we expect that our study’s insights will be applicable to countries in THIRD WORLD QUARTERLy 1163 SSA like Tanzania and Angola, where NDEs have played significant roles in development policy and practice but where they have yet to be recognised for their contributions to national development. For instance, local/national aid workers in Tanzania, whom Sundberg (2019) describes as desk officers for their lower rank roles, help foreign aid agencies in manoeuvring and circumventing local bureaucratic regulations while advancing donor con- ditionality. yet despite this work, the Tanzanian aid workers often enjoyed less professional authority and were rarely able to attain managerial/high-level positions, because their exper- tise and roles were often not recognised. Thus, not only were the contributions of local Tanzanian aid workers largely ignored, they also were systematically marginalised. Similarly, Peters (2016, 497) demonstrates that although local Angolan staff play an important role in promoting the ‘localisation agenda’ in international development organisations, they largely seem ‘to occupy a certain field of significance in the international development industry that is akin to the “savage slot”’. Therefore, the lack of recognition of Ghanaian NDEs within its national development process is reminiscent of the situation in other SSA countries, where NDEs are playing significant roles in promoting national development, yet their contributions and roles have received relatively little attention in the development literature. A focus on this group thus can open up the potential of promoting aid effectiveness through localisation and national ownership of development priorities (Brown 2017). Methodology This article draws on qualitative research methodology to understand the roles and moti- vations of NDEs in Ghana. In total, 25 semi-structured interviews were conducted with the local staff of donor agencies, government officials, NGO workers, think tank representatives, development consultants and academics. The interviewees included directors, managers and officers who were actively involved in formulating, designing and implementing various development policies in Ghana. They were also in charge of everyday management of devel- opment policies and interventions; their tasks included monitoring and evaluation, com- missioning audits and research work, and engaging in negotiations with politicians and development partners. All interviewees selected had worked in the development sector for at least nine years. Some interviewees had more than 25 years of development experience and considered themselves ‘specialists’ or ‘experts’ in their areas of engagement. For this reason, participants were purposively selected because of their unique experience and expertise with Ghana’s development policies. The findings explored in this article draw on two distinctive phases of data collection. The first phase took place between July and September 2017, when 10 interviews were conducted. In phase two 15 interviews were conducted, between September and December 2018. Based on initial contacts established by the researchers, emails were sent to NDEs requesting their participation in the research. Once they had agreed to participate, the NDEs, via snowballing, introduced the researchers to their colleagues working in ministries, agen- cies and departments, donor agencies, NGOs, think tanks, consulting firms and universities. It is important to mention that the personal background of one of the authors, as a former international NGO employee, contributed to a sense of shared professional identity and understanding with interviewees. This created an opportunity for the authors to ask sensitive questions about subjects such as power and salary differentials and the use of personal contacts and networks in influencing national development policies. The authors exercised 1164 E. KUMI AND P. KAMRUZZAMAN a great deal of reflexivity in minimising potential biases and maintaining objectivity when speaking to interviewees. The interviews took place mainly in Accra because of its unique position as the seat of government and headquarters of many development organisations (eg NGOs, think tanks and donor agencies). Outside of Accra, we also interviewed a development consultant in Tamale and two academics in Kumasi and Cape Coast, respectively. The design of the topic list for the semi-structured interviews was informed by a review of the existing literature on NDEs, and the interviews focussed on the subjects’ professional journeys in development (eg career histories and educational background), personal motivations for engaging in development work, understanding of NDEs, experiences engaging with foreign development experts (FDEs), and perceptions about the roles, merits, demerits, power dynamics and inter- ests of NDEs and FDEs in Ghana’s development (see Online Appendix 1 for interview guide). Interviews lasted between one and two hours; they were conducted in English and recorded with interviewees’ consent. These were later transcribed and analysed using NVivo 12. Data analysis was inductive and iterative and followed a thematic process. For Braun and Clarke (2006), thematic analysis involves seven steps: familiarisation with the data, generating initial themes, searching and reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and report production. To ensure interviewees’ anonymity and confidentiality, we anonymised their names and organisations as part of the analytical process. Findings In this section, we present the empirical evidence collected in Ghana. The analysis of inter- view data is structured around the motivations and roles of NDEs. The specific themes are supported with direct quotes from the interviewees we questioned. Motivations of NDEs This study found that the national identity of the interviewees as Ghanaians emerged as an important motivator for their engagement in development work. Irrespective of differences in identity (ie gender, ethnicity, educational background, positions, professional experience, salary), there was a consensus among interviewees that they were mainly driven by the passion to do something positive for their country. They expressed that through their work, they could bring about change that will improve the socio-economic and political conditions in Ghana. For this reason, patriotism and altruism seem to be strong determining factors for many interviewees to engage in development work. As one interviewee stated: ‘I think that Ghanaian development experts are more interested in working for the development of the country and have a great sense of patriotism for their country’ (interview, civil servant, July 19, 2017). It was explained that NDEs’ motivations were ‘genuinely to help our people’ and represent selfless acts, where they were able to use their technical capacities to help the government to better conceptualise development policies aimed at improving the lives of Ghanaians. For some interviewees, their motivations stemmed from finding solutions to the numer- ous development challenges confronting Ghana. Thus, their motivations were fuelled by the desire to achieve ‘progress’ in Ghanaian societies. For instance, a legal practitioner with THIRD WORLD QUARTERLy 1165 over 21 years’ work experience, who moved into the field of advocacy NGOs, shared her motivation by noting that I have found my calling and I really believe and I have seen with my eyes what activism and advocacy can achieve. For me, I can actually see the change this brings about and it is encour- aging that my life is worth something. (interview, NGO staff, September 26, 2018) Many interviewees explained that they were motivated not by financial gain but by seeing smiles on the faces of disadvantaged, marginalised people. Several interviewees (eg gov- ernment officials, consultants and NGO workers) mentioned that if their motivation had been based on financial gain, they would have left their current job for work in the telecom- munications, banking or mining sector. This was illustrated by a development consultant who stated that ‘my motivation is to see smiles on people’s faces, and that’s what’s keeping me still for 14 years, I wouldn’t say it’s because of the money, if it was, I would have left long time ago’ (interview, development consultant, August 19, 2017). The findings so far presented suggest that some Ghanaian NDEs’ could be thought of as missionaries, showing personal moral commitment and enthusiasm towards addressing the needs of the poor. For instance, one interviewee argued that ‘I can practise commercial law and make millions of monies but it is nothing like seeing a woman sitting before you and just being grateful because of the work you have done, it has brought about some change in her life and that is worth more’ (interview, NGO staff, September 26, 2018). Other interviewees suggested that their engagement in development work brought per- sonal fulfilment that cannot be quantified in monetary terms. Thus, the interviewees did not see their engagement in development work as a means of making ‘quick money’, but were interested in or concerned about helping people in need. One interviewee working for a research institute shared his experience by arguing that ‘some field of work pay far better but if I go there, I might not have the satisfaction, I might not be able to contribute to policy discussions’ (interview, researcher, October 3, 2018). This demonstrates that the motivation of some NDEs was not based solely on monetary grounds but arose from their ability to contribute meaningfully to national development. In doing so, self-realisation and job sat- isfaction became important motivating factors for NDEs, as they were able to make a differ- ence in the lives of their fellow citizens. Many NDEs said that it is satisfying to see their involvement in development work has directly contributed to improving lives. As one inter- viewee stated: ‘the desire to bring change in the lives of children and put smile on their faces is what keeps me going’ (interview, NGO staff, September 27, 2018). This notwithstanding, we found some differences in the motivations of NDEs as a portion of those interviewed, especially government officials and private-sector workers, emphasised that they were driven in part by economic gain, career goals and aspirations, and the desire to acquire a new skill set. These interviewees were motivated in part by their self-interest and could thus be termed mercenaries. In doing so, they expressed the view that after working in the development sector for over a decade or so, they needed to upgrade them- selves by acquiring new skill set. For this reason, some civil servants we spoke to explained that they wanted to leave their jobs for further studies abroad in order to improve their skills. Some interviewees explained that their exit from the public sector was largely for reasons of their personal growth and professional motives. They emphasised that they were inter- ested in acquiring new knowledge which would help them better contribute to the devel- opment of Ghana, and also to become ‘a big man in society’, as noted by one interviewee. 1166 E. KUMI AND P. KAMRUZZAMAN Directly related to the desire to acquire new skills was the motivation to make money. Despite the heterogeneity in NDEs in terms of demographical and professional backgrounds, what we found remarkable was that many interviewees seeking to make money felt that they had contributed their quota to national development. Against this background, they were of the view that they could make enough money if they used their experience to join larger, multilateral organisations such as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization or the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. The reasons cited included the ability of the multilateral institutions to meaningfully build on and utilise their expertise and capac- ity, compared to working for government institutions. When asked why they would want to leave the public sector, a senior civil servant with over 10 years working experience stated: Not so much of a frustration, I think that at some point in time, I feel I have contributed enough; I have to make more money […]. I have been involved in the preparation of policy guidelines like the Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda. I think when I leave, I can leverage on my experience to do even more in other sectors, but then it will be financially rewarding because if you have more experience, you can do more and make a lot of money. (interview, government official, September 26, 2018) The above quotation suggests that some interviewees used their professional identities to further their personal interests and material benefits. However, it also clearly demonstrates that while some NDEs were motivated by money, they also had a commitment to addressing national development challenges. Roles of NDEs in national development Without exception, all interviewees observed that NDEs are important stakeholders in Ghana’s development because of the roles they play in addressing the socio-economic and political challenges in the country. Analysis of interview data suggests that the roles of NDEs could be categorised as: (1) translating local needs into policy formulation and research dissemination; (2) influencing government through advocacy and policy dialogue; and (3) brokering relationships among governments, donors and intended beneficiaries. These are discussed below. Firstly, NDEs in Ghana, irrespective of their sector of operation (ie public service, NGO, academia) and through their technical expertise, are translating local needs into policies, spearheading policy formulation, recommending new technologies and best practices towards aid utilisation, and promoting development in the country. Many interviewees working as NGO staff and civil servants explained that their technical expertise helped them to translate the needs of Ghanaians into meaningful development policies. For instance, an official at the National Development Planning Commission (hereafter the Commission) spoke about the significant role he played in the formulation of policies, including the Ghana Shared Growth and Development Agenda. He explained that NDEs at the Commission were respon- sible for ‘planning guidelines for the preparation of medium-term plans by various sector ministries, departments, agencies and assemblies’. This, he maintained, goes a long way towards ensuring that development plans and policies capture the needs and aspirations of Ghanaians. Similarly, an officer at the Bank of Ghana had this to say about the role of NDEs in translating local needs into policy formulation: THIRD WORLD QUARTERLy 1167 For our democratic system, the power is with the politician. So, when s/he has a vision, s/he will make his/her manifesto, but we [NDEs] stand in the middle ground to be able to assess the manifesto, draft policies based on the manifesto and take it to the level of implementation […] we are in charge of the drafting of the policies and we also assess how the policies will have an impact on people’s lives. (interview, Bank of Ghana staff, October 4, 2018) The quotation above clearly indicates that NDEs acted as development intermediaries between patrons (ie politicians) and clients (ie citizens). In this regard, NDEs were positioned as development brokers responsible for the mediation, translation and operationalisation of policies into actual implementation to improve the lives of Ghanaians. Democratising policy decisions through various dissemination processes are also reflective of NDEs’ tech- nical expertise. A university lecturer explained this further by suggesting that NDEs have contributed to Ghana’s democratic dispensation through their research dissemination and publications because ‘without them [NDEs], we cannot have a complete democratic system’ (interview, lecturer, July 14, 2018). Secondly, another important role played by NDEs, especially think tanks and research institutes, relates to influencing the Ghanaian government through advocacy and policy dialogue. For instance, in the area of democracy, energy and economic policy, a number of interviewees explained that think tanks and research institutions like the Centre for Democratic Governance, African Centre for Energy Policy and Institute for Statistical, Social and Economic Research shape and influence government policies. In fact, these think tanks and research institutes, as some interviewees argued, are highly influential because they act as policy entrepreneurs by advocating for policy changes in the country. In doing so, they draw attention to policy problems, build coalitions and garner support, and present policy solutions to address Ghana’s developmental challenges. An interviewee summed the advo- cacy role of NDEs by stating that ‘we do advocacy to get more evidence so that it can be used to influence government policies’ (interview, think tank staff, August 12, 2017). According to a number of interviewees, NDEs’ advocacy-related activities were aimed at holding the government to account. For instance, it was reported that as a result of advocacy work undertaken by civil society organisations, including the Ghana Coalition of NGOs in Health, communities with limited health facilities have received support from the local and national government. The advocacy works of some anti-corruption crusaders have also helped in holding the government accountable for its actions, as explained by an interviewee who stated that ‘we [NDEs] make sure that accountability is enforced so that the monies are used judiciously for the development of the country’ (interview, social activist, October 5, 2018). Thirdly, analysis of interview data revealed that NDEs play significant brokering roles between governments, donors and intended beneficiary communities. Some NGO staff and civil servants explained that they identified the needs of beneficiaries at the community level and highlighted their plight to the government and donor agencies for the necessary services to be provided. For instance, speaking about the brokering and intermediary role, one staff member of an international NGO remarked: We communicate the people’s challenges to the donors […]. When the funds come and the project is implemented, we communicate to the donors through the eyes of the children. That child talks about what that project has benefitted him/her and other children in the 1168 E. KUMI AND P. KAMRUZZAMAN communities. So, there is that exchange of communication between the donor and the com- munity and we play a key role. (interview, NGO staff, August 12, 2017) Due to their understanding of the local contexts, some interviewees also reported that they served as brokers with insider knowledge of Ghanaian policies and practices, especially when dealing with donor agencies. An interviewee working for a bilateral donor agency explained that his foreign colleague workers/expatriates often relied on local staff because They [foreign staff ] always lack an understanding of the context in which we work. As a local person, I have more knowledge and understanding about the local context and I am able to appreciate local issues more than them. They are not able to appreciate our socio-cultural and political contexts of most problems. (interview, donor agency staff, October 3, 2018) To some interviewees, local staff of donor agencies have the expertise because they are ‘homebred and understand the context better than an expatriate no matter how experienced the expatriate might be’ (interview, donor agency staff, September 27, 2017). In addition, it was explained that local staff of donor agencies also help their foreign colleagues to adjust to the Ghanaian environment by providing them context-specific trainings. Thus, local staff play important roles, such as in sharing knowledge and experiences that aid the adjustments of newly recruited foreign experts. An interviewee with over 15 years of working experience in an embassy explained that ‘all the foreign staff in-house currently come to me for advice and they respect my views’ because he had been there for a long time and had developed an institutional memory of the organisation (interview, donor agency staff, November 12, 2018). Interviewees further argued that they helped in bridging relationships between the Government of Ghana and development partners to ensure that commitments to develop- ment agreements were fulfilled. It was argued that during such engagements with donor representatives, national interests often superseded personal interests. Personal networks and connections with Ghanaian colleagues working in donor organisations were often uti- lised to ensure that national interests were best served. This was confirmed by many local staff of donor agencies, who argued that their identity as Ghanaians made them more inter- ested in the development of Ghana even though they work for the donor agencies. They are thought to be more passionate about Ghana’s development than their foreign counter- parts are. One interviewee, for example, stated that ‘they [foreigners] cannot be more catholic than the pope’ – meaning foreign expatriates cannot be more interested in Ghana’s devel- opment than its own citizens. Using the case of European expatriates and consultants, the interviewee added that ‘they fly in one or two weeks, and they are gone, but the bulk of the work is done by the local experts’ (interview, NGO staff, December 12, 2018). A key concern raised by many interviewees irrespective of differences in their professional experience and positions within donor agencies was that in their engagements with foreign experts, they occupied the lower rungs of the organisational hierarchy but performed the majority of the work, only for their foreign counterparts to claim the glory for the work done, due to their leadership positions and managerial superiority in field offices. For instance, an interviewee who works at a European embassy remarked: ‘we do all the donkey work and they take the glory’ (interview, donor agency staff, September 28, 2018). Another NGO staff member shared the same sentiment and frustration of foreign experts taking the credit for their work by putting it this way: THIRD WORLD QUARTERLy 1169 we always do the biggest chunk of the work […]. They [the foreign experts] ask us to submit the report to them for reviewing, and they will submit it as if they did the work, in most cases without even acknowledging us. (interview, NGO staff, October 14, 2018) These statements are a demonstration of systematised power inequities with regard to the engagements between NDEs and FDEs, as the former do the majority of the work but receive little or no recognition for their efforts. Discussion This article examines the motivations and roles of NDEs as an important but neglected set of actors in development policy and practice. Drawing on data from interviews in Ghana, our findings suggest that for Ghanaian NDEs, their participation in development work is predominantly motivated by altruistic values, although some are also driven by financial incentives. We found that altruistic values, driven largely by a sense of patriotism and the desire to see improvement in the lives of Ghanaian citizens, are the overarching motivation of NDEs. The empirical evidence presented in this study supports previous findings that development professionals are motivated by both self-interest and a humanitarian impulse, being what Stirrat (2008) referred to as ‘pure mercenaries’ and missionaries. In the case of Ghana, the evidence presented above suggests that while many NDEs might have started their involvement in development as missionaries, with time they became mercenaries because they believed they had contributed their quota to national development and there- fore now had to make money. The feeling of having contributed enough to Ghana’s devel- opment was somewhat common among a number of NDEs with several years of experience. Since these individuals have advanced in their careers, they were of the view that it was easier to continue making money within the development sector as they perceived them- selves as ‘established experts and specialists’ in the field, and are known by both the Government of Ghana and the donor community. Working with established consultants and experts gives assurance to the government and donors that their money will be put to good use, because of the trust and credibility they have built for themselves. In addition, they know how to play by the government’s and donors’ rules and how to please them by satis- fying their demands. However, unlike the typical mercenaries described by Stirrat (2008), the evidence from Ghana suggests that while NDEs think about the financial incentives associated with devel- opment work, they also care very much about how their development interventions impact the lives of Ghanaians. Plausible explanations for these mixed motives include their national identity as Ghanaians, understanding the local context within which they operate and their personal experience of poverty and underdevelopment. For instance, many NDEs attested that their experience of extreme poverty served as a key motivating factor for their involve- ment in development work; as explained by a senior government official, ‘it is about my own experience of poverty and the need that when I grow up, I should be supporting a humanity course’ (interview, government official, October 12, 2018).3 For this reason, we argue that while Stirrat’s (2008) categorisation of development professionals as mercenaries is useful, the evidence from Ghana suggests that NDEs are not out of touch with the world of the poor nor are they detached from local realities, because they do not usually occupy the highest positions in society and therefore cannot be described as national elites. Our findings have 1170 E. KUMI AND P. KAMRUZZAMAN therefore shown that while some NDEs may have financial motivations including career mobility and meeting basic needs, they also tend to have ‘noble intentions’ of bringing about meaningful change in society and meeting the needs of Ghanaians (Shutt 2006). This affirms existing studies that question the false binary between altruism and selfishness among development workers (see Fechter 2016). The empirical evidence from Ghana further shows that NDEs play crucial roles in the country’s development by acting as knowledge brokers, providing insiders’ perspectives and contextual knowledge on Ghana’s development policies. Our findings indicate that NDEs act as boundary spanners between the worlds of government, donor agencies and community members (Mosse 2011; Lewis and Mosse 2006). In doing so, they serve as assem- blers and connective agents that bring together government and donor agencies, often by relying on their personal connections to get things done quickly rather than by following official bureaucratic procedures. Our research findings corroborate Sundberg’s (2019) work on the positive role of informal relations among aid workers. Our findings further underscore the gatekeeping role of NDEs in their engagement with foreign expatriates. In this regard, they act as reservoirs of organisational knowledge and provide instrumental and emotional support for their foreign expatriates. The research fur- ther highlights that NDEs are crucial actors who translate local needs into policy frameworks. Since the Ghanaian government lacks the human resource expertise, NDEs are relied upon in supplementing the activities of the government when it comes to the building of national development policies. They also influence national development policies and agendas through their engagement in advocacy activities and policy dialogues as well as the dissem- ination of research to inform policymaking. Our findings thus corroborate the work of pre- vious researchers (see for example, Abraham 2019; Ohemeng and Kamga 2020) emphasising the involvement of think tanks in shaping and influencing policymaking processes through policy advocacy. Conclusion This article has explored the motivations and roles of NDEs in Ghanaian development policy and practice. In particular, the analysis of the empirical evidence suggests that while the motivations and roles of NDEs are similar in many ways to those of Western development experts, discussions of NDEs and their contributions to national development in many devel- oping countries, including Ghana, remain unexplored within the scholarship of development studies. As we highlight in this study, NDEs are prominent actors in Ghana’s policymaking processes who offer a highly sophisticated range of professional skills and competencies. yet the existing development literature is silent on this important group of develop- ment actors. While recognising that there is an emerging literature on local aid workers (see Peters 2016; Sundberg 2019; Heathershaw 2016), this literature too fails to capture the full range of national-level development workers that we conceptualise as NDEs. The existing studies mainly focus on local professionals working for NGOs and donor agencies, to the neglect of actors such as senior civil servants, local diplomats, political leaders, former bureaucrats, national consultants and academics. In fact, as Kamruzzaman (2017, 54) rightly observes in Bangladesh, NDEs cannot be fully understood through the concept of national elites because ‘they do not necessarily occupy the powerful and economically dominant positions of the THIRD WORLD QUARTERLy 1171 society’, although they may have some connection with local political elites. Our study, therefore, underscores NDEs as a crucial yet understudied actor in development, playing variable yet highly significant roles in many developing countries. Informed by the findings of our research and the present exclusion of NDEs from the existing development literature, in understanding the second research question of this article (see the introduction), we argue that the exclusion of NDEs from the development literature may be deliberate but at the same time could be an innocent omission on the part of Western scholars and aid-ethnographers. In terms of deliberate exclusion, we anticipate that this may be because of the colour-blind nature of development (White 2002). Existing development scholarship privileges western expertise, resulting in the exclusion of local knowledge. Thus, we assume that the perspectives of NDEs are not incorporated into most development lit- erature because development is racialised, or structured in hierarchies of race, where non- white or non-Western knowledge and expertise are considered secondary. Here, Western knowledge is privileged while non-Western perspectives are ignored and made invisible (Roth 2019). This is due in part to the emphasis on Western technical expertise which tends to devalue the expertise of NDEs. The lack of representation of NDEs’ perspectives in devel- opment scholarship is therefore an indication of the existence of structural bias or discrim- ination within the development architecture which starkly contradicts the ideals of development that supposedly aims to reduce inequality. Promoting racial equality within development has been a contradiction that development stakeholders have faced for decades due to the increasing emphasis on the ‘white gaze’ of development (Pailey 2020). We are of the view that the politics of knowledge creation and expertise based on racial identity deserve significant attention in development research, because the perspectives of NDEs on development policies are at present mainly written by white academics and researchers despite their perceived ‘limited understanding’ of the socio-cultural and political context within which development often takes place (see eg Lewis and Mosse 2006; Peters 2016; Sundberg 2019). This in some ways supports Goulet’s (1980) argument that development experts have scientific knowledge but lack wisdom. The lack of wisdom can be likened to the lack of understanding of traditions and indigenous values or contextual knowledge by white/ Western scholars and development professionals. This makes it difficult for them to present a holistic perspective on development issues at the local level. In this regard, development suffers from the white-gaze problem where ‘Western whiteness remains a signifier of exper- tise’ (Pailey 2020, 731). Therefore, we suggest that the lack of discussion of NDEs in main- stream development scholarship could be a wilful silence on the part of development scholars and practitioners. In particular, when white/Western development scholars are silent about NDEs, as Kothari (2006, 20) suggests, it allows them to ‘avoid being accountable for the power, privileges and inequalities that continue to flow from whiteness’. The lack of NDE representation in existing development scholarship creates a knowledge gap that can have serious implications for efforts aimed at ‘opening up development’. As Kamruzzaman (2017) highlights, the lack of attention to NDEs might result in ‘partial devel- opment ethnographies’. In particular, the lack of NDEs’ perspectives has the potential to result in partial, biased and non-holistic ‘aid ethnography’. This in turn could lead to reinforc- ing existing inequalities within international development architecture. Therefore, incorpo- rating the perspectives of NDEs in development scholarship will serve to re-balance the predominantly Western development professionals’ and aid workers’ voices. In so doing, it 1172 E. KUMI AND P. KAMRUZZAMAN will help shed light on the question of why development works or does not work in different contexts. Thus, understanding how different contexts influence the success or failure of development interventions in many developing countries requires attending to a discussion of NDEs and how they influence/limit development. In echoing Pailey’s (2020, 732) argument, we contend that until the views of NDEs are incorporated into development discourses, policy and practice, development will continue to suffer from the white gaze problem. We therefore see research on NDEs as an opportunity to diversify the identities of those who shape and control development scholarship. While this research has offered some useful insights on NDEs, we are aware that the findings on which this article is based come from a single-country case study. In this regard, the observations highlighted here are not universal. For this reason, further research on NDEs is needed in other country contexts. First, it will be interesting for future research to examine the limitations of NDEs in influencing and driving development policies at the national level. For instance, exploring the relationships between NDEs (eg policymakers, academics, consultants) and politicians and how the latter influence and shape national development issues would provide useful insights into the politics of policymaking. Here, it would be interesting to know whether it is the NDEs or the politicians who control national development policies, and what the implications are for development. Moreover, exploring the perceptions of politicians about NDEs and foreign expatriates, and why politicians tend to value the latter more than the former, would also provide useful insights. Second, future research should examine power relations between and among NDEs and foreign expatriates, and the agency, strategies and manoeuvring room of these actors in their engagements. Here, research that focuses on understanding whether NDEs succumb to or challenge demands and pressures from foreign expatriates, and vice versa, would be particularly useful. Such analysis will help shed light on critical issues including race, hierarchy in expertise and knowledge creation, and the influence of the white gaze on development policies in many developing countries. Third, although this article highlighted that NDEs are not a homogeneous group, a detailed analysis of the professional distinctions (eg differential treatments in terms of gen- der, educational background and positions) within the population of NDEs is outside the scope of this research. For this reason, a comparative study that addresses these differences would, therefore, be particularly useful. Acknowledgements We thank Victor Essel for his support towards the conduction of the fieldwork in Ghana. We are also grateful to the respondents for their participation in this research. Disclosure statement We declare that we have no potential conflict of interest. Funding This work was supported by the University of South Wales, United Kingdom, under the Dean’s Research Fund. THIRD WORLD QUARTERLy 1173 Notes on contributors Emmanuel Kumi is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Social Policy Studies of the University of Ghana. He is particularly interested in the political economy of development with regards to aid relations, local aid workers, NGOs and sustainability. He is additionally interested in civic space, civil society advocacy, sustainable development and African philanthropy. Palash Kamruzzaman is a Senior Lecturer in social policy at the University of South Wales, UK. He is the author of Poverty Reduction Strategies in Bangladesh – Rethinking Participation in Policy-making (2014) and Dollarisation of Poverty – Rethinking Poverty beyond 2015 (2015), and the editor of Civil Society in the Global South (2019). He has also published in the areas of approaches to development, participation in policymaking, aid ethnographies, global development goals (eg SDGs, MDGs), civil society and extreme poverty. Notes 1. In this article, we follow Kamruzzaman (2017, 42) in defining NDEs as ‘people whose main in- come is derived from working as self-employed consultants or from being employed by the government, non-governmental and external agencies specifically to formulate, implement and assess development policies, programmes and projects in their country of residence’. NDEs comprise academics, bureaucrats, civil society workers, consultants, former United Nations staff, think tank representatives and researchers (for a detailed discussion of NDEs, see Kamruzzaman 2017). However, while this conceptualisation provides useful insights, in the context of Ghana it does not capture the full range of actors we consider to be NDEs. For this reason, we include politicians, mid-senior government officials working in ministries, agencies and departments, and the staff of policy-oriented private-sector organisations. In doing so, our conceptualisation focuses not only on local aid workers but on the full range of stakeholders involved in policy formulation and implementation aimed at promoting Ghana’s develop- ment. 2. Although comprehensive data on the number of NDEs in Ghana is lacking, it is believed that majority of the workforce in the development sector is recruited locally. For example, accord- ing to the Ghana Statistical Service 2015 Labour Force Report, 124,817; 34,070; and 9517 Ghanaians were employed, respectively, in the civil service, NGOs and international organisa- tions (Ghana Statistical Service 2016). 3. As the empirical evidence highlights, it is their contextual understanding of local realities of poverty and underdevelopment that infuses their personal moral commitment to helping the poor. This demonstrates the significance of moral labour (ie people’s desire to help others) as a motivating factor for the engagement of NDEs in development work (Fechter 2016). ORCID Emmanuel Kumi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8318-8499 Palash Kamruzzaman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6363-7186 Bibliography Abraham, K. A. A. 2019. “The Role and Activities of Policy Institutes for Participatory Governance in Ghana.” In Public Policy Research in the Global South: A Cross Country Perspective, edited by H. M. Grimm, 151–170. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Autesserre, S. 2010. The Trouble with the Congo: Local Violence and the Failure of International Peacebuilding. New york: Cambridge University Press. Ayee, J. R. A. 2000. Saints, Wizards, Demons, and Systems: Explaining the Success and Failure of Public Policies and Programmes. Accra: Ghana Universities Press. 1174 E. KUMI AND P. KAMRUZZAMAN Bierschenk, T. 1988. “Development Projects as Arenas of Negotiation for Strategic Groups. A Case Study from Benin.” Sociologia Ruralis 28 (2–3): 146–160. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.1988.tb01035.x. Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. Brass, T. 1995. “Old Conservatism in ‘New’ Clothes.” Journal of Peasant Studies 22 (3): 516–540. doi:10.1080/03066159508438585. Brown, S. 2017. “Foreign Aid and National Ownership in Mali and Ghana.” Forum for Development Studies 44 (3): 335–356. doi:10.1080/08039410.2017.1344728. Carr, S. C., I. McWha, M. MacLachlan, and A. Furnham. 2010. “ International-local remuneration differences across six countries: do they undermine poverty reduction work??” International Journal of Psychology: Journal International de Psychologie 45 (5): 321–340. doi:10.1080/00207594.2010.491990. Easterly, W. 2013. The Tyranny or Experts: Economists, Dictators and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor. New york: Basic Books. Easterly, W. 2006. The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done so Much Ill and so Little Good. New york: Penguin Press. Edwards, M. 1989. “The Irrelevance of Development Studies.” Third World Quarterly 11 (1): 116–135. doi:10.1080/01436598908420142. Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering Development - The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Evers, H.-D., and S. Gerke. 2005. “Knowledge is Power: Experts as a Strategic Group.” ZEF Working Paper 8a, Centre for Development Research (ZEF). Bonn: University of Bonn. Eyben, R., ed. 2006. Relationships for Aid. Oxon: Earthscan. Fechter, A. M. 2016. “Aid Work as Moral Labour.” Critique of Anthropology 36 (3): 228–243. doi:10.1177/ 0308275X16646837. Ghana Statistical Service. 2016. 2015 Labour Force Report. Accra: Ghana Statistical Service. Goulet, D. 1980. “Development Experts: The One-Eyed Giants.” World Development 8 (7–8): 481–489. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(80)90033-9. Gyimah-Boadi, E. 2015. “Africa’s Waning Democratic Commitment.” Journal of Democracy 26 (1): 101–113. doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0000. Harrod, J. 1982. “Development Studies: From Change to Stabilization.” In Rethinking Development, edited by B. de Gaay Fortman, 1–19. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies. Heathershaw, J. 2016. “Who Are the ‘International Community’? Development Professionals and Liminal Subjectivity.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 10 (1): 77–96. doi:10.1080/17502977. 2015.1137395. Hintjens, H. 1999. “The Emperor’s New Clothes: A Moral Tale for Development Experts?” Development in Practice 9 (4): 382–395. doi:10.1080/09614529952873. Hodge, J. M. 2007. Triumph of the Expert Agrarian Doctrines of Development and the Legacies of British Colonialism. Athens: Ohio State University Press. Kamruzzaman, P. 2017. “Understanding the Role of National Development Experts in Development Ethnography.” Development Policy Review 35 (1): 39–63. doi:10.1111/dpr.12200. Kothari, U. 2005. “Authority and Expertise: The Professionalisation of International Development and the Ordering of Dissent.” Antipode 37 (3): 425–446. doi:10.1111/j.0066-4812.2005.00505.x. Kothari, U. 2006. “An Agenda for Thinking about ‘Race’ in Development.” Progress in Development Studies 6 (1): 9–23. doi:10.1191/1464993406ps124oa. Kumi, E. 2020. “From Donor Darling to beyond Aid? Public Perceptions of ‘Ghana beyond Aid.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 58 (1): 67–90. doi:10.1017/S0022278X19000570. Lewis, D., and D. Mosse. 2006. Development Brokers and Translators: The Ethnography of Aid Agencies. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Lewis, D. 2014. “Commodifying Development Experience: Deconstructing Development as Gift in the Development Blockbuster.” Anthropological Forum 24 (4): 440–453. doi:10.1080/00664677.2 013.863144. Li, T. M. 2007. The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of Politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. THIRD WORLD QUARTERLy 1175 McWha, I. 2011. “The Roles of, and Relationships between, Expatriates, Volunteers, and Local Development Workers.” Development in Practice 21 (1): 29–40. doi:10.1080/09614524.2011.530225. Mosse, D. 2011. “The Anthropology of Expertise and Professionals in International Development.” In Adventures in Aidland: The Anthropology of Professionals in International Development, edited by D. Mosse, 1–32. Oxford: Berghahn. Mosse, D. 2005. Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice. London: Pluto Press. Ohemeng, F. L., and O. Kamga. 2020. “Administrative Leaders as Institutional Entrepreneurs in Developing Countries: A Study of the Development and Institutionalization of Performance Management in Ghana’s Public Service.” Public Administration and Development 40 (1): 87–100. doi:10.1002/pad.1867. Pailey, R. N. 2020. “De‐Centring the ‘White Gaze’of Development.” Development and Change 51 (3): 729–745. doi:10.1111/dech.12550. Peters, R. W. 2016. “Local in Practice: Professional Distinctions in Angolan Development Work.” American Anthropologist 118 (3): 495–507. doi:10.1111/aman.12597. Roth, S. 2019. “Linguistic Capital and Inequality in Aid Relations.” Sociological Research Online 24 (1): 38–54. doi:10.1177/1360780418803958. Schuurman, F. J. 2009. “Critical Development Theory: Moving out of the Twilight Zone.” Third World Quarterly 30 (5): 831–848. doi:10.1080/01436590902959024. Shutt, C. 2006. “Power in Aid Relationships: A Personal View.” IDS Bulletin 37 (6): 79–87. doi:10.1111/j. 1759-5436.2006.tb00325.x. Stirrat, R. L. 2008. “Mercenaries, Missionaries and Misfits: Representations of Development Personnel.” Critique of Anthropology 28 (4): 406–425. doi:10.1177/0308275X08098259. Sundberg, M. 2019. “Donors Dealing with ‘Aid Effectiveness’ Inconsistencies: National Staff in Foreign Aid Agencies in Tanzania.” Journal of Eastern African Studies 13 (3): 445–464. doi:10.1080/17531055 .2019.1628384. Watkins, S. C., A. Swidler, and T. Hannan. 2012. “Outsourcing Social Transformation: Development NGOs as Organizations.” Annual Review of Sociology 38 (1): 285–315. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc- 071811-145516. White, S. 2002. “Thinking Race, Thinking Development.” Third World Quarterly 23 (3): 407–419. doi:10.1080/01436590220138358. Wilkins, K. G., and F. Enghel . 2013. “The Privatization of Development through Global Communication Industries: Living Proof?” Media, Culture & Society 35 (2): 165–181. doi:10.1177/0163443712468606. Wood, G. D. 2013. Architects and Contractors: Political Economy Analysis of Policy Research in Pakistan. Islamabad: Sustainable Development Policy Institute.