SCARCITY AND THE POLITICS OF ALLOCATION
An ESRC ‘Science in Society Programme’ funded workshop held at the
Institute of Development Studies,
University of Sussex, Brighton, UK on 6-7 June 2005
Workshop Report
Lyla Mehta
Introduction and Background
Scarcity is considered to be the ubiquitous feature of the modern condition and the
scarcity postulate (i.e. that human wants are unlimited and the means to achieve
these are scarce and limited) underpins modern economics. Some economists see
scarcity as essential to the definition of economics. Scarcity is also widely used as an
explanation for social organisation, social conflict and the resource crunch
confronting humanity's survival on the planet. Scarcity is made out to be an allpervasive fact of our lives - be it around housing, food, water or oil. The scarcity of
these essential commodities and resources is used as an explanation for growing
environmental conflicts and human insecurity. In order to mitigate scarcity, there
have been calls for further scientific and technological innovation and science and
technology are evoked as the appropriate ‘solutions’.
But what is scarcity? Has it tended to be conceived in singular and universalised
ways? Has this tended to evoke a standardised set of market/institutional and
technological solutions as (universal) fixes, blocking out political contestations around
access as a legitimate focus for academic debates as well as policies and
interventions? What are the consequences of the ‘scare’ of scarcity? This
conference attempted to answer some of these questions. It represented a significant
stage in ongoing reflection by IDS and the ESRC Science in Society programme on
re-examining and locating scarcity debates within both development studies and
science technology studies (STS), as well as examining synergies between the two.
The workshop was the culmination of an ESRC funded project on ‘Science,
Technology and Water Scarcity: Investigating the "Solutions"’. This focussed on
unpacking global portrayals of and solutions to water scarcity, and examining how
these may be adopted, adapted or resisted in India and South Africa. During the
course of this research, it emerged that as well as understanding the various
ramifications around water scarcity, it was even more important to subject the term
‘scarcity’ itself to scrutiny from an interdisciplinary perspective as well as to compare
scarcity debates across several different resources (namely, water, food and energy)
with different material and cultural characteristics. For the Science in Society
programme, the workshop provided an opportunity to examine whether “scarcity”
may be playing a similar role as a totalising discourse in developing societies that
“risk” has come to occupy in the industrialized world. In both cases, science and
technology are often expected to provide solutions, but such expectations embody a
multitude of unexamined assumptions about the nature of the “problem”.
This interdisciplinary workshop brought together about 50 participants from all five
continents and from a range of disciplinary backgrounds (sociology, anthropology,
economics, political science, theatre, soil science, engineering, philosophy, history
etc.), most of whom are in the academy but also engaged as activists and
practitioners. Despite the heterogeneity in the group there was much epistemic
consensus. Most of the participants would see themselves as politically motivated
‘scholar activists’ with a strong commitment to enhancing scholarship and promoting
social justice. Consequently, the workshop was rich in intellectual substance and
creativity, energy and passion. There were 16 paper presentations while the
concluding session included five commentaries on alternative ways to look at scarcity
and key lessons emerging for future research and action. A series of outputs and
follow up actions are being planned. This brief report draws attention to some of the
key points pursued in the presentations and discussion.
1) The legacy of the scarcity postulate
Introductory papers by Steve Rayner and Lyla Mehta provided the framing for the
overall workshop. Steve Rayner’s paper focussed on scarcity as a driving concept in
neo-classical economics and the striking parallels with risk discourse, which emerged
over same historical period. A generalised risk discourse has intensified over the past
30 years, leading to challenges of governmentality with risk and scarcity emerging as
instruments of governance. Both risk and scarcity are bound up with ideas of
fairness and allocation, including proportionality, priority, parity and pot luck. But the
driving principles in determining allocation are markets and the notion of ‘efficiency.’
Lyla Mehta’s paper highlighted how resource scarcity was often simplistically linked
to population growth and environmental conflicts such as 'water wars'. Notions of
scarcity, largely through economics theory, have shifted from being time-bound to all
pervasive: from scarcities to scarcity. Scarcity, as the raison d’etre of society, and
formalist notions of the ‘economic’ have been challenged by Marshall Sahlins and
Karl Polanyi who have shown how markets are embedded in social relations,
highlighting the substantive meanings of the ‘economic’. It is thus important to look
at multiple meanings of scarcity, socio-political perspectives and contestations
around scarcity – as both struggles over meaning and access. But the ‘constructivist’
trap must be avoided and the physical aspects of scarcity must not be forgotten.
The papers by Nicholas Xenos and Betsy Hartmann traced the impacts of universal
and problematic notions of scarcity on contemporary politics in the US. Nick Xenos
asked why a universal notion of scarcity has emerged in affluent societies and
argued for the need to look at the dynamic of spiralling needs and the resultant
scarcity that legitimises markets and property with abundance as the end goal. The
recent report on US national energy policy is a good case in point where energy,
rather than its sources and the quantity used, is made out to be scarce. The oil crisis
is obscured in particular ways with Iraq not even being mentioned. Markets are used
to create scarcity, legitimise demand and a certain American way of life. Similar
narratives and mobilisations of scarcity in contemporary US politics were discussed
by Betsy Harmann. She examined why neo-Malthusian ideas have such staying
power, despite counter-veiling evidence. Powerful images of ‘uncontrolled fertile
women’ and ‘angry young men’ are deployed to link the so-called population
explosion to problems of environmental degradation in the Third World. Scarcity is at
the centre of these simplistic debates. These ideas are presented by powerful
lobbies, ranging from funding agencies to political parties, and are used strategically
even by those who don’t believe in them, with profound consequences. There is thus
a need to come up with alternative languages and ideas, both in policy and in the
popular imagination, as well as to challenge who is using these images and to what
end. Finally, Paul Nightingale examined how the relationship between the concept of
scarcity and science have shifted in recent decades, from science being something
that delegitimises scarcity, as science is perceived to provide technological solutions
to such problems, to a situation were science itself is understood as a scarce
resource. Thus understanding of science has shifted from a public resource that
together with political and institutional support can provide new opportunities for
2
providing technical and social solutions to problems, to science becoming a
commodity or scarce resource that can be best allocated through policies that
increase its marketability, such as patents and IPR protection (e.g. the African
Commission is currently investing in research and development to overcome such
‘scarcity’ in Africa). Discussant James Fairhead discussed the roots of scarcity in
macro-economic thinking and how economists in the 1930s and 1940s drew their
inspiration from British and European economies rather than examine imperialism
and imperial power. Market-based solutions to scarcity focus on aggregates and
depend on huge global institutions of regulation that reinforce the power of the state
and global institutions (e.g. the UN through the current MDG process).
The discussion focussed on several challenges for the rest of the workshop. First,,
there is a need to distinguish between micro and macro economics. The “politics of
allocation” implies distinguishing between politics, policy and polity and how they are
interrelated in contexts of scarcity. Second, there is a need to move away from
binaries around scarcity, consumption, limits and so on. Rather, the focus needs to
shift to who is framing various facts to produce these abundance/ scarcity stories.
Scarcity thus may not always be a meta-narrative. Instead, it is intensely political,
requiring us to look at the different institutions and locations through which definitions
are channelled (imperial, national, and sub-national) and the role of power in
producing cultures of legitimisation. Also local notions of scarcity are bound up with
local-level politics. Third, it is important to delimit scarcity from finiteness, and to
unpack systematically what we mean by limits as well as to couple thinking about
scarcity with thinking about abundance. Fourth, apart from its material aspects,
scarcity could also refer to the lack of capacity to act socially and economically and
to solve problems. In this vein, we might also address issues such as the scarcity of
democracy, happiness, love, time and so on that impact massively on human wellbeing.
Economics and Scarcity
Four papers investigated diverse perspectives on scarcity within economics. John
Toye’s paper highlighted that the idea of scarcity, contrary to popular belief, was not
invented by economists, but is a long-standing debate that can be traced back to
Plato and Aristotle’s notion of value. The paradox of diamonds and water is a useful
starting point. Early thinkers pointed out that diamonds are rare, and pointless. By
contrast, water is cheap but life-saving. Political economists such as Marx and Smith
reintroduced these ideas of use value and in the 19th century the focus shifted to
marginal utility and marginal costs. The characterisation of economists as people
obsessed with scarcity derives from the work of Lionel Robbins. But his conception
was highly misleading for the 1930s when resources were not scarce but closed or
unemployed. Keynesian economics discussed which methods should be used to
reemploy capital and labour, as a source of reasserting resources. Keynes also
argued that the economic problems could be solved by appeal to the abundance of
science and technology.
In his paper, Fred Luks focussed on limits and economic conceptions of finiteness.
There are material and discursive aspects to scarcity and sustainability but limits to
growth can help sharpen the scarcity discussion. Usually, neo-classical economics
focuses on taxes and subsidies and /or property rights to enhance efficiency and
growth is rarely questioned as ecologically relevant. But, distributional issues
become important when talking about scale, considering that 20% of the world’s
population consume 80% of resources. Thus, limits provide the context or frame
when talking about different resources. Franck Amalric's paper turned attention to
three conceptions of abundance in economic discourses: surpluses created through
3
exchange of trade; property rights and assumptions of efficiency, and macro level
policies that use tools such as allocation, economic planning and cost-benefit
analyses. He argued that these approaches all contain problematic assumptions
about the nature of markets, institutions, homo economicus and the ‘common good.’
Finally, Ben Fine’s paper focused on how Amartya Sen’s work on entitlements serves
as a departure from earlier conceptions of scarcity. Still, he argues that entitlements
analysis is neutral when it comes to underlying social relations, historical and cultural
specificities around food, and retains unresolved macro/ micro tensions due to an
adherence to a formalistic and individualistic frame.
Discussant, Lawrence Haddad, critiqued the notion that there are always massive
differences between neoclassical economists who have unbridled faith in technology
and ecological economists for whom scarcity is an absolute concept. Instead, there
may be a continuum between the two positions. Also he questioned the notion of
absolute limits and absolute scarcity, which needed more unpacking as is the case
with discussions of relative scarcity. While it is easy to debunk the economic
rationality argument, there is an urgent need to come up with alternatives that can
challenge mathematically neat models (such as Becker’s unitary household model).
In the household debate, this was done by coming up with the collective model
approach and highlighting how it is more relevant to local realities and useful in
policy. The challenge is to do the same for scarcity, perhaps by looking at the
economics of information, unpacking the level of aggregation and complementing
conventional approaches with constructivist ones.
The discussed that followed raised many questions about the nature of limits and
thresholds.
Does the ‘limits’ debate feed into problematic neo-Malthusian
discourses? After all, who is consuming and for whom are there limits? Who defines
them? On the one hand, natural science sets thresholds around things such as
climate change, and carbon markets are brought in as solutions. But, on the other
hand, we have become immune to malarial deaths and babies dying every few
seconds. When do thresholds become limits? Limits cannot be isolated from values.
Carbon markets, for example, could also have dire consequences for communities
around the world, traded off against other communities. Thus is it important to
distinguish between thresholds (observed – natural) and political limits. Moreover,
nature rarely sets ‘limits’; limits and thresholds are decided by people, usually
powerful ones. This underlines the need for a democratic debate within society,
through creating political space and mobilisation. Economics assumes that values
differ and that there are different preferences. Markets are useful when political
negotiation fails. But during periods of uncertainty, non-action may be important.
This is where the precautionary principle proves to be invaluable.
Resource allocation, institutional arrangements and policies:
Agriculture, water and energy
Food and
Food and agriculture
The next three session focussed on specific resources. The aim was to ask whether
the materiality of the resource (namely, water, energy, food) makes a difference in
terms of scarcity politics and institutions. The session on food focussed on the
problems of hunger and agricultural production in both north and south. Even though
rates of growth of productivity in agriculture have increased more rapidly than
population levels, the problem of chronic hunger persists. Erik Millstone’s paper
focussed on chronic hunger as a socio-political and economic artefact but also as
part of a process of production. Several elements come together in the politics of
4
allocation in the market for food. In industrialised countries, rising productivity and
government intervention in markets have led to the generation of surpluses, the
conversion of foods that people won’t eat, and the creation of artificial scarcities. In
different parts of the world, obesity and starvation emerge as two sides of the same
coin. Nick Hildyard focused how scarcity often emerges as a political strategy. While
population issues may be discredited in as a cause for hunger in the contemporary
world, neo-Malthusianism has shifted focus to population growth as a cause of
absolute scarcity in the future. For example, the proponents of biotechnology use
population growth to colonise the space of the future to legitimise their action.
Consequently, theory is privileged over practice/lived reality and discredited theories
keep getting reproduced. This was clearly demonstrated in the paper presented by
Ian Scoones on soil fertility which looked at two ways of seeing scarcity. The global
vision focuses on different levels of nutrient imbalance based on aggregate inputoutput models (which is reproduced in the Commission for Africa report). In contrast
local farm views of scarcity identify fertility problems in very different ways.
Discussant, Tim Forsyth, flagged four main areas of focus: First, the need to link the
discursive framing of what we mean by scarcity with value and how we determine
what is scarce. Second, governmentality is key to understand how issues of scarcity
can legitimise policy. Third, structural aspects, over and above different actors’
agency, shape agendas in ways that make scarcity an epi-phenomenal concept that
need to be analysed and challenged. Finally, the methods and participation in
decision-making around resource politics emerge as key. The discussion focussed
on problems of looking at the future through mono-causal and deterministic stories as
opposed to history that uses multiple explanations. There is thus a need for
pedagogy as a means to challenge this and reflexivity to question the role of
institutions that colonise the future in specific ways without drawing from lessons of
the past. Is it possible to develop diagnostics that bring the complexity of causality
into our understandings about the future? Can we colonise the future with a different
set of ideas and compete with these simplistic notions? To do this, it will be
necessary to engage with reports such as the Commission on Africa report as they
are being produced, rather than to wait until they are published and reactin
responsive mode.
Water
The session on water homed in on distinctions between different aspects of scarcity.
Water management debates usually focus on first order issues of physical scarcity.
These debates however ignore both the multiple aspects of scarcity and the
appropriation of water by powerful actors. The resulting interventions, such as
‘integrated water resource management’, can involve extreme control over the
resource, as Barbara van Koppen’s paper emphasised. But scarcity can also arise
due to a lack of development of water resources. Bruce Lankford’s paper
demonstrated how merely focussing on volumetric control led to flawed interventions
in Tanzania which were not suitable for the dry season. Scarcity is also aggressively
promoted by the water establishment in India, as Jasveen Jairath’s paper showed.
Policy-makers in India shy away from the social dimensions of water management.
The focus is largely on augmenting water supply, rather than the social and political
factors that cause inaccessibility and perpetrate exclusions. In Mexico, Jean Robert
highlighted how despite water-abundance, water scarcity has become a profound
state. Water has become H20, and like diamonds, a rare thing to be treated as a
commodity, instead of an abundant and useful thing (to return to the distinction by
Aristotle). Bottled water is both a symbol of water as a commodity and as a
protection of perceived risk (against disease and contamination).
5
Alan Nicol’s commentary raised the importance of knowledge and information in
perpetuating perceptions of risk and scarcity. For example, bottled water is drunk
even though its quality may be worse than tap water. Monopolies over resources
such as water are also usually monopolies over knowledge systems of how the
resource should be managed. Thus constructions of scarcity and the water ‘crisis’
need to be challenged, while local realities need to be a part of policy responses to
water management and allocation - combined with ‘third’ order issues of improving
democratic processes.
The discussion focussed on four key issues. First,attempts to move away from old
models of managerialist and engineering control can lead to a glossing-over of the
dangers in high-level participation and stakeholder burnout. Second, there is a need
for new conceptual tools that capture these diverse and dynamic aspects of
resources, in ways that can inform high-level policy debate, since dominant framings
of water after the Dublin conference tend to focus only on its ‘economic good’
aspects. Third, water is also a commons and a human right. There is a need to
understand how the concepts of rights and entitlements can be co-opted by water
companies and powerful players (e.g. by using the arguments of efficiency, water
quality etc.). In this respect, the notion of rights leads to a notion of rising standards,
and meeting a minimum standard becomes compulsive. Instead, Jean Robert
highlighted that we need to focus on fostering more participatory justice and
reinvigorating the notion of access to the commons. Fourth, interventions to combat
scarcity add a new level of politics that feed into local power and relations. Mythical
and symbolic implications of water in different societies can also be a form of social
control. Finally, Martin Greeley made a more general point, questioning the extent to
which such local complexities and dynamics could have purchase on policy debates;
is there rather a value in KISS (Keep it simple,stupid)?
Energy
The papers on energy focussed on the complexities and paradoxes of scarcity and
abundance particularly in the the south, and how they are bound up in complex
political economic, global, national and local relations. Nigeria, despite being a
petroleum abundant country and the fifth largest producer of oil, faces tremendous
development challenges with respect to poverty and its agricultural and industrial
development. As Steve Abah's paper documented, the politics of abundance have
led to a scarcity of management, attitude, vision and knowledge, contributing to the
persistence of poverty and livelihood degradation. In Nepal, powerful players such as
the World Bank and politicians have used the discourse of TINA (there is no
alternative) to promote flawed and expensive white elephants such as Arun III, and
expensive highways at the cost of cheaper and more decentralised options. But
Ajaya Dixit and Dipak Gyawali showed how civil society or the ‘third leg of the
equation’ act as social auditors and can forge alternative paths that allow for more
plural debate, where binaries are rejected and there is scope for innovation and
alternatives.
The discussant Jan Selby asked whether the specific problems around energy and
oil arise due to the nature of the resource (i.e. oil) which leads to particular responses
from the state and elite capture or due to problems of policy responses/ knowledge
and social and power relations. While it is useful to talk about the scarcity of
governance and first, second and third order scarcities, it is key to look at external
factors too, and to take account of wider political-economic issues. Finally, what
lessons can be captured around the nature of local capacities that make a search for
alternatives possible? Experts often understate the extent to which local people have
6
the capacity to come up with alternatives but how generalisable are some of these
local successes?
The discussion largely focussed on the role of communication, the media and
pedagogy in either erasing out or promoting alternative perspectives. Corporate
controlled media, be it in the Bush era of the US or late 1990s Nepal, has led to
erasure as a medium of power (Sheila Jasanoff). The critical voice finds itself
extraordinarily troubled and alternative media can be the site for powerful
epistemologies to come into the public domain. However, alternative forms of
communication such as the ‘theatre for development’ in Nigeria can allow for
vigilance on the part of activists and civil society. It was also flagged that there is a
worrying lack of alternative spaces and that even these are closing down. For
example, formal education is often not critical enough and there is a marked lack of
dialogue between like-minded groups across disciplinary boundaries in the
developing world. Thus new forms of education and pedagogy are important. Finally,
it is not enough to theorise about democratising access to scarce resources, when
ongoing processes promoted, say, by the Pentagon seek to carve out and distribute
‘scarce’ resources among powerful players (e.g. the emerging interest in West
African oil). Thus we need to be aware of the links between knowledge generation,
military and economic interests and tease out their implications for poor and fragile
states and their people.
Conclusions and challenges
1) Rethinking scarcity
The workshop highlighted the need to understand the polyvalent nature of the term
scarcity and the different ways the problems of and solutions to scarcity are
contested and constructed. Often totalising discourses of science and progress
support a universal notion of Scarcity. Scarcity also leads to self-fulfilling prophesies
around ‘crises’ and their ‘solutions’ that can root out alternative realities and
discourses. Thus to unpack the concept of scarcity we need to unpack both science
and the democratic imagination. But getting rid of the notion of scarcity won’t help
get rid of the structures that surround it. Instead, it may be more useful to highlight
the ways and times when it is not contested (Michael Thompson’s commentary) and
understand how commodities undergo a series of transformations. Neo-classical
economics with its utilitarian logic cannot deal with categories of durability and
rubbish (as opposite to waste).
The conference also highlighted several strategic boundaries and erasures in
scarcity. There is a temporal erasure of past and lived experience, along with the
distinction between valued and valueless, and between objective and subjective
usually created through instruments of power. Thus there is a need to elevate what
has been erased, while also interrogating the hidden assumptions behind the socalled neutral term scarcity.
2) Resources: values, fluidity, materiality and scarcity
Rather than focussing on resource determinism and the material characteristics of
resources, Melissa Leach argued that it is sometimes important to look at how
resource materiality becomes linked to cross-cutting social values and arrangements
(e.g. flowing water with spiritual values has different symbolism from bottled water)
and at the highly political nature of allocating value at different scales and by different
actors. Moreover, Sheila Jasanoff also highlighted the dynamic relationship between
fluidities and materialities of resources. There is a complicated interaction between
7
the fluidity of resources and the materiality of their manifestations to us. Thus things/
commodities such as water, oil etc. become rendered, fixed and material through
ideas, knowledge, information and imagination, policies, rules, decisions and power
that percolate through systems. Without material manifestations, we cannot
experience the nature of scarcity. Homo economicus thus is both a construct and
lived out by each and every one of us through concrete and material manifestations
such as dams, bottled water and so on. The role of the scholar-activist thus is to
understand how the fluid manifests itself in the material.
3) The politics of knowledge and scarcity
The scarcity discourse often focuses on material entities, but rarely are scarcities of
knowledge addressed. Shiv Visvanathan’s commentary focussed on how scarcity
creates conceptual enclosures that, for example, renders live nature into ‘resource
economics’ and blanks out the realities of subsistence economies. Various domains
of science and research policy are leading to the further instrumentalisation and
institutionalisation of public engagement and the subjection of lay knowledges to
control and manipulation or exclusion. In a similar vein, Brian Wynne suggested that
the assumption that the future is something over which we have agency and can
exercise control, and associated moves to scarcity/risk management, have led to
epistemic, ontological and moral deletions - such as the disappearance of the moral
economy. Thus, knowledge emerges as key in scarcity debates: first because of the
constructions of scarcity of different material resources, and second because
knowledge also is an object of scarcity.
4) Recovering alternative realities
Alternatives to misleading and universalised notions of scarcity are possible by
challenging dominant epistemologies and the conventional role of education and the
media in sedimenting dominant discourses. There is a need to be vigilant to the links
between notions of resource scarcity, the politics of aid and donors, the role of the
private sector, multinational corporations (MNCs) and the military-industrial complex.
At times strategic essentialisms (for example, a focus on access) can help to counter
scarcity (Melissa Leach), although they should not be used at the cost of wiping out
complex, diverse alternatives since simple answers can be the wrong answers for
democracy and empowerment. Epistemic democracy that promotes cross-learning
between disciplines (e.g. engineers and scientists in water management), and which
sees epistemology as something that is created in everyday life by activists and
practitioners as well as academics, is also required.
Since notions of scarcity often lead to an erasure of issues of equity, scale,
embeddedness and locality, there may be the need to recover different notions - for
instance of the ‘good’ and the ‘commons’. However, this must not be done in a
utilitarian way that justifies problematic macro-level programmes, or in an overly
romantic way that wipes out deliberation, diversity and heterogeneity. Regaining the
commons is also about promoting just decision making processes, and curtailing
those who exercise power over the weak and marginalised.
8
Annex I Participant contact details
Forename
Surname
Tony
Allan
Franck
Amalric
PB
Anand
Nurit
BodemannOstow
Sue
Vinita
Branford
Damodaran
Ajaya
Dixit
Ros
Eyben
James
Fairhead
Tim
Forsyth
James
Fraser
Martin
Greeley
Address
King's College London & SOAS Water Research Group
SOAS,
London WC1H 0XG
UK
CCRS -- Centre for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability at the
University of Zürich
Künstlergasse 15a
8001 Zürich,
Switzerland
Bradford Centre for International Development
University of Bradford,
Bradford BD7 1DP
UK
Institute of Development Studies
At the University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE
UK
Journalist
School of Humanities,
University of Sussex
Brighton
UK
Nepal Water Conservation Foundation
GPO Box 2221
Kathmandu
Nepal
Institute of Development Studies
At the University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE
UK
Department of Anthropology University of Sussex
Falmer,
Brighton
BN1 9SJ
UK
Development Studies Institute, London School of Economics and
Political Science
Houghton Street,
London, WC2 2AE
UK
Dphil Candidate
University of Sussex
48 Newmarket Road, Brighton
Institute of Development Studies
At the University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE
UK
9
Richard
Grove
Dipak
Gyawali
Lawrence
Haddad
Betsy
Hartmann
Nicholas
Hildyard
Jasveen
Jairath
Sheila
Jasanoff
Bruce
Lankford
Melissa
Leach
Fred
Luks
Gordon
MacKerron
Lyla
Mehta
Centre for World Environmental History,
Arts C146,
University of Sussex,
Falmer,
Brighton BN1 9SJ
UK
Institute for Social and Environmental Transition
GPO Box 3971
Kathmandu
Nepal
Institute of Development Studies
At the University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE
UK
Population and Development Program
CLPP, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA 01002,
USA
The Corner House
Station Road,
Sturminster Newton,
Dorset DT10 1YJ
UK
CAPNET South Asia
F-1, Eden Banjara,
Ave-8, St.7, Aurora Colony,
Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad - 500034
A.P., India
Harvard University
JFK Schoolr of Government, 79 JFK Street,
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA
School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia,
Norwich, NR4 7TJ
UK
Institute of Development Studies
At the University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE
UK
University of Hamburg, Department Economics and Politics, Project
"NEDS"
Von-Melle-Park 9, D-20146 Hamburg,
Germany
SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research)
University of Sussex
Freeman Centre, Falmer
Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QE
UK
Institute of Development Studies
At the University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE, UK
10
Erik
Millstone
Synne
Movik
Sobona
Peter
Mtisi
Newborne
Alan
Nicol
Paul
Nightingale
Oga Steve
Abah
Christian
Poirier
Steve
Rayner
Jean
Robert
Ian
Scoones
Jan
Selby
SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research)
University of Sussex
Freeman Centre, Falmer
Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QE, UK
Institute of Development Studies
At the University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE
UK
DPhil Candidate, University of Manchester
Water Policy Programme
Overseas Development Institute – ODI
111 Westminster Bridge Road,
London SE1 7JD
UK
Water Policy Programme
Overseas Development Institute – ODI
111 Westminster Bridge Road,
London SE1 7JD
UK
SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research)
University of Sussex
Freeman Centre, Falmer
Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QE
UK
Theatre for Development Centre,
The Octopus,
Faculty of Arts,
Ahmadu Bello University,
Zaria, Nigeria
Candidate for MA in Rural Development
CDE,
University of Sussex
Brighton
UK
Director, ESRC Science in Society Programme;
University of Oxford
Saïd Business School,
Park End Street,
Oxford, OX1 1HP
UK
Universidad del Estado de Morelos
Apdo 698-1 62001
Cuernavaca
Mexico
Institute of Development Studies
At the University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE
UK
Department of International Relations and Politics
University of Sussex
Falmer, Brighton BN1 9SN
UK
11
Andy
Stirling
Vanessa
Taylor
John
Toye
Jaisel
Vadgama
Barbara
van Koppen
Shiv
Visvanathan
Nick
von
Tunzelmann
Linda
Waldman
Will
Wolmer
SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research)
University of Sussex
Freeman Centre, Falmer
Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QE UK
Cultures of Consumption Programme
Birkbeck College
31A Charteris Rd,
London N4 3AA
UK
QEH,
Room 235, Social Sciences Building,
Manor Road,
Oxford, OX1 3UQ
UK
M.A. Student University of Sussex
51/53 King's Road,
Apt. 4B,
Brighton BN1 1NA
UK
International Water Management Institute
PBag X813
Silverton 0127
Pretoria
South Africa
Dhirubhai Ambani Institute of Information and Communication
Technology
Post Bag No. 4, Near Indroda Circle
Gandhinagar 382 007
Gujarat
India
SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research)
University of Sussex
Freeman Centre, Falmer
Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QE
UK
Institute of Development Studies
At the University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE
UK
Institute of Development Studies
At the University of Sussex
Brighton
BN1 9RE
UK
12