The Sociology of Development: What Sociology? What Development?

Maxime Haubert
Studies published in France and Francophone countries that come under the heading of or claim some affinity with the 'sociology of development' are, as we shall see, characterised by the extreme diversity, fragmentation even, of their themes, problematics and methodologies. However, analysis of this very diversity can take as its starting point a twofold inquiry into their relationship both to sociology and to deveelopment, that is into the specificity and subject matter of the sociology of development. Moreover, this twofold inquiry can also be said to constitute one of the principal characteristics in the evolution of this field of study, at least in the past 20 years.1
I. DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT SOCIOLOGY?

Before the 1960s, most of the studies in this field were in fact produced by amateur 'sociologists' (journalists, political commentators, politicians, trade unionists, etc.) or people working in other disciplines (economists, geographers, agronomists, etc.). Moreover, this went hand in hand with a problematic that was not directly sociological, but rather political or economic. Decolonisation and the establishment of 'new states' gave rise to a large number of more or less committed publications that sought to understand and possibly influence the direction of change in Third World societies, and which were thus partly sociological in content or ambition. Even if this was a 'spontaneous' sociology, forged in the heat of the moment and thus uncertain of its theoretical and methodological foundations, it nevertheless offered insights of great interest on several points, precisely because of the political commitment that it very often represented for the authors of these writings (see in France, for example, those of F. Fanon, in North Africa those of M. Lacheraf and in Sub-Saharan Africa those of S. Tour).
Maxime Haubert, Professor and Director, IEDES, University of Paris I. The European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, December 1991, pp. 109-120 PUBLISHED BY FRANK CASS, LONDON

110

THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

On the other hand, problems and initiatives in the practice of development have given rise to a whole series of studies that have sought to define the social conditions or consequences of economic change and which are, to that extent, more or less subordinate either to economic policy or to economic theory. The main aim of these studies has been to identify, on the one hand, the 'socio-cultural constraints and obstacles' to economic development and, on the other, its 'social costs' (see, for example, studies by J.P. Aujoulat, A. Doucy, M. Petit-Pont and P. Vellas). This concern is found not only in expert studies but also in works of an academic nature, although the distinction between the two is not always clear. That is why some of them have been produced by specialists in disciplines thought to be closer to the grass-root level and practical needs such as agronomy (cf., for example, those by R. Dumont and M. Mazoyer). It is also why professional sociologists (H. Desroche, G. Gosselin, Y. Goussault, A. Meister, L. Vincent-Thomas, etc.) have often been heavily involved not only in analysis of the objectives, conditions and methods of development, but very often also in expert studies and even in programmes for change (whether restricted, apparently at least, to a particular sphere, such as rural participatory programmes (animation rurale) or cooperative development, or whether broader in scope, particularly when the sociologists in question have been involved to a greater or lesser extent in left-wing national projects). Strictly academic sociology - which often has its roots in anthropology, or is influenced by it (as in the cases of G. Balandier, P. Bourdieu, etc.) - has also been closely concerned with studies of the 'social implications' of technical progress and economic development. Its purpose has then been to analyse, on the one hand, the abrupt changes that have occurred in traditional societies and, on the other, the formation of new social groups and in particular of new social classes (see, for example, the works of G. Balandier, P. Bourdieu, F. Bourricaud, P. Fougeyrollas, R. Stavenhagen, etc.). Thus this is a sociology of structures and their transformations although it is far from reducible to this dimension alone. Indeed, even in this period, the field of culture, representations and the imaginary has been the subject of detailed analyses: some deal with the relationships between religious systems and economic changes (see those by H. Desroche, V. Monteil and M. Rodinson), others with the agonising struggles of dominated populations to come to terms with different cultural or symbolic registers and with the innovations through which they have sought to respond to external aggression in this sphere (see for example, studies by G. Althabe, G. Balandier, R. Bastide and J. Berque). Yet others have examined the formation of working-class or national consciousness (those by A. Touraine, for example). Furthermore, mention of these

THE SOCIOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT

111

themes is sufficient to show that another fundamental dimension of these analyses is the role played by local actors (peasants, workers, intellectual or political elites, middle classes, etc.) in the transformation of their societies, particularly as part of social movements with a religious basis (G. Althabe, G. Balandier, M.I. Pereira de Queiroz) or more directly political roots (A. Decoufl, A. Touraine). Thus this is indeed a 'dynamic sociology', to use G. Balandier's expression. He was the main driving force behind the establishment in France of the sociology of development and he has exerted a strong influence, not only in the Francophone countries (his work relates particularly to Sub-Saharan Africa) but also in other regions such as Latin America (R. Stavenhagen, for example). In this respect, particular attention should be paid to his analysis of mutations in Third World societies, in which he highlights the continuous relationships between 'dynamics from within' and 'dynamics from without', between 'tradition' and 'modernity', between the various levels of the economic, political and symbolic spheres and between the fragility of equilibria and the trial and error of innovation. In general, however, studies from this period are more concerned to promote awareness of changes in relatively strictly defined groups, countries or socio-cultural fields than to put forward a general theory of 'development'; moreover, those by academic sociologists do not claim to belong to a 'sociology of development' established as a specialist branch of the discipline. Whatever their intellectual preoccupations or professional base, the various authors undoubtedly accepted, at least implicitly, the need for technical and economic progress, and thus for corresponding changes in social structures and cultural systems. However, North American theories of modernisation, in so far as they are particularly evolutionist, ethnocentric and economistic, have had little impact in French-speaking countries, largely because of the greater strength that 'Third Worldism' has always had in those countries.

II. NEITHER SOCIOLOGY NOR DEVELOPMENT?

'Third Worldism' became even stronger at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s, both by becoming more radical and by using theory to argue in favour of positions that had previously owed more to sentiment or commitment. This was encouraged by several factors, including the twofold crisis of Western civilisation (from 1968 onwards) and of capitalist economies (from 1973), the conspicuous failure of development policies, the revival of Marxism and the diffusion in Europe of arguments based on dependency theory. Moreover, it was in France that some of the key texts in

112

THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

the establishment of this theory were published by sociologists, among them F.H. Cardoso, A.-G. Frank and R. Stavenhagen. For some 15 years, the so-called 'critical' tendencies, Marxist in inspiration, were to exert their hegemony over Third World research. What should be stressed here is that these tendencies do not claim to belong to the 'sociology of development'. Indeed, they even reject both sociology and development: sociology is denounced, in the name of a total science of history, as 'bourgeois ideology', while development is denounced as a mystification or an instrument of 'imperialism' and 'neo-colonialism' (see, for example, A.-G. Frank, P.-Ph. Rey, B. Sine and some of the contributions to issue 90 of the Revue Tiers-Monde, 1982). As a result, those who do not share the views of this 'critical' school are fairly often accused, or at least suspected, of more or less conscious collaboration with the dominant classes and powers. Whereas previously diversity of points of view, of methods and of theoretical frameworks did not exclude mutual respect or reciprocal borrowings, research on the Third World tends to be divided between those authors who claim to be part of the so-called critical movement and the rest, with the first group being further divided among themselves into several mutually exclusive cliques. 'Bourgeois' studies are denounced not only because of their supposedly ideological nature, but also, and particularly, because of their lack of explanatory power: they are said to emphasise cultural habits and behaviour and to neglect structural determinants, and to stress internal characteristics while ignoring external determinants. This accusation is certainly largely unjustified as far as French sociology is concerned. One only has to remember that G. Balandier and A. Touraine, for example, were among the first to stress the central place that factors such as industrialisation and external domination should occupy in all studies of the Third World.2 Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the greater attention paid to its incorporation into the world capitalist system was a powerful factor in stimulating new directions in research, and gave rise to work of great interest on the formation of underdevelopment in the economic sphere and its consequences for the distortion of social structures, increases in inequality, the subordination of the state, etc. Most of this work has been produced by researchers who are not sociologists by training, but economists (S. Amin), anthropologists (C. Meillassoux, P.-Ph. Rey), etc. However, their research has always had the ultimate objective of understanding social relationships and their transformations on a world-wide basis, and despite the prejudices they have against academic sociology this does link them, at least partially, to the discipline, and there is no doubt that they have exerted a strong influence over it. In particular, the polemics they provoke have led those who do not share

THE SOCIOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT

113

their views to clarify their theoretical positions on development and on that part of sociology which takes it as its subject matter and which they do not shy away from calling the 'sociology of development' (see, in particular, G. Balandier, G. Belloncle, G. Gosselin and A. Touraine). Thus the notion of 'development' is accepted, but it is stripped of any normative and economistic content and defined as the transition from one type of society to another, a transition associated with a threefold economic, political and cultural revolution and greater control over the directions taken by society. And likewise the sociology of development is the study of the social processes, dynamisms, programmes and movements at work in such change, without this subject matter being even necessarily restricted to Third World countries. At this point, we should dwell a little on the work of A. Touraine, who has stressed how far removed the sociology of development should be from a sociology of social structures and from a description of the world capitalist system. The analysis of dependence in general, he says, has diverted too many authors from analysing dependent societies: 'A catastrophic error that has left those societies, particularly when they were involved in action against dependence, without instruments of self-knowledge, blind and, what is worse, alienated by doctrines that applied to them analyses developed by and for other societies' [Touraine, 1976:55-6]. Thus he argues in favour of an analysis that is both truly sociological and specific to the problems and programmes of 'development', in the sense outlined above. This analysis must necessarily take as its starting point knowledge of social structures, but it cannot use exactly the same instruments. In particular, the sociology of development cannot restrict itself to analysis in terms of social classes, which may well be 'the principal agents in the functioning of a society, [but] cannot be the agents of the transition from one society to another'. More precisely, they can act as the agents of change, if at all, only through the intermediation of the state, the central actor in any historic change. In dependent societies, it is 'less constrained than in other countries by social forces but also more fragile' [ibid. : 12,15]. This is the reason for the great importance attached to the study of social movements and their relationship to the state, from the perspective of the three dimensions they must have in order to be development movements: class struggle, as well as national liberation and social modernisation. What characterises this period - from the end of the 1960s to the beginning of the 1980s - is thus the fact that the scale of analysis tended to grow: whereas in earlier periods analyses had often been centred around relatively restricted social phenomena or spaces, they increasingly became national in scope and paid close attention to relations with countries of the 'centre'. One of the main themes of research is the social structuring of countries of

114

THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

the 'periphery', seen from a dual perspective: that of civil society - social classes, agrarian structures, the articulation and subordination of preexisting modes of production to the capitalist mode of production (H. Bertrand, M. Diop, C. Dubar, M. Gutelman, P. Jacquemot, C. Meillassoux, ORSTOM, P.-Ph. Rey, etc.) - and that of political systems, that is, power, the state, institutions and parties (J.-F. Bayart, P. Clastres, C. Coulon, H. Deschamps, the Geneva University Institute of Development Studies, J.W. Lapierre, L. Martins, C. Rivire, A. Rouqui, etc.). The most important and significant research, however, deals with the influence that the state and the various categories of social actors, national and foreign, try to exert on society. In the first case, the purpose of research is to understand the true social nature of development policies and programmes, the 'avatars of popular participation' and the consequences for the dominated categories, particularly in agriculture (AMIRA, G. Belloncle, P. Castex, D. Desjeux, H. Dupriez, P. Gilhodes, Y. Goussault, M. Gutelman, J. Le Coz, A. Meister, H. Mendras and Y. Tavernier, etc.). In the second case, the aim is to assess the extent to which the dominated groups can struggle effectively against external dependency and internal despotism (G. Chaliand, A. Labrousse, A. Touraine, etc.). From this point of view, great importance is attached to ideologies, myths and utopias as systems of representation and mobilisation (Y. Benot, G. Caire, M. Dia, M. Haubert, M. Labelle, B. Labrousse, etc.).3 Finally, as far as the geographical distribution of studies is concerned, mention should be made of the particular interest shown by researchers both in countries where imperialist domination is exerted in the most brutal fashion, such as South Africa, and in those where socialist or progressive experiments have been put into practice, such as China, Nicaragua, Peru, Tanzania, Vietnam and Yugoslavia.
III. SOCIOLOGY WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT?

Two main tendencies seem to have characterised recent sociological research on the Third World and development. First, there has been some degree of reduction of differences if not convergence between the various schools of thought, or at least doctrinal conflicts have subsided somewhat. This is due in part to the collapse or decline of general theories derived to a greater or lesser extent from economics and the philosophy of history and the experiments they inspired. However, it is also, and largely due to an increase in knowledge of the structuring, functioning and evolution of dependent societies. Researchers are less anxious to find, or less dependent upon a single, comprehensive explanatory principle, notably because they are much more sensitive to the extreme diversity of situations and the

THE SOCIOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT

115

extreme complexity of the factors involved. Thus there is often a convergence, and sometimes even a lack of differentiation between sociology and anthropology as far as development and modernisation are concerned. Three fields of analysis are particularly revealing in this respect: that of the forms and processes of domination, that of the relationships between state logics and popular practices and that of the symbolic and the imaginary. Firstly, domination is no longer understood simply in terms of exploitation, but also increasingly in terms of exclusion (O. Dollfus, H. Favre, M. Haubert, etc.). In particular, researchers are interested less in recording results than in analysing processes, and this is why, instead of prejudging the nature of the social actors or groups involved (bourgeoisie, proletariat, peasants, etc.), increasing attention is being paid to the way in which they are constituted in these processes, that is, the way in which they are formed and structured in the various dynamics of domination. Similarly, in recent research on the relationships between state logics and popular practices, the state is no longer considered simply as the focus for the expression or construction of a nation or as the instrument of international capital, but also and more particularly as the principal site of conflicts and alliances among various local groups. Emphasis is increasingly being placed on the state's inability to fulfil its role as the 'central actor in development' and on the imperfect control it exerts over civil society. Great importance is thus attached to the more or less structured and hierarchised networks through which their relationships are organised, and particularly to the social groups and actors that act as mediators or brokers between the political system and popular groups. As far as these groups are concerned, research is highlighting the extent to which their practices and strategies are characterised both by resistance and submission, subversion and negotiation, the circumvention and deflection of state interventions, and accommodation and reappropriation (J.-F. Bayart, J. Copans, J.-P. Dozon, B. Jobert, A. Marie, D. Pcaut, A. Touraine, etc.). Finally, the expansion in recent years of politico-religious movements, particularly those associated with liberation theology in Latin America and the Islamic revival in the Middle East and North Africa, has attracted attention to the great importance of representations, the imaginary and the symbolic in social practices and behaviour and, particularly, in power relationships (G. Balandier, R. Bureau, F. Houtart, C. Liauzu, M. Lwy, E. Poulat, M. Verlet, etc.4); works on the sociology of science (R. Waast) can also be connected with the theme of representations. Sociology, then, is examining more closely the paths to modernity and the actors involved in an attempt to understand the specific logic of their behaviour in each particular set of social relationships. Of great significance in this respect is the revival of studies on the 'informal' sector of urban

116

THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

economies and on rural societies; such studies are now concerned less with small-scale production than with small-scale producers and the rationality of the diversified strategies that they employ in situations characterised by the precariousness of the conditions of reproduction. An excellent illustration of this is to be found in the work of the Institut Franais de Recherche Scientifique pour le Dveloppement en Coopration (ORSTOM), an organisation which, it should be noted, has done much since the beginning of the 1980s to give impetus to research on the processes of urbanisation in the Third World. These new orientations have meant that the sociology of development has become ever more sociological in character. At the same time, however, it seems, paradoxically, to be losing both 'development' and 'Third World' as subjects of analysis. The concept of development is being subjected to renewed criticisms because of the logical confusions and semantic ambiguities inherent in its use, and because of the assumptions implied by the use of a biological metaphor. More fundamentally, from the purely sociological point of view, it is being challenged because of the social relationships corresponding to it, in which there prevails a vision of the future of societies determined by the Western model. More recently, the very concept of 'Third World' has come under fierce attack - in France perhaps more than in other countries - both because it no longer corresponds to any economic, social and especially geopolitical reality and because, like development, it is a concept for the use of Western intellectuals: as such, it is said to be highly charged ideologically. Sociologists have played an important role in this questioning, but it has taken a virulent turn in France where neo-liberal theoreticians and ideologues have put 'Third Worldism' on trial (a situation commented upon in Goussault [1987]. This observation brings us to the second major tendency that seems to characterise the recent period, namely the decline affecting sociological studies of development and the Third World. This decline seems to have two main causes, which are partly connected. On the one hand, they are often suspected of straying from the paths of academic neutrality, either because they are guided by ideology or political commitment, or because they are compromised by expertise in development projects or programmes: the first suspicion may explain the growing ostracism being shown towards them by the authorities in the Francophone countries, while both of them may explain the marginalisation that seems increasingly to be affecting them in academic circles in France [Goussault and Guichaoua, 1989]. On the other hand, the considerable reduction in the role accorded the sociology of development in universities and research organisations (with the notable exception of ORSTOM) is also linked to a decline in large-scale projects for

THE SOCIOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT

117

social transformation and in interest in the problems of the Third World. This decline is also reflected in the fact that the sociologists who made their reputations by analysing these problems and projects have, in part at least, shifted their attention back to the countries of the 'centre' (although this may be justified partly by the fact that their place is increasingly being taken - or must be taken - by sociologists originating from the Third World). This rapid survey can perhaps be concluded by stressing how paradoxical this decline in the 'sociology of development' seems in the light of the fundamental contribution to French sociology as a whole made by authors such as P. Bourdieu, G. Balandier, A. Touraine, G. Gosselin and G. Althabe in their work on the Third World. If Bourdieu's work in this area is set aside (it was produced largely in the early period of his academic career), it is undeniable that they have been largely responsible for establishing one of the main theoretical schools of French sociology, that of 'dynamic sociology'. This is probably a situation without parallel in any countries of the 'centre'. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that the relative geographical specialisation of the sociology of development in France and in Francophone countries has undoubtedly been partly responsible for the specificity of its themes. Most of the research has been concerned with SubSaharan Africa and Latin America; studies of the Arab/Islamic world have been few and far between (with the partial exception of the Maghreb) and Asia has been virtually ignored. It could even be said that there are in fact two sociologies of development, largely sealed off from each other: the 'Africanist' school, which is more concerned with the problems raised by the destructuring of rural societies, with basic development and the construction of new states, and the 'Americanist' school, which, engaged in a continuous dialogue with Latin-American authors, is concerned above all with social classes social movements and political systems.

NOTES 1. On the evolution and epistemology of the sociology of development in the countries in question, the reader is referred to the studies conducted at the Institut d'Etude du Dveloppement Economique et Social (IEDES, University of Paris-1) and to the Revue Tiers-Monde: 'Sociologie du dveloppement', special issue of the Revue Tiers-Monde (edited by Y. Goussault), Vol.XXIII, No.90 (April-June 1982); Y. Goussault, 'TiersMonde dveloppement: de la socio-conomie la sociologie', Revue Tiers-Monde, Vol.XXVIII, No.112 (Oct.-Dec. 1987), pp.760-76; Y. Goussault and A. Guichaoua, 'La sociologie du dveloppement', in J.P. Durand and R. Weil (eds.), Sociologie contemporaine (Paris: Vigot, 1989), pp.395-414. I am grateful to my colleagues at IEDES (Y. Goussault, N. Khouri and A. Marie) and to the members of the Committee of Management of GEMDEV for their comments on an earlier version of this article, but of course I am solely responsible for any errors or bias it may still contain.

118

THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

2. The far-reaching reverberations caused by theories of dependence in France also seem to be due in part to the fact that the ground had been prepared by the works of these authors, just as it had been in economics by those of F. Perroux on the 'effects of domination'. 3. Two special issues of the Revue Tiers-Monde deal with this theme: 'Pouvoirs, mythes et idologies' (edited by G. Caire), Vol.XV, No.57, Jan.-March 1974, and Tiers-Monde, utopies, projets de socit' (edited by M. Haubert), Vol.XIX, No.75, July-Sept. 1978. 4. Readers may wish to refer to the recent special issue of the Revue Tiers-Monde, devoted to the new role of religion: 'Religion, pouvoir et socit dans le Tiers Monde' (ed. Y. Goussault), Vol.XXXI, No.123, July-Sept. 1990. 5. It should be noted that the other major schools of contemporary French sociology, as they have just been defined and studied by P. Ansart (Les sociologies contemporaines, Paris: Seuil, 1990) - namely Bourdieu's 'genetic structuralism', Crozier's 'strategic functionalism' and Boudon's 'methodological individualism' - have been very little influenced by the sociology of development, and conversely have had very little effect on the work of that school. However, mention should be made of Bourdieu's influence on work on reproduction through the education system, that of Crozier on analysis of development organisations and projects and that of Boudon on certain studies in the area of political sociology (J.-F. Bayart).

REFERENCES
Althabe, G., 1969, Oppression et libration dans l'imaginaire. Les communauts villageoises de la cte orientale de Madagascar, Paris: Maspro. Amin, S., 1970, L'accumulation l'chelle mondiale, Dakar: IFAN, Paris: Anthropos. AMIRA, 1979, Mthode d'valuation des projets, Paris: AFIRD. Aujoulat, J.P., 1969, Action Sociale et dveloppement, Paris: A. Colin. Balandier, G., 1971, Sens et puissance, les dynamiques sociales, Paris: PUF. Balandier, G., 1985, Le dtour, Pouvoir et modernit, Paris: Fayard. Bastide, R., 1970, Le prochain et le lointain, Paris: Cujas. Bayart, J.F., 1989, L'Etat en Afrique, Paris: Fayard. Belloncle, G., 1982, La question paysanne en Afrique Noire, Paris: Karthala. Benot, Y., 1972, Idologies des indpendances africaines, Paris: Maspro. Berque, J., 1964, La dpossession du monde, Paris: Seuil. Bertrand, H., 1975, Le Congo, formation sociale et monde de dveloppement, Paris: Maspro. Bourdieu, P., Darbel, A., Rivet, J.P., Seibel, C , 1964, Travail et travailleurs en Algrie, Paris: Mouton. Bourdieu, P., and Sayad, A., 1964, Le dracinement. La crise de l'agriculture traditionnelle en Algrie, Paris: Editions de Minuit. Bourricaud, F., 1967, Pouvoir et socit dans le Prou contemporain, Paris: A. Colin. Bureau, R., 1978, Le Pril blanc, Paris: L'Harmattan. Cardoso, F.H., 1969, Sociologie du dveloppement en Amrique latine, Paris: Anthropos. Castells, M., 1972, La question urbaine, Paris: Maspro. Castex, P., 1977, Voie chilienne au socialisme et luttes paysannes, Paris: Maspro. Clastres, P., 1974, La Socit contre l'Etat. Recherches d'anthropologie politique, Paris: Minuit. Copans, J., 1990, La longue marche de la modernit africaine. Savoirs, intellectuels, dmocratie, Paris: Karthala. Decoufl, A., 1968, Sociologie des rvolutions, Paris: PUF. Deschamps, H., 1976, Les institutions politiques de l'Afrique Noire, Pars: PUF: Desjeux, D., 1979, La question agraire Madagascar. Administration et paysannat de 1895 nos jours, Paris: L'Harmattan. Desroche, H., 1961, Religion et dveloppement. Le thme de leurs rapports rciproques et de leurs variations, Archives de sociologie des religions, No.12, juillet-septembre, pp.3-34. Desroche, H., 1976, Le projet coopratif, Paris: Editions Economie et Humanisme, Les Editions ouvrires.

THE SOCIOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT

119

Dia, M., 1975, Islam, socits africaines et culture industrielle, Abidjan: Les Nouvelles Editions Africaines. Diop, M., 1971, 1972, Histoire des classes sociales en Afrique de l'Ouest, 1. Le Mali; 2. Le Sngal, Paris: Maspro. Doucy, A., and Bouvier, P., 1970, Introduction l'conomie sociale du Tiers-Monde, Bruxelles: Institut de Sociologie. Dozon, J.P., 1985, La socit bt, Paris: ORSTOM-Karthala. Dubar, C , and Nasr, S., 1976, Les classes sociales au Liban, Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques. Dumont, R., 1962, L'Afrique noire est mal partie, Paris: Seuil. Dumont, R., and Mazoyer, M., 1969, Dveloppement et socialismes, Paris: Seuil. Dupriez, H., 1980, Paysans d'Afrique Noire, Nivelles: Terres et Vie. Fanon, F., 1961, Les damns de la terre, Paris: Maspro. Favre, H., 1981, L'Etat et la paysannerie en Msoamrique et dans les Andes, Etudes rurales,, no.81-82. Fougeyrollas, P., 1967, Modernisation des hommes, l'exemple du Sngal, Paris: Flammarion. Frank, A.-G., 1970, Le dveloppement du sous-dveloppement: l'Amrique latine, Paris: Maspro. Gilhodes, P., 1974, La question agraire en Colombie, Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques. Gosselin, G., 1970, Dveloppement et tradition dans les socits rurales africaines, Geneva: ILO. Gosselin, G., 1978/1980, L'Afrique dsenchante, Paris: Anthropos, 2 vols. Gosselin, G., 1979, Changer le progrs, Paris: Esprit-Seuil. Goussault, Y., 1970, Interventions, ducatives et animation dans les dveloppements agraires, Paris: PUF. Goussault, Y., 1987, 'Tiers-Monde, dveloppement: de la socio-conomie la sociologie', Revue Tiers-Monde, t. xxviii, no. 112 (octobre-dcembre). Goussault, Y. and A. Guichaoua, 'La sociologie du dveloppement', in J.P. Durand and R. Weill (eds.), Sociologie contemporaine, Paris: Vigot. Gutelman, M., 1974, Structures et rformes agraires, Paris: Maspro. Haubert, M., (ed.), 1985, Politiques alimentaires et structures sociales en Afrique noire, Paris: PUF, IEDES. I.U.E.D., 1977, Les espaces du Prince. L'Etat et son expansion dans les formations sociales dpendantes, Paris: PUF. Jobert, B., 1983, Clientlisme, patronage et participation populaire, Revue Tiers-Monde, t.XXIV, no.95, juillet-septembre. Labelle, M., 1978, Idologie de couleur et classes sociales en Hati, Montral: Les Presses Universitaires de Montral. Labrousse, A., 1971, Les Tupamaros, guerrilla urbaine en Uruguay, Paris: Le Seuil. Labrousse, B., 1978, De l'idologie domine, Montreal: Nouvelle Optique. Lacherai, M., 1965, L'Algrie, nation et socit, Paris: Maspro. Le Coz, J., 1974, Les rformes agraires: de Zapata Mao Ts Toung et la FAO, Paris: PUF. Le Thanh Khoi, (ed.)., 1984, 'Culture et dveloppement', special issue of the Revue TiersMonde, t. xxv, no.97, janvier-mars. Liauzu, C , 1987, L'enjeu tiers-mondiste. Dbats et combats, Paris: L'Harmattan. Lowy, M., 1990, Modernit et critique de la modernit dans la thologie de la libration, Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions, No.71. Marie, A., 1988, 'Etat, politique urbaine et socits civiles. Le cas africain', Revue TiersMonde, t.xxix, no.116, octobre-dcembre. Martins, L., 1976, Pouvoir et dveloppement conomique, Paris: Anthropos. Meillassoux, C , 1975, Femmes, greniers et capitaux, Paris: Maspro. Meister, A., 1969, Participation, animation, dveloppement, Paris: Anthropos. Mendras, H., and Tavernier, Y. (eds.), 1969/1970, Terre, paysans et politique, Paris: SEDEIS, 2 vols. Monteil, V., 1964, L'Islam noir, Paris: Le Seuil.

120

THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH

ORSTOM (various authors), 1977, Essais sur la reproduction des formations sociales domines (Cameroun, Cte d'Ivoire, Haute-Volta, Sngal, Madagascar, Polynsie), Paris: Travaux et Documents de l'ORSTOM. Pcaut, D., 1987, L'ordre et la violence, Paris: EHESS. Petit-Pont, M., 1968, Structures traditionnelles et dveloppement, Paris: Eyrolle. Queiroz, M. I. Pereira de, 1968, Rforme et rvolution dans les socits traditionnelles. Histoire et ethnologie des mouvements messianiques, Paris: Anthropos. Rey, P.P., 1973, Les alliances de classe, Paris: Maspro. Rodinson, M., 1966, Islam et capitalisme, Paris, Seuil. Rouqui, A., 1977, Pouvoir militaire et socit politique en Rpublique Argentine, Paris: Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques. Sine, B., 1975, Imprialisme et thories sociologiques du dveloppement, Paris: Anthropos-

IDEP.
Stavenhagen, R., 1969, Les classes sociales dans les socits agraires, Paris : Anthropos. Stavenhagen, R., 1973, Sept thses errones sur l'Amrique Latine, ou comment dcoloniser les sciences humaines, Paris: Anthropos. Thomas, L. V., 1966, Le Socialisme et l'Afrique, Paris: Le livre africain. Touraine, A., 1973, Vie et mort au Chili populaire, Paris: Seuil. Touraine, A., 1976, Les socits dpendantes, Paris and Gembloux: Duculot. Touraine, A., 1988, La parole et le sang. Politique et socit en Amrique latine, Paris: Odile Jacob. Toure, S., 1959, Exprience guinenne et unit africaine, Paris: Prsence africaine. Vellas, P., 1968, Moyens sociaux du dveloppement conomique, Paris: PUF.