Why Should Governmentality Matter for the Study of Pastoral Development?
Abstract
This article explores some of the ways in which analyses based around Foucault's concept of 'governmentality' might cast light on the ways in which pastoralists in Africa are and might be governed, given the persistence of poor policy, poor governance and hostile attitudes towards pastoralism by central and local government officials. Key concepts in the Foucauldian approach are briefly outlined: power (productive, multiple and bound up with knowledge), government ('the conduct of conduct') and governmentality (modes of thinking about government in general but also certain modes specific to the development of Western liberalism). Five reasons for using the approach in the study of pastoral development are identified: a commitment to specificity and contingency; an attention to multiple actors; an attention to diverse 'technologies of rule'; a focus on the interconnections of power, knowledge and discourse; and a record of studying marginalized groups. The argument is illustrated with examples drawn mainly from East Africa. Possible objections to a Foucauldian approach are discussed, and key questions for pastoralist research using the governmentality approach are set out.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Ambiguous and insecure land tenure regimes combined with widespread poverty and frequent marginalization of pastoralist communities across many grassland areas limit investment in their sustainable use and management, including access to veterinary and rural advisory services, financial and insurance markets, and input and output markets.
“Ambiguous and insecure land tenure regimes combined with widespread poverty and frequent marginalization of pastoralist communities across many grassland areas (32) limit investment in their sustainable use and management, including access to veterinary and rural advisory services, financial and insurance markets, as well as input and output markets.”
From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [32]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Arneth, A., Olsson, L., Cowie, A., Erb, K.-H., Hurlbert, M., Kurz, W. A., Mirzabaev, A., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2021) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
“Ambiguous and insecure land tenure regimes combined with widespread poverty and frequent marginalization of pastoralist communities across many grassland areas (32) limit investment in their sustainable use and management, including access to veterinary and rural advisory services, financial and insurance markets, as…”
Background
- Authors
- Morton, J.
- Affiliations
- Natural Resources Institute (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Morton, John
- ORCID
- Morton, John
- Venue
- Nomadic Peoples
- Publisher
- Liverpool University Press
- Published
- 2010-05
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-30
- ISSN
- 0822-7942 (ISSN-L)
- 1752-2366
- OpenAlex
- W1982980820
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nomadic Peoples (publishedVersion)
- Greenwich Academic Literature Archive (University of Greenwich) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Rangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Foucault, Power, and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › African Studies and Ethnography
- Keywords
- governmentality, pastoral development, pastoralism, Michel Foucault, power and knowledge, governance, marginalized communities, East Africa, liberalism
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review