{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018032786885245903, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.9375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Auditing poverty? Applied anthropologists and the discourse of development in post-apartheid South Africa

This article debates the opportunities and disadvantages attached to applied anthropology, specifically consultancy linked to development work, within the institutions and processes of the modern neo-liberal state. Located within political and applied anthropology, the article uses insights gained from two projects to assess the impact of development projects on displaced people, and to evaluate the actual process of producing reports. These cases illustrate how anthropologists deal with the conflicting demands of received knowledge (about development) and actual conditions on the ground during research. The paper argues that development outcomes mostly depend on classification, calculation and the displacement of people in order to motivate a particular type of development intervention by the state, and compares this with Foucault's use of “governmentality.” Ultimately, although this method of classification has strengthened the role of the South African state, it has also produced very static conceptions of citizenship, particularly in relation to the provision of housing for informal dwellers.