A genealogical study of small credit policies in Sri Lanka: development agencies and anthropology of knowledge

我们的目的是研究1990年代斯里兰卡小额信贷计划的谱系，即Janasaviya和Smurudhi计划。这里的一个主要问题是，为什么南亚国家的大多数政策都选择了格莱珉银行模式。我们试图从斯里兰卡发展机构和咨询机构之间的知识动态的角度来分析决策过程。DiMaggio和Powell（1983）在《重访铁笼：组织领域的制度同构与集体理性》一书中讨论过，组织产生的知识在竞争环境或市场环境中趋向于汇聚成为主导知识，这是“一种特殊的动力”的意思。虽然由于收集的数据太多，我们无法完成这两年的分析，但有以下两点是明确的：1。通过阅读Janasaviya和Samurudhi项目的会议文件和访谈数据，我们发现小额信贷政策与格莱珉银行模式的趋同是由于一种官僚模式，在这种模式下，大多数官僚和技术官僚都热衷于为自己保持一种最安全的政策制定“形式”，而不考虑其内容和预期结果。那些参与决策的人几乎不记得他们与同事就小额信贷讨论了什么。在我们看来，他们所关心的只是一种空洞的政策形式，正如A. Riles（2000）在《The network inside out》一书中所描述的那样。这一点让我们想到了在我们的报告中讨论过的关于发展的记忆。如前所述，我们将继续分析本研究中收集的数据，并很快发布另一份报告。

We aimed to examine the genealogy of micro-credit scheme in Sri Lanka during 1990' s, that is Janasaviya and Smurudhi program. A main question here was why the Grameen Bank model had been selected by most policies in South Asian countries. We attempted to analyze the policy-making process in terms of a particular dynamism of knowledge among development agencies and consultancies in Sri Lanka. It was meant by "a particular dynamism" that knowledge produced by organization tends to converge into a dominant one in a competitive situation or market situation as DiMaggio and Powell (1983) discussed in "The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields".Although we could not complete our analyses during these two years due to too much data gathered, the following two points are made clear:1. Through reading conference documents and interview data on Janasaviya and Samurudhi programs, the convergence of micro-credit policy into the Grameen Bank model were found to be due to a mode of bureaucracy in which most bureaucrats and technocrats were keen interested in keeping a safest 'form' of policy-making for themselves without considering the contents and supposed results.2. Those who were engaged with the policy-making hardly remembered what they discussed with their colleagues on micro-credits. It seems to us that they were concerned with only an empty form of policy as A. Riles (2000) described in The network inside out. This point led us to think about memory of development as discusses in our Report here.As mentioned already, we will continue our analyses of data gathered in this research and publish another report soon.