Reform of state institutions and procedures is a central element in post-war reconstruction. This article examines the reform of local planning practice in Mozambique in the immediate post-war period. The new planning approach – encompassing formulation of district plans and community projects – gave little attention to peace and conflict dynamics. As a consequence, planning initiatives became objects of struggles at material, political and symbolic/narrative levels, distorting the reforms. Resulting planning practices were products of compromise rather than fundamental inputs towards stabilisation and peace.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonM. (1999). Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace or WarBoulder: Lynne Rienner.
2.
Baptista LundinI. (1998). Mechanisms of Community Reception of Demobilised Soldiers in Mozambique. African Journal of Political Science3, 1104–118.
3.
BarnesJ., IsingI. & WeimerB. (1997)., “ Reintegration, Decentralisation and District Planning in Mozambique. ”, SNRD discussion paper, GTZ symposium on post-conflict reintegration.
4.
BillingK. (1993). Final Report: Preliminary Survey to Establish the Requirements for the Initial Phase of the Reintegration and Reconstruction Programme — SofalaHarare: Price-Waterhouse.
5.
BollensS. (2002). Urban Planning and Inter-group Conflict. Journal of the American Planning Association68, 122–42.
6.
BornsteinL. (2000). The Politics of District Development Planning in Mozambique. Journal of Contemporary African Studies18, 2243–264.
7.
Conselho de Ministros (1997). Linhas Gerais para o Desenvolvimento Rural em Moçambique e Mecanismos de Coordenação Intersectorial. Resolution xx/97Maputo.
8.
De Sousa SantosB. (2006). The Heterogeneous State and Legal Plurality. Law and Justice in a Multicultural SocietyDe Sousa SantosB.TrindadeJ.MenesesM.Dakar: Codesria.
9.
DinermanA. (2006). Revolution, Counter-revolution and Revisionism in Post-colonial Africa: The Case of Mozambique, 1975–94London: Routledge.
10.
FergusonJ. (1990). The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, Depoliticisation and Bureaucratic State Power in LesothoCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FortmannL. (1995). Talking Claims: Discursive Strategies in Contesting Property. World Development23, 61053–1063.
12.
GalliR. (2003). Peoples’ Spaces and State Spaces: Land and Governance in MozambiqueNew York: Lexington.
13.
GaltungJ. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research6, 3167–191.
14.
GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit)Reintegration and Reconstruction Programme SofalaBeira: May1995programme brief & concept, PRRS-GTZ Sofala.
15.
HarrisonG. (2000). The Politics of Democratisation in Rural Mozambique. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellon Press.
16.
HealeyP. (2002). Place, Identity and Governance: Transforming Discourses and Practices. Habitus: A Sense of PlaceHillierJ.RooksbyE.Avebury: Aldershot.
17.
INDER (Instituto de Desenvolvimento Rural)O Fundo de Desenvolvimento Distrital e Instrucções para a sua UtilizaçãoMaputo February 1998.
18.
MachiliC. (1996). Unity and Diversity: Centralisation and Decentralisation in the 1994 Mozambican Elections. Mozambique: Elections, Democracy and DevelopmentMazulaB.MachiliC.De MaiaJ.Maputo: The Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
19.
MPF (Ministério do Plano e Finanças)Planificação Distrital, Estudos e RecomendaçõesMaputo July 1997a1997b, ‘Programa de Planificaçõo Decentralizada: Estratégia e Plano de Actividades’, August, Maputo; 1998, ‘Planos de Desenvolvimento Distrital — Esboço’, March, Maputo.
20.
MunroW. (2000). Aid, Development, and the State: Assessing Post-conflict Situations. Workshop on Donor Roles, Recipient Strategies and New Policy Agendas in Post-conflict Southern AfricaDurban: Centre for Social & Development Studies, University of Natal23–25 February discussion paper.
21.
NordstromC. (1997). A Different Kind of War StoryPhiladelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
22.
O'LaughlinB. (2000). Class and the Customary: The Ambiguous Legacy of the Indigenato in Mozambique. African Affairs99, 5–42.
23.
República de MoçambiqueBoletim da República1997Lei no. 2/97, Artigo 6.
24.
RoeE. (1995). Except-Africa: Postscript to a Special Section on Development Narratives. World Development23, 61065–1069.
25.
ScottJ. (1998). Seeing Like a StateNew Haven: Yale University Press.
26.
SheldonK. (2002). Pounders of Grain: A History of Women, Work and Politics in MozambiquePortsmouth: Heinemann.
27.
SoggeD. (1997). Decentralisation. Mozambique: Perspectives on Aid and the Civil SectorSoggeD.Amsterdam: Gemeenschappelijk Overleg Medefinanciering.
28.
WeimerB.FandrychS. (1999). Mozambique: Administrative Reform — A Contribution to Peace and Democracy?. Local Government Democratisation and DecentralisationReddyP.Kenwyn, South Africa: Juta.
29.
WestH. (2003). “Who Rules us Now?” Identity Tokens, Sorcery and Other Metaphors in the 1994 Mozambican Elections. Transparency and Conspiracy: Ethnographies of Suspicion in the New World OrderWestH.SandersT.Durham: Duke University Press.
30.
World BankRural Rehabilitation Project: MozambiqueWashington, DC19931996, World Bank Report, Washington, DC; 1997, World Bank Report. Washington, DC; 1998a, World Bank Report, Washington, DC; 1998b, Conflict Prevention and Post-conflict Reconstruction: Perspectives and Prospects, report of a global workshop, April, Paris.
31.
YiftachelO. (1998). Planning and Social Control: Exploring the Dark Side. Journal of Planning Literature12, 395–406.
