Reflections on objectivity and accountability in USAID rural development projects

This essay reflects on ‘objectivity’ and its relationship to accountability in the context of United States Agency for International Development (USAID) rural development projects. The analysis focuses on frontline field experiences during project implementation drawing on Edward Said's contrapuntal orientation that recognizes multiple and contested histories and Donna Haraway′s concept of situated knowledge that affirms the validity of each history. The narrative unfolds on two levels. At the macro level, the narrative follows historical changes in objective measures of success with the Post WWII drift away from Enlightenment concerns with improving the human condition to neoliberal prioritization of market practices. At the micro level, the paper highlights the tension between (1) objectivity as perceived by the distant USAID headquarters and (2) the ethics of accountability with respect to the lived experiences of the actors involved in project implementation. As an example of objectivity, USAID’s aggregated project indicators across multiple diverse sites in many countries each with their local histories and tensions produces knowledge and power for the empire. Locally, however, objectivity involves accountability between multiple actors within their local networks woven from their mutual understandings of knowledge and power.