Explore the vast range of titles available.

Academic discussions of development continue to grow, yet critical engagements with communities affected by development interventions remain limited. Drawing from life history interviews conducted in southern Tanzania, this article details the varied experiences of development interventions among older people and how these affect broader understandings of progress. Many juxtapose their negative views of ujamaa villagization with more positive recollections of previous interventions (especially the Groundnut Scheme), which are infused with what is described here as “development nostalgia.” Perceptions of the past clearly inform the social, political, and economic aspirations forwarded today, with the richness of the constructed narratives adding further nuance to existing depictions of Tanzanian historiography. Bien qu’il y ait de plus en plus de discussions académiques sur le sujet du développement, les engagements critiques avec les communautés touchées par les interventions de développement restent limités. À partir d’entretiens basés sur des expériences personnelles menés dans le sud de la Tanzanie, cet article détaille diverses expériences d’interventions de développement auprès de personnes âgées et comment cela contribue à une compréhension plus large du progrès. Bien des personnes juxtaposent leurs points de vue négatifs de la villagisation Ujamaa avec des souvenirs plus positifs des interventions précédentes (surtout, le système de l’arachide), qui sont imprégnées de ce qui est décrit ici comme “le développement nostalgie.” Les perceptions du passé nous renseignent clairement sur les aspirations sociales, politiques et économiques transmises aujourd’hui, la richesse des récits construits ajoutant des nuances supplémentaires à la représentation existante de l’historiographie de la Tanzanie.

While the reasons for the failure of the groundnut scheme are well understood, its effects on colonial development in Tanganyika are not. Drawing from the voluminous paper trail that development planning leaves in its wake, this paper traces the effects of the groundnut scheme demise on a contemporaneous plan to build a railway across Tanganyika to the Northern Rhodesian copperbelt. Tensions arose among the railway planners - civil servants, politicians, and consultants from Britain, Africa, and the United States - when, midway through the planning process, the scale of the groundnut scheme collapse became public. I demonstrate how this revealing crisis prompted planners to eschew the project's production-oriented impetus and embrace a welfare-oriented conclusion. By demonstrating the interlinked nature of development projects, this paper proposes a new angle for studying the history of development in an era characterised by the rapid proliferation of projects.

In the late 1940s, the British state embarked on an attempt to convert about 12,000 square kilometers of bush land in remote regions of colonial East Africa into a peanut monoculture. The project, which became known simply as the \"Groundnut Scheme\", constituted one of the largest colonial agricultural development initiatives in history, as well as possibly the most spectacular failure in this field. While the technical reasons for this are relatively well known, this article focuses chiefly on perceptions and memories of the Scheme, trying in particular to trace the different functions that were assigned to the social and ecological landscape of Tanganyika. As the Scheme was from the outset targeted as much at Western discourses and representations as at the actual situation in Tanganyika, three layers of context are distinguished, corresponding broadly to different geographical scales as well as specific groups of actors. On the imperial level, the project's entanglement in British politics tended to obscure its geographic and historical specificities, transforming the transformation of Tanganyikan landscape into sets of statistical numbers, and ultimately into a largely decontextualized political buzzword. Secondly, in the framework of the international expert community, technological enthusiasm depicted East Africa as an \"empty\" region formable at will, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Ironically, the mistakes and miscalculations resulting from this were so numerous and at times grotesque that they allowed a more general questioning of the basic tenets of agricultural development to be avoided. At a \"local\" level, the Groundnut Scheme should be understood in the context of attempts to reform the (post-) colonial social order through the modification of agricultural practices and the refashioning of the physical and ecological environment. In this sense, the project became a forerunner of the even larger Tanzanian \"villagization\" campaign in the 1970s. Different strands of memory of the Groundnut Scheme persist today, although their connection to the physical site(s) of the project is often tenuous. On the other hand, the Scheme did transform the social, physical, and biological landscape of Tanganyika, albeit in very different ways and in a much more limited fashion than intended.

Problems of 1951 (pg. 1-2). Anglo-American relations and China (pg. 2-3). meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers (pg. 3-4). Mr. Attlee on Russia (pg. 4). domestic shortages (pg. 4-7). steel nationalization (pg. 7). defence debate, 14–15 February (pg. 7-11). the Atlantic Command (pg. 11-12). Mr. Morrison succeeds Mr. Bevin (pg. 12-13). Egyptian debt settlement (pg. 13-14). strikes and wage disputes (pg. 14-16). privilege questions (pg. 16-18). cricket (pg. 18).