LAUSR

sequence of this bluntness, development not only fails people, especially indı́genas, it also fails on its own terms much of the time. While the book does not lay out clear alternative ways of understanding or practicing development, it does have a lot to say that is relevant. For me, the implication is that there is no ideal ‘alternative’ available, nor will there ever be; that all interventions will fail to deal with many dimensions of differences; and that for that reason development theory and practice ought always to be done with considerable humility and reflexivity. However, and building on the prior paragraph, a further implication of the narrative is also that a number of interventions in the region have, intentionally or not, also contributed to changing and progressive notions of citizenship and rights as well as to new ideas of how the Ecuadorian state might be organized. There is, for me at least, also a story of unintended consequences running beneath the argument, and not all these consequences are efarious. A final observation: Sarah’s book reflects a way of working that demands great respect. She has returned over and again to the provinces of Chimborazo and Santo Domingo and spent many days, hours and weeks talking with indı́genas in an effort to understand their arguments, their interpretations and their positions. At the same time, one senses, she has really grappled with how to represent these arguments, both in their own terms and in relation to theory – so that they can be understood through that theory, and also so that the theory can be understood in new ways through these voices. For me, at least, what the indı́genas quoted in this book have to say has challenged my thinking about critical development, development practice and post-colonial theory. My intuition is that other readers will be equally challenged by this superb book. Tony Bebbington Clark University, USA Reference