ABSTRACT
The dominant ethos of development as propagated and practised by donors and planners implies that developing countries will necessarily undergo a fundamental shift from traditional energy sources (such as firewood, dung and agri-residues) to commercial ones mostly based on petroleum (such as liquefied petroleum gas, kerosene and electricity generated from coal, oil or in some fortuitous cases hydropower). This transition is neither as linear as national development planners have assumed, nor as altruistically beneficial as the evaluation reports of aid organizations suggest. Using examples from Nepal, which has been moving from traditional to commercial energy sources at breakneck speed over the last few decades (and only haltingly towards exploiting its alternative renewable resources), this chapter analyses the ‘hijacking’lopment that has occurred in this transition. Cases drawn from energy and transport as well as a large urban water supply scheme (which has a disputed hydropower component to it) show how various actors, including state bureaucracies, aid agencies, ‘development merchants’ and the ubiquitous politician-contractor nexus, have jockeyed for the prime spot, all trying to further their own agendas. Each is actively involved in suppressing the alternatives championed by the others, all the while believing that the silent consuming masses subscribe to only its version.
