Development Cooperation in a Multilevel and Multistakeholder Setting: From Planning towards Enabling Coordinated Action?

Development co‐operation and the partnership–ownership nexus: Lessons from the Canada–Ghana experience

“…The challenge of both defining and responding to nationally “owned” development plans has been further complicated as the development/donor community becomes increasingly diverse and pluralistic, including many non‐OECD and non‐state partners that do not require longer‐term development strategies as a starting point for co‐operation. The many multilateral, national, and non‐state development actors that seek, and are encouraged, to “partner” with low‐ and middle‐income country counterparts in the post‐Busan, “post‐aid” context (Mawdsley et al, 2014) will have their own priorities, reflecting in part the intensely political need to sustain support from their own constituents or “stakeholders.” The challenge of donor co‐ordination in alignment with country‐owned priorities is an old one, but it has surely become more challenging in the face of the proliferation of prospective partners—a point elaborated below (Lundsgaarde & Keijzer, 2018). At the same time, the significance of official donor funding is receding, as countries like Ghana become less aid‐dependent and new sources of financing and of influence—including but extending well beyond China (Swedlund, 2017b)—grow in relative importance.…”

“…This long‐standing relationship has much working in its favour; yet claims to both partnership and ownership have remained tenuous. Moreover, there is evidence that the growing breadth, diversity and complexity of MSPs has increased the difficulty of fostering a “country‐owned” approach to sustainable development in this and similar cases where ownership is shared and increasingly dispersed (Lundsgaarde & Keijzer, 2018). In this article, I will draw on insights from the evolving Canada–Ghana relationship to outline some key reasons why both bilateral partnership and country ownership remain elusive.…”

Shielded against risk? European donor co‐ordination in Palestine

“…38‐41), which has since the COVID‐19 crisis been rebranded into ‘Team Europe’. Alongside the EU’s increased ambition, a growing literature on the enabling and constraining factors for European donor co‐ordination has emerged (Bodenstein et al, 2016; Carbone, 2017; Delputte, 2013; Furness & Volmer 2013; Klingebiel et al, 2013, 2017; Lundsgaarde & Keijzer, 2019; Olivié & Perez, 2016; Rabinovych, 2019; Van Criekinge, 2009).…”

Promoting ownership in a “post‐aid effectiveness” world: Evidence from Rwanda and Liberia

“…The principles were reaffirmed and renewed at the fourth and final High‐Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in 2011 that convened in Busan, South Korea. Although international policy debates on aid effectiveness continue—for example in the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation—the political momentum behind these internationally agreed principles has declined considerably since 2011 (Lundsgaarde & Engberg‐Pedersen, 2019; Lundsgaarde & Keijzer, 2019). Various scholars have examined aid negotiation and ownership in different countries and contexts (e.g.…”