Does local ownership bring about effectiveness? The case of a transnational advocacy network

Abstract

In international development, shared ownership is assumed to be a condition for effectiveness. Academic studies question this relation, claiming shared ownership can instead lead to ineffectiveness. This study analysed the interplay between ownership and effectiveness in a transnational advocacy network for conflict prevention observed 2012-2015. Building on recent discussions about balancing unity and diversity in networks, this article unpacks the ownership/effectiveness relationship into three dimensions: collective identity, accountability processes and a shared advocacy message. We find that the question is not about more or less effectiveness, but about the processes shaping the meaning of effectiveness in particular institutional constellations.

What happens to local participation when national ownership gets stronger? Initiating an exploration in Rwanda and Cambodia

“…In the aid architecture since then, however, reference is consistently made to “country ownership” (OECD, 1996, 2003, 2005/2008, 2011, 2015; OECD/UNDP, 2016, 2019; Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, 2011). Still, scholarly use of “local” to refer to aid‐recipient countries’ ownership continues (Lie, 2015; Arensman et al, 2017) along with the bemusing combination “local or national ownership” (de Carvalho & Schia, 2011; Ejdus & Juncos, 2018).…”

Perceptions of the EU’s Role in the Ukraine-Russia and the Israel-Palestine Conflicts: A Biased Mediator?

“…International Negotiation 23 (2018) 299-318 and there is "no Archimedean point from which success and failure can be objectively measured" (Jørgensen 2013: 88, 90;Arensman 2017). Effectiveness can be evaluated both by objective and subjective measures.…”

Negotiating effectiveness : the politics of results in advocacy for development and its evaluation

“…This approach implies the assumption of the existence of independent knowledge that will allow for the objective evaluation of outcomes. However, previous research has demonstrated that evaluation itself and the role of outcomes are both political (see Arensman et al, 2017a+b;Taylor and Balloch, 2005) and that evaluators of advocacy have to build their assessment on partly subjective and incomplete information (Teles and Schmitt, 2011). The methods that are currently widely used do not take these issues into account or provide any guidance to practitioners working encountering them.…”

“…In studying the regional network's advocacy for the case study, we observed its many challenges. These challenges demonstrated the tension between what the network pursued collectively and what it achieved regionally (see also Arensman et al, 2017a). We observed how the annual regional network meeting was used for sharing information rather than for the stated purpose of establishing a collective networking advocacy agenda and implementation plan.…”

“…In a few cases, the evaluation team found that outcomes were portrayed as more powerful, influential and/or important than they were in reality (i.e. over-reporting) (see Arensman et al, 2017a). This was directly related to the significance ascribed to the evaluation results, which could assumedly make or break a programme's future (i.e.…”