Special issue introduction Ownership in a post‐aid effectiveness era: Comparative perspectives

Abstract

Motivation: Close to 15 years have passed since the adoption of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which generated unprecedented efforts to advance effective development co-operation with a central focus on developing country ownership. Under today's international development co-operation realities, involving inclusive agendas, strategic divergence and increasing competition, discussions on ownership, harmonization and alignment have lost traction. Yet the practices of development co-operation relationships show strong continuities. Purpose: This special issue examines how the principle of ownership may be understood and advanced under these new conditions. National ownership is prioritized in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development yet has so far been marginalized by a predominantly piecemeal response and by the rise of "mutual benefit" co-operation. Approach and Methods: This special issue takes an inductive approach to studying specific cases and actors bearing on the challenge of understanding and advancing ownership today, in order to inform future policy and research. The contributions to this special issue mainly draw from qualitative research designs that present detailed research inquiries into specific country and actor cases, drawing from interviews, structured desk reviews of policy documents and the rich body of literature on development effectiveness. They are complemented by two contributions that respectively present quantitative research and probe the critical and post-development literature for additional insights. Findings: Findings point to an increasing prevalence of pragmatism and self-interest among all actors, to the detriment of national ownership. Broad co-operation agendas, a sense of urgency interpreted as a search for quick results, and more diverse, interest-and outcome-driven forms of multistakeholder partnerships all entail a more assertive and proactive approach on the part of external actors. Under these conditions, local initiative may either become stifled or be reasoned away. Given this, today's dominant approaches to co-operation raise concerns about their ethics and sustainability. Policy implications: Ownership remains both a requirement and a desired outcome of international co-operation and is key to the effective O2 | KEIJZER and BLaCK

“Securitized” UK aid projects in Africa: Evidence from Kenya, Nigeria and South Sudan

“…Although the specific reasons for this varied by project, common themes included incorrect assumptions at the project-design stage, over-optimism about the projects' transformative potential and deficient project "ownership." Within the scholarly literature and donor documentation, "ownership" is frequently cited as crucial when engaging in institution-and peace-building (Keijzer & Black, 2020); without the recipients "owning" the results, any short-term positive change is likely to disappear with the end of donor funding.…”

Rethinking governance in international climate finance: Structural change and alternative approaches

“…This was particularly the case following the debt trap crisis of the 1970s, which led to an increased “donorship syndrome,” in which “all initiative emanates from the donor side and donors determine which values and objectives are good for beneficiaries of aid” (Edgren, 2003, p. 4). Furthermore, contributor countries frequently used development finance to advance their own interests (e.g., trade and security objectives) (Keijzer & Black, 2020). Thus, despite a rhetoric of restitution, charitable or “gift‐giving” norms dominate development finance, including the voluntary nature of contributions, contributor country oversight, and the channeling of funds through development agencies (Calder, 2010; Mackintosh et al, 2008; Moore, 2012).…”

“…In practice, ownership was more often defined as the institutional capacity to manage a project, rather than the bottom‐up process envisioned in the Paris Declaration (Buiter, 2007). The OECD increasingly defined ownership as the pursuit of mutual interest (Keijzer & Black, 2020). The implicit reliance on national governments was also increasingly at odds with the growing recognition of recipient countries as “whole societies”—with differing groups holding often contrasting development objectives—and the corresponding effort to direct funding to a broader set of partners in civil society (Carothers & de Gramont, 2013; Seims, 2011).…”

“…As the architecture of climate finance continues to evolve, recipient countries have successfully negotiated for funding structures that grant them greater (though far from complete) control over the allocation of financial resources (Keijzer & Black, 2020). Several multilateral climate funds under the UN Climate Convention have implemented procedures, known as “direct access modalities,” that empower national governments to manage financing without international intermediaries (Afful‐Koomson, 2015; Scoville‐Simonds, 2016).…”

EU development policy: evolving as an instrument of foreign policy and as an expression of solidarity

“…However, due to the dynamics between reformers and status-quo defenders within the EU's legal and policymaking systems, as well as the divergent views that the EU and partner countries have expressed, the actual changes aimed at making eye-level cooperation the major principle for advancing sustainable development have been much less ambitious than promised. The EU has not yet fully replaced the system of asymmetrical donorrecipient relationships (Keijzer and Black, 2020).…”