The Rhetoric and Reality of Partnerships for International Development

Abstract

Over the past 60 years, the international development landscape has become far more complex. There is now a much wider range and number of organisations involved in some aspect of poverty alleviation, and an increasing emphasis on collaborative activities and forming partnerships to achieve development goals. This approach has been reinforced by the eighth Millennium Development Goal, which calls for a global partnership for development, the emerging Sustainable Development Goals, as well as recent multi‐stakeholder partnerships including the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, which evolved from the Busan Partnership agreement devised at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. However, there are many challenges to partnerships, both in terms of defining their form and operation, but also achieving sustainable, mutually beneficial partnerships for development. The advocating of partnerships in development policy suggests significant normative advantages to a more collaborative approach; however, other literature are more cautious, highlighting a number of pitfalls including reductions in effectiveness, difficulties in implementation and conflicts of interest. This article reviews the contemporary nature of partnerships for international development and considers their role in achieving more effective development cooperation.

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

“…There is an extensive literature on each, extending back to the Pearson Commission’s original observation of the strong linkages between the two concepts. A full review of these literatures is well beyond the scope of this article (though for perceptive treatments, see Schaff, 2015; Hasselskog & Schierenbeck, 2017; Brown, 2017; and the introduction to this special issue). For our purposes, however, it is useful to distinguish between relatively shallow, technocratic and instrumental versions seen as necessary for the successful use of official development assistance (ODA) funds, and relatively deep, ethical or normative versions, understood as a core objective of development co‐operation.…”

“…3–4), these are captured in the idea of “mutuality,” along with recognition and respect for the various partners’ “organizational identities.” The former implies mutual dependence and a commitment to shared goals, along with equitable decision‐making structures. More expansively, Schaaf (2015, p. 71) sees a true or full partnership as:

a cooperative relationship underpinned by a set of values (trust, transparency, accountability, reciprocity, and respect) that evolves over time through mutual learning, voluntary participation and commitment, with a view to achieving mutually agreed goals.

…”

Civil Society Organizations in a Post‐Aid World: New Trends and Observations from the Andean Region

“…Political factors include the questioning of the effectiveness of aid as ODA is criticized for perpetuating inequities, being overly bureauticratisized, and often conditional (Holcombe, ; Schaaf, ; Schulpen et al ., ). In addition, fragmentation within the provision of aid (“little aid spread over many projects, programmes or sectors”) and an increased proliferation of aid actors, for example, bilateral actors, multilaterals institutions, CSOs, and increasingly private philanthropists (“little aid from many donors to many countries”) are critiqued (Schulpen et al ., , p. 321; Schaaf, ). Furthermore, aid in developing regions has a complex past, not only related to its perceived lack of effectiveness but also because of its militarization and alignment with security policy goals, the so‐called securitization of aid (Howell and Lind, ).…”

Triangular Cooperation in East Asia: Challenges and Opportunities for Japanese Official Development Assistance

“…Among the few, Fordelone (2011) argued that although TrC is widely practised around the world, further efforts in ownership, alignment, and harmonisation are required to promote further development effectiveness. Schaaf (2015) focuses on the rhetoric and reality of 'partnership', which is a central concept embedded in TrC, to highlight pitfalls including reductions in effectiveness, difficulties in implementation and conflicts of interest.…”