Why does local agency matter? Ownership, partnership, and decision spaces in foreign aid

Abstract

The importance of local agency and leadership has long been emphasised in aid reform agendas, under the heading of 'ownership'. But in practice, this focus has often fallen victim to 'agency creep', as donors strive to retain control over the policy choices of aid-receiving countries. Even the ‘second orthodoxy’ risks being locally informed without being locally led. More recently, many factors have been reducing donors’ previous leverage over aid recipients’ policies. Given their previous difficulties with local agency, how can donors find new ways to support, enable and embrace it, and to navigate this new world of changing hierarchies? This paper explores the potential benefits of prioritising local agency, as well as the risks and constraints which make it difficult. The analysis suggests a possible way forward for donors: to create an enabling environment, by providing meaningful policy space for local leaders in aid-receiving countries to make their own policy choices. This change in emphasis could enhance the accountability and responsiveness of aid-receiving governments, while managing risks and delivering results. It would involve a shift in donor focus, away from being the protagonist and trying to influence the outputs of policymaking - the policy choices that countries make - and instead, towards trying to support the process of making those choices. In short, the remedy for a perceived misuse of power may not be to usurp it, but rather to support and enable its use for good.

Monitoring and evaluation for thinking and working politically

“…The CoP sets out three core principles: (1) strong political analysis, insight and understanding; (2) a detailed appreciation of, and response to, the local context and (3) flexibility and adaptability in programme design and implementation (Thinking and Working Politically [TWP] Community of Practice, 2015). Some suggest these principles have become 'the second orthodoxy' (Teskey, 2017), while others argue that there is confusion about what these terms mean, and variable commitment to the locally led nature of these initiatives (King, 2020).…”

Giving green: the landscape and motivations of U.S. environmental philanthropy to Brazil

“…The motivations of foundations are better explained if layers are added to altruism. Drawing from the welfare economics literature about paternalistic versus nonpaternalistic behaviour (Archibald & Donaldson, 1976), King (2020) has developed a framework in a working paper which starts by dividing altruism into paternalistic altruism, in which "donors have their own views about what is best for citizens in aid-receiving countries", and disinterested altruism, in which "donors want to respond to local priorities, and care about the subjective well-being of aid beneficiaries" (King, 2020, p. 22). For donors in the first group, failure may occur if policy choices on the ground do not align with their own; whereas for donors in the second group, failure may occur if policies do not reflect what citizens want or need.…”

“…"Whilst it has been recognised for a long time that development processes need to be 'locallyowned' and 'locally-led', it has also been noted that the very identity of the international development sector has historically been premised on solving problems, filling gaps and overcoming local weaknesses often using 'solutions' developed elsewhere." (Roche & Denney, 2019, p. 18) The political economy of donors (King, 2020) can be of help for the comparison of broad patterns in the behaviour of traditional donors and foundations, so that one can look for differences and similarities. Roche and Denney (2019) carried out a review of the literature identifying common features of donors at the systemic level, most of which are easily transferable to the reality of philanthropic organisations in development.…”

“…The measure for success used by the philanthropic organisations is also telling regarding their patriarchal behaviour. For donors displaying paternalistic altruism, failure may occur if policy choices on the ground do not align with their own; whereas for donors displaying disinterested altruism, failure may occur if policies do not reflect what citizens want or need (King, 2020). A successful outcome for the foundations is one that have reached the targets that had been established by the foundations themselves in the first place, in a process that deals with grantees tangentially and even less so with final beneficiaries.…”

“…Revisiting the literature on the political economy of donors (King, 2020;Roche & Denney, 2019), which identifies common features of donors at the systemic level, it is hard not to spot the similarities with the philanthropic organisations studied. The following bullet points remind the reader of the attributes ascribed to donors (Roche & Denney, 2019, p. 17):…”