"Partnership - a much talked about but often poorly practiced process in the

development sector". Discuss the objectives and management challenges of

promoting effective north-south partnerships within the development sector

today.

Author: John Harrison

Course: Managing Development Organisations

Course Facilitator: Rob Kevlihan

Date of Submission: 21st June 2015

Word count: 3000

“With rare exceptions, all of your most important achievements on this planet will

come from working with others or, in a word; partnership” Farmer, P (2013 p.58)

Introduction

As the title of this paper suggests, there are key objectives in promoting effective

north-south partnerships and a number of management challenges that can influence

this process within the development sector today. The paper will begin with a brief

explanation on what is meant by the term ‘partnership’, the history, origins and

development of north-south partnerships will then be discussed followed by a critique

of the management challenges with a focus on non-governmental organisations

(ngo’s) in the global north and south.

The paper will conclude with a response to the application of the term ‘partnership’ in

the development sector today.

1

Definitions and contexts

The concept of ‘partnership’ has become an integral component of current

development discourse, Impey & Overton describe its genesis as a “manifestation of a

populist and participatory approach to development” (2013 p.112) that provides a

framework and structure for development co-operation between north and south. In

development cooperation discourses concerning the north and south increasing value

has been placed on local partners providing local knowledge to projects (Marais,

2011) through their proximity to constituents or as Chambers states, consideration of

development objectives of “the rural people in a particular place” (Chambers, 1983

p.46).

The fundamental meaning of partnership can be regarded as relatively universal at the

rhetorical level (Blagescu & Young, 2005) with Fowler referring to partnerships as

“understood and mutually enabling, interdependent interactions with shared

intentions’ (Fowler, 1997: 117 in Cornwall et al., 2000). Diverse contexts and the

relational aspect of partnership makes it difficult to categorise and define the plethora

of partnership models that currently exist in the development sector, though they can

sometimes be grouped together by terminology often being given the prefix ‘multi’;

ranging in scale from the multi-sector, multi-country to the multi-stakeholder, multi-

platform at a regional grass roots level. A primary function of partnership formation is

to have a positive impact on development effectiveness and as Franklin states “create

synergies that produce better results than isolated initiatives” (2009, p.789). It is a

framework that has at its heart the facilitation of the south’s participation in

development, building the capacity of organisations, increasing ownership while

simultaneously addressing the realities of poverty (Byrne & Vincent, 2006).

History and origins

The development sector has gradually shifted from a focus on aid effectiveness to

development effectiveness with the promotion and development of increasingly

collaborative relationships between north and south that have at the heart; trust,

2

mutuality and reciprocal accountability. A marked change in the relationship between

donors in the north and aid recipients of the south took place in the 1980’s with a

major structural shift from direct delivery and implementation of aid interventions to

development cooperation. The south was placed at the forefront of aid delivery and

the move from a project based approach to a wider, longer term, collaborative

programmatic based approach took place. Increasing dissatisfaction with the way aid

funds were being utilised caused development policy to shift as it was being argued

strongly by those in south that the “burden of responsibility for development in the

south ultimately lies within the southern countries and their indigenous NGO’s”

(Kajese, 1987 p.79). In attempting to re-define the modality of aid delivery and

improve aid effectiveness the concept of partnership was widely adopted by

international non-governmental development organisations in the north as a

methodology for engaging with civil society in southern countries and ultimately their

constituencies.

Development

It was observed that southern ngo’s had a greater understanding of the development

needs of their constituencies and through close relationships with northern

organisations could improve the effectiveness and transparency of aid delivery with

their proximity to constituencies, but despite application of the partnership concept a

continuing power dynamic of asymmetric, imbalanced and unequal relationships

remained between the organisations of the south and north. An analogy that has been

adopted at a simplistic level is the relationships of a ‘parent-child’ or an ‘adult-adult’

to highlight the level of dependency and power dynamics; the child being dependent

on the ‘adult’ in a paternalistic relationship, ranging to mutually supportive in a

relationship of ‘adult’ equals. In the early period of partnership promotion many of

the ad-hoc north-south relationships that were developed could be placed in the

parent-child categorization. Recent partnership discourses, reinforced by the Busan

partnership agreement for effective development co-operation have marked a drive

towards more equitable relationships between the north and south; setting out

3

principles, commitments and actions (OECD, 2016) to address specific management

challenges.

Objectives

The relational dimension of partnerships needs to go beyond unilateral financial

dependence with greater trust and understanding leading to a willingness of northern

donors becoming more accountable to the south (and ultimately their constituencies).

In order to achieve this level of trust it has become necessary for organisations in the

north to recognise the intrinsic value of southern partners and cultivate a culture of

accepting that they bring their own unique bundle of resources and non-financial

assets to the development table. If non-financial components of partnership (local

knowledge, technical skills etc.) and social capital are given a value that is on a par

with financial considerations it is possible for a more equitable relationship to be

constructed. Increasingly the north is being encouraged to become more accountable

and transparent in its interaction with the south, no longer is it possible to only

provide lip service, tokenism and flowery rhetoric, offering accountability solely to

constituents in the north.

Partnership theory and practice can be disconnected with the rhetoric in the north

around equality, mutuality and accountability not matching the implementation of the

concept in the south. Working across diverse, cultures, countries and contexts is a

complex process (Franklin, 2009) and requires the commitment of all stakeholders.

Building a relationship from scratch requires a number of time intensive stages that

have been identified as ‘forming’, ‘storming’, ‘norming’ and ‘performing’ (Tuckman

1965). It must be more than a fashionable buzzword (Mohiddin, 1999) to cement a

transactional relationship. Partnerships based on shared values in a relationship of

equals (Mohiddin, 1999) with mutuality at the heart are a key component of the

relational paradigm and are key to the creation of ‘active’ as opposed to ‘dependent’

(Pfeffer, 1997) partnerships with multiple linkages creating authentic relationships

between north and south. The overarching objective of partnership remains, to

4

increase development effectiveness by increasing the role of the south in the current

development agenda.

Critique of management challenges

Funding

The development of partnerships around project funding systems (Brehm, 2001) has

resulted in skewed relationships with the north at the top controlling resources and

southern partners at the grassroots attempting to meet rigid criteria in order to access

resources on which there very survival may exist. A supply driven approach to

partnership has resulted in southern organisations morphing and re-shaping

themselves to fit the available partnerships on the ‘market’, southern partners should

ideally play a role in moulding the partnership to fit their individualistic approaches

and frameworks not as has often been the case of a partnership re-shaping them.

The trend in development for ‘one size fits all’, off the shelf partnerships has failed to

recognise that authentic relationships are formed over time and go through stages

based on adaption and learning. A key element of the partnership process needs to be

the establishment of why the partnership is being formed and whether the

organisations represent a good fit. Linear partnership have historically been created

for the south to access funding and deliver services while the north gains credibility

and information; a clear well defined hierarchical structure that ensures the north

receive information at the top and the south receive funding at the bottom. In the

majority of cases the north will have the greatest influence in setting out the

framework of any agreements, with the south having to adjust to fit and the north

remaining rigid with the south following its lead (Franklin, 2009). Financial

accountability systems and reporting designed in the north and imposed on southern

partners reduce the freedom of southern partners to adapt to changing environments,

centralizing decision making and the resource base in the north. A lack of mutuality

and reciprocity in partnerships, particularly with regard to financial considerations

results in a relationship based on compliance, reducing shared responsibility, equality

5

and mutual accountability, removing ownership from the southern partners; a key

component of aid effectiveness.

Structure

Partnerships models were originally designed and promoted to facilitate inclusion and

participation of the south in the development agenda but they remain a tool of

development architecture manufactured in the north and imposed on the south. The

south has had limited input in the creation of partnerships and they have been

criticised for maintaining the unequal power relationships, though they were

originally introduced in order to reduce the north’s dominant role (Fowler, 1998) in

the development sector. A key component of a partnerships structure is participation

(Willis, 2005) and to what extent stakeholders are involved in decision making

processes. Early partnership models were based around the framework of the

principal-agent (donor-recipient) relationship (Blagescu & Young, 2005) where the

northern donor held the dominant position in the relationship but over time has moved

to a more equitable relationship with greater levels of participation and cooperation in

development objectives by the south. The levels of participation in partnership by the

south and the extent to which they are active participants in a partnership remain a

challenge, requiring a disempowering of the north and a decentralization of

development structures (Jennings, 2001). Currently a great deal of the architecture of

development is located physically, ideologically and academically in the north. It is

difficult to envisage the current dynamic shifting in the short to medium term despite

the promotion of participatory approaches. The participation of the south at the grass

roots level is universally promoted by the north but at the policy and programme

design level they are still struggling to get a seat at the table.

The disempowering of the north is a major management challenge in creating

effective north-south partnerships. A lack of trust currently exists with many northern

organisations not wishing to ‘let go’, insisting on keeping an element of control,

particularly with regard to financial management and assets with an ongoing

resistance to devolving power to the south.

6

Differences in size and capacity of organisations of the south and north can lead to a

notion of superiority of the north towards the south and a prevalent attitude that they

should be grateful for any support they receive. It is not currently feasible for many of

the organisations of the south to match the north in terms of size and capacity but

when learning becomes an integral component of the partnership model it is possible

for the parties to better understand their capabilities and appropriate roles and

responsibilities can be mutually negotiated within the relationship. A creation of local

sources of power and structures within the south requires investment in building the

capacity of southern partners and a shift in the resource base to the periphery from the

core. This approach places a great deal more than purely service delivery in the hands

of the south as they become not only responsible for redistribution of resources but

also share responsibility for policy and programme design. Placing a greater trust in

the organisations of the south requires the north to take a step back, adopt a softer

approach and allow the organisations of the south to learn from their own successes

and mistakes as they are given the space and assistance to develop their own

interventions in an interdependent relationship with the north.

Mutual Accountability

Mutual accountability is a challenge in many partnerships as agreements are often

formed around northern accountability systems. In specific cases the south has to be

accountable with limited reciprocity in the case of the northern partner; differences in

capacity assuming the south to be inferior in terms of academic and technical abilities.

In specific cases partnerships is a convenient cover for an ngo’s dominant role

(Fowler, 1998) and as Akerkar (2001 p.4) states “support a highly inequitable status

quo”. Mohiddin (1999) describes the relational aspect of a partnership as a continuum

from ‘free’ to ‘imposed’. ‘Free’ partnerships are based on mutual accountability and

understanding and ‘imposed’ being created for the benefit of another organisation and

fitting its own agenda Once the foundations of a partnership has been built on

dependence within a structured and hierarchical framework as opposed to mutual

commitments it restricts the functionality of the partnership concept. The management

of these power relationships poses a major challenge to effective north-south

7

relationship; through learning it is necessary to redefine a more equitable relationship.

The south taking sole responsibility for project implementation is not necessary as

partnership still have a place to be used as a tool to increase aid effectiveness through

the exchange of resources but the application of the concept requires greater critical

consideration to ensure that the northern organisations increase accountability to the

south; power is gradually devolved, trust increased and decision making transferred.

Identifying and addressing imbalanced relationships within partnerships is at the heart

of promoting the effectiveness of the concept within the development sector today.

Learning

Partnerships formed using a process based approach need to incorporate learning as a

central element to the framework. Within current discourses emphasis is placed on

ownership, transparency, mutual accountability and shared values but have limited

scope for learning to be incorporated. Collaborative and mutually beneficial

partnerships (Blagescu & Young, 2005) are created over time and do not necessarily

run smoothly directly off the shelf. Ashman states that effective partnerships require

processes that “promote communication, mutual influence and joint learning” (2001,

p.2). Learning takes time and effort on the part of both partners and a commitment to

flexibility and fluidity that allows structures to change dependent on shared learning

processes. The rigidity of current partnerships can restrict learning as partners are

accountable to each other through highly structured and hierarchal reporting formats

that once created are difficult to adapt.

A commitment to learning requires a recognition that partnerships change over time

and learning needs to be incorporated at all stages of the partnerships life cycle.

Current north-south partnerships can be viewed as a means to an end but when

learning is incorporated and they are process orientated the model can adapt and

evolve to address evolving multi-development challenges as opposed to fixing a

single ‘problem’. Shared decision making at all stages of partnership cycle is critical

to the promotion of partnerships, requiring the ability to communicate information

effectively and the incorporation of learning to ensure the creation of a long term

8

process based relationship that can adapt to changing circumstances where partners

are mutually accountable.

The place of partnerships in the development sector

The intention for the formation of partnerships and the process by which the

relationship is formed is key to the establishment of authentic relationships, Postma

(1994) states “intentionality is integral...to the processes by which collaboration and

institutional development take place” (1994, p.46). Brokering of partnerships by a

third party may be necessary to facilitate the joint working of partners from diverse

backgrounds who find it difficult to engage with each other at a one to one level,

which can take away the agency of the parties to negotiate their own agreements as

responsibility is passed to an external actor. Southern partners need a greater

understanding of the concept of partnership and not just the terminology so they can

create and broker partnerships themselves with the north rather than having the

concept opposed upon them or having to compete to become a part of the process.

Partnership models have a place in current development practice but a greater critical

approach needs to be applied to their application and recognition given that they are

not a cure for all development challenges. In a number of cases the specific

relationship between north-south would be more appropriately referred to as

collaboration, joint working, alliances or similar terminology as opposed to

partnership. A greater emphasis needs to be placed on reflecting on how southern

partners view the relationship, if it is not seen as authentic partnership would it not be

more satisfactory to be referred as something else?

If authentic partnerships are to be achieved it is necessary to build the capacity of the

south to become interdependent with the north through a relationship of equals, this

requires a sharing of not just resources but also knowledge so the south has a working

understanding of development architecture and can work comfortably and be

integrated within the paradigm. Currently the south is dependent on partnerships and

has to dance to the tune of the north when it comes to working within the paradigm,

9

the power dynamic needs to shift and southern capacity increased so both south and

north become the composers.

Conclusion

To conclude this paper has discussed the objectives and management challenges of

promoting effective north-south partnerships within the development sector today.

This included identifying the meaning of partnership in a development context, a brief

history of its application and its main objectives. The author then focused on a number

of the management challenges and discussed the place of partnership in the

development sector today. Partnership has a role to play in today’s development

sector but for north-south relationships to become increasingly effective greater

critical consideration needs to be applied to the application of partnerships and

thought given on whether the term should be adopted so broadly.

The relational aspect of partnership and the myriad of variances makes it difficult to

make specific recommendations for the promotion of effective north-south

partnerships but they continue to remain a central component of development

architecture and will remain a tool in (development) cooperation, bridging the gap in

north-south relationships. Promoting effective north-south relationships remains a

challenge but if a number of specific management challenges can be addressed within

the development sector their effectiveness could be enhanced.

10

Bibliography

Akerkar, S. (2001) Gender and Participation; Overview Report. Bridge: Development

-Gender, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex.

Ashman, D. (2001) ‘Strengthening North-South Partnerships for Sustainable

Development’

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30(1), Institute for Development Research.

Blagescu, M & Young, J (2005) Working Paper 255 Partnerships and Accountability:

Current thinking and approaches among agencies supporting Civil Society

Organisations. Overseas Development Institute. London. Available

from:http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/

158.pdf [Accessed online 6th June 2015]

Brehm, V (2001) ‘Promoting Effective North-South Partnerships: A Comparative

Study of Ten European NGOs’. INTRAC Occasional Paper 35.

Byrne & Vincent (2006) Enhancing learning in development Partnerships.

Development in Practice, Vol 16, Number 5

Chambers, R (1983) Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longman, London

Cornwall, A. H. Lucas and K. Pasteur (2000) ‘Accountability through Participation.

Developing Workable Partnership Models in the Health Sector’, IDS Bulletin 31/1.

Farmer, Paul (2013) To Repair the World: Paul Farmer Speaks to the Next

Generation. University of California Press

Fowler, A. F. (1998) Authentic NGDO partnerships in the new policy agenda for

International aid: dead end or light ahead? Development and Change, Vol 29, 137–

159.

11

Impey, K & Overton, J (2013) Developing partnerships: the assertion of local control

of International development volunteers in South Africa. Community Development

Journal Vol 49. 111–128

Jennings, R. (2000) Participatory Development as New Paradigm: The Transition of

Development Professionalism. Prepared for the “Community Based Reintegration and

Rehabilitation in Post-Conflict Settings” Conference Washington, DC [Online].

Available from : http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACQ066.pdf {Accessed:

11/06/2015}

Kajese, K. (1987). An agenda of future tasks for international and indigenous NGOs:

Views from the South. World Development, 15(Suppl.), 79-85.

Kazibwe, C (2006) Building knowledge in partnership for policy Available from:

http://www.ccic.ca/_files/en/what_we_do/002_capacity_bldg_2006-

12_manual_section_5.pdf [online] {Accessed: 12/06/2015}

Marais, L (2011). Local economic development and partnerships: critical reflections

from South Africa. Community Development Journal Vol 46 No S2, 49–62

Mohiddin, A. (1999) ‘Partnership: A New Buzz-word or Realistic Relationship?’

Journal of the Society for International Development, Vol 41, (4)

OECD (2015) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Available

from: www.oecd.org {accessed online 13th June 2015}

Pfeffer, J (1997). New directions for organization theory: problems and prospects.

Oxford: Oxford University Press

Postma, W (1994) ‘NGO partnerships and institutional development: making it real,

making it intentional’ Canadian Journal of African Studies Vol 28, no 3

12

Tuckman, Bruce (1965) ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’, Psychological

Bulletin Vol 63, 384–99.

Weick, K.E. Making Sense of the Organization. Oxford : Blackwell Publishers, 2001

Willis, K. (2005) Theories and Practices of Development, Routledge, Oxon.

13