NN41, December 2008
The New Politics of Partnership: Peril or Promise?
Partnership Revisited
By Lennart Wohlgemuth, Gothenburg University
Email: lennart.wohlgemuth@bredband.netKeywords
Partnerships, Fads, Sweden
Summary
?Partnership? has been used for all kinds of new reforms pulling in many different directions. This article revisits the notion of partnership and argues that it is not the label itself but what you put into it that matters.
Fads come and go in the sphere of development cooperation as in all areas of societal behavior. Many of the fads relate to the nature of the aid relationship. This question is, according to studies and aid research undertaken during the past decades, central to achieving sustainable and effective development in the recipient countries (Carlsson, 2000). Aid without ownership is never going to be sustainable.
In the mid-1990s it was felt that the Swedish development cooperation had come to the end of the road and that there was time for a thorough re-evaluation of the entire basis of development cooperation. One of the major questions that had to be revisited was just the question of this aid relationship. The Nordic Africa Institute of which I was at that time the Director was requested to engage in research and dissemination in the form of a number of seminars with researchers and practitioners, mainly from Africa. The work was started with a seminar ?Domination or Dialogue (Havnevik 1996) and followed by two more (Kifle, 1997 and Kayizzi-Mugerwa, 1998). The work fed into a Government working group report (MFA, 1997) which in turn led to a Government white paper on a Swedish Africa policy (MFA 1997/98).
Thus after serious consultations and contemplation a sustainable relationship between countries in the North (Sweden) and the South (Africa) - not only with regard to aid but an overall relationship - was carefully defined and given the label ?partnership?. The relationship was seen both from a qualitative and a methodological aspect and is in detail described in my earlier article with NORRAG News 28 2001. It concerns both major geopolitical questions as well as the behavior in the day-to-day relationship when it comes to bilateral affairs. As regards the latter some very concrete proposals were made, some of them self-evident but so difficult to implement in practice, namely that all agreements between the parties in the north and the South should always be proceeded by a real negotiation where both parties give and take and one does not dictate to the other. Thus the message was ?Dialogue and not domination?. It also emphasizes that you cannot engage in partnership without sharing values; thereby limiting the countries with whom you engage. It was my view at that time that the implementation of this kind of partnership was a prerequisite for a continuation of aid in the future.
As with most good ideas, the label partnership was high-jacked by the actors in development cooperation and given many different meanings and contents. This however does not in any way belittle the importance of the suggested reforms in the Swedish Africa Policy of 1998. On the contrary. Today ten years later the issue is again high on the agenda based on the same underlying analysis and experiences. This time under new labels. The August 2008 meeting in Accra highlights the continuous discussion worldwide on the issue of ownership and partnership based on the Paris Declaration of 2005. The question of respecting the receiving partner in an aid relationship becomes perhaps even more important at a time with new actors on the scene (China, India, Russia and Brazil) with different attitudes towards the relationship with the poorer countries in the Developing World.
It is true that international tends and fads come and go. A cynic would stress this fact and see partnership of the Swedish model of 1998 or the Paris Declaration as another of these fads, which soon will have been left behind for new, and more brilliant, ideas. And this is something I have confirmed in my research. There is clear evidence that the issue of ownership in one form and another comes back cyclically again and again. But a development optimist would recommend taking advantage of the present fad and making the most of it. Many countries particularly in Asia have in the past benefited from such a proactive policy, by taking advantage of what is at that particular time possible. It is my sincere contention that the new aid architecture is an opportunity to grasp in order to start a process of putting the Africans themselves in the driver?s seat fully in charge of the controls of their own destiny. However further reform of the aid system is no doubt necessary. Although the label partnership has been used for all kinds of new reforms pulling in many different directions, the Swedish definitions of 1998 is well worth keeping in mind also in the reforms which will follow the Paris Declaration. It is not the label itself but what you put into it that matters.
References
Carlsson J. and L. Wohlgemuth, 2000. Learning in development co-operation, EGDI 2000:2, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.
Havnevik, K. and B. van Arkadie, 1996, Domination or Dialogue? ? Experiences and Prospects for African Development Cooperation, Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute.
Kayizzi-Mugerwa, S., A. Olukoshi and L. Wohlgemuth, 1998, Towards a New Partnership with Africa ? Challenges and Opportunities, Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute.
Kifle, H., A. Olukoshi and L. Wohlgemuth, 1997, A New Partnership for African Development ? Uppsala: Nordic Africa Institute.
Wohlgemuth L. and J. Olsson.Dialogue in pursuit of development. Stockholm, EGDI. 2003:2: 58-71.
Full contents of NORRAG NEWS 41.
Download the full issue of NORRAG NEWS 41 in pdf.