NN41, December 2008
The New Politics of Partnership: Peril or Promise?
Unveiling Partnerships: Power Relations in the Yemeni Education Sector
By Robbert van de Waerdt, University of Amsterdam
Email: robbertvandewaerdt@gmail.comKeywords
Partnership, Education, Yemen
Summary
Illustrated by an international development partnership in the Yemeni education sector, this article argues that without a critical analysis of power relations, current conceptualizations of partnerships may be merely an instrument that promotes top-down global governance of education instead of one that includes national and local voices in a true open dialogue that has ownership at its core.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Education for All (EFA) goals reflect an apparent global consensus to combat poverty in its multiple dimensions. Within these global partnerships the importance of building ownership is identified as key to achieving the goals. Indeed, terms such as ?partnership? and ?ownership? have gained a great deal of attention in recent years, from governments, from development agencies, and from academics, and have thus become key words in a new era of international development.
Partnerships however are not neutral. They are shaped by power relations, that help to shape the boundaries of partnerships - what is possible within them, and who may enter, with which identities, discourses and interests (Gaventa 2004). At the global level, this becomes apparent through globalization as a multidimensional process that affects economic power, state power and political power. King (2004) for example sets out how the EFA agenda has been narrowed down to Schooling for All and how this agenda has been distributed globally. Here, the promotion of a standardized set of norms, ideas and values that is inherently normative informs and shapes the very nature of states as well as their policies. If education is increasingly globally governed, how then can partnerships promote ownership and self-reliance?
In Yemen, a country that has throughout its history been influenced tremendously by various forms of globalization, a partnership has been set up between the Government of Yemen and development agencies around the national basic education development strategy. To explore the relationship between partnership and ownership, this present study has applied Steven Lukes? (1974) three-dimensional theory of power for a deeper analysis of power relations in the partnership in the Yemeni education sector. Research for the study was based on three months of fieldwork in Yemen, during which, alongside observation and collection of unobtrusive data, interviews were carried out with a range of state and international stakeholders.
A first step toward increased cooperation and coordination between the Government of Yemen and development agencies was the establishment of a Partnership Declaration. However, although not unimportant, the partnership only seemed to imply coordination among development agencies. The coordination meetings, mainly attended by representatives from development agencies and similarly chaired by a donor coordinator, primarily seemed to be there to avoid duplication of activities, instead of activities being guided by the Yemeni government. In terms of Lukes? first dimension of power, decision-making power, an analysis of concrete observable behaviour (following Béland 2006) suggests that the partnership has not promoted more ownership in the Yemeni education sector.
An analysis of Lukes? second dimension of power reveals that the partnership seemed to have increased agenda-setting power of development agencies. Exemplified by among others a donor retreat, issues identified by an individual or a limited number of development agencies could more easily be prioritized collectively as a result of the partnership. In the same vein, agencies were (physically) closer to the governance level and could consequently influence the agenda more easily. DFID for example seconded a consultant to the Yemeni Ministry of Education who in effect held a key position as education adviser, which could be seen as an institutionalized part of the Yemeni governance system.
Lukes? third and most important power dimension is ideological power or the ability to determine ?the rules of the game? (Dale 2005: 131). Firstly, the absolute focus within the partnership is basic education, most notably formal basic schooling. Without underestimating the contribution and value of basic education, the importance of formal basic schooling as fundamental priority seemed to be unquestionably taken for granted. Secondly, a reform agenda was inherent in the partnership that was mostly supported through so-called ?capacity building? in the administration, planning and management of education. An example in this regard of institutionalization of external influence in the Yemeni education sector was the technical advice that a German team presented to the formulation and development of the Yemeni Basic Education Development Strategy. Whatever the German input has been, one could wonder what the popular opinion would be if a Yemeni team contributed to the formulation of the German national education strategy. A third example is the use of English as language in the coordination meetings, a language that few people within the Yemeni Government master. Although most meetings provided for translation and most key documents were bilingual, the use of English as the prime language of communication seemed to be taken for granted, and might be an obstacle for the partnership to become government-led.
An analysis of Lukes? dimensions of power suggest that the partnership in the Yemeni education sector could be seen as a mechanism that effectively mediates the western-dominated global education and development agenda to the level of the Yemeni education sector. Tying aid directly to specific policies or policy components gives external stakeholders a powerful means of ensuring compliance with international development agendas (Kuder 2005). Partnerships, then, ?may imply yet another episode in which the powerful talk to themselves? (Odora Hoppers 1999: 24).
If development agencies truly aim for ownership, they will have to listen to the needs and aspirations of others and come to a dialogue without their minds already made up about what they will fund (King and McGrath 2000). As long as partnerships are shaped by imbalanced power relations, national education systems might be primarily supportive of the global agenda for education. However, as Samoff (2005: 4) holds, learning has no standard model: ?Ultimately, ?best? is always local.?
Whereas there seemed to be a consensus that ownership is best reached through partnerships, ownership actually appears to be a prerequisite for partnerships. By unveiling power relations in partnerships, alternative conceptualizations could be suggested that take ownership at their core and include other - national, local, alternative - voices. Partnerships should be used as a framework where a true open dialogue is taking place. Indeed, Tikly (2001) argues that indigenous governance structures should be supported, and included in partnerships, if global governance of education is to go hand in hand with local ownership and inclusion of civil society.
References
BÉLAND, D. (2006). Steven Lukes. Power: A Radical View, Second Edition, Canadian Journal of Sociology Online, July-August 2006, pp. 1-3.
DALE, R. (2005). Globalisation, knowledge economy and comparative education, Comparative Education, 41 (2), pp. 117-149.
GAVENTA, J. (2004). Towards participatory governance: assessing the transformative possibilities, in: S. HICKEY AND G. MOHAN (eds.), Participation: from Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development, London: Zed Books, pp. 25-41.
KING, K. (2004). Development Knowledge and the Global Policy Agenda. Whose Knowledge? Whose Policy?, Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
KING, K. AND S. MCGRATH (2000). Who is in the driving seat? Development cooperation and democracy, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
KUDER, J. (2005). UPE in Tanzania: SWAP-ing quality for quantity - again?, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3 (2), pp. 165-181.
LUKES, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View, London: Macmillan.
ODORA HOPPERS, C. (1999). The morning after midnight? Partnerships and paradigms for development cooperation in the 21st century, Northern Policy Research Review and Advisory Network on Education and Training (NORRAG), 25 (December), pp. 19-20.
SAMOFF, J (2005). Education Quality: Difficult Choices, Prepared for the expert meeting on Researching Quality of Education for All in the South: Main Research Issues and Current Gaps, 29-30 August 2005, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
TIKLY, L. (2001). Globalisation and Education in the Postcolonial World: towards a conceptual framework, Comparative Education, 37 (2), pp. 151-171.
Full contents of NORRAG NEWS 41.
Download the full issue of NORRAG NEWS 41 in pdf.