NN41, December 2008
The New Politics of Partnership: Peril or Promise?
ODI in Partnership: Leading the Pack or One of the Gang?
By John Young and Julie Sable, ODI, London
KeywordsPartnership, ODI
The Overseas Development Institute?s Mission statement reads ?ODI is Britain's leading independent think tank on international development and humanitarian issues. Its mission is to inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the reduction of poverty, the alleviation of suffering and the achievement of sustainable livelihoods in developing countries?. It goes on to say ?We do this by locking together high quality applied research, practical policy advice, and policy-focused dissemination and debate and work with partners in the public and private sectors, in both developing and developed countries?. But what exactly we mean by ?partnership? has been a contested issue for some time, and there are limited resources for developing partnerships within an essentially contract-driven business model. A recent review of partnerships which included a survey of staff, of existing partners, and of other development think tanks, identified a range of options for the future.
Externally, donor agencies are increasingly committed to encouraging north-south partnerships and channelling funds through southern organisations, so ODI often has no choice but to partner. At the same time, donors often still place responsibility for financial accountability and delivery with northern organisations, putting them in an awkward position of trying to be equal while guaranteeing quality.
Internally most researchers support the principles of working in equitable partnerships, which they felt should include i) shared objectives and shared activities ii) mutual benefit and exchange and iii) shared responsibility for all or most aspects of a project. But the business model is seen by many, both inside and outside ODI, as a major impediment to this. The pressure to meet financial targets leaves staff with little flexibility or incentive to explore potential partnerships. Staff inevitably operate on short time horizons, making long term cultivation of partnerships difficult. ODI?s central London location, and highly qualified staff lead to high fee rates which act as a deterrent to potential partners, and limited institutional support hampers researcher?s ability to effectively support partnerships.
ODI?s existing external relationships take many forms from long-term, issue-based research consortia to short term sub-contracting relationships, and while many contain elements of partnership, few would meet the three criteria above. Most though are between individuals in ODI and individuals in partner organisations. Overall, ODI?s partners and collaborators gave ODI a positive review as a partner, although experiences varied greatly between programmes. Almost all the interviewees expressed interest in future collaboration, with a number interested in long-term relationships. However, they also offered some criticism. In some cases, relationships were more vertical than horizontal, and in others unclear goals and expectations had led to frustration and misunderstanding. Delays in project implementation due to uncertain funding from donors interrupted the project momentum, forcing partners to take on other work in the interim and delivering poorer quality results than they had hoped for. One partner complained that ?we only get to write the case study boxes in ODI reports.... we?d like to contribute to the main text and conclusions as well?. Several northern partners mentioned that ODI?s high fee rates, short timelines and funding constraints made it a less attractive partner.
Interviews with other think tanks found a wide range of opinion and practice around partnership. DIE has an ambitious and successful training and dialogue programme focussed on seven strategic countries, with a strong commitment to equitable engagement and a ?post-western? world view. Chatham House, on the other hand, takes a pragmatic approach to partnership, working only in an ad hoc way when partners add complementary expertise. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) has a rich history of working in partnership despite a largely project-based funding model, which has succeeded partly because of institutional commitment and relationship capital built up over time. The European Centre for Development Policy and Management (ECDPM) has a well-developed partnership strategy and a senior staff person whose mandate includes looking after partnerships.
The current landscape of external relations is a natural result of ODI?s business model and the profile of its staff. To substantially change this will require a strong logic and broad-based commitment. The conclusion of the recent review was that while there is limited demand around the institute for wholesale change, there is widespread agreement that examining ODI?s partnerships is valuable and that ODI should consider establishing better partnerships in certain areas.
Three scenarios for developing better partnerships were suggested:
1. Let partnerships evolve organically, with greater incentives within ODI for researchers to invest more in building partnerships around existing research collaborations;
2. Targeting organisations that already have multiple existing research relationships with ODI, and form institutional rather than individual partnerships;
3. Establish a ?partnership fund? within ODI for staff to bid for resources to invest specifically in partnership-building, and provide central support for this ? possibly through a partnership strategy as in ECDPM.
But ODI needs to address some fundamental questions about its vision, mission and business model if it is to be able to pursue any of these. Even if ODI decides to continue business as usual, it can do so with a clear conscience after an honest and thoughtful discussion about its current range of relationships.
Full contents of NORRAG NEWS 41.
Download the full issue of NORRAG NEWS 41 in pdf.