THE VIF -Ft : ,-' L :IU - r, - : E -: 21 090 June 2000 w~~ : Perspectives on Partnership Q¢D IJkair Rty>r Ssrwm Contents v Acknowledgments vii Preface 1 Introduction 3 Perspectives on Partnership 3 The Development Assistance Committee of the OECD 4 The Lorne and Cotonou Conventions 6 Sweden 6 The United Kingdom 7 The United States 8 Non-governmental Organizations 8 Business and Law 9 Participation 9 Common Themes 11 Conclusions and Practical Lessons on Partnerships 13 Annexes 13 Annex 1. Executive Summary from "Partnership for Development: Proposed Actions for the World Bank" 14 Annex 2. A Stronger Compact for Effective Partnerships 15 Annex 3. Strengthening Development Partnerships: A Working Checklist 16 Annex 4. Partnership and Selectivity 21 Bibliography 23 Endnotes Boxes 1 Box 1. Partnership in the Comprehensive Development Framework 3 Box 2. DAC Compact for Effective Partnership 5 Box 3. Perspectives on Partnership from the European Union and the Lome Convention Countries 6 Box 4. Sida's characteristics of partnership 6 Box S. A UK Perspective on Development Partnerships 7 Box 6. Lessons from USAID's Intersectoral Partnerships 10 Box 7. The Spectrum of Participation 18 Box 8. Comparative Advantage of Partner Institutions in Cambodia 18 Box 9. The 20:20 Initiative and Primary Education . . Acknowledgments Simon Maxwell and Tim Conway prepared this Working Paper for the 1999 Annual Re- view of Development Effectiveness, under the direction of Nagy Hanna, the task manager. Simon Maxwell is the director and Tim Conway a research assistant at the Overseas Development Institute, London. The Working Paper Series is published by the Partnerships and Knowledge Group, Outreach and Dissemination Unit, by Elizabeth Campbell-Page (team leader), including Caroline McEuen (editor), Kathy Strauss and Aichin Lim Jones (graphics and layout), and Juicy Qureishi-Huq (administrative assistant). Director-General, Operations Evaluation: Robert Picciotto Director, Operations Evaluation Department: Gregory Ingram Task Manager: Nagy lanna V Preface Despite the potential benefits of globalization and technological change, world pov- erty has increased and growth prospects have dimmed for developing countries dur- ing the 1980s and 90s. The Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) was launched by the World Bank in January 1999 in response to these difficult circumstances. It has evoked considerable interest throughout the development community as an approach that can address the increasingly intertwined challenges faced by development practitioners. Its basic elements are not new. What is new is their joint articulation as a framework to guide development assistance. The first point is that development constraints are structural and social, and cannot be overcome through economic stabilization and policy adjustment alone-they require a long-term and holistic vision of needs and solutions. Second, policy reform and institutional development cannot be imported or imposed; without domestic ownership, reforms and investments are not sustainable. Third, successful development requires partnership among government, local communities, the private sector, civil soci- ety, and development agencies. And fourth, development activities must be guided and judged by results. In this context, the 1999 Annuial Review of Developnment Effectiveness (ARDE), authored by Nagy Hanna under the guidance of Robert Picciotto, set oLt] to examine development experience through the lens of CDF principles. A number of papers were commissioned to support the ARDE by providing in-depth review of evaluation and research findings that assess the relevance of the CDF principles and constraints as well as promising approaches to their implementation. This document examines the idea of 'partnership', one of the four pillars of the Compre- hensive Development Framework (CDF). This is a long-standing and much-debaucd theme. Many donors already have substantial experience with development partnerships, and there are other models of partnership from other fields, such as business and law, and in the literature on participation. Partnership is far from straightforward, requiring clarification of the terms on which it is undertaken, its scope, and the mechanisms that underpin it. At one extreme, partnership can look very much like conditionality, with power held bv the donor, the agenda set by the donor, and accountability running from the recipient to the donor but not the other way. At the other extreme, there can be genuine dialogue and decisionmaking, based on trust, covering a wide agenda, and backed by reciprocal accountability, often based on a form of contract. vii For the Bank, key initiatives are to be explicit about the kind of partnership it is seeking; to treat partnership as an organic process, in which trust is built over time, and in which steps are taken to weave a 'fabric of sustainability'; and to consider how mutual account- ability may be built, perhaps in the form of a contractual arrangement. viii Introduction W orld Bank President James D. Wolfensohn's (1999) proposal for a Comprehensive NV Development Framework lays great emphasis on partnership and suggests what this term might mean (box 1). Key concepts are ownership, coordination, transparency, and accountability. Ownership applies to developing countries and their governments; the other concepts apply equally to the other parties in the development partnership-donors, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector. There is no blueprint, however. The pace and degree of public debate and participation will vary by country and stage of political development. Box 1. Partnership in the Comprehensive Development Framework "It is clear to all of us establish, own, and implement sus building led by the gov- tive of the matrix is to give that ownership is essential. the strategy. And we must ernment with all sections of all the players a framework 0 Countries must be in the work to achieve the strategy society. In other countries, that can ensure openness, a driver's seat and set the with our colleagues in the the establishment of goals will basis of co-ordination of ef- course. Thev must deter- government, in the interna- continue to be set more cen- fort . .. a step towards inclu- f mine goals and the phasing, tional development commu- trally." sion, transparency, and t miming, and sequencing of nity, the civil society, and the "There is no way that the accountability ... the pace f programs. Where there is private sector. In some coun- World Bank should be seen as will vary by country and by not adequate capacity in the tries, the lonig and short term assumiiing the role of coordi- stage of political develop- government to do this, we goals will be set by a process nator of all programs in the ment." (Wolfensohn 1999, must support and help them of public debate and consen- matrix . .. the foremost objec- 9-10; 23-24). The question to address is how far contemporary research can illuminate and extend this model and identify implementation issues. There is a substantial body of work avail- able on partnership, including initiatives by the Bank itself (see references). In May 1998 the Partnerships Group at the Bank published a Discussion Paper on Partnership for Development: Proposed Actions for the World Bank (World Bank 1998a). The report provided an operational definition of partnership, identified the require- ments for successful partnership, and laid out a strategy, short-term actions for the Bank, and a proposal for a partnership code of practice. (Annex 1 contains the report's executive summary.) Not surprisingly, the ideas it presents are broadly consistent with Wolfensohn's later paper. The Discussion Paper was discussed in the summer of 1998 at a series of roundtables and other consultations around the world. A summary of points made, presented to the Board in September 1998 (World Bank 1998b), noted that there 1 PERSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP was "overwhelming support" for a partnership approach. It also identified five key challenges for implementation: * Partner acceptance, including on the part of the Bank, of country-led development strat- egies, perhaps even when they do not fully agree * Broader dialogue, not just on aid, but also on debt relief, market access, and trade policies linked to the idea of a fair deal * More open information, especially for civil society * Greater involvement, together with recognition of the diversity and pluralism of civil society * Greater cohesiveness in delivering development assistance, particularly between the Bretton Woods institutions and other donors. Subsumed within this list are some key challenges to the implementation of partnership. Will donors really allow partner countries to pursue strategies with which they do not agree? Will donors be held accountable for their actions to the same degree that they expect recipient countries to be accountable? Is a national consensus either a realistic option or a necessary condition for change? And are the institutional structures in place internationally to guarantee a coherent and democratically accountable response across aid, trade, and international finance? 2 Perspectives on Partnership These questions about partnership are not new, and there is some evidence to help answer them. The evidence comes from the experience of other aid donors, but also from other fields where the concept of partnership is common (as in law). There are also useful ideas to be drawn from the wider debate about participation. The Development Assistance Committee of the OECD The starting point for any current discussion of partnership ought to be the work of the DAC, which has put the idea of development partnerships at the heart of its development strategy for the 21't century, Shaping the 21st Century (OECD/DAC 1996), and has also produced a "Working Checklist" for development partnerships. Shaping the 21W1 Century describes a "compact" for effective partnerships and identifies the responsibilities of developing countries and external partners, as well as joint responsi- bilities. (The 19 points of the compact are summarized in box 2 and provided in full in annex 2). A preamble lays down the "basic principle" that "locally-owned country devel- opment strategies and targets should emerge from an open and collaborative dialogue... in ways that respect and encourage strong local commitment, participation, capacity devel- opment and ownership" (OECD/DAC 1996,14). Box 2. DAC Compact for Effective Partnership i JointlD Developing countries External partners 6 1 Adequate resources 6. Appropriate macroeconomic 13. Stable relations with neighbors 2. Policies that minimize conflict policies 14. Better international trade and & 3 Stronger protections against 7. Commitment to social investment system corruption development 15. Adherence to aid guidelines 4. Encouragement of civil society 8. Accountable government 16. Support for capacity building 5. W7ork with rapidly developing 9. Support for stronger human and 17. Access to information and countries and regional institutional capacity technology development mechanisms 10. Climate favorable to enterprise and 18. Support for coherent policies, savings including human rights 11. Sound financial management 19. Better coordination of aid 12. Stable relations with neighbors Source: DAC 1996 (p. 14). 3 PERkSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP) Much of this is entirely consistent with the formulation in the CDF paper (Wolfensohn 1999), especially the emphasis on ownership and participation. There are some important additional points, however, especially a first cut at what might constitute acceptable policies by the develop- ing country, a commitment to the reliability of external assistance, a recognition of the impor- tance of trade and investment issues, and a shared commitment to good governance internationally. In 1998, the DAC Compact was further developed as a "Working Checklist for Strength- ening Development Partnerships" (see annex 3). The checklist is less specific than the Compact on some issues (for example, on what constitutes good policy at the country level) but more specific in other respects, calling specifically for the untying of aid, more pro- gram aid and budget support, closer links with the private sector, and more joint monitor- ing and evaluation of aid. On critical process issues, it is largely consistent with the CDF paper (Wolfensohn 1999), but on some points more concrete (e.g. the call for standing subgroups of partners on themes and sectors, preferably led by the host government). The Lome and Cotonou Conventions Turning to donor experience, the history of the Lom6 (now Cotonou) Convention provides an object lesson in the potential and pitfalls of partnership (Bossuyt and Laporte 1994, Maxwell and Riddell 1998). The Conventions (the first was signed in 1975) are legal treaties between the European Union and a group of developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific - the ACP countries (see Lister 1988 and Whiteman 1998). The treaties define principles of cooperation in aid and trade, establish legal instrurnents for the transfer of aid, and introduce an element of "contractuality" to the aid relationship. From the start, the Lom6 Conventions provided for agreement by donor and recipient on a for- mal "national indicative program", signed by both parties and fixing, in global terms at least, the level of aid to be provided. It was also clear that the recipient would take the lead in defining how the money would be spent. There were repeated references in the conven- tions to "objectives that the ACP States set themselves" (article 47, for example), and a procedure was established for drawing up the EU's indicative aid program based on pro- posals made by each state (article 51). The history of the Lom6 Conventions since the early days is one of gradual retreat from these high principles of partnership (Crawford 1996). Initially, this was because the eco- nomic model chosen by some developing countries was clearly at variance with what the European Union believed to be best for the country concerned. In a later phase, it was because the European Union could not accept that aid should be provided irrespective of human rights violations. Thus the terms of the treaty were gradually tightened. Specifi- cally, greater importance was attached to policy dialogue in the preparation of the na- tional indicative programs, tighter conditionality was written into the programs, and human rights clauses were introduced (after 1986). The last Lom6 Convention, approved in 1990 for a ten-year period, retained an aura of "contractuality," but the distance between the European Union and other, more traditional donors had narrowed significantly. There were, nevertheless, elements of contractuality that left the European Union ahead of some other donors. The formal negotiation over the Lome Convention and over indi- vidual national indicative programs was one; the role of the ACP secretariat is another. In comparing the aid performance of different donors during an evaluation of EU aid, focus 4 PERSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP groups in Ethiopia expressed particular appreciation of a negotiated (and therefore jointly- owned) EU aid framework (Maxwell 1996a). The remaining tension over partnership could be seen in the Negotiating Mandates produced by the two sides for the last re-negotiation, completed in January 2000. Beneath the shared desire for a strengthened partnership that should facilitate poverty reduction, sustainable development, and the further integration of ACP countries into the world economy - and cloaked in diplomatic language - there were different views on the political basis of the partnership (box 3). The ACP countries believed that "a true partnership cannot be characterized [or even "tinged"] by conditionalities." The European Union stated that it wished to develop a partnership based on "dialogue, contract rather than conditionality, and the fulfilment of mutual obligations," but was much more specific on the obligations of the ACP countries than on its own'. Box 3. Perspectives on Partnership from the European Union and the Lome Convention , Countries f "For the [African, Carib- right, a fundamental human The EU seeks a political good governance. This is f bean, and Pacific countries], de- right, not to be subordinated to environment that guarantees seen as a prerequisite for j velopment should be the political objectives or agendas. peace, security and stability, development." I primary objectve of partner- Political dialogue should reflect respect for human rights, ship; it is an objective in its own this and be unconditional. democratic principles, and l Source: ECDPM 1999 (p. 1). In the event, the text finally agreed, and signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (EU 2000), and valid for twenty years, contained innovations which reflected both positions. Poverty eradication and sustainable development were accorded pride of place (Article 1); equality between the partners was identified as the first principle of a 'legally-binding' cooperation (Article 2); and a much-strengthened political relationship was defined, involving a 'com- prehensive, balanced and deep political dialogue leading to commitments on both sides' (Article 8). Perhaps most important, the joint institutions of the EU-ACP partnership, par- ticularly the joint Council of Ministers, were given enhanced powers to monitc,- the rela- tionship and to adjudicate disputes, at least as regards human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and corruption (Articles 96 and 97): this may make it more difficult for the donor countries to suspend aid unilaterally. There is still some way to go before the insti- tutions have the mandate and the robustness to monitor the partnership in its entirety, but the initial scaffolding in certainly in place. S PERSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP Sweden The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) has defined seven cri- teria for partnership (box 4). Two notable features of this list are the emphasis on transpar- ency of values and the idea of contractuality (explicitly referred to as "a new contractual relationship") supported by a code of conduct. Box 4. Sida's characteristics of partnership 1. A subject-to-subject 2. Explicitness about 4. Clear standards. 6. Equality of capacity. attitude, values. 5. Adherence to the 7. A code of conduct. 3. Transparency in interests. agreements. Source: Karlsson 1997 p 7 The United Kingdom The UK introduced the concept of partnership in the White Paper on international develop- ment published in 1 997.2 What the concept means on the recipient side is reproduced here as box 5. What it means on the donor side is set out in the text: Where low-income countrieg Are committed to the elimination of poverty and pursuing sensible policies to bring that about, the Government will be ready to enter into a deeper, long-term partnership and to provide: * A longer-term commitment * An enhanced level of resources * Greater flexibility in the use of resources (DFID, 1997 2.21). This formulation of partnership is set in the wider context of a White Paper that deals explicitly with non aid matters, including trade, finance, and investment. It lays particular stress on the commitment required of developing country partners, including commitment to the international development targets and to various aspects of good government. The Department for International Development (DFID) formulation raises a number of issues. Are all the criteria for partnership equally important, and if not, how will they be 9 '04 0*0 ,43* 44*4 ,S 440444 544444444 4444 4'i*g44@Bi'g4'3.-t.44P4444Ps*445*4P-4440P44544444P>**4P*44P440-:4*444445444P*4S,P4 443 _ . Box 5. A UK Perspective on Development Partnerships Countries with which we make a strategic contribution servation of the environ- civil, cultural, economic, po- a are prepared in principle to to poverty reduction. ment, and be pursuing ap- litical and social rights; and a embark on a deeper, long- We would expect partner propriate policies; which encourage transpar- term partnership, involving all governments to: * wish to engage with us and ency and bear down on cor- forms of assistance, will be * have a commitment to the with the donor community ruption in the conduct of r 4 lowincome, containing a large principles of the agreed inter- to this end; both the public services and 4 proportion of poor people. national development tar- * pursue policies which pro- the business sector. They *vill also be coun- gets and be pursuing policies mote responsive and ac- gtries where the UK is wanted designed to achieve these countable government, as a partner, has the influ- and other UN targets to recognising that govern- 4ence to play a positive role, which they have agreed; ments have obligations to all - and has a comparative ad- * be committed to pro-poor their people; 34 vantage in being able to economic growth and con- * promote the enjoyment of g Source: Excerpted from DFID 1997 (Panel 14). 6 PERSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP weighted? Is partnership to be based on needs or results? And what will happen to coun- tries that do not qualify for partnership? Some of these questions were addressed in later thinking by DFID. Thus, in depicting "issues of governance as lying at the heart of our approach to partnership," Goudie (1998, 8) listed specific areas of concern with regard to DFID's implementation of a partnership approach: Inevitably there are a range of key qualifications that are undoubtedly relevant here and that need to be at the fore of our minds in formulating our approach to particular countries. I might mention, for example, the dangers of attempting to generalise across partner countries whose own circumstances show such immense diversity; secondly, we should avoid drawing up mechanistic rules for decision-making that overlook the subtlety and complexity of each of these context; thirdly, we should shy away from formal rankings or league tables that simplistically seek to capture the manner in which we differentiate between the commitment of different partner countries; fourthly, we should not be formulating messages and approaches in isolation from the rest of the external community, but seeking a collaborative and constructive multilateral approach; fifthly, we should take care not to fall back into conditionality, with only a revamped vocabu- lary, that many see as having dogged past efforts at partnership. The United States The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) attempts to create partnerships among business, civil society, and government. Through this effort, launched at the 1995 World Summit for Sustainable Development, USAID adopted a strategic approach to de- velopment partnering, designed to increase the capacity of local actors to work together ... and create purposeful coalitions (USAID 1997). A number of lessons have been drawn from this experience (box 6). Three stand out: First, good partnerships are constructed incrementally. Secondly, where significant re- source transfers are the sole focus of assistance, incentives for local participation are hard > Box 6. Lessons from USAID's Intersectoral Partnerships * Interscctoral partnerships can address large-scale issues that no individual sector can manage alone. 4 * Partnering requires a long-term commitment, but one undertaken in small steps. 4 * Partnership does not require a merging of roles by the partners-each retains its own distinctiveness. 4 * Partnership must be based on a commitment to respect differences and on mutual accountability. * Partners must keep people focused on the unique win-win situations that partnership produces. * All key interests should be represented. * Partners need to disseminate best practice about partnership, to promote future partnerships. * Successful partnerships encourage creativity and innovation. ?* Partnerships are between organizations, not individuals, and should be inclusive. * Partnerships need to be adapted to local contexts. : * Successful local ownership requires that partners have a stake in resolving the issue and be empowered by the process. Y a Souirce: Chanya and others 1998 (pp. tIff) ?8 8 0 M.5 X5 a%S>°o:n oosvvlet ?ev9''6 8 o55&X?eXg8 v ? . 851q ..aolooa.'.oS; SC C -~'YC?IA : M 0 Y ? : 1 ' ' 1 PERSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP to sustain beyond the initial resource transfer. Third, both donors and their partners share a common interest in a clear results framework. (Chanya et al 1998, p.1 lff). Non-governmental Organizations A number of researchers have examined the partnership relationship between non-govern- mental organizations (NGOs) in developing and developed countries. Fowler (1992), argu- ing that not all relationships are partnerships, suggests that partnerships are characterized by sharing, with a sense of mutuality and equality of the parties involved. Mutuality could not be achieved without agreement on basic development processes, trust, and legitimacy (tied up with accountability) on both sides. A particular risk was to see partnership as "projection," with NGOs in developing countries treated as a vehicle for the delivery of ideas, resources, management styles, and leadership from developed countries. In reviewing partnerships between developed and developing country NGOs, Riddell (1993, 4) identified a series of conditions for establishing and maintaining partnerships: * Recognition of the autonomy of the other partner * Specification of agency objectives, approaches, and methods * Listing of the terms and conditions of a partnership agreement, including the responsi- bilities of the developed country NGO * Commitment to flexibility, openness, and mutuality * Acknowledgement that agencies have different interests * Realization that developed country NGO partners need in-depth relationships with part- ners in the developing countries, but practical constraints mean that some relationships will be more limited in scope i Inclusion of an assessment of performance and subsequent reflection and feedback. Particular NGOs have adopted similar principles. For example, CARE USA identifies the following characteristics of partnership (Burke 1998 pp. 4-5): * Weave a fabric of sustainability * Acknowledge interdependence * Build trust * Find shared vision, goals, values, and interests * Honor the range of resources * Generate a culture of mutual support and respect for differences * Find opportunities for creative synergy * Address relationship differences as they occur * See partnering as a continuous learning process. Business and Law In commerce, of course, the principle of partnership has been developed in legal terms (through contract law). The contractual format, with prccise stipulations of the rights and responsibili- ties of each partner, may provide a source of ideas for drafting development cooperation partnerships. In contractual partnerships performance criteria are explicit and measurable, 8 PElSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP reporting requirements are specified, timeframes and the limits on independent (non-consul- tative) action are laid out, and required and prescribed actions are delineated. There are also non-contractual aspects to commercial partnerships that may offer point- ers to those crafting and operating within an intergovernmental partnership for develop- ment cooperation. Studies of cooperative business partnerships, especially across national boundaries, have found that intangible factors like trust are crucial in establishing coop- erative relationships based on mutual obligation. A study of 17 joint ventures in the United Kingdom and Malaysia found that trust covered both personal and institutional relation- ships, but that personal relationships were at the core of trust between organizations. Promissory-based trust is the degree of confidence that a party can be relied on to carry out a verbal or written promise. Goodwill-based trust refers to actions and behavior that will benefit the other party. Competence-based trust relates to the knowledge, skills, and exper- tise of the parties (Butler and Gill 1999). Participation A final set of connections is to the literature on participation, which in many ways mirrors that on partnerships. In particular, analysts have identified different levels of participation (box 7). They range from "manipulative participation," in which participation is "simply pretence," to "interactive participation," in which participation is a right and its imple- mentation is characterized by joint analysis, systematic learning, and local control. Common Themes Several common themes emerge from the diverse experiences reviewed here: * The need for the right values, including a genuinc commitment to sharing, on both sides * The importance of trust and of taking measures to build trust * Partnership based on empowerment of the weaker party * The scope (or need) for contracts to back up partnership agreements * The need for a longterm perspective and for an incremental, sustainable approach to partnership * The need to be pragmatic in applying partnership blueprints. 9 PERSPECTIVES ON PAKTNERSHIP Box 7. The Spectrum of Participation L Interactive participation People participate in joint analysis, development of action plans, and formation or strengthen- ing of local institutions. Participation is seen as a right, not just the means to achieve project goals. The process involves interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives t and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. As groups take control over lo- cal decisions and determine how local resources are used, they gain a stake in maintaining structures or practices. V Self-mobilization People participate by taking initiatives independently of external institutions to change svs- tems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice thev need, but retain control over how resources are used. Self-mobilization can spread if govern ments and NGOs provide an enabling framework of support. Such self-initiated mobilization may or mav not challenge existing distributions of wealth and power. Functional participation Participation is seen by external agencies as a means of achieving project goals, especially re- duced costs. People may participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives re- lared to the project. Such involvement may be interactive and involves shared decision-making but tends to arise only after external agents have already made major decisions. At worst, lo cal people may still only be co-opted to serve external goals. Participation for material People participate by contributing resources, for example labor, in return for material incen- incentives tives. Farmers are involved in neither experimentation nor the process of learning. People have no stake in prolonging technologies or practices when the incentives end. iParticipation by People participate when consulted or when answvering questions. External agents define prob- consultation lems and information gathering processes, and so control analysis. Such a consultative pro- t cess does not concede any share in decision-making, and professionals are under no obligation t to take account of people's views. Passive participation Pcople participate by complying with what they arc told, what has been decided, or what has alreadv happened. Project management makes announcements without listening to people's responses. Any shared information belongs only to external professionals. Manipulative participation Participation is simply pretence. The people's "representatives" on official boards are not elected and have no power. SoSrce: Adapted from Prctty 1995, as presented in DFID 1998a (p. 26). 10 Conclusions and Practical Lessons on Partnerships L is easy to conclude from this review that the intentions of the CDF initiative toward lartnership are honorable: the Bank's heart, so to speak, is in the right place. The key words identified in President Wolfensohn's paper (ownership, coordination, transparency, accountability) are the right words, and they reflect much current thinking on the subject. At the same time the experience reviewed shows three things. First, that, even within contemporary discourse, there are shades of difference that may imply different approaches to partnership: the Bank will have choices to make, analogous to those set out in the participation ladder (see box 7). Is the intention to have the partnership equivalent of "interactive participation" or something less ambitious? Will different countries be ac- corded partnerships of different quality? And if so, on what basis? These questions are particularly important in deciding what form Bank partnerships will take in countries with which there is serious disagreement on the aims or instruments of development policy. Goudie's (1998) warnings against mechanistic approaches and formalistic league tables have particular resonance. The second lesson is that the development of partnership is an organic process, which grows as trust develops. The key idea here is that active steps need to be taken to build trust and to help partnership develop-what CARE describes as "weaving a fabric of sustainability". A third lesson is that mutual accountability appears to lie at the heart of successful partncrship relations and that accountability is often backed up by formal procedures and even a legal framework. This is a big jump for donors to make, as experience with the Lome Convention has demonstrated. Accountability requires monitoring, but in contrac- tual form it also requires mechanisms to deal with breaches of contract, and a form of redress open to both parties if the contract is broken. Reflecting on this issue, Maxwell and Riddell 1998, 265) comment that "perhaps what we need is a kind of WTO agreement for aid administration." The Bank will want to address all three of these issues and the links between partner- ships and strategic selectivity (Annex 4). One way is to take up the idea of a partnership code of conduct, originally proposed in its own paper of 1998 (World Bank 1998a). In conformity with the principles reviewed here, however, the code should probably be pre- pared jointly by the Bank and its various partners. 11 Annexes Annex 1. Executive Summary from "Partnership for Development: Proposed Actions for the World Bank" T"he starting point for the Bank's partnership agenda is its relationship with developing Icountries, and the impact of its services on their development.3 The single most impor- tant theme running through the dialogue on development effectiveness is the need to put committed developing country governments, and their people, at the centre of their develop- ment process. Experience shows that developing country ownership of its development strat- egy is a necessary condition for development effectiveness and poverty reduction. This paper proposes that the Bank's partnership agenda should be addressed toward attaining this goal. The strategy is to design, with developing country governments and official development institutions, a new approach to development assistance that convenes all major stakeholders around the country's developmcnt strategy, programs, and projects. There is now considerable international support and consensus for these positions, and wide agreement that partnership is needed to improve the efficiency of development assis- tance and deliver more effective results on the ground. Our vision is that the developing country defines its national development strategy. Official development institutions deter- mine their assistance strategies in support of this national strategy, and in consultation with each other. The implementation of this partnership approach to development will depend on coun- try-specific circumstances and the result of consultations with key stakeholders. Elements of this approach have already been tested in selected countries in several continents, with promising results. The broad elements of this partnership approach include: Promoting and encouraging national capacity and consensus building, through joint economic and sector work, and through consultative mechanisms led by the government, with participation of civil society, the private sector, and external partners; Aiming for a core national development strategy broadly owned by the country, with assistance from official development institutions, pledging their support at a meeting con- vened by the government -the "Development Partners Coalition"; and Arranging partnership frameworks between key development actors, based on shared objcc- tives and comparative advantages in support of the country's national development strategy. The paper also proposes short-term concrete actions. These actions include supporting national and subnational conferences on development strategy; revamping the consulta- tive group process; developing partnership frameworks and opening a dialogue with part- ners on joint actions; and transforming the Bank's partnership culture. 13 PERSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP Annex 2. A Stronger Compact for Effective Partnerships We have stressed throughout this paper that each developing country and its people are ultimately responsible for their own development.4 Thus, the developing country is the necessary starting point for organising co-operation efforts, through relationships and mecha- nisms that reflect the particular local circumstances. Some developing countries will need special help in building the necessary capacities. Development co-operation at the regional level, and on sectoral lines, is also important. However, these approaches should comple- ment and enrich efforts to strength national capacities for sustainable development. As a basic principle, locally-owned country development strategies and targets should emerge from an open and collaborative dialogue by local authorities with civil society and with external partners, about their shared objectives and their respective contributions to the common enterprise. Each donor's programs and activities should then operate with the framework of that locally-owned strategy in ways that respect and encourage strong local commitment, participation, capacity development, and ownership. While the particular elements of partnerships will vary considerably, it is possible to suggest areas in which undertakings might be considered by the partners as their commit- ments to shared objectives. Joint Responsibilities * Create the conditions conducive to generating adequate resources for development. * Pursue policies that minimize the risks of violent conflict. * Strengthen protections at the domestic and international levels against corruption and illicit practices. * Open up wide scope for effective development contributions from throughout civil society. * Enlist the support of rapidly developing countries and regional development mechanisms. Developing Country Responsibilities * Adhere to appropriate macroeconomic policies. * Commit to basic objectives of social development and increased participation, including gender equality. * Foster accountable government and the rule of law. * Strengthen human and institutional capacity. * Create a climate favourable to enterprise and the mobilisation of local savings for investment. * Carry out sound financial management, including efficient tax systems and productive public expenditure. * Maintain stable and cooperative relations with neighbours. External Partner Responsibilities * Provide reliable and appropriate assistance both to meet priority needs and to facilitate the mobilisation of additional resources to help achieve agreed performance targets. Contribute to international trade and investment systems in ways that permit full oppor- tunities to developing countries. 14 ANNEXES * Adhere to agreed international guidelines for effective aid, and to monitoring for con- tinuous improvement. * Support strengthened capacities and increased participation in the developing country, avoiding the creation of aid dependency. * Support access to information, technology, and know-how. * Support coherent policies in other aspects of relations, including consistency in policies affecting human rights and the risks of violent conflict. * Work for better co-ordination of the international aid system among external partners, in support of developing countries' own strategies. Annex 3. Strengthening Development Partnerships: A Working Checklist As part of the continuing work of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) aimed at effective implementation of the Development Partnerships Strategy, a Forum of Development Partners was convened on 19 January 1998 in conjunction with the Committee's Senior Level Meeting5. The Forum presentations focused on five partner coun- tries, together with much other experience by DAC members . . . led the Senior level participants to the following points as a working checklist to guide efforts toward improv- ing partnerships and simplifying and harmonising donor procedures. Donors should encourage recipient partners to formulate their own development strate- gies, setting out the local priorities, plans, and instruments for implementing such strate- gies. This process should systematically involve civil society, as well as consultation with external partners. Where such locally owned strategies are compatible with internation- ally agreed goals, donors should work to implement their aid programmes in a co-ordinated manner on the basis of such locally owned strategies and accept their discipline. Donors should stimulate and help strengthen recipient partner-led co-ordination of de- velopment co-operation. The capacity for local co-ordination (which can and should also strengthen the international process) may be improved by donors' own delegation of deci- sion-making authority from headquarters to field missions. At the international level, the possible advantages and disadvantages of organising Consultative Group (and Round Table) meetings in the capitals of the recipient partners concerned, should be further tested in practice. Transparency of donor and recipient partner interests and mutual trust should be in- creased through continuous dialogue, both informal and through systematic work on themes and sectors through standing sub-groups, preferably led by the host government. External partners should agree in principle to adjust more to local procedures, where neces- sary helping recipient countries to bring their procedures and management capacities up to international standards. There may be useful DAC roles in identifying best practices and helping organise pilot exercises to move toward the simplification and harmonisation of procedures. Practices involving tied aid are prominently identified among procedures that can im- pair local ownership and capacity building, with substantial economic and credibility costs. The proposal for a DAC Recommendation to start with untying aid to Least Devel- oped Countries could be a step toward improved partnerships in this area, yielding addi- tional tangible benefits for partners from competitive bidding and from local procurement. 15 PERSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP Donors share the objective of ending the proliferation of projects and providing their aid increasingly in forms of program and budget assistance to support the country's strategic priorities for development. To this end, they need to help strengthen partner countries' capacities to manage such aid, and further test the various approaches and conditions under which they can pool their contributions in country funds for major sectors or key goals, e.g., poverty eradication. The integration of aid spending into the overall budget context may require donors to manage their own significant inputs differently to help strengthen local revenue pools. There is a widely felt need to support local capacity building by changing the existing modalities for providing technical co-operation, which often appears expensive and exces- sive, hampering true ownership and the use and development of local capacities. The practices of joint monitoring and evaluation of development programmes by donor and recipient partners should be further developed and applied, with a view to learning together the lessons of achievements and failures. Improving the coherence between external partners' development co-operation policies and their other policies (such as those affecting trade and investment) affecting recipient partners is clearly seen as increasingly important to help the developing countries con- cerned move toward reduced dependence on aid. Innovative ways of financing should be constructed so as to have ODA play catalytic and leverage roles in generating and attracting other forms of domestic and foreign invest- ment; the roles of grants, loans, forms of support for the local private sector, and "match- ing" contributions by beneficiaries merit further careful assessment and coherent policies. External partners should continue to help lessen the debt burden of recipient partners; in this context, among others, the modality of various types of "debt swaps" should be considered. Annex 4. Partnership and Selectivity The concept of partnership must be dealt with in tandem with the concept of donor selectiv- ity. Selectivity is used in different ways depending on actor and context. At the country level selectivity (or positive conditionality) is presented as an alternative to conventional conditionality. Donors are advised to reward governments that have already demonstrated commitment to implementing positive reforms (by adopting performance-based aid), rather than demand promises of change before funds are disbursed. In terms of a donor's global operations, then, selectivity implies a bounded application of the partnership principle: recipients must first qualify for partnership by meeting a certain minimum level of perfor- mance-or, in a two-tier approach, governments adopting good policies would receive advice and financial assistance, while those without good policies receive advice alone, in the hope that this will move them toward a better policy environment (Dollar and Pritchett 1998). It is not immediately clear how the concepts of partnership and selectivity can be reconciled without compromise to one or the other . Bilateral donors, with whom the Bank must work in the evolution of the CDF, often interpret selectivity in global operations differently. Whereas the Bank approaches selectivity in terms of what countries not to work with (because of unconducive policy environments), bilaterals tend to approach it in terms of what countries to work with. With smaller budgets 16 ANNEXES and less universalistic obligations, bilaterals have potentially much to gain from concentrat- ing operations on a smaller number of sectors and partners (often described as concentration or priority countries). Such selectivity helps bilaterals achieve more with limited funds. Yet progress has been slow, reflecting the institutional inertia of country operations. Many bilaterals in practice still operate on a "watering can" basis, spreading aid thinly between a multitude of countries and achieving significant impact in few. Selectivity also applies to decisions about development partnerships at other than na- tional levels. The principle of strategic selectivity-choosing sectors, partner institutions, instruments, and the like on the basis of an objective and long-term analysis-can be conceptualized in different ways: * On the basis of need. Need would seem to be the most obvious basis for choosing among different forms of assistance. The difficulty is obviously in obtaining agreement on what is needed, and how urgently, and it is here that the definitions of partnership and owner- ship are critical. Donors may disagree with the government, or with each other, about which problems, sectors, regions, or groups to select as priorities. Different elements within the partner government may disagree about the relative importance of different interventions and the suitable role for donors. It is also possible to identify different long- and short-term strategies. Taking a long-term perspective, a donor might decide that second-best programs are a necessary price to pay for local ownership, on the grounds that local ownership establishes the conditions for capacity building and more effective actions in the future. This approach, however, runs counter to the ethic of professional- ism (and accountability) rightfully stressed within donor management. * On the basis of long-term comparative advantage of the donor institution. Adopting this approach, activities or partners are selected on the basis of what the donor can do best, or can do better than other donors operating in the country. This interpretation has intuitive appeal, but agencies' claims of comparative advantage need to be viewed cau- tiously. For large, specialized agencies (like UNICEF, the World Food Program, or the World Health Organization) the lines are relatively clear, although even here there is room for overlap (for example, between UNICEF and WHO, which both have an interest in child health). Amongst bilateral donors, especially the smaller ones, claims of com- parative advantage are harder to confirm in objective terms. * On the basis of the comparative advantage of partner institutions. Performance-based lending is concerned primarily with the decision on which countries to lend to, but it also provides the basis for more nuanced aid allocation by disaggregating partner perfor- mance into different categories. It would seem sensible for donors to work with partner institutions with the will and capacity (analytical, financial, political, and institutional) to make the most of this assistance. However, institutional capacity can be defined or measured in different ways, and different institutions may possess different comparative advantages (box 8). 17 PERSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP g Box 8. Comparative Advantage of Partner Institutions in Cambodia S In Cambodia donors ideas, greater level of commit- istry of Agriculture had a tions, which were still over- g have often preferred to ment and willingness to work larger budget and, being whelmingly loyal to this work with the Ministry for outside the capital, more ho- aligned with the most power- party. In this case, the min- g Rural Development rather listic conceptualization of ru- ful party in the post-election istrv with ideas and pro- than the Ministry of Agri- ral development problems coalition, faced fewer ob- poor orientation and the | culture. Comparative ad- and solutions, and (arguably) stacles in implementing deci- ministry with real power i vantage here was perceived a less patronage-based inter- sions through provincial and did not align. in terms of openness to nal organisation. But the Min- subprovincial ad-ninistra- Strategic selectivity needs to be understood in dynamic terms. There are significant gains from continuity, but donors must also be responsive to changes in the national situation, which may lead to a change in objectively defined needs or in the constella- tion of potential partner institutions, with some improving and some declining in terms of "comparative advantage." It must also be recognized that strategic selectivity is a multiplayer rather than just two-player game: failure to do so may result in suboptimal aid effectiveness (box 9). Box 9. The 20:20 Initiative and Primary Education I In some cases interna- which the partner government high ratio of dependency on funds might have been bet- Itional conmmitmiienits to glo- commllitted a similar propor- aid, this contract may distort ter directed to alternative I bal targets have led to tion. Were this a contract be- aid allocation. Some African activities (such as infra- distorted aid allocation at tween the partner government governments, having met the structure or agricultural II the national level. As part of and just one donor, it would criterion by spending more production). Here a glohal g a the 20:20 compact, for ex- be unambiguously useful. than 20 percent of the budget approach to selectivity (a g ample, maniy donors have However, in some countries on the target sectors, have decision that primary social g pledged to allocate 20 per- with low rates of economic been deluged with donor services are key to reducing g cent of official development growth, a long record of high funds for primarv services poverty) contradicts a ) assistance to basic social ser- social spending (often to good (particularly primary educa- country-level approach to vices in any country in effect, as in Tanzania), and a tion), when some of these selectivitv. Strategic selectivity may thus be taken as an argument for or against greater partner ownership of the national development process, depending on the basis for selection. The Bank at present sees the gain of strategic selectivity as enhancing the coherence and impact of country programs by concentrating efforts on a narrow rather than broad range of sectors. Thesc scctors are to be chosen on the basis of thrce criteria: * Potential magnitude of impact * Likelihood of country action * Comparative advantage of the Bank relative to other donors operating in the country. It is clear that in any given case there is a reasonable possibility that these criteria will pull in different directions. In a given country the action most likely to enlist government support and to result in impact may be one in which the Bank has no comparative advan- 18 ANNEXES tagc relative to other donors. Impact- and govcrnment-led selectivity may lead to the Bank contributing to a crowded field, straining existing partner capacities and the ability to achieve donor coherence. And selecting interventions on the basis that they are most likely to demonstrate significant impact may bias action away from the most important chal- lenges, which are usually (and unsurprisingly) those where the obstacles to success are greatest (working in countries where the government lacks will or capacity, working with pockets of persistent poverty that do not respond to general processes of growth-led poverty reduction, and so on). While thinking strategically rather than reactively about where, how, and with whom to work is clearly a positive step, it must be recognized that the concept of strategic selectivity does not in itself provide a specific guide to improving development cooperation. There are many, potentially contradictory criteria on which to base strategic selection. 19 Bibliography Bossuyt, Jean and Geert Laporte. 1994. "Partnership in the 1990s: how to make it work better". ECDPM Policy Management Brief No. 3, Maastricht, December 1994. Burke, Michael. 1998. "Partnership - policy, principles and practices". CARE USA paper on part- nership website http://www.linkingpartners.org/docs/policy.html. Butler, Richard and Jas Gill. 1999. "The dynamics of trust in partnership formation and operation: project summary". Mimeo, University of Bradford Management Centre. Chanya, L Charles, Stephanie McNulty & John A Pennell. 1998. "Partnership for Results - A User's Guide to Intersectoral Partnering". Prepared for the IJSAID Mission Directors' Confer- ence, November 1998. Crawford, Gordon. 1996. "Wither Lom6? The mid-term review and the decline of partnership." pp. 503-518 in Modern African Studies Vol. 34 No. 3. DAC. 1996. Shaping the 21" century: the contribution of development co-operation. Paris: OECD. DFID. 1997. "Eliminating world poverty: a challenge for the 21" century". (the "1997 White Paper") Cm 3789. London: The Stationery Office. DFID. 1998a. "Action research for community forestry: sharing experiences from Nepal". Lon- don: DFID. ECDPM. 1999. "Comparing the ACP and EU Negotiating Mandates ECDPM Lom6 Negotiating Brief No. 3", written by Jean Bossuyt, Andrea Koulaimh-Gabriel, Geert Laporte and Henri- Bernard Solignac Lecomte. EU. 1998. "Negotiating directives for the negotiation of a development partnership agreement with the ACP countries". Information Note, Brussels: 30th June 1998. EU. 2000. "Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part", signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (Cotonou Agreement). Goudie, Andrew. 1998. "Is a good government approach to development practical? An approach to governance". Talk given at ODI, March 25 1998. Karlsson, Mats. 1997. "'Foreword" to Kifle, H. Olukoshi, A. and Wohlgemuth, L (eds) 1997 A New Partnership for African Development: Issues and Parameters, Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, Uppsala, Norway. Lister, R. 1988. "The European Community and the developing world". Avebury: Aldershot. 21 PEI