Aid Effectiveness and the Paris Declaration: A Mismatch Between Ownership and Results‐based Management?

Abstract

SUMMARY Although recent years have witnessed substantial changes in the global aid architecture, less effort has been devoted to investigating the process of implementing those changes. By using the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) as an illustrative and critical case, this article shows how a donor development priority—gender—travels from Stockholm and headquarters to a Paris Declaration‐infused aid practice in three cases with different aid modalities: Tanzania, Zanzibar, and Cambodia. More specifically, the qualitative empirical investigation conducted here shows that the implementation of the new aid architecture puts severe and competing demands on development practitioners. At the core of this tension is the fact that although all donors are supposed to promote partner country ownership, harmonize their efforts with other donors, and align themselves with partner country priorities, results‐based management simultaneously implies not only a focus on continuously measuring and reporting results but also stricter prioritizations on behalf of donor governments. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Small-scale hydropower in Africa: Socio-technical designs for renewable energy in Tanzanian villages

“…While ownership by states over their national development agendas is being widely promoted within the new global aid architecture, there are growing concerns that foreign actors still determine much of the development agenda. That is, the emphasis on ownership has in some instances been shown to be difficult to combine with donor priorities, especially since donors face increasingly strict demands from their own governments or funders [39].…”

Elusive accountabilities in the HIV scale-up: ‘Ownership’ as a functional tautology

“…Donors, in turn, despite 'proclaim [ing] in unison the importance of national ownership of the development process by recipient countries' (Blunt, Turner, & Hertz, 2011, p. 180), ultimately put their own accountabilities first: While many aid agency officials start out with a commitment to ownership defined as control over policies, as soon as there is some disagreement over policy choices they tend to fall back on a definition of ownership as commitment to their preferred policies. (de Renzio et al, 2008, p. 2) Moreover, as a result of the Paris Declaration's simultaneous emphasis on resultsbased management, reiterated in the Declaration's follow-up compacts signed in Ghana (2008) and South Korea (2011), stricter prioritisations on behalf of donor governments limit 'the time and space [for recipient governments] to come up with their own solutions' (de Renzio et al, 2008, p. 1), thus narrowing the policy space for those expected to own the process (Sjöstedt, 2013).…”

Allocating climate adaptation finance: examining three ethical arguments for recipient control

“…Against the background of such pluralism, the main issue is hardly the most efficient means to an agreed-upon end, as the epistemic argument would have it. In this regard, the debates surrounding the control over adaptation finance are arguably different from the debates over the determinants of effective development aid, which are conducted against the backdrop of a shared metric (usually economic development in one version or another; see Nissanke 2010;Sjöstedt 2013). 13 They are more about the right to establish one's own conception of distributive justice in the face of pluralism than they are about disagreements over how universally shared ends best can be promoted.…”

“…I return to this when discussing the entitlement argument. 8 For overviews of the aid effectiveness literature, seeNissanke (2010) andSjöstedt (2013).9 Another reason is that the recipient is more motivated than others to protect its own interests. AsMill (1998, 245) wrote, 'the rights and interests of every or any person are only secure from being disregarded, when the person himself is able, and habitually disposed, to stand up for them.…”