Differences in Learning Practices and Values in North–south City Partnerships: Towards a Broader Understanding of Mutuality

Abstract

SUMMARY This article addresses twinning between local governments in North and South, contributing to the past decade's discourse on institutional twinning in this journal. Local governments have increasingly become recognised as relevant actors in international development cooperation through city‐to‐city cooperation structures, which have been praised as an effective mechanism for local government capacity building. This article discusses the learning practices and the extent to which new knowledge is valued and adopted by twinning participants in both North and South and moreover whether learning benefits are mutual. In a study of three partnerships between Dutch municipalities and partner cities in Peru, South Africa and Nicaragua, 36 participants were interviewed. The findings reveal that learning in city‐to‐city partnerships is not mutual between North and South and that the benefits of ‘shared learning’—a rhetoric commonly used in the twinning discourse—are limited. Instead, other opportunities for mutuality arise for Northern municipalities from political and strategic benefits, such as staff loyalty and motivation. Mutuality in twinning hence deserves a broader interpretation than learning alone so that twinning benefits can be identified and maximised for both North and South, keeping cities interested and motivated. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The Other Side of the Coin: NGOs, Rights‐Based Approaches, and Public Administration

“…Scholars have argued that technical assistance should move beyond service delivery to focus on reducing aid dependency, consistent with a rights‐based approach. Twinning, which pairs local institutions with foreign counterparts, has been offered as an alternative model to traditional technical assistance, and an extensive literature has chronicled its progress (Beisheim and Liese ; Bontenbal ; Jensen et al ; van Ewijk et al ). Despite an initial conceptualization of capacity building as an apolitical, technical exercise, researchers have come to understand that capacity building is fundamentally a political process (Grindle ).…”

Subsistence over symbolism: the role of transnational municipal networks on cities’ climate policy innovation and adoption

“…Network studies have extensively addressed the questions of why cities join the networks (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004 ; Pitt 2010 ), what recognition benefits cities can expect (Buis 2009 ; Kern and Bulkeley 2009 ), and how memberships can provide visibility to leverage international funding (Betsill and Bulkeley 2004 ; Heinrichs et al 2013 ). Moreover, the literature on cities’ climate policies and networks has mainly been qualitative in nature (Bontenbal 2013 ; Bulkeley 2005 ; de Jong et al 2015 ; Schroeder et al 2013 ; Toly 2008 ; Zeppel 2013 ), and studies that provide quantitative assessments are limited to a specific geographical boundary and do not provide generalized solutions (Busch 2016 ; Davies 2005 ; Kern and Bulkeley 2009 ; Krause 2012 ; Matisoff 2008 ; Pitt 2010 ). City networks, despite their increasing importance, are “… still relatively poorly understood with regards to their influence and impact on environmental outcome in local areas” (Fünfgeld 2015 ) and “net effects of cities participation in transnational networks” are not measured (Fünfgeld 2015 ).…”

We Learnt a Lot: Challenges and Learning Experiences in a Southern African—North European Municipal Partnership on Education for Sustainable Development

“…However, learning and knowledge formation within mutual municipal partnerships is still an unexplored research area. Researchers have raised concerns regarding mutuality [8,10] and conceptual clarity, besides other challenges, such as differences in enabling critical reflections and turning learning into improved practice [9].…”