The EU, the United States and Partnership in Development Cooperation: Bridging the Gap?

Biondo, Karen Del

doi:10.1080/00220388.2016.1234037

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, complex and (in at least some cases) normatively “deep” MSPs are often the means through which more technocratic and politicized bilateral partnerships are operationalized. Del Biondo (2017, pp. 1239–1241), extrapolating from the DAC conception of partnership that informed the Paris Principles, identifies three defining features of country‐to‐country partnerships, including: (1) a collaborative and negotiated approach to decision‐making, leading progressively towards enhanced trust and ownership (elaborated below); (2) long‐term, predictable and untied forms of aid, which were seen to be exemplified by budget support until the collapse of these practices in the mid‐2010s (Swedlund, 2017a, Chapter 6); and (3) an aid relationship which is motivated principally by the needs of recipients .…”

Section: Partnership/ownership—a Contested Nexusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development co‐operation and the partnership–ownership nexus: Lessons from the Canada–Ghana experience

Black

2020

Development Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Partnership/ownership—a Contested Nexusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development co‐operation and the partnership–ownership nexus: Lessons from the Canada–Ghana experience

Black

2020

Development Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Pearson Commission report that informed the ODA target similarly stressed that development co‐operation is a relationship and needed to be nurtured as such. It called for “a new partnership based on an informal understanding expressing the reciprocal rights and obligations of donors and recipients” (Commission on International Development, as cited in Del Biondo, 2017, p. 1239).…”

Section: Defining and Researching Ownershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Policy debates since the 1960s emphasized the importance of partnership and recognized that developing country “beneficiaries” and societies at large should plausibly “own,” i.e. commit to, account for, control and benefit from intervention goals, measures and results (Del Biondo, 2017; Black, 2020). Yet international development policy has always been an arena in which a range of motives and objectives, both official and implicit, have to be reconciled (Mawdsley, 2017; Gulrajani & Calleja, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet the conditionalities associated with this heightened period of donorship were soon discredited, leading through the 1990s to the demise of the structural adjustment era, which was considered to have had a strongly negative impact on development co‐operation relationships (Graham, 2017; Del Biondo, 2017). The introduction of the Comprehensive Development Framework and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) in the late 1990s placed ownership at the centre of policy debates and development studies scholarship.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Special issue introduction Ownership in a post‐aid effectiveness era: Comparative perspectives

Keijzer

Black

2020

Development Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motivation: Close to 15 years have passed since the adoption of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, which generated unprecedented efforts to advance effective development co-operation with a central focus on developing country ownership. Under today's international development co-operation realities, involving inclusive agendas, strategic divergence and increasing competition, discussions on ownership, harmonization and alignment have lost traction. Yet the practices of development co-operation relationships show strong continuities. Purpose: This special issue examines how the principle of ownership may be understood and advanced under these new conditions. National ownership is prioritized in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development yet has so far been marginalized by a predominantly piecemeal response and by the rise of "mutual benefit" co-operation. Approach and Methods: This special issue takes an inductive approach to studying specific cases and actors bearing on the challenge of understanding and advancing ownership today, in order to inform future policy and research. The contributions to this special issue mainly draw from qualitative research designs that present detailed research inquiries into specific country and actor cases, drawing from interviews, structured desk reviews of policy documents and the rich body of literature on development effectiveness. They are complemented by two contributions that respectively present quantitative research and probe the critical and post-development literature for additional insights. Findings: Findings point to an increasing prevalence of pragmatism and self-interest among all actors, to the detriment of national ownership. Broad co-operation agendas, a sense of urgency interpreted as a search for quick results, and more diverse, interest-and outcome-driven forms of multistakeholder partnerships all entail a more assertive and proactive approach on the part of external actors. Under these conditions, local initiative may either become stifled or be reasoned away. Given this, today's dominant approaches to co-operation raise concerns about their ethics and sustainability. Policy implications: Ownership remains both a requirement and a desired outcome of international co-operation and is key to the effective O2 | KEIJZER and BLaCK

show abstract

“…Certainly, there are differences with the emerging donors, which have challenged the 'Western' consensus on international aid when it comes to issues such as political conditionality [13,14]. In addition, European donors are said to be inspired by normative principles and they have paid more attention to the aid effectiveness principles than is the case for the US [15][16][17]. In health, in particular, some authors referred to an Atlantic faultline in thinking on health systems, which is linked to the competing public health ideologies across the Atlantic ocean [9,18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

European aid and health system strengthening: an analysis of donor approaches in the DRC, Ethiopia, Uganda, Mozambique and the global fund

Steurs

2019

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In the field of international health assistance (IHA), there is a growing consensus on the limits of disease-specific interventions and the need for more health system strengthening (HSS). European donors are considered to be strong supporters of HSS. Nevertheless, little is known about how their support for HSS translates into concrete policies at partner country level. Furthermore, as development cooperation is a shared policy between the EU and its Member States, it remains unclear to what extent European donors share a similar approach. Objective: This article reviews a PhD thesis on European aid and HSS. The thesis investigated (1) the approaches of European donors towards IHA, and (2) the extent to which there are similarities or differences between them. An original analytical framework was developed to make a fine-grained analysis of European donors' approaches in the DRC, Ethiopia, Uganda and Mozambique. In addition, the relation of European donors with the Global Fund was investigated. Methods: An abductive research approach was used during which literature review, data generation, analysis and research design mutually influenced each other. The research built on a wide range of empirical data, including semi-structured interviews with 123 respondents, policy documents and descriptive statistical analysis. Results and conclusion: Four 'types' of European donors were identified, which vary in their focus (issue-specific versus comprehensive) and their level of support to and involvement of recipient states. Despite this heterogeneity at a specific level, there is still a general degree of 'unity' among European donors, especially compared with the US. Yet, there are signs that the 'transatlantic' divide on HSS may be converging, as European donors tend to focus more explicitly on result-oriented approaches traditionally associated with the US and Global Health Initiatives. Consequently, European donors play a limited role in bringing HSS more to the forefront in IHA.

show abstract

The EU, the United States and Partnership in Development Cooperation: Bridging the Gap?

Cited by 10 publications

References 40 publications

Development co‐operation and the partnership–ownership nexus: Lessons from the Canada–Ghana experience

Development co‐operation and the partnership–ownership nexus: Lessons from the Canada–Ghana experience

Special issue introduction Ownership in a post‐aid effectiveness era: Comparative perspectives

European aid and health system strengthening: an analysis of donor approaches in the DRC, Ethiopia, Uganda, Mozambique and the global fund

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About