Partnerships in Development - Plan international

These three developments led to growing numbers of relationships within the development sector, which were (and still are) often called ‘partnerships’ (see Figure 3). As Fowler (2000) argues, currently “[T]he purpose of the ‘partnership’ framework is to address what recent diagnoses of the aid industry conclude are the critical gaps which accounted in the past for the ineffectiveness of aid.  These are identified as:

• the lack of local ‘ownership’ of policies and programmes, perceived as the key to good  management;
• inappropriate donor behaviour, including [insufficient] aid co-ordination and ineffectiveness of conditionality as a surveillance and quality control mechanism and;
• the underlying environment, including the nature of policies, institutions and the political system.

Consequently, partnership seeks to address inclusiveness, complementarity, dialogue and shared responsibility as the basis of managing the multiple relationships among stakeholders in the aid industry”.  It is not surprising, hence, that any steps towards addressing these problems are referred as contributing to ‘partnerships’.  

Partnerships are thus trying to embrace such complex tasks as bridging northern and southern organisations by creating strategic alliances based on the comparative advantages of both, uniting the efforts of like-minded organisations in their pursuit of advocating issues on global level, pushing forward the awareness of TNCs in corporate social responsibility and empowering the communities in the South by building their social capital.  This has led to the creation of a variety of partnerships, both within and between sectors.  For the purposes of the present research a broad distinction has been drawn between those intersectoral partnerships involving actors from diverse sectors and intrasectoral partnerships between organisations from the same sector.  Nevertheless, development practitioners must seriously reconsider the use of ‘partnerships’ as it can create a ‘new stick with which the aid system will be beaten’ (Fowler, 2000).  Hence, it is important to see how international non-governmental development organisations (INGDO) are using the word ‘partnerships’ and what the common interpretations are. The section that follows looks at case studies of such INGDOs.

---

Civil society diagram – from attachment2. Practice and Meaning of Partnerships for International Non-Governmental Organisations

Realizing the importance of the partnership, international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) like PLAN International engage deeply in the working on partnerships considering it a central mechanism to their developmental strategy that would cater for the requirements of, not only the donors and recipients, but also, the organisations themselves.  Inter-organizational cooperation is seen as a pillar of the emerging development paradigm that seeks to mobilize the values and voluntary energy of citizen groups, the know-how and capital of business, and the legitimate authority of state (Jane Covey 2000). Functioning in NGO partnerships, alliances, and networks is the hallmark of developmental activity of these organisations as there is a realization that they cannot “do it alone”, they have to pay attention to the other stakeholders, and, that they have to evolve a wider collaborative action in order to focus on their target areas - be it children welfare, women emancipation, combating the HIV/AIDS, or other aspects of human development etc, and, in order to deliver sustainable development services.

However as our research of international NGOs demonstrates below relatively sparse policies exist concerning the defining and working out of partnerships with many organisation using the terminology of partnerships loosely and in an ill-defined manner.  

Research for Part 2 was undertaken through extensive searches of websites and associated literature.

2.1 Plan International

Plan International currently does not have a comprehensive policy on partnership relations.  Operational relationships with other institutions differ widely depending on the capacity of the institutions, their negotiating ability, the duration of the proposed partnership and the legislative context which may limit relationships (Plan International’s International Board Meeting Basic Research Paper, 7-8 June 2002).  

Within Plan International it is widely held that the most common form of partnership developed is contracting which is the only form of partnership discussed in the Field Operations Book.  Plan International’s reporting requirements and the need for transparency in audit are often-cited obstacles to developing other forms of partnership with community-based organisations.  Where other forms of partnership are developed, these are individually negotiated in the absence of corporate guidance (Plan International’s International Board Meeting Basic Research Paper, 7-8 June 2002).

Plan International’s Program Principle of Co-operation deals with work in collaboration with community organisations, government bodies, NGOs and others. However, although the principle states “work with the partners will be based on mutual respect, with specific rights and obligations for all parties” the supportive text is written very much in terms of the development of formal contracts, with no mention of capacity building or of long-term empowerment (Plan International’s International Board Meeting Basic Research Paper, 7-8 June 2002).

2.2 How INGOs Define Partnerships

2.2.1 Action Aid

Within the 1999-2005 ActionAid strategy ‘Fighting poverty together’, working increasingly in partnership and alliance is one of six major shifts in emphasis that the organisation is currently seeking to do.  It emphasises that none of the outcomes which the organisation hopes for will be possible without working in partnership with key actors.  However ActionAid does not have a specified policy on partnerships, although ActionAid Uganda is currently carrying out research on the topic.  

As is typical, the terms ‘partnership’ and ‘partner’ are used loosely in a variety of settings and to describe a range of relationships.  For example the term is used for relationships within the organisation between staff and supporters and also the relationship of the organisation itself with the poor:

“ActionAid is a unique partnership of people who are fighting for a better world – a world without poverty…We work with poor and marginalised people to help them secure access to food, water, education, healthcare, and the opportunity to earn a living. This is our starting point to develop awareness of their basic rights and entitlements as citizens. This partnership enables them to organise themselves and stand up for their rights”;

ActionAid also fuses the term with ones similar:

• “HIV/ AIDS work in Africa is now forging links with new constituencies of church groups”
• “ActionAid’s cross-organizational work in building alliances”

ActionAid considers the relationship with Southern NGOs its primary kind of relationship. In this sense, the most explicit it gets is:

“Working with partners: Where possible, ActionAid works with local partners to ensure that the work will continue when we have left an area. Strengthening local organisations is key to ensuring that poor people have a voice and can play a part in civil society, ensuring that the needs of poor people are put on the agenda..”.

2.2.2 World Vision

World Vision holds its identity as a partner as one of its six core beliefs, alongside being committed, responsive, valuing of people and Christian.  Partnership is viewed as transcending boundaries which may be legal, structural or cultural in nature.  Within a ‘true’ partnership World Vision accept that there are associated obligations.  

Partnership is made explicit for World Vision with several actors:

• at the international level with macro-scale institutions such as the UK’s Department for International Development and the United Nations (UN), for instance with UN funding in the Mauritanian capital for students to receive educational notebooks and pens for greater AIDS awareness
• as a partnership within World Vision International with 11,500 staff.  
• the poor.  They state that “we must work with the poor and not for them. They are our partners as we help them identify their own aspirations and to play a significant role in seeing them fulfilled.”
• donors.  

2.2.3 Save The Children

Save The Children can be considered more systematic in its definition of partnership:

“Partnership may be defined as a cross sector alliance in which individuals, groups or organisations agree to:

• work together to fulfil an obligation or undertake a specific task

• share the risks as well as the benefits

• review the relationship regularly revising their agreement as necessary.

R Tennyson, Save the Children 1998”

2.2.4 Oxfam

Oxfam focuses primarily in relationships with southern NGOs when it talks about ‘partners’.  In the 1999-2000 Annual Review the organisation wrote that “at the heart of (their) philosophy - and (their) success - are the principles of 'working together' and' helping people to help themselves'”.  These partners are described as community groups and local organisations, with the aims of partnership being easier problem solving.  

However, further partnerships are mentioned on a wider scale.  In its annual report, Oxfam notes differentiated partnerships in relation to supporters and donors:

“Oxfam is working with civil society partners and allies across the world , to tackle poverty by linking the real experience of poor people with campaigns that seek to challenge injustice and the causes of poverty. We want to help build a global partnership between our partners and the poor communities they help; and our supporters and donors who provide time, money and commitment for change.”

2.2.5 Catholic Relief Services

During 1997-98, the Program Quality and Support Department (PQSD) began to examine CRS’ experience with partnership and institution building in a more systematic fashion. With the compilation of the resulting material, CRS demonstrated the best practice in formal definition and specification of partnerships among the INGOs we studied.

All of Catholic Relief Services' programs are said to be based upon ‘operational relationships’ capitalizing on their “complementary capacities to achieve the optimum benefit for poor and marginalized people”.

At their best, these operational relationships are said to “reflect the concept of partnership - embodying essential principles of Catholic Social Teaching such as respect for human dignity, the life of the person in community, and people's ownership of their own development process.”  

CRS lists its main partners, with descriptions and links to their web pages.  It also synthesizes its ‘Partnerships Quality Principles and Standards’ in ten structured points, which presented in Appendix 3.  Finally, it published a detailed review on how to build partnerships in the format of a manual “The Partnership Toolbox” which has the potential of being an important reference on future partnership definitions of Plan International.

---

2.3 How INGOs Determine Added Value of the Partnerships

Added value of partnerships is determined by the distinction of whether a partnership will provide a greater result for an organisation than would otherwise have occurred without such a partnership.  Inter-sectoral partnerships build upon the complementary strengths of sectors.  This is exemplified by Save the Children.  It partners with private sector companies for fundraising purposes and benefits from large customer bases and the socially responsible aims of companies.  ‘Corporate Members’ include Adams Childrenswear, American Express Services Europe Ltd and Morrison Supermarkets, each pledging to give £300,000 to support the organisation over a three year period.  The companies mutually benefit.  The Managing Director of Adams Childrenswear explained how the relationship has encouraged a motivated workforce and involved customers in the activities of stores.  American Express articulated how well the charity and company are suited as “both are global and trusted”.  

The added value from intra-sectoral partnerships relies on distinct goal-setting which enables an understanding of what the specific aim for a project or relationship is and how best it might be achieved.  Christian Aid write:

“The goals of partnership: all partnerships should be entered into with some initial understanding over the goal of the relationship. Christian Aid should set out as clearly as possible at the outset what it hopes to give and receive from the partnership. The partner should be encouraged to do the same. This understanding, however, should be debated and developed during the course of the relationship.  There should be clarity if the relationship is instrumental/contractual, i.e. designed to get a finite project done or if it is focused on long term support and capacity building. If the latter, joint strategies and targets should be developed for this process, as well as a common understanding of how roles and responsibilities should/might change over the course of the relationship”

The goals of the programme “Save the Children South Africa: Toolkit of Action for HIV/AIDS affected children” show us on example of goal setting and justification for partnership relating to HIV/AIDS affected children:

• affected children are of national concern
• the sheer magnitude of problem in terms of numbers, current & future impact is too much for any one organisation to handle
• the multi-dimensional nature of problem requires different perspectives and expertise from different sectors working in concert
• imperative to avoid wasteful duplication of effort and resources
• urgency to share and learn from experiences of others

It is possible to say that INGOs are in the process of establishing more formal agreements and tangible goals for partnerships.

---

2.4 How INGOs Monitor and Evaluate Partnerships

Monitoring and evaluation is the weakest link of all INGO partnerships, with most INGOs not making available any kind of information about these processes on their websites.  Sagawa’s case studies on inter-sectoral partnerships demonstrate the absence of evaluations within such relationships:

“Evaluation received short shrift in almost every relationship we studied. Most of the parties noted that they were in the process of planning for an evaluation, or trying to determine outcomes based on information they had available. A little foresight will make this kind of assessment easier, and more accurate. We encourage partners to agree upon measures of success and to establish baseline data in advance of a transaction.” (2000, p.44)

Nevertheless a selection of evaluation and monitoring mechanisms in operation were recognised.

2.4.1 Two-way accountability

Christian Aid encourage a two way process of accountability, including the development of performance indicators and mechanisms to measure and monitor the performance of both sides of the partnership. They note that efforts have to be made to minimise the bureaucratic demands of accountability, and each organisation should try to make their own demands as compatible as possible with those of other actors.

2.4.2 Annual evaluation against agreed goals

The Christian Aid team responsible for a partnership assess the performance of a partnership against the agreed goals for subsequent reflection and feedback.  The organisation specifies that “Programme/project evaluations and impact studies should include an assessment not only of the work but also of the partnership”.

2.4.3 SWOT analysis

Catholic Relief Service country programs most frequently utilise a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis and the related SEEP Framework (Small Enterprise Education and Promotion).  The processes have been found to be adaptable to local situations and needs and are most effective when followed by action planning that is directed by partner priorities.  The impact of SWOT and SEEP has been increased when conducted with local partners.

---

2.5 How Partnerships End

Reasons for ending a partnership include that the partnership was successful and had fulfilled its objectives for one or both parties.  Again, having specific goals for both parties in a partnership is an advantage.  One example of a successful partnership terminating is the World Vision agriculture and education project in Bbaale, Uganda where the organisation pulled out after 13 years stating that it was “time for (the participants) to run things for themselves”.  

An alternative justification for the ending of a partnership is that it could have been unsuccessful and the objectives of one or both parties were not being sufficiently fulfilled to justify continued investment in the relationship.  However little reference was found throughout the research on ending partnerships which suggests that INGOs have either little considered the issue or they do not wish to show that partnerships have been unsuccessful to the public.  

---

3. Strengths and Weakness of

Different Partnership Models

3.1 Partnership Models

It is useful to differentiate different types of partnerships in order to examine their strengths and weaknesses in different contexts.  However, defining partnership models is problematic as can be seen in Part 1 which shows that different sectors have different approaches to partnership while Part 2 illustrates the different INGOs strategies for implementing partnerships.  Some preliminary distinctions can be drawn according to whether partnerships operate between or within sectors (intra- and inter-sectoral), involve shared decision making or an exchange of finances.

Leach et al (1994) formulate a range of models for delineating partnership relationships arising from collaboration between INGOs and NGOs in aid-recipient  countries.  However, these models also provide one potential framework for describing the nature of partnerships in the development context more broadly.  These models are summarised as follows:

         

The advantages and disadvantages of  such collaboration models are now discussed.

3.1.1 Contracting

Advantages

For INGO:

• faster than hiring or training its own staff for delivery of the needed products or services.
• cheaper and more efficient, especially if INGO expects to be in the region for a limited time or when its small size makes setting up an administrative unit uneconomical
• specialised when an INGO is new to an area and has not developed local knowledge yet.

For NGO:

• (potentially) preserves autonomy and identity
• states clean and clear lines of authority, contracting time and task boundaries

Disadvantages

• less mutual learning , each organisation maintains and enhances its existing capacities
• can exhibit great power imbalances, which can lead some NGOs to alter their strategies and systems of order to satisfy INGO requirements
• limited exchange of information
• may result in loss of NGO identity

Typical context for the model

• disaster relief

3.1.2 Dependent franchise

Advantages

For INGO:

• potential for widespread replicability of an advocated  program approach
• INGO benefits from public perception of NGO as an indigenous organisations, while retaining control over key aspects of program and administration

For NGO:

• secure source of funding
• prestige and increased influence from being associated with a large INGO

---

Disadvantages

• power imbalances, which can lead to an NGO suppressing negative feedback or more locally appropriate methods or innovative programs
• may lack legitimacy in the eyes of host governments and indigenous people

Typical context for the model

• when an INGO organises a new NGO intending for it to become an independent organisation, however, the latter fails due to over-control by INGO, lack of management or fund-raising capacity
• when a collaborating NGO already exists and is taken over by  INGO

3.1.3 Spin-off NGO

Advantages

• combines widespread replication with the potential for greater innovation

Disadvantages

• problematic at the start-up phase attracting entrepreneurial leadership necessary for independent operations later
• NGOs may be reluctant to cut ties with the INGO, fearing loss of prestige and funding
• the legitimacy of such NGOs may also be questioned if the INGO does not have a good reputation in the region

Typical context for the model

• when an INGO organises a new NGO intending for it to become an independent organisation

3.1.4 Visionary patronage

Advantages

• INGO provides for maintenance of organisational identity, but NGO can bring its full range of skills and capacities to all aspects of program design and implementation
• due to close contacts, INGO can learn from the work of NGO disseminating learning across multiple projects
• due to clear differentiation of roles and tasks an NGO maintains its’ identity and has substantial flexibility on strategy

Disadvantages

• potentially, INGO may lose some input and control , as it is removed from day-to-day implementation and operation decisions
• if NGO does not have clarity on its mission or strategy, it may distort its systems, structure and culture in order to appear attractive to the INGO

Typical context for the model

• collaboration happens between INGO (or consortium of INGOs) with an NGO (or consortium on NGOs) for shared commitment, while having autonomy for separate strategies or a way of pursuing common vision
• often both sides have worked together in the past and each has an expectation of some continued relationship
• currently is common among the funding agencies

3.1.5 Collaborative operations

Advantages

For INGO

• lower staff costs and overhead
• increased effectiveness and decreased start-up time due to NGO linkage with other development actors and NGO knowledge of local conditions
• NGO credibility may help leverage government funds in country of operation
• opportunity for INGO to work in countries where direct operations are prohibited or restricted
• increased understanding of on-the-ground realities

For NGOs

• potential advantage of relatively long-term source of funding
• greater access to the INGO’s experience and knowledge with programs in other regions
• learning new methods for management and administration
• prestige that may come from close association with INGO, which may permit greater leverage in advocacy, fundraising, or access to existing infrastructure
• increased understanding of pressures and realities of the donor organisation

Common benefits

• increased programmatic and administrative capacities
• increased South-North solidarity

---

Disadvantages

• the line between joint decision-making and interference is very fine. This necessitates high degree of personal comfort and trust between INGO and NGO representatives
• there may still be a large imbalance in power or dependence between the partners
• attempts should be made to maintain NGO’s identity, culture, mission and strategy to avoid risk of losing identity and legitimacy among the NGO’s external constituents
• INGO usually gets “less credit” for successful work since the local NGO is the more visible partner
• potentially decision-making may slow down, depending on the joint decision-making structure and the amount of authority given by the INGO to its representatives.

Typical context for the model

• created when there is agreement on vision, goals and strategy
• requires also some sort of structure for joint decision-making on policy and implementation

3.1.6 Mutual governance

Advantages

• focuses on equalizing North-South power relationships
• helps to build strong international networks
• maximizes programmatic and cultural learning on both sides
• intensifies two-way exchange of experience and knowledge
• minimal distortion of feedback due to differences in power and unequal dependence
• results in changes in people’s habits, attitudes and self-image by virtue of being listened to, respected and treated as equal
• have significant positive impact on beneficiaries

Disadvantages

• amount of interpersonal trust and relationship maintenance may make the model somewhat self-limiting in size
• poses maximum challenge to maintain NGO’s identity and satisfaction of stakeholders’ interests.

---

3.2 Working Towards Active Partnerships

This analysis of Leach’s partnership framework demonstrates that there are no partnership models which are wholly advantageous in every development situation.  Instead, it becomes apparent that INGOs like Plan International need to consider a range of approaches to partnership, dependent on the needs of relevant stakeholders, organisational capacity and the outcomes desired.  For this reason, it is impossible to proscribe a definition of partnership or a distinct set of models with universal applicability.  

Instead, it is useful to consider partnership as a process, within which a variety of relationships can exist.   For INGOs like Plan International this process should be seen as involving the continual reformation of relationships in a quest for an ‘ideal-type’ partnership. This ideal-type is described by Fowler as ‘authentic partnerships’ involving “mutually-enabling, inter-dependent interaction with shared intentions” (Fowler, 1998: 144).  Similarly, Lewis advocates ‘active partnerships’ as the goal for civil society actors, who should aim to create relationships on the basis of negotiated but changing roles, clear purposes, openness to change, shared risks, debate and dissent, a focus on mutual learning and ‘activity-based’ origins emerging from practice (Lewis, 1998:6).  How to work towards this ‘ideal-type’ of partnership will be discussed in the following section.

---

4. Effective Partnerships

The previous sections have outlined the range of definitions of partnership, the models used by various INGOs and the benefits and disadvantages of different types of partnership in different situations.  This section examines the leading edge thinking about effective partnerships and lessons learnt from existing partnerships about what makes them successful or otherwise.  In so doing, it distinguishes between intersectoral and intrasectoral partnerships in order to examine the different characteristics of successful partnerships between civil society organisations (whether INGOs, NGOs or CBOs) and those incorporating the business and public sectors as.    Ultimately the goal is to establish ‘authentic’ (Fowler, 1998) or ‘active’ (Lewis, 1998) partnerships.

4.1. Preparing for Partnership

Commentators agree that the first step to establishing successful partnership is organisational self-analysis (Fowler, 1998: 147; Sagawa, 2000).  This involves determining what has gone before and why it did or did not succeed as well as examining one’s own organisation in an attempt to foresee obstacles to partnership or things that could be done better to facilitate partnership.  It requires extensive internal discussion about the expectations, assumptions and anticipated outcomes for partnership, as well as the recognition of the unique competencies, resources and capacities that the organisation can offer a prospective partner.  

Usually, the primary motivation for seeking either intersectoral or intrasectoral partnership is the conclusion that solutions to development problems cannot be reached by an organisation operating alone.   This may be because the relevant resources, information and expertise is shared between multiple actors within a sector, or across sectors, or because a greater impact is required than can be ensured by any individual organisation on their own.  Before partnership is attempted, however, there must be some research into the question of whether partnership has been attempted previously, and whether this had beneficial or detrimental outcomes.

Solidaristic relationships between civil society actors that aim to overcome the North-South development divide have been attempted in various formats since the 1970s (Fowler, 1998). This type of partnership has tended to be unsuccessful in the past due to a range of factors (see Table 1), underlying which is a failure to address the power imbalances between such organisations.   The advent of participatory theory has evolved a variety of mechanisms to address this essential power imbalance and to facilitate the empowerment of communities, CBOs, and NGOs in the South (Chambers 1997, 2002).  Increasingly vocal activists and academics from the South have also initiated a shift in development thinking which recognises that organisations based in the South retain the legitimacy and representativeness to deal with development issues – a resource which can be exchanged for financial support from the North (Kajese, 1987). Nevertheless, it is important for civil society organisations to consider why previous intrasectoral partnerships did not work, and to ensure that they eliminate similar influences in creating contemporary partnerships.

Table 1:  Obstacles to successful civil society partnerships in the past

(Adapted from Fowler, 1998: 141 – 144)

Addressing what has gone before is also an important exercise in preparing for intersectoral partnership, particularly partnerships involving collaboration between the business and civil society sectors which have experienced antagonistic relationships in the past (Enderle & Peters, 1998).  While it is essential to consider whether the mission and core values of prospective business-sector partners are sufficiently compatible with those of civil society actors, it may also be important to assess how businesses may have improved over time, and whether partnership has the potential to ensure that they move further towards a position that is advantageous to sustainable development outcomes.  Nevertheless, previous antagonism between prospective partners in any form of intersectoral relationship requires assessment and internal discussions to determine whether this is an obstacle to contemporary partnership or whether existing preconceptions can be overcome to create a neutral approach to partnership (Tull, 2002).  

Finally, prior to engaging in either intersectoral or intrasectoral partnerships, organisations will need to address a range of pragmatic issues relating to their own operations because “partnerships work best if they meet the specific needs of an otherwise healthy organisation.  They are not a panacea…” (Sagawa, 2000: 6). The things which need to be considered include financial strength, management and staffing capacity, operational quality, leverageable assets and the organisational need that it is hoped partnership will address (Sagawa, 2000).  The outcome of such investigations should indicate both the organisational capacity to undertake partnerships  -  which in the case of INGOs like Plan International may relate to available staffing, capital resources and time - and the ‘gaps’ which partnership may fill, and thus the most suitable type of partner to fill them.  For example, if an INGO lacks a legitimate connection to local communities in a particular region they should seek to partner with existing CBOs or local NGOs, while if financial resources are required partnerships with government or business actors may be more suitable.  However, it is also important for civil society actors to realistically catalogue the assets and resources that they will bring to any partnership relationship – so that in the case of Southern NGOs this may be their unique ability to represent local communities or their legitimacy in a region, while INGOs may offer valuable international cross-sectoral networks as well as the ability to connect with local organisations in the field.

4.2. Building Partnership

Once organisations have addressed their own expectations, capacities and assets, they must identify potential partners and how compatible they are in relation to these factors.  Often the first step in seeking partners for development problems is relationship or stakeholder mapping (Tull, 2002).  This identifies those groups already involved in an issue or region, and those groups upon which development intervention will have the most impact.   For INGOs like Plan International this is particularly important because effective partnership for sustainable development outcomes is dependent on the legitimacy of the parties involved, and their mutual recognition of this (Brown, 1988).  For this reason, relationship mapping is essential to identify the relevant stakeholders in each development context.  Once potential partners have been discovered, their suitability for partnership purposes must be determined by reference to a variety of organisational features (see Table 2).  Although the inability of organisations to meet such requirements to their fullest should not foreclose against partnership, this exercise is useful to determine potential impediments to successful partnerships and to indicate areas where capacity-building may circumvent potential power imbalances occurring.

It is at this preliminary stage that third party conveners or facilitators can play a useful role in bringing potential partners together.  This is particularly important in relation to partners with substantial power imbalances or where there has been a history of antagonistic relations.  This role also has added relevance for INGOs like Plan International, which may be able to act as ‘bridging institutions’ or ‘catalysts’ to successful development partnerships rather than as partners themselves (Brown, 1988).  This is due to their unique ability to link lateral and vertical actors – the former being those of equal social power that operate in different contexts with different interests and capacities, while the latter operate between unequally powerful constituencies (Brown, 1988: 77).  Thus, Plan International may be able to bring together the international business sector with those local communities upon whom their commercial activities have a detrimental impact.   Equally they can formulate connections between donor publics in the North and individuals experiencing the adverse effects of development problems in the South.  As conveners, facilitators or catalysts of development partnerships, however, INGOs like Plan International need to consider their own credibility and legitimacy in relation to the particular development issue at stake (Brown, 1988).  There is a conflict here between the necessity for conveners or facilitators to have sufficient local knowledge to establish their credibility in relation to the problem, while maintaining a stance sufficiently ‘outside’ the problem to be considered an impartial advisor to both potential partners (Kalegaonkar & Brown, 2000: 9).

Table 2: Key Organisational Features in potential partners

(adapted from Fowler 1998: 148)

A major challenge in building partnerships, both intersectoral and intrasectoral, is the ability to overcome or address difference.  Thus, participation by diverse actors in partnerships is dependent on the potential of problems to be framed in such a way as to emphasise the mutual gains that partnership will bring (Kalegaonkar & Brown, 2000).  It is important in this context that there is some understanding of the different interpretative schemes that different organisational cultures engender (Covey & Brown, 1994).  If conscious efforts to form a shared interpretative scheme are not made at this stage there is a possibility that collaboration may lead partners to feel threatened by one another, leading to defensiveness, conflict and the breakdown of communication.  Similarly, pre-existent power imbalances must be addressed at this juncture.  Although these may not be overcome initially, full participation by all parties in the start-up process, as well as the formation of agreements on processes to ensure mutual influence throughout the partnership can contribute to power-balancing at the outset (Kalegaonkar & Brown, 2000).  Finally, particularly in the case of intrasectoral partnerships, there must be some acknowledgement that relationship-building is one of the desired outcomes of partnership and that this may involve the investment of considerable time and resources above and beyond what is anticipated for the partnership project itself (Sagawa, 2000; Kalegaonkar & Brown, 2000).

4.3. Managing Partnership

Once partners have been identified and approached, and partnership relations have commenced, mechanisms for managing conflict between partners and for negotiating change in the partnership process need to be agreed upon (see Table 3).  This is especially significant where individual organisations are intending partnership to be an ongoing process, as part of a shift in organisational operating procedures.  It has already be noted that bad experiences of partnership can undermine the willingness of organisations to engage in further partnerships, however, it also needs to be recognised that the attitudes and opinions of partners are not static and external influences may also impact upon the way partnership eventuates (Tull, 2002).  For these reasons it is important that partners understand each others roles, responsibilities and expectations of partnership.  In part this necessitates a willingness on behalf of all partners to engage in constant renegotiation throughout the partnership process and to listen to and consider the divergent views that each partner may hold (Covey & Brown, 1994).  This may mean the use of a partnership forum in which third party facilitators continue to be involved.  It also requires processes to be established for evaluation and monitoring of partnerships to determine the gains actually being realised.  These may be hard to measure or identify, although early agreement between the partners as to the desired outcomes or impacts of partnership projects will help to determine their relative success or failure.  

Successful resolution of funding issues is also of great significance to the implementation of effective partnership.  This is particularly the case in relation to unequally resourced partners, such as business sector versus civil society actors, or civil society actors in the North versus those in the South.  In all partnerships, but especially in these circumstances, the timing of payments, the duration of funding and the terms for cessation of funding must be clearly established (Christian Aid, 2000).   Finally the problem of external accountability, in addition to the accountability of partners to each other, needs to be resolved.  Again, this issue is of particular relevance where perceived imbalances between more and less powerful partners can be a problem.  For instance, civil society actors that engage with the business sector are often accused of being co-opted to an agenda that is incompatible with sustainable development as, even where it is not explicit, partnerships may imply that civil society actors endorse a company and its products or services (Zadek, 2001; Sagawa, 2000).  The possibility that partnership may be interpreted by the public in a negative way needs to be tackled, either by the discovery of devices for demonstrating the continued legitimacy and accountability of civil society actors to their members/donors/beneficiaries, or through the resolution that such partnerships are too risky to be entered into.

---

Table 3: Mechanisms to manage partnership

4.4. Lessons Learnt

Partnerships are vulnerable to outside influences (political, financial or economic) and the potential impact of these on the partnership needs to be taken into consideration at the earliest possible opportunity.  Finally, partnership is a complex and fluid process in which a willingness to renegotiate and adapt is imperative (Lewis, 1998).  Nevertheless, the potential for positive outcomes needs to be recognised also.  This includes the discovery of innovative solutions to apparently intractable development problems through the exploitation of the diverse viewpoints of partners and their complementary skills and resources (Brown, 1988).  The successful practice of partnership also lays the foundation for further collaboration, both within and between sectors, in the future – enhancing the social capital available to advance sustainable development.

Table 4: Lessons learnt

(Adapted from Kalengaonkar & Brown, 2000: 20).

5.  Conclusions

The concept of partnership is popular and well-entrenched in the development sector.  This is not to say that partnership is an unproblematic concept.  Rather the above material demonstrates that there are many factors which should be considered before entering into a partnership, and which will influence the nature of any existing partnership and its outcomes.  Nevertheless, few commentators dismiss the idea of partnership altogether, instead there is a consensus that INGOs, like Plan International, should recognise that partnerships are diverse and that they should be regarded as a process rather than as a rigid mode of operation.  

INGOs must bear in mind that actors in the private, public and civil society sectors have diverse incentives for partnering.  In the civil society sector, the concept is still vaguely defined and not used in a systematic way by INGOs.  However this situation is changing with several institutions making a conscious effort to delineate partnership.  A key element in formalising partnerships is the agreement of goals and, thus, ensuring the added value of the partnership for all partners involved.  Understanding the goals and expectations of a partnerships aids greatly in the monitoring, evaluation and ending of a partnership.  As there is no preferential model for partnerships, INGOs such as Plan International should be flexible, choosing the most appropriate model for the specific development context.  In so doing it is useful to work towards an ideal partnership type, such as Fowler’s ‘authentic’ partnership or Lewis’ ‘active’ partnership.  This can be done by considering the factors involved in preparing, building and managing partnerships.  

---

6. References

Abugre, C. (1999) “Partners, collaborators or patron-clients: defining relationships in the aid industry”, background paper for the Canadian International Development Agency, Partnership Branch, Accra: ISODEC.

ActionAid www.actionaid.org

ActionAid Fighting poverty together: ActionAid’s strategy 1999-2005 

Ashman, D. (2001) “Strengthening North-South Partnerships for Sustainable Development”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1, March, pp. 74 – 98.

Beall, J. (1997) “Social Capital in Waste – A Solid Investment?”, Journal of International Development, Vol. 9, No. 7, pp. 951 – 961.

Brett, E.A. (2000) “Participation and Accountability in Development Management”, London, DESTIN.

Brown, L. D. (1988) “Private Voluntary Organisations and Development Partnerships” in P. Khandwalla (ed) Social Development: A New Role for the Organisational Sciences, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 71 – 88.

Business partners for development www.bpdweb.org

Carmen, R. (2000) “The New ‘Partnership’ Era: But where is the third partner?”, Development, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 83 – 87.

Catholic Relief Services www.catholicrelief.org

Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, London, Intermediate Technology Publications.

Chambers, R., (2002) Participatory Workshops: A sourcebook of 21 sets of ideas and activities, London: Earthscan.

Chandoke, N. (2001) “The conceits of civil society”, unpublished paper, London: DESTIN.

Christian Aid (2000) Guidelines for selecting and managing partnerships, London: Christian Aid.

Covey, J. (2000) “Inter-organizational Cooperation and the Art of Partnership”, paper presented at the Plan International Program Conference, University of Sussex, September 7.

Covey, J.G. & L. D. Brown (1994) “Forming a Multi-National Development Coalition: Diversity and Oppression in organisational Relations”, IDR Reports, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp 1 – 7.

Drabek, A. G. (1987) “Development Alternatives: The Challenge for NGOs – An Overview of the Issues”, World Development, Vol. 15, Supplement, pp. ix – xv.

Edwards & Hulme (1996) “Beyond the Magic Bullet: NGO Performance and Accountability in the Post-Cold War World” London: Earthscan.

Enderle, G. & G. Peters (1998) A Strange Affair? The emerging relationship between NGOs and Transnational Companies, London: Price Waterhouse.

Evans, P. (1996) “Government Action, Social Capital and Development: Reviewing the Evidence on Synergy”, World Development, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 1119 – 1132.

Eyben, R. and S. Ladbury (1995) “Popular participation in aid-assisted projects: why more in theory than in practice?”, in Nelson, N. and S. Wright, Power and Participatory Practice, London, Intermediate Technology Press, pp. 192 – 200.

Fowler, A.F. (1998) “Authentic NGDO Partnerships in the New Policy Agenda for International Aid: Dead End or Light Ahead?”, Development and Change, Vol. 29, pp. 137 – 159.

Fowler, A., 2000, 'NDCO values and the fourth position: introduction to the special issue', in A. Fowler (ed.), NGO Futures: Beyond Aid, Third World Quarterly Special Issue, Vol. 21(4), forthcoming, August.

Fowler, A., 2000, 'Partnerships: negotiating relationships - a resource for non-govemmental development organ- isations', Occasional Paper No. 32, Oxford: International NGO Training and Research Centre.

Fowler, A., 2000, 'Degrees of separation: perspectives on the decentralisation of international NG0s', in 5. Gibbs, 'Decentralised NGO Management', Occasional Paper, No 19: 8-24, Oxford: International NGO Training and Research Centre.

Gulati R, 1998, ‘Alliances and Networks’ Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp 293-317

Gulati R., 1999, ‘ Network Location and Learning: The Influence of Network

Resources and Firm Capabilities on Alliance Formation’, Strategic Management Journal, 20, pp 397-420.

Harriss, J. (2001) Depoliticising Development: The World Bank and Social Capital, New Dehli: Leftword.

Hamel G. et al., 1989, ‘Collaborate With Your Competitors and Win’, Harvard             Business Review, Jan-Feb, pp 133-39.

Hoffman D, 1997, ‘Strategic Alliance and Small Business’, Journal of Business &  Enterpreneurship, 9 (1), pp 136-146.

Holsti et. al, 1982 (1992), Why nations re-align: Foreign Policy Restructuring in the             Post war World, London, Allen & Unwin.

Hulme & Edwards 1997 NGOs States and Donors: Too Close For Comfort,             Basingstoke, Mcmillan.

Kalegaonkar, A. & L. D. Brown (2000) “Intersectoral Cooperation: Lessons for Practice”, IDR Reports, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 1 – 25.

Kajese, K. (1987) “An Agenda of Future Tasks for International and Indigenous NGOs: Views from the South”, in World Development, 15 (Supplement), pp. 79 – 85.

Keane, J. (1988) Civil Society and the State, London: Verso.

Keay, M. (2002) Towards Global Corporate Social Responsibility, Briefing Paper No.3, Royal Institute of International Affairs Sustainable Development Program.

Keck, M. E. and K. Sikkink (1998). Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press

.

Kogut B., 1988,  ’Joint Ventures: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives’, Strategic Management Journal, 9 pp 319-332.

Kole et al., 2000, ‘Learning and Protection of Proprietory Assets and Strategic             Alliances: Building Relational Capital’, Strategic Management Journal 21, pp 217-237.

Lane, J. (1995) “Non-governmental organisations and participatory development: the concept in theory versus the concept in practice”, in Nelson, N. and S. Wright, Power and Participatory Practice, London, Intermediate Technology Press, pp. 181 – 191.

Leach, M., P. Chadha, J. Covey, D. Brown, R. Tandon (1994) Plan International Region of South Asia: Indian Partnerships Study, Boston, MA: Institute for Development Research.

Lewis, D. J. (1998) “Inter-Agency Partnerships in Aid-Recipient Countries: Lessons from an Aquaculture Project in Bangladesh”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, September, pp. 323 – 338.

Lindenberg, M. (2001) “Reaching Beyond the Family: New Nongovernmental organisation Alliances for Global Poverty Alleviation and Emergency Response”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 3, September, pp. 603 – 615.

Oliviero, M. B. & A. Simmons (2002) “Who’s Minding the Store? Global Civil Society and Corporate Responsibility”, in M. Glasius, M. Kaldor and H. Anheier (eds) Global Civil Society 2002, Oxford: OUP, pp. 77 – 107.

Plan International’s International Board Meeting Basic research paper, 7-8 June 2002

Plummer, J. (2002) Focusing Partnerships: A Sourcebook for Municipal Capacity Building In Public-Private Partnerships, London: Earthscan.

Putnam, R., Making Democracy Work, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Sagawa, S, (2000) Common Interest, Common Good: Creating Value through Business and

Social Sector Partnerships; Harvard Business School Press.

Sankar et al., 1995, ‘Building World Class Alliance. The Universal Card TSYS Case’,             The Academy of Management Journal, 9(2)  pp 20-29.

Save the Children  www.scfuk.org.uk

Simillie I., 1995, The Alms Bazar: Altruism Under Fire. Non-governmental             Organizations and International Development, Intermediate Technology Publications

, London

Stafford E. ,1995, ‘Using Cooperative Strategies to Make Alliances’, Long             Range Planning, June, p-65.

Stiles, K.W. (2000) “Grassroots empowerment”, in Richard A. Higgott, Geoffrey R. D. Underhill and Andreas Bieler (eds), Non-State Actors and Authority in the Global System, London, Routledge, pp.32 – 47.

Tull, J. (2002) BPD Engagement in Casanare, Colombia: Progress Report, Internal Assessment, Cambridge: Business Partners for Development.

Williamson, 1995). Williamson O E, (1985) Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York,

 Free Press.

World Bank 1997 World Development Report 1997

World Vision UK www.worldvision.org.uk

Zadek, S. (2001) The Civil Corporation: The New Economy of Corporate Citizenship, London: Earthscan.

---

7. Appendix

1. Civil Society and Social Capital

As ‘partnership’ has become popular amongst civil society organisations, so has the idea of ‘social capital’, which is regarded as one of the beneficial outcomes of successful partnership approaches.  As defined by Robert Putnam, social capital represents the development of trust and shared behavioural norms within society and is particularly evident where there are strong horizontal networks of ‘civic engagement’ which counter the vertical, hierarchical networks which traditionally define relations between states and citizens (Putnam, 1993: 174).  In this way, partnerships involving multi-sector co-operation and widespread participation by local communities represent the development of social capital through the creation of “replicable processes and fungible structures [which] translate into social change that extends beyond original intentions” (Kalegaonkar & Brown, 2000: 18).    Thus, social capital is considered an important precursor to the formation of the type of civil society envisaged by De Toqueville as an ‘associational life’ providing legitimate alternatives to the ‘tyranny of majority’ of the state (Keane, 1988: 61).   This is particularly important where the state is often unwilling or unable to provide public services or to act in the public interest (Beall, 1997).  

This interpretation is contested, however, by analysts who argue that the World Bank in particular is depoliticising civil society, ignoring all classical interpretations of the term, in which civil society is constructed in opposition to, and reliant upon, the existence of a (relatively) strong state (Chandhoke, 2001: 4).  Similarly, recent research into public-private partnerships highlights the essential role played by the state in establishing the rule of law in order to foster the development of social capital (Evans, 1996: 1120).  Additionally, the World Bank’s interpretation ‘flattens out’ civil society, equating it merely with NGOs and other ‘intermediary organisations’ thereby removing ‘political ambiguities’ associated with the idea of civil society, such as Gramsci’s identification of hegemonic power imbalances within this realm (Chandoke, 2001: 4).  Similarly, politics and power cannot be removed from ideas of ‘social capital’, as interpersonal networks of voluntary involvement may be a valuable social resource to those they incorporate, while simultaneously advancing the ‘social exclusion’ of those they neglect (Harriss, 2001: 5).  Partnership approaches certainly can lead to cooperation between previously resistant actors as well as creating new mechanisms and processes to do this. Nevertheless, development research has shown that partnership may in fact further entrench extant power structures and that “overt community organisation cannot be taken on its own as an indicator of the potential for the impact of citizen participation” (Beall, 1997: 959).  

2. Categorising existing partnerships through partner type

• Strategic inter-NGO collaborations that form ‘transnational advocacy networks’ and usually are issue-specific and based upon shared commitment to a specific goal (e.g. banning of landmines; raising awareness to address problems at the global level (Keck and Sikkink, 1998)).  Agendas are set jointly, but usually implemented autonomously with each organisation utilising its own resources (Lindenberg, 2001).

• Development Consortiums which involve development actors, that come together to coordinate fund-raising, work at scale, minimise administrative costs, promote efficient deployment of resources (e.g. specialization among organisations) and address development issues innovatively (Covey, 2002).

However, these collaborations are inherently unstable first because they are often structured so that one agency dominates the project [strategically, financially and technically] and the rest are simply sub-contractors.  Secondly, the member-agencies may not be able to give the consortium the autonomy it needs to succeed and for example, fail to develop common and unified rules and procedures, as well as accountability system. This may overload the consortium and, combined with inadequate allocation of the member-resources for dealing with such problems,  result in inflexibility of the consortium.

• Civil society-business co-operations revolve around increasing recognition of ‘corporate social responsibility’ by business sector and its engagements with civil society, as a consequence.  Normally these involve relationships between trans-national corporations (TNCs) and NGOs that monitor company standards, advising executives on the ethical ramifications of their business practice (Oliviero & Simmons, 2002).  Both business and civil society sectors learn more about the potential and limits of conflict for promoting their agendas.  In addition, collaborations with the business sector allows access to business resources and can direct them to development.  This, however, can also have disadvantages as it involves risks of compromising on engagement with an actor, whose practices potentially (or historically) harm their constituencies/beneficiaries (Covey, 2002). Questions remain over whether such collaborations co-opt NGOs in the commodification of ethical behaviour (Zadek, 2001) or find a valuable way for civil society to influence the business sector for the better (Keay, 2002).  

• North-South inter-NGO partnerships attempt to bridge the North-South divide in development and can be based on contracts or grants (i.e. one organisation providing funds, the other providing services). A more authentic ‘partnership’ approach within this relationships reflects the interests of strategic alliance with resources provided on the basis of comparative advantages and joint direction by both NGOs  (Covey, 2000).

• NGO-CBO partnerships:  These are built upon social capital theory with well-resourced NGOs collaborating with existing co-operative enterprises in communities of the South to promote their role in development.  It is also referred to as ‘civil society empowerment’ using participatory theory to develop the capabilities and experience of community-based organisations (Stiles, 2000).

• Multi-sectoral collaborations involve communities, civil society organisations, government and the private sector. These are, perhaps, the most complex, but also potentially more powerful than one-on-one partnerships since they involve all stakeholders in a problem. Multi-sectoral alliance-building/partnering rests on the realisation that none of the parties can solve their problems alone, and that an overlap of converting interests and complementary resources enables them to jointly create solutions (Covey, 2002).  However it is often difficult because of histories of conflict or indifference and significant differences between the sectors. Some conclude that these are ‘unnatural’ alliances and so are not surprisingly difficult to form and manage successfully (Covey, 2002)

---

3. Catholic Relief Services: Partnership Quality Principles & Standards

All of Catholic Relief Services' programs are based upon operational relationships which capitalize on our complementary capacities to achieve the optimum benefit for poor and marginalized people. At their best, these relationships reflect the concept of partnership - embodying essential principles of Catholic Social Teaching such as respect for human dignity, the life of the person in community, and people's ownership of their own development process.

The following principles provide a conceptual framework and set of goals that apply to all CRS' operational partnerships.

1) CRS bases partnerships upon a shared vision for addressing people's immediate needs, and the underlying causes for suffering and injustice.

CRS' partner of preference is the local Catholic Church, usually through its social action agencies, because of our common commitment to justice as an active and life giving virtue that defends the dignity of all persons. We also collaborate with other faith-based and secular organisations (including private, government, community, and intermediate entities) in recognition of the role they play in promoting justice and reconciliation, and of the fundamental values which are frequently shared by other faith and humanitarian traditions.

2) All of CRS' partnerships assign responsibility for decision making and implementation to a level as close as possible to the people whom decisions will affect; this is the principle of subsidiarity. Local partners share the responsibility for identifying priority needs and opportunities, designing the response to those needs, and acquiring the skills required for the implementation of that response.

3) CRS achieves complementarity and mutuality in its partnerships, recognizing and valuing that each brings a set of skills, resources, knowledge and capacities to the partnership in a spirit of mutual autonomy.

4) CRS fosters equitable partnerships by engaging in a process of mutually defining rights and responsibilities, in relation to each partner's capacity, needed to achieve the goal of the partnership.

5) In its relationships with partners, CRS promotes openness and sharing of perspectives and approaches. These relationships are founded on a spirit of respect of differences, a commitment to listening to and learning from each other, and a mutual willingness to change behavior and attitudes. CRS also encourages relationships between local partners and local communities based on such openness.

6) To foster healthy partnership, CRS promotes mutual transparency regarding capacities, constraints and resources.

7) By building partnerships, CRS seeks to make a contribution to strengthening civil society. CRS also encourages partners to engage in dialogue and action with other members of civil society in order to contribute to the transformation of unjust structures and systems.

Local capacity development is an extension of this essential vision of partnership in the context of particular operational relationships with local organisations and communities. Local capacity development goes beyond a specific project activity, based rather on a shared vision of and commitment to ongoing joint action. Local capacity development includes a commitment to healthy partnership, to the organisational development of partners, and to the development of the broader society in which the relationship unfolds.

The following principles apply to those partnerships in which there exists a commitment to Local Capacity Development.

8) The engagement of CRS and the local partner in Local Capacity Development involves a long-term commitment to complete a mutually agreed upon process of organisational development. This commitment is characterized by a spirit of accompaniment: a close relationship that is flexible and responsive in both its institutional and personal forms.

9) CRS recognises that all communities have capacities and coping mechanisms that should be identified, understood and strengthened as the primary source of solving local problems. CRS and its partners maximize community participation in all aspects of programming to ensure community ownership of and decision making within the development process.

10) CRS facilitates and promotes the strengthening of partners' abilities to identify, build on, and address their vulnerabilities, strengths, and specific capacity building needs through a process that leads to sustainability.  

 

---