A number of partnerships between Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the global North and South have been developed in recent decades with the aim of bridging the North/South knowledge divisions which currently exist. Concurrently, the usage of the term ‘partnership’ has increased in a range of development co-operation policy documents and funding guidelines. While these arrangements have generated an improvement in human and infrastructural capacity, as well as a greater voice for Southern partners, partnerships have been criticised for the one-way flow of capacity from the North, and among other things, the absence of genuine sharing. In this article Fiona Bailey and Anne M. Dolan discuss the concept of partnership, particularly within development cooperation, higher and teacher education and other areas, providing a critique but also outlining good practice models. The need for more interaction between development education and development cooperation is a significant recommendation.

Introduction

Development co-operation arose in the context of the Cold War, the process of decolonisation and the on-going nature of globalisation. There has been a deliberate shift in the language of development co-operation over the last 50 years, which now encompasses terms such as ‘participation’, ‘empowerment’, ‘poverty reduction’ (Cornwall and Brock, 2006) and more recently ‘partnership’ (Crawford, 2010). Currently, the effectiveness of development co-operation is being widely debated in the context of the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDG), the global recession, the climate change debate and persisting levels of high poverty in the global South.^[1] Development co-operation has been criticised, both in terms of its appropriateness (Moyo, 2010), and its perceived failure to address some of the global challenges which have greater implications for poorer nations (Lister, 2000). Development education itself is also largely funded through development co-operation budgets, and by development non-governmental organisations. Therefore, development co-operation and development education have an integral relationship, albeit with varying levels of congeniality contingent upon contemporary mutual perceptions of relevance and effectiveness.

In the last twenty years, the concept of ‘partnership’ has emerged as the ‘new big idea’ in development discourses (Kayizzi-Mugerwa, 1998: 220). The term ‘partnership’ in relation to development came to particular prominence in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1996) report, Shaping the 21^st Century: The Contribution of Development Co-operation. This argued that aid should focus on a limited list of poverty reduction and human development goals, a list which was later published as the MDGs.^[2] The development of a ‘global partnership for development’ is the pledge of the eighth MDG. The development partnership approach was further endorsed by the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005)^[3] and the Accra Agenda for Action (2008).^[4]

Although development cooperation has been largely carried out by government agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for some time now, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have become more active in this area. In this sphere too, the term ‘partnership’ is used freely, but has rarely been examined in detail in relation to its content of objectives, although the concept of bridging North/South knowledge divisions has been mooted. Of course, the term ‘partnership’ enjoys popular appeal, but the fact that there is a continuum within partnership ranging from conservative to radical interpretations, and from full cooperation to one sided control, is seldom raised.

 In this paper we examine how the term has evolved in development co-operation, higher education and teacher education, we highlight a number of principles for good practice, we examine one of the key aspects in the partnership debate, the location of power. Finally, we posit some observations for the development education sector. This research forms part of a doctoral study funded by Irish Aid through the HEA’s Programme of Strategic Co-operation. More in-depth critiques and analysis will be presented during a later stage in the doctoral study. Key themes which have emerged from the development literature are outlined. A significant issue of the study is whether North-South Partnerships should remain the dominant approach for aid, development research and development co-operation?

Historical development of the concept of partnership in development co-operation

Partnership has become a central concept in development co-operation since the mid-eighties. As development theories have evolved so too have ideas about aid, co-operation, partnership and solidarity. During the 1960s and 1970s poverty was understood in terms of the non-existence of development. Thus, modernisation theories highlighted the goal of achieving a Western style package of development, complete with urbanisation, industrialisation and market economic progress (Giddens, 1991). Partnership approaches, informed by modernist paradigms emphasise its role in ensuring aid effectiveness and efficiency, the reduction of corruption, and the provision of assistance rather than mutual benefits and reciprocity (Crewe & Harrison, 1998). 

More radical approaches informed by dependency theories argued that the act of development was actually the perpetuation of underdevelopment. Thus, industrialised economies keep developing countries in a subservient position often through economic sanctions and trading conditions prescribed by the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. A partnership model informed by critical development theories, addressing the structural political, economic, social and cultural causes of underdevelopment, is guided by principles of solidarity and challenging unequal power structures (Gunder-Frank, 1967 and Dos Santos, 2002). Post development theorists (e.g. Alvares (1992); Escobar (1992); Kothari (1988); Rahnema (1992); and others) argue that the assumptions and ideas which are core to development are problematic, and therefore the very idea of development itself is contested. According to Nederveen Pieterse (1998, 2000) post-development theory can be distinguished from other critical approaches to development (such as dependency theory, ‘alternative development theory’ and ‘human development’) by its insistence that development be rejected entirely, rather than implemented or altered in specific ways. In this context the aims and aspirations of partnership within development co-operation are also problematic.

Definitions of ‘Partnership’ and Principles of Good Practice

Partnership is a term which evokes much sensitivity with its implicit connotations of sharing and trust. While aid and charity may refer to a more unequal aid relationship, the term ‘partnership’ suggests equality, respect, reciprocity and ownership (Gutierrez, 2008). Yet, some partnerships can be abusive and unequal in practice, and the term continues to mean different things to different people, sectors and institutions.

The Oxford Dictionary defines partnership in terms of a relationship between people or organisations. Other associated words include association, cooperation, collaboration, participation, joint decision making and long-term relationship. Yet, there exists a lack of clarity surrounding what exactly is meant by partnership, and the principles which underlie a partnership approach.

At a conceptual level partnership is generally understood as a positive attribute. Mohiddin (1998: 5) refers to partnership as the ‘highest stage of working relationship between different people brought together by commitment to common objectives, bonded by long experience of working together, and sustained by subscription to common visions’. Moreover, certain characteristics distinguish partnership from other relationships, such as cooperation or collaboration, and present partnership as a more superior working relationship. Typically, ‘authentic’ partnership is associated with the following characteristics; long-term, shared responsibility, reciprocal obligation, equality, mutuality and balance of power (Fowler, 2000). Core principles of reciprocity, accountability, joint decision making, respect, trust, transparency, sustainability and mutual interests have been highlighted in the literature (Wanni, 2010; Dochas, 2010; Crawford, 2003).

According to Brinkerhoff (2002) equality of decision-making and mutual influence are the key characteristics distinguishing partnership from other types of relationship. Yet, in practice, developing a relationship characterised by a free and equal exchange of ideas is challenging because of language diversity, geographical constraints and differences in terms of how the relationship/partnership is conceptualised and interpreted. Principles for good practice can also be derived from an examination of the obstacles to success for educational partnerships. These include a resistance to sharing ownership and responsibility for the partnership: ‘responsibility which needs to be shared in failure as well as success’ (Mason, 2008: 18). In comparison to Northern universities, Southern universities face a range of barriers including: reduced funding for research; large enrolment numbers; heavy teaching loads; poor wages; the brain drain of some of their brightest academics; poor leadership; and an increased reliance on external funding. Other reasons include unequal access to resources including funding, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), infrastructure and administrative support.

Furthermore, the language tied up in the partnership debate has become somewhat simplistic and unchallenged. Malhotra (1997) argues that there has been an overstretched application of the term partnership in development cooperation, resulting in it becoming a ‘something nothing’ word. Fowler (2000) suggests that we refrain from using the term partnership to describe aid relationships which do not embody any of the principles of partnership, and stick to using more appropriate terms including cooperation and collaboration. Nonetheless, it is important to note that partnership is not a neutral term and partnerships which are poorly conceptualised and badly managed end up promoting dependency, ultimately doing more harm than good.

In an international context, partnership has been used as a strategic and political term to re-define development cooperation over the last few decades. Partnership has been embraced by a range of bilateral and multilateral agencies e.g. the UK government’s White Paper on International Development (DFID, 1997) and the World Bank’s Comprehensive Development Framework (World Bank, 1999). The World Bank’s apparent commitment to partnership is noteworthy given its immense power. Recent development plans for Africa are also couched in the language of partnership e.g. the so-called Marshall Plan for Africa is entitled New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). Commentators such as Bradley (2008) argue that the nature and impact of the partnership model of development cooperation must be questioned and analysed. Haberman (2008) cites Brinkerhoff’s (2002: 2) argument that partnership is ‘in danger of remaining a “feel good” panacea for governance without obtaining a pragmatic grasp of the “why” and a clearer understanding of the “how” of partnerships’. Hence, partnership remains a contested concept, and while these definitions and principles promise so much, partnership often fails to deliver in practice (Brehm, 2001). Though benefits have generated an improvement in human and infrastructural capacity as well as a greater voice for Southern partners, partnerships have been criticised for the one way flow of capacity from the North and the absence of genuine sharing (Nakabugo et al, 2010).

Partnership and Power

While North-South links and partnerships have been identified as an important mechanism for building the human and institutional capacity of Southern higher education institutes, there are concerns that current conceptualisations of partnerships continue to promote top down models of governance. This raises the important issue of power relations within a partnership.

Partnerships between the global North and South are often characterised by a range of asymmetries between the two partners, in resources, institutional capacity and power (Gutierrez, 2008: 20). In other words, partnerships exist on an uneven playing field, with the partner controlling finances often determining the terms of the partnership. Gutierrez (2008) presents a theoretical analysis using Bourdieu’s (1984) concepts of social field and capital (or resources) can be useful to show that “good will” is not enough to eradicate structural power asymmetries within North-South research partnerships. In reality, North-South partnerships still have a series of hurdles to overcome, particularly with regard to the problem of asymmetries – the lack of balance between Northern and Southern partners.