Fostering True Ownership in Developing Countries—Based on the Experiences of Japanese and Nordic Assistance in Asia—
Event Report
Date: 22nd May, 2008 (09:30 – 12:00)
Place: GRIPS Room A4
Speakers:
Dr. Alf Morten Jerve, Senior Researcher, the Chr Michelsen Institute, Norway
Prof. Izumi Ohno, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS), Tokyo
Discussants:
Prof. Marie Soderberg, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden
Prof. Yasutami Shimomura, Professor, Hosei University, Japan
Prof. Annette Skovsted Hansen, Associate Professor, Aarhus University, Denmark
Ms. Masumi Shimamura, Economist, Mitsubishi UFJ Research & Consulting Co, Ltd.,Japan
I. Introduction
Recently there is global consensus that ownership is critical to ensure aid
effectiveness and development success. Importance of the concept is underscoredby its retention as one of the guiding principles for aid effectiveness in the Paris
Declaration for Aid Effectiveness. Nevertheless, the concept is still evasive.
A new book titled “Aid relationships in Asia: exploring ownership in Japanese andNordic Aid” that explores the possibility to simultaneously forge partnership andownership in aid relationships has been published by Palgrave Macmillan. The bookis based on the findings of a recent joint research project between Japanese andNordic researchers - Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden - and includes
contributions by experts from developing countries. The research was motivatedby observed differences in implementation of seemingly similar development
assistance approaches, between Japan and the Nordic countries.
The seminar was organized to (i) introduce and dissect the different concepts ofownership that exist, and (ii) discuss the approaches that would better foster“true” ownership of the development process. In the process of these discussions,
it was hoped answers to recurring questions such as what is ownership, ownershipof what and by whom, could be provided. The timing of the book is timely as it ishoped its findings would feed valuable insights into the upcoming High Level
Forum in Accra, Ghana.
Through discussions of findings of various donor recipient-relationships case studyin Asia, presentations were made that drew out key lessons on modalities toensure true ownership of the development processThis event report attempts to capture the general sense of the discussions, andthe various opinions expressed by participants. In this regard, every effort has

1been made to follow the general flow of discussions although opinions are notnecessarily reflected in the precise order in which they were presented.
II. Presentations
1. Conceptualizing ownership in aid relations, by Dr. Alf Morten Jerve
Dr. Alf Morten Jerve’ presentation outlined reflections of various scholars on theissues of ownership which had different meaning for different players andexplained the need to deconstruct the concept of ownership in order to understandit. At the outset, Dr. Alf stated the importance to relate the issue of ownership to
the question of power and influence, between donor - recipient as well as between
government–governed relationships. In the case of donor–recipient relationship,
aid as an external factor would certainly have an influence on the relationship.
Because in recipient country’s national context ownership is viewed as thelegitimation of institutions and the state, there was need to look at power
relationships and its implications on the rights to set policy agendas, the right andpower to influence planning as well as execution.
On the one hand, with respect to implications on the policy side, Dr. Alf questioned
whether aid actually play a role in strengthening ownership, and whether aid
architecture is really about partnership (a more equal relationship), or there were
hidden agendas. These concerns for ownership should have implications fordonors’ policies and donors’ behaviour.
On the other hand, with respect to implications on the analytical side, when
implicitly labels such as weak and strong, have been in the aid discourse without
much clarification of what these qualifications really mean in terms of ownershipissues, Dr. Alf discussed how to discover or recognize ownership or the lack of it.
Using case studies in several countries in Asia, Dr. Alf went on to discuss theextent to which differences of approaches between the Nordic and the Japanese
aid relationships produce differences in terms of its ownership issues.
2. Managing donors and owning policies, by Prof Izumi Ohno
Prof. Izumi Ohno’s presentation focused on two aspects namely, (i) the Asian
perspective of ownership and (ii) differentiation between the management of aid
relationships from management of the development process itself. Using casestudies in Vietnam, Prof. Ohno contrasted the Asian perspective of ownership tothe conventional (western) perspective that defines ownership as “recipient’s
commitment to, and capacity for, the design and implementation of policy reform”.
Prof. Ohno explained that from the Japanese perspective aid relationship is just ameans to an end, an instrument of development management that assumes aneventual graduation from aid as the ultimate goal. She also explained that toestablish true ownership, not only should the government be at the center of thedevelopment process, but at the same time, it is vital for the recipient government
to develop a vision for the country’s development, build country systems formobilizing financial and human resources and nurture local expertise in managerial
and technical skills in order to realize strong ownership like in the case of Vietnam.

2

Prof. Ohno explained that the extent to which a government could exercise
ownership of the development process depended on said government’s
management capabilities. In this regard, she distinguished between two types ofgovernments; (i) those with the capability to manage the entire development
process - aid is coordinated as part of their own coherent development effort - and(ii) those that due to capacity constraints, allowed donors to assume joint
responsibility for managing the development process – exercising genuine
autonomy was constrained as a result. In countries without good management
capabilities (often high aid dependent countries), donors dominate thedevelopment policy agenda and the development process in practice is almost
identical to the aid relationship.
Prof. Ohno nevertheless stressed that, even though these “weak” ownershipcountries faced immediate capacity constraints, it was important they be
encouraged to aspire towards the goal of graduating from aid dependency andestablishing strong ownership. This was necessary to avoid the risk of financial
dependency degenerating into intellectual aid dependency.
3. Democracy and ownership in Nepal, Prof. Annette Skovsted Hansen
As part of her contribution to the research study, Prof. Skovsted Hansen focusedon people’s exercise of their democratic rights as an example of ownership. She
called this “people’s ownership”. While in most ownership discourse it is thegovernment elected by the people that exercised ownership, in the case of Nepal,
people reacted effectually as owners of their own ideas for Nepal’s political anddevelopment future when donor interventions, democratically elected governments,
subsequent Maoist insurgency and royal responses did not meet their expectations.
This finding is illustrated by the case study of the US$1.1 billion ARUNIII
hydroelectric power plant, which was abandoned due to continuous public protests.
Being aware of smaller more inexpensive alternatives with local jobs andinvestment opportunities, people became infuriated by the discrepancies between
their expectations and the disappointing results of implementations. People were
therefore able to influence decision making through popular movements and wereable to force the abandonment of the project.
4. Legitimate ownership of Thailand, Prof. Yasutami Shimomura
Prof. Shimomura distinguished between two ways of donors management thatwere illustrated by (i) the case of Ghana - a high aid dependent country with lessbargaining power - which followed the “good boy” strategy where recipients dowhat donors want them to do but they do so voluntarily, and (ii) the case ofVietnam and Thailand which managed to gain ownership (sometimes throughinimical ways).
Prof. Shimomura also discussed the ingredients for a recipient country to gain
ownership under current aid relationship. He listed (i) legitimacy of the process(including transparency), (ii) the need for broad-based consensus, (iii) rational andlogically consistent policies, as well as (iv) the need to show donors that theywould pay a heavy price if they try to impose their views on the recipient. Prof.

3

Shimomura briefly discussed two case studies of two aspects of export capacity in
Thailand, namely hardware (the Eastern Seaboard Development) and software(the first White Paper on Thai-Japanese economic relations) to illustrate how
Thailand gained strong ownership of those processes.
5. Prof. Marie Soderberg’s views
Prof. Soderberg shared on the specifics of some of the results from two casestudies from the research that of Mongolia and China. She explained that acountry like Mongolia may be characterized as accepting any offer of aid and thatit in the process showed weak ownership, but still the country in the end managed
to stir the outcome in the direction of its liking. This was the case with a Swedish
project of good governance. On the other hand weak ownership on the part of therecipient country might not always result in bad projects. The example here was
the Japanese culture centre that although it was driven by Japanese interest withJapanese management was immensely popular in Mongolia and had 150,000
visitors every year.
Speaking of strong ownership, China was taken as an example. It was shown how
China was selective from the start both in the way it treated different donorsbased on their strategic interest – as well as the projects that it implemented.
China itself was supersensitive to outside involvements in its affairs, made sure tostay in charge of its own development, and had a centralized system foradministering aid and capable bureaucracy competing for projects. It was also a
country with low dependency on aid. Still the size and importance of the country
made many donors willing to assist China. Domestic constituencies in the donor
countries are some of the drivers in this process.
6. Policy reform initiatives and aid management in Vietnam, Ms. Masumi
Shimamura
Ms. Shimamura’s presentation touched upon the experience of the poverty
reduction support credit (PRSC), a budget support instrument - that unlike thetraditional adjustment lending does not involve explicit conditionality and provides
more room for flexibility to accommodate changing situations - to support PRSP in
Vietnam. So far, Vietnam has been using the PRSC strategically as one of the tools
to support its accession and compliance to the WTO, to mobilize available donor
resources until the country graduates from IDA status and finally as a signaling
effects to both internal and external audiences.
At the same time, Ms. Shimamura noted the limits of the PRSC (in the sense thatpolicy actions only address the essence of the most important milestones forreform) and stressed the importance of step-by-step capacity building on the
ground. Japan’s assistance could (and should) bring up policy issues identified
through practical assistance on the ground to the PRSC, and vice versa.
III. Question and Answer Session:
1. Can you give clarification of the concept of ownership, there is confusion as towhether ownership is a behavioural pattern of recipient countries or whether it is4the successful completion of ODA programmes. Also, can we talk about ownershipif the projects or programmes are not successful? If the answer is positive what
then are the basic components of ownership, which makes the projects orprogrammes successful?
Panelists felt that this was a matter of definition, a matter of what one wanted to
put into the concept of ownership; but it was clearly important to distinguishbetween ownership as a reflection of power noting that power can be exercisedwith different outcomes. Donors do not only look for strong governments but forgovernments that make decisions to their (donors) liking. This is where things canbecome dangerous. Instead of trying to use aid instruments as a vehicle of forcing
policy change, donors need to accept recipient countries sovereignty and refrainfrom providing aid altogether if not pleased with recipient governments that
pursue policies that donors dislike. Panelists expressed regret that in recent
decades western donors have developed a preference for imminent changes, andtherefore use aid conditionality as a way of fostering rapid policy change, insteadof seeing aid as a long-term process of transformation.
The panelists also stressed whereas ownership does not ensure successful results,
recipient countries should have the right to fail and learn form their failures.
Otherwise, they may develop intellectual dependency in the long run (say 10, 20
years down the road) and may not stand on their feet when left on their own.
2. You say the donors should show willingness to withdraw when ownership does
not yield results. While in case of budget support you can withdraw by simply notwriting the check (although this has such serious implications for countries thathave included the money in their budgets, many in the social sectors), don’t you
feel that in the case of project aid – which Japan focuses on – it is quite difficult topull the plug? How do you feel that donors can actually successfully withdraw
without leaving white elephants that the recipient taxpayers would remain with?
Panelists were of the opinion that rapid withdrawal is dangerous in mostcircumstances and agreed that the art of withdrawing is an aspect of aid
relationships that needed to be given a serious look. To manage withdrawal in aproper way, the critical issue is the time perspective allowed irrespective of thereasons for exit (expect for very dramatic reasons like breaking of diplomatic
relations or war). With consideration to the type of aid, there is a dangerous
development with the linkage of general budget support to political considerations.
Increasingly it is observed in some parts of the world how countries look to punish
recipients from “bad behaviour” by cutting general budget support. As with projectaid, panelists argued that those projects should be completed and donors may
decide to withdraw after completion. While donors need to have an eye on theoutcomes, they also need to have a measured way of exiting not just throughabrupt political actions.
3. Because donors often dictate and directly participate in development policy
formulation in recipient countries as well as influence implementation of thedevelopment agenda shouldn’t they be candid enough and accept to share
implementation failure responsibility. In such a case, how should they deal withthe resulting external debt particularly in Africa?

5

Panelists agreed that donors had a responsibility but were not sure how they(donors) should respond. They suggested debt forgiveness as one way out.
Panelists also argued for donors to really take a step back and respect thatsovereign governments have a responsibility for their own development policies. In
case of Africa this would mean donors should refrain for pushing their own policies
ideas. On the other hand, increased ownership of recipient country would comepaired with increased scrutiny of their management and implementation of thedevelopment process.
4. With respect to ownership and aid dependency, is it too simplistic to say thathigh ownership leads to low aid dependency? With the view to replicate them inAfrica, are there some good examples of high ownership under strong aid
dependency conditions? In the case of Africa, where the development strategy isoften jointly formulated with donors, donors’ management and ownership of thedevelopment management quite deeply overlap. Would you please clarify the
relation between ownership and aid dependency in such situations?
You stated that the term “country ownership” is a misnomer. Does this imply thepossibility to seek not only country ownership but also “democratic ownership” toinclude CSOs, the private sector, and other key stakeholders?
With respect to ownership and the aid modalities I find your conclusion that“recipients seem not to want a uniform model for partnerships” to be very
interesting as one of the focus of the Accra agenda for action is that aid modalities
should all be untied by utilizing recipient country systems. However whereas somerecipient countries in Asia argue that while important, harmonization should notdiminish the diversity of aid modalities (including the technical cooperation); in
Africa, emphasis is rather placed on donors harmonization of aid modalities basedon budget support. Would you kindly shed some light into these two contrasting
perspectives?
While there are not that many cases where good or strong ownership has been
exercised in a situation of aid dependency, there are definitely several cases;
Botswana has been mentioned as one such. The interesting part is to know how
certain countries managed aid in a situation where they were quite dependent on it.
In the case of Botswana, it was a mixture of good fortune and some sensible
decision-making. They leveraged on their front line state status in the struggle
against apartheid and worked to boost their own management of the development
process by importing development management know-how (expatriate workers). A
look at countries that have successfully managed huge aid flow reveals they
always had very deliberate strategies of how to build up their own professional
capacity to do it.
Another good example of ownership under strong aid dependency conditions would
be Mongolia. Despite its heavy aid dependency, Mongolia achieves some sort ofownership by either (i) choosing not to continue with certain projects (those they
do not like) or (ii) not implementing projects to the donors’ expectation. Either
way they are in control of the outcome.

6

While few people will look at Nepal as an example of success, the panelists feltthat it was an interesting case to look at as people are taking a stance andexpressing it thereby seeing results they partly own. This fact, while a gooddemonstration of democracy is also in part a manifestation of what type ofdevelopment people of Nepal want. So, we can talk of ownership in Nepal
irrespective of successes on the development front, even if only for them taking
ownership of a process and influencing the outcome, as in the case of the ARUNIII
hydroelectric power plant.
The issue of whose ownership is quite a complex one in practice although we tend
to assume that it includes consensus between all stakeholders including at thegrassroots. Care must be exercised with this logic – grassroots ownership - as it isa double edged sword that can be utilized by donors to divide and rule. It does nottake much to label a government as authoritarian, or not fully democratic. While itis hoped decisions made by a country should be based on a broader consensus
amongst all stakeholders, in reality it is not easy to achieve perfect representation,and development programmes can proceed despite some reasonable measures of
opposition.
Also, the role of an enlightened leadership can be very important in the ownershipand aid relationship as demonstrated in the cases of Thailand and Malaysia.
Though these two countries went through periods of aid dependency, they each
had a vision to graduate from aid and an exit strategy from early on.
With respect to the issue of the uniformity in aid modalities panelists felt that,
despite the apparent contrast in the discourse between African development
practitioners and their Asian counterparts, there are good signs on the African sideof an interest in a more diverse aid world, that increases their own political room
for maneuvering and they welcome a variety of donors (the case of the China –Africa Summit). In addition, people in disadvantaged areas in developing countries
were more interested in seeing things happening on the ground than in aid
modalities. They cared less whether the village clinics, the road repair came about
through budget aid or NGO aid. What they cared for were the results.
With respect to ownership of aid modalities whereas comparative advantage
between different donors can bring complementary in some areas of mutualinterest, recipient countries could use regional power blocks or use other national
resources as negotiating leverage with donors.
[End]7