Reflections on Ownership Debates
Political will key to untangle constraints to ownership of development
By J. D. N. Elumba, Senior Research Associate, GRIPS Development Forum
Introduction
The development assistance system was established with the purposefulobjective of creating economic wealth to improve the well being of citizens of thedeveloping world. However, it has evolved to become a tool for exploitation of
those it is supposed to assist.
In recent years, despite growing realization amongst donor countries thatownership is an important determinant of development assistance performance,
discussions on the issue have remained mostly descriptive; merely seeking toexplain why, what, where, when and how ownership does (or does not) exist, isstrong (or weak). We believe discussions should be prescriptive as well as theyshould actively seek genuine ownership of economic development process byrecipient countries.
In the following discussion, (i) “ownership” shall mean the extent to which agovernment is fully committed to, directly involved in, in control of, andaccountable for economic development policies and development assistanceprogram of a country; (ii) “economic development” shall mean the effort thatseeks to improve the economic well-being and quality of life for a community bycreating economic wealth; and (iii) “development assistance” shall mean thepeculiar world of “foreign aid” transfers organized and managed by thegovernments of rich (donor) countries to finance activities in poor (developing)countries. We will focus on Sub-Saharan Africa (hereinafter referred to simply asAfrica) where instead of being a transformational process - that can only comefrom within as a result of activities carried out - by the recipient country,economic development is being externally imposed by development assistanceorganizations.
The underlying context of development assistance
The existing economic (and political) world order is geared towards preserving
the wealth, power and influence of donor countries over developing countries(UN, IFIs, WTO, etc.). To discuss ownership without consideration of theunderlying context in which aid is being delivered can only perpetuate a biased
pretension of objectivity and apoliticism clearly overlooking and disregarding a
critical aspect to true ownership.
In the new world order, despite the humanitarian and economic development
discourse in which it is packaged, Western development assistance is just one of
the tools in the arsenal of world politics (not the only one, though). Whereas thepolitical system exerts the strongest power on economic matters, the economicsystem extracts maximum benefits from developing countries - once their“growth” enhances markets for the industrialized countries - to shape a onesided and exploitative relationship.

1

Recipient countries are persuaded (even coerced) into adopting the “rightpolicies” (donor recommended policies), and are supposed to own them. If the“right policy” recommendations are not adopted, donors adopt non-constructive(sometimes irrational) actions to pressure recipients into falling in-line. The
manufacture of consent has become an art-form required of development
assistance organizations.
Although it has been shown that development assistance organizations often
disregard known solutions instead preferring idealistic solutions that often don’twork, failure is usually attributed to recipient countries that are charged withincapacity, bad governance, and foot-dragging on “liberalization” reforms. Anyattempts at challenging such characterization are short-circuited with labels such
as Africans are paranoid, always expressing contempt or good at excusing failure.
To make matters worse, Western funded think tanks (a multitude of them)facilitate donors’ goals by providing rhetorical material that is used assmokescreens and for public distraction and confusion while relevant issues areignored or downplayed. Ultimately, such analytical justifications get published inscientific journals giving the (not-always-true) arguments an aura of authority.
Nevertheless, every time their well meaning rhetoric meets the actual
implementation record it evaporates in a cloud of hypocrisy.
Africa entrapped
In Africa, despite fifty years of development effort, many people are worse off
today than they were at independence. In many countries life expectancies havefallen, literacy rates have declined, and individuals’ economic prospects haveplummeted. With such dismal performance, Western development assistance isviewed as merely the post-colonial form of economic exploitation now carried incollusion with internal allies - the selfish, incompetent, corrupt and inarticulate
Western-controlled-and-protected-so-called leaders and elites in Africa.
Development goals for African countries often call for the sacrifice of theirnational economies to an international economy that neither considers nor
protects them. Despite this injustice, the mantra of the G8 is simply that greater
world trade will “eventually” benefit everyone. Halleluiah!
African governments often give into imposed conditions knowing well that they
will not serve their nation’s best interests, in part because they overwhelmingly
need funds to tackle the multitude of development problems they face.
Unfortunately, they are left with no other recourse, as the World Bank and theIMF - institutions that are supposed to look after the interests of the poorest
countries - are instruments of Western donors’ policies.
Obviously, with the large differentials in power and resources between donors
and recipient countries, it has become extremely difficult for African countries topursue a development path different from the path dictated by the mainstream“world” economic system controlled by a few countries in the West.
Ever since colonization, external forces have (and continue to) shaped Africa’s
economic future with supposedly well-meaning ideals. What these noble (or not2so noble!) purposes, grand designs, have revealed is that the economicdevelopment model prescribed for Africa is fundamentally flawed. Fifty years on,
economic development is still an elusive dream, and will remain so unless there
is fundamental change in the attitude of Western nations towards fostering
genuine partnerships for development.
By emphasizing industrialization as the means to rapid economic development,
the current development assistance system oversells the technological approachleading to development assistance in which African countries are seen as in needof a technological fix, thus resulting in inappropriate policies unsuited toparticular countries needs and context. Because the system addresses only thesymptoms of underdevelopment, it should be reformed to address the root
causes of underdevelopment.
Reforming the development assistance system
Because fifty years after Africa’s independence the current development
assistance system has been ineffective in achieving economic development andpoverty eradication objectives, and considering that even among western donors,
sharing a relatively straightforward and apolitical goal – to reduce poverty andadvance democracy (in many places in Africa they condone a farce!) –cooperation and coordination in development assistance have been all too often
in short supply, the current system of development assistance needs to bereformed to provide hope for genuine ownership of economic development.
Past attempts to reform have brought more of the same since years have comeand gone and the very same external pressures have prevailed. Not only werethese attempts mostly half-hearted, they resulted in changes that were smartly
pegged at - merely replacing, re-naming or re-branding decried practices preserving the status-quo. Ultimately, they have largely been ineffectual or slow
to ignite appropriate reactions and corrective responses. Any reform short of adrastic change in its basic approach will merely lead to patch solutions that only
scratch the surface.
For any new reform to be far-reaching there needs to be a recognition thatchanges should not just be about new actions in developing countries, bydeveloping countries but also about changes (especially in attitudes) by Western
donors and in Western countries. Many lessons have been learned from past
failures. The most important, perhaps, is for Western donors to accept that theirknowledge of economic development in Africa (and of Africa itself) is extremelyincomplete; which calls for humility in the manner in which economic policy
advice is provided. The challenge would be to accommodate different
perspectives in the reformed development assistance system.
Way forward
Because economic development is underpinned by political process, only politicalaction geared to deal with deeper underlying causes of symptoms can bringabout and sustain development-promoting environments in African countries. We
believe the development structure most likely to result in sustainable3

development in Africa is one that utilizes an overlapping mix of policies andprogrammes to best match institutional strengths with the problems at hand. It’s
not blueprints, but processes that are needed. This means paying attention tosettings, and improvising.
Although it is accepted that, a typical process moves step by step fromachievement of small victories to the gaining of confidence and allies, to thewinning of wider victories, thence to challenging the rules of the game andnegotiating new ones, donors want immediate results leaving no room to learn
from mistakes.
African countries need to be given the opportunity to explore ideas of their own
that are not in-line with the conventional wisdom of major donors. Therefore,together they (donors and recipients) should embark more on studies of the links
between poverty and inequality within as well as between nations, looking for
appropriate avenues of direct political action at the local as well as international
level (e.g.: more democratic international institutions).
Ownership requires that a country have sufficient institutional capacity fordefining and implementing a national development strategy. This vital, but slow,
work of building institutions needs a participatory process that will be unique tothe country’s culture and circumstances. In Africa, public authorities and social
movements should be helped not to march to the beat of the donors' drums but
to gain policy knowledge useful to built overall negotiations competency. Public
processes would need help not in indoctrinating more technocrats infundamentalist orthodoxies, but in promoting "economic literacy" and theoversight of public choices by way of local media, civil society watchdog groups,
and technical advisory bodies with autonomy from both business andgovernment. These measures can be combined in ways that strengthen trust andpublic control at the recipient’s end.
Conclusion
The Western model of economic development is not and should not be the onlyroad to economic development. For fifty years it has advocated an undesirable
mimetic development model based on a distorted Western consumerism thatrarely corresponds to the population's fundamental needs and is beyond thereach of the poor. Africa should be allowed to discover and own a development
matrix suited to its own conditions.
[END]____________________________The views expressed here reflect the views of the author alone, and do notnecessarily reflect the views of GRIPS

4