Conceptualising ownership in aid relations:Japanese and Nordic assistance compared
Alf Morten Jerve
CMI

What inspired Aid relationships in Asia?
• To challenge assumptions in the ’post-Washington
consensus’– Does ownership result in more effective aid?
– Can donors create ownership?
– Is the ”new aid architecture” really about partnership?
• To test how to discover ownership– How to recognise ownership? And degrees ofownership?
– Whose ownership?
• To discuss implications for aid modalities– How is it perceived from the recipient side?
– What matters in donor behaviour?

1

’Ownership’ deconstructed• Key elements to look for– Power (and rights) : setting agenda, planning,
execution– Accountability: legitimacy in eyes of key stakeholders– Commitment: will and capacity to act

PowerInstitution
The state

Legitimacy

Commitment

ClientCitizenPower’Ownership’ deconstructed• Many can be owners– ’Country ownership’ a misleading term
– Power struggle – ownership at top or bottom(beneficiaries)– Whose ownership matters most?
• Ownership does not per definiton yield positive outcomes– Capacity to deal with donors
vs. Capacity to formulate vision/policy
vs. Capacity to deliver on the ground2

Ownership vs. Partnership
Ownership

Power - empowerment

Partnership

Mutual interests - equality

DilemmaPartnership
Ownership

Donor wants a lot for little
Recipient wants sovereignty

OECD-DAC (1996): Paternalistic approaches have no place

Ownership vs. Partnership
But all three factors still matter in aid relationships:

Cooperation
dynamicDonor:
Resources andinterests

Recipient:
Resources andinterests

3

The CarWho owns the car?
Who is driving?
Who made the road map?
Who decides where to go?

Nordic vs Japanese aid
NordicJapanVolumeLess

MoreTying of aid

Less

More

Using gov’t systems

MoreLess

Relevant knowhow

Less

MoreSpecial policy concerns

MoreLess

Programme aid

MoreLess4

Findings from country case studies: aid dependent
LAOS• Ownership by the political elite exercised to defer reforms.
Bypassing arrangements by donors do no alter the situation

MONGOLIA• High recipient ownership of outcome despite high donorshipin implementation
NEPAL• Aid dependent but donors not successful in influencing
political process

SRI LANKA
Studying cacity development of institutions supported bydonorsDonoragency
1JBIC

2JICA

3

Norad4Sida

Building auniversity levelinstitution

Social and economic
development
in a rural area
Walawe Left BankDevelopment:
irrigation scheme

Dental Faculty

Mahaweli Authority of
Sri Lanka
University ofPeradeniya

Moneragala Integrated
Rural Development
Programme
Institute of
Biochemistry andMolecular Biology

Recipientorganisation

Changing ministries

University of Colombo

5

SRI LANKA: Main conclusions• Domestic factors play a more important role in explaining
ownership than variation in donor practice• Government policy mattered a lot (often a negative factor)• Importance of leadership and entrepreneurship at recipient
institution• Importance of participatory planning• Importance of donor flexibility• Donors cannot buy ownership, but can facilitate

Findings from country case studies: aid is marginal
CHINA• Treat donors differently – big (Japan) and small (Sweden)
THAILAND• Domestic decision-making process with high degree oflegitimacy led to decisions deviating from donors’ advice• Ownership varies in stages of the project cycle
Ownership varies among key stakeholders depending on
own interests
VIETNAM• Historical experiences and strategic considerations cause
diffent approach to donors (Japan vs Sweden)

6Conclusions on ’ownership’• Recipients seem not to want a uniform model forpartnerships• Historical experiences matter for aid relationships• Donors have very limited influence when notinvited• Ownership seems not correlated with donor policy• Ownership is complex and unpredictable• Ownership can also result in ’bad’ outcomes

Implications for ’aid architecture’• A more modest and less instrumental perspectiveon the role of aid• Plurality is not bad – recipients want different
kinds of donor to choose from
• Ownership cannot be created by aid – but can befacilitated• Long term engagement is essential –relationships have to grow• But donors need to show willingness to withdraw
when ownership does not yield results

7