A Comparative Study of Partnerships Between Northern and Southern NGOs

국제개발협력연구 제 권 제 호5 2 (2013) : 59 96～

A Comparative Study of Partnershipsbetween Northern and Southern NGOs*

1)Kyungjin Oh**

* This article was developed fromKyungjin Oh’s master’s thesis (UPEACE) supervised by Prof.Hyung-Shik, Kim and Prof. Yekyoum, Kim. The author would like to express her sinceregratitude to them for their invaluable academic guidance and support.** Research Associate, the Korea Research Institute for Vocational Education and Training(KRIVET), [email protected]

AbstractThis research explores partnerships between NGOs of the global North

and South (N-S NGOs), focusing on the issue of whether or not idealpartnership modes can be identified in terms of core principles forpartnership effectiveness. The factors that determine the nature ofpartnerships can be classified into four categories: organizational,relational, resource-related, and contextual. An analysis of the sampledliterature demonstrates that the core principles extracted from thesecategories are equality, mutuality, credibility, transparency, solidarity,similarity, capacity, clarity, openness, diversification, long-termcommitment, democratic participation, global perspective, and flexibility.These core principles are not independent of each other but are ratherloosely interconnected. Moreover, a comprehensive examination of theframework surrounding the determinants of partnership effectivenessconcludes that organizational factors may be the key elements forming

60 국제개발협력연구 제 권 제 호5 2

. IntroductionⅠ

In recent years the term “partnership” has become increasingly popularin the field of development cooperation, in line with the paradigm changein development debates, the diversification of international developmentNGO’s roles, and the emergence of global governance in the global aidsystem. Moreover, as the forms, modes, sizes, and characteristics ofdevelopment partnerships have diversified, this concept has been defined inmultiple ways and from several different perspectives. For example, in “AccraAgenda for Action” (2008), “partnership” is defined as the harmoniouscollaboration and full participation of all stakeholders in the internationaldevelopment field, including donors, international organizations, developingcountries, foundations, and civil society; those stakeholders are called as“partners” in aid relations. On the other hand, looking at “MillenniumDevelopment Goal 8” (UN Department of Public Information 2010),“Global Partnership for Development” means the joint efforts of various

the nature of partnerships between N-S NGOs. Therefore, the capacityof each NGO may serve as a starting point to achieve core principlesfor partnership effectiveness. Ultimately, this study suggests that thecapacity building of SNGOs should be the first priority among a varietyof action plans for enhancing the effectiveness of N-S NGO partnerships;additionally, NNGOs should apply this same principle to their ownorganizations through mutual learning.

Keywords: Partnership, Partnership Effectiveness, N-S NGOs, capacitybuilding, core principles.

A Comparative Study of Partnerships between Northern and Southern NGOs 61

members of the international society in addressing a variety of global issues,such as trade and the financial system, the debt burden of developingcountries, and the digital divide.However, this current trend has brought about heated debates amongscholars who have different views on the understanding of this term.Sometimes the word “partnership” is criticized for being used in asymmetricpower relationships inherently embedded in a global aid system with thepurpose of disguising this negative aspect of the international system of aid(Stirrat and Henkel 1997; Malhotra 1997; Brinkerhoff 2002; Gutierrez2008; Bailey and Dolan 2011; Barnes and Brown 2011). Moreover, it hasbeen shown that conflicts inevitably appear over different understandings ofthe term “partnership” by each partner due to the fact that the term canbe interpreted in different ways by different people. Referring to thissituation, Fowler (2000a) says that “Today’s rule of thumb in internationaldevelopment is that everybody wants to be a partner with everyone else oneverything, everywhere.”Since the late 1980s, when the field of development cooperation beganto receive academic attention, an extensive amount of research has beencarried out on partnerships between Northern and Southern NGOs1)(hereafter N-S NGOs). And many of studies have concentrated on pointingout the gap between ideals and realities in partnership management andcriticizing the power imbalance between N-S NGOs (Lewis 1998, 2001,2007, 2009; Lewis and Sobhan 1999; Fowler 1991, 1998, 2000a, 2000b;Lister 2000; Brehm 2001). However, even though the existing research has1) “Northern development NGOs” (NNGOs) are defined in this research as non-governmentalorganizations originally established in donor countries and working for the people inaid-recipient countries, whereas “Southern development NGOs” (SNGOs) refer tonon-governmental organizations that have their origin in developing or aid-recipient countries.


significantly contributed to unveiling a number of problems that N-S NGOpartnerships face, most of this research has relied on specific case studiesinvolving a limited sample set. Accordingly, existing research tends to lackthe broader perspective necessary for understanding complex external andenvironmental variables that influence the management of N-S NGOpartnerships, and largely fail to explain which of the various factorsinfluencing their partnerships are most important in determining their successor failure.Therefore, this study will explore N-S NGO partnerships by drawing acomprehensive picture of the various factors that affect partnerships inpractice and focusing specifically on the issue of whether or not idealpartnership modes can be identified in terms of core principles for partnershipeffectiveness. This study examines the relationships among the numerousfactors affecting NGO partnerships and identifies the most important factorsin determining partnership effectiveness.Accordingly, the research questions that this study seeks to answer areas follows. First, which factors influence the management of N-S NGOpartnerships and how are they related to each other in a comprehensiveframework of international development and cooperation? Second, howshould the various strategies for promoting partnership effectiveness beprioritized? Thirdly, can ideal partnership typologies be identified on thebasis of core principles?This study has implications for those working in NGOs in the field ofinternational development in that it is a comparative analysis of multiplecases of N-S development NGOs. The study explores the various aspectsof N-S NGO partnerships broadly and comprehensively without anyrestrictions to specific times or places.


This study consists of four chapters in total. Following this introduction,Chapter II provides an overall conceptual and methodological framework foranalysis. In Chapter the discussion moves on to the core principles forⅢ

partnership effectiveness in the categories of relations, organizations,resources, and context, based on thorough reviews of the sampled literatureabout partnerships in practice. Finally, Chapter establishes an axialⅣ

framework for partnership effectiveness and prioritizes the factors in termsof the degree to which they influence the nature of partnerships.

. Partnership Framework for Data Collection andⅡ

Analysis

1. Conceptual Framework

In this chapter the analysis of partnerships between N-S NGOs will bediscussed according to a conceptual framework that is represented in <Figure1>. First, although the term “partnership” has been widely used in a varietyof debates related to development effectiveness, there is no consensus overthe precise meaning of this term among academics or NGOs. The definitionof “partnership” used in this research comes fromMohiddin, who carefullydistinguished partnerships from other types of relations that have morelimited scope, such as network or alliance. Mohiddin (1998, 5) defines“partnership” as “the highest stage of working relationship between differentpeople brought together by a commitment to common visions.”Meanwhile, in this study partnership effectiveness is defined in terms oftwo categories, the effectiveness of the work carried out and the quality of


the relationship (Ashman 2001; Brehm 2001). The first category consistsof achievement of partnership objectives and the synergistic effects ofpartnerships; the second category, the quality of the relationship, refers tothe satisfaction of partners on the basis of mutuality, shared value and vision,transparency, trust, and openness.

<Figure 1> Conceptual Framework for Data Collection and Analysis

<Source: made by the author, referring to Ashman(2001) and Brehm(2001) >

In order to address the question of which factors may act as the coreprinciples for partnership effectiveness and how those elements are interlinkedwith each other, the category of determinants for partnership effectivenessis divided into relational, organizational, resource-based, and contextualfactors. These classification criteria were developed with reference to Brehm(2001), who defined partnerships between NGOs in terms of two aspects,organizational structures and relational dimensions. On the basis of hiscategorization, two additional criteria, namely, resource-based and contextualfactors, were created for the sake of a more comprehensive and detailedanalysis of partnership frameworks. Accordingly, this study suggests that the


core principles for partnership effectiveness between N-S NGOs can beextracted from these four categories: relational, organizational,resource-based, and contextual factors. Based on the subdivisions of thesecategories, a comprehensive picture of principles for partnership effectivenesswill be drawn from the analysis of a variety of partnership cases from thesample literature.

2. Methodology

This study attempts to explore the core principles for partnershipeffectiveness through a comparative case study using a variety of field studymaterials about partnerships. Thus, this study involves exploratory researchbased on a qualitative analysis of bibliographical sources.(1) Selection CriteriaThis research makes use of 11 academic research papers from the academicdatabase that include case studies selected on the basis of the followingcriteria: the case studies presented in the relevant literature had to (a) befocused on the present condition and obstacles of N-S NGO partnerships,and here the obstacles means various kinds of organizational, relationalchallenges that NNGOs and SNGOs are facing in the process of establishing,maintaining and developing their N-S partnerships; (b) be published after2000 so that the recent partnership trend between N-S NGOs can beidentified; (c) include one or more clear empirical case studies of N-S NGOpartnerships (e.g. interviews or field surveys); (d) contain sufficient andappropriate content about N-S NGO partnerships that can serve as usefuldata for the qualitative analysis; and (e) contribute to diversity and


representativeness of the sample set. With respect to this last criterion,attempts were made to include case studies from a variety of regions in orderto enhance the reliability of data and to assist in the understanding of thebroader context. <Table 1> below contains a list of the sampled literature.In the case of some of the studies mentioned below, the specific targetcountry or region is unknown.

<Table 1> List of Sampled LiteratureYear Author Title

Countries Selectedfor Case StudyNNGOs SNGOs

1 2000 Lister, S. Power in Partnerships? An Analysis of anNGO’s Relationships with Its Partners U.S. CentralAmerica2 2001Ashman, D. Sustainable North-South Partnerships:Addressing Structural Barriers to MutualInfluence U.S. Kenya3 2001 Brehm,V.M. Promoting Effective North-South NGOPartnerships Europe N/A4 2004 TransformAfrica

Transforming Partnerships: The dynamicsof North-South partnerships betweendevelopment NGOs U.K. Rwanda,Tanzania,Zimbabwe5 2005Hoksbergen,R.

Building Civil Society through Partnership:Lessons from a Case Study of the ChristianReformed World Relief Committee U.S. N/A

6 2005Mawdsley,E. et al. Trust, Accountability, and Face-to-faceInteraction in North-South NGO Relations N/A Ghana,India,Mexico7 2007Harrison, T. The Role of Contestation in NGOPartnerships N/A India8 2008Hakkarainen,M. andKatsui, H.

Partnership between Northern NGOs andTheir Vietnamese CounterpartOrganizationFinland,Japan Vietnam

9 2010 Aburi, N.et alPartnership in Practice:A Kenyan Perspectives on the Nature ofRelationships with Irish NGOs Ireland Kenya

102010Malavisi, A.a Critical Analysis of the Relationshipbetween Southern Non-governmentalOrganization and NorthernNon-government Organizations in Bolivia

N/A Bolivia

112012Corbin, J. H.et al.Scaling-up and Rooting Down: a CaseStudy of North-South Partnerships forHealth from Tanzania N/A Tanzania


(2) Data Analysis ProcedureThe data was analyzed as follows. First of all, attempts were made todiscover the major obstacles that NGOs in partnership are facing in practicethrough qualitative analysis of the sampled literature. Based on these researchfindings, the study arranged sub-categories of the four major categories,which might determine partnership effectiveness in practice. Here, thesesub-categories were drawn in the following process; 1) collecting all obstaclesand challenges in N-S NGO partnership practices, which were presentedmore than once in the sampled literature; 2) then reclassifying themaccording to the relational, structural, contextual, and financial categories.And core principles for partnership effectiveness between N-S NGOs weredrawn from the sub-categories. Subsequently, an axial frameworksurrounding partnership effectiveness was introduced and within thisframework, the interconnectedness of each factor and order of priority inthose principles was set up.

. Core Principles for Partnership EffectivenessⅢ

Based on the foregoing qualitative analysis of the sampled literature onthe obstacles and challenges to successful N-S NGO partnerships, acomprehensive framework of the core principles determining partnershipeffectiveness has been made. The interconnected elements and principlesidentified in the analysis were classified systemically in terms of four generalcategories of factors: relational, organizational, resource-related, andcontextual. This framework is presented in <Table 2>.


<Table 2> A Comprehensive Framework for Partnership Effectiveness2)Partnership Effectiveness

Category Sub-category Core Principles

RelationDecision-making structureCommunicationWriting an agreementAccountabilityCoping with changesCharacteristics of partnerships

EqualityMutualityCredibilityTransparencySolidarityLong-term commitmentFlexibility

OrganizationCharacteristics andvalues of organizationResourceManagementStructure

SimilarityCapacityCredibilityClarityOpennessTransparency

ResourceKinds of resourcesReciprocal flow of resourcesTerms of fundingDiversification of resources

DiversificationReciprocityLong-term commitment

Context Domestic contextGlobal contextDemocratic participationTransparencyGlobal perspectivesFlexibility

1. Relational Factors

With respect to relational factors, six sub-categories that determine thenature of N-S NGO partnerships were identified, and the core principlesto achieve partnership effectiveness in this category were found to beequality, mutuality, credibility, transparency, and solidarity, long-termcommitment, and flexibility.

2) The Sub-categories and core principles for partnership effectiveness in <Table 2>werepresented in random order.


(1) Decision-making StructureThe way in which NGOs negotiate the division of labor as well as thepurpose, duration, and scope of partnerships can have a significant influenceon the effectiveness of a partnership. When two NGOs discuss partnershipexpectations and proposed divisions of labor at the initial stage of thepartnership, they should clearly express their own perspectives onpartnerships, development agendas, and priorities in order to resolve theirdifferences of opinion and reach an agreement. One major principle for theeffectiveness of partnerships is seen here: the extent to which both NGOsstick to a shared decision-making structure and have equal positions in thisprocess could be a major determinant to the satisfaction of each partner andthe quality of relationship. Research findings have proven that whenestablishing partnerships, many NGOs actually do not follow formalprocedures in setting goals, objectives, roles, and the range of partnerships.Furthermore, equal participation of each partner in the negotiation processis not always realized. Several SNGOs compare their unequal positions inthe decision-making process to the relation of “adult and teenager”(Transform Africa 2004.).Following a shared decision-making structure and ensuring the equalityof NGOs is critically important throughout the whole duration of thepartnership. In particular, when the circumstances surrounding thepartnership change for example, joint activities are replaced with new ones,―

the scope of partnership is expanded or reduced, or funding environmentis changed both organizations should be informed of the changes and―

guaranteed joint participation in the decision-making process.


(2) CommunicationThe extent to which the necessary information is exchanged openlybetween NGOs may also have a significant influence on the effectivenessof partnership. More specifically, prior to starting a partnership, most NGOsusually spend a certain amount of time collecting information about theirpotential partner organizations so as to select the most appropriate partnerin accordance with their partnership purposes. However, it seems that whilemost NNGOs ask a number of questions about the identity, values, andresources of SNGOs, and even require documentation to support theiranswers, not all SNGOs are given the opportunity to acquire that sameinformation from NNGOs. One staff from the SNGO in Brehm’s study(2001:41) says, “In most cases the international NGOs ask us questionswithout consideration of our privacy and human integrity, and we wouldnever ask of them. Indeed, it is crucially important for us to identify trueinternational friends and yet this process is more difficult for us than it isfor the international NGOs.”However, unless both NGOs are provided with the necessary informationabout their potential partners at the beginning, it will be difficult for themto clearly define the purpose of the partnership and establish the roles andresponsibilities of each organization. Additionally, if a partnership startswithout an equal distribution of information to both NGOs, it might causedissatisfaction of the one side that has less access to the information, whichin most cases will be the SNGOs.The necessity of the free flow of information for an effective partnershipis also apparent during the whole period of partnership. When NGOs inpartnerships make optimal use of the knowledge and information that eachside has, it can bring synergistic effects on the development activities than


each organization does separately. For instance, whereas the SNGOs havea comparative advantage in terms of access to the beneficiaries andknowledge about the local culture, the NNGOs have a more advantageousposition than their southern counterparts in obtaining the latest information,raising issues, setting the agendas, and expressing their opinions in publicat the international level. Therefore, the synergy effect of joint activities canbe maximized when the information and knowledge that each partnerorganization acquires by means of their comparative advantages is openlyexchanged.Meanwhile, in which ways can the NGOs effectively exchange informationand knowledge with each other? The analysis outcomes of the sampledliterature show that the openness of the information flow basically dependson the extent to which the communication channels between NGOs arediversified. There are several ways to extend the communication paths inpartnerships.First, it is likely that the more communication linkages between the twoNGOs there are, the more smoothly the information is likely to flow. Inparticular, when staff members in each organization have multiple channelsof communication, they can more easily and freely share opinions andknowledge. Besides, they can address unexpected situations more flexibly andquickly during the partnership period than if there are few connectionsbetween the organizations. In the sampled literature, there were some casesthat partnerships are set up solely on the basis of informal agreementsbetween individuals working within two organizations. Moreover, when thosemultiple communication channels between specific staff members areformalized in documents, the efficiency in partnership management can beenhanced.


Secondly, increasing the amount of face-to-face interactions between staffmembers in both NGOs may promote the effectiveness of partnerships morethan relying on communication solely through written documentation. Forexample, when SNGOs are obliged to submit a number of documents aboutongoing activities in their local areas to their partner organizations, theymight become too focused on meeting a series of targets for documentation.Moreover, it is also a great burden for NGOs to have to translate theirdocuments into the main western languages, such as English, French, orSpanish. Therefore, fostering an environment in which information is openlyexchanged between NGOs is a key issue in avoiding miscommunication andpromoting the satisfaction of both partners. This could be accomplished ina number of ways, such as having NNGOs establish regional offices in thelocal areas in which they work, exchanging staffs between NGOs, increasingstaff visits between partner organizations, and organizing forums at whichall of the staff members from both NGOs can get together and freely expresstheir thoughts on the challenges facing their ongoing partnership. One staffmember from Transform Africa, a UK registered charity organization says,“Visits to partners were also seen as opportunities not only to learn aboutthe progress of a particular project or program but as an opportunity tolearn about the wider context in which the SNGOwas operating (TransformAfrica 2004, 26).”(3) Drafting a Formal AgreementWhen starting a partnership, both NGOs usually go through a processof drawing up a formal agreement regarding a variety of aspects about theproposed partnership. In drafting an agreement, key determinants for theeffectiveness of the partnership are clarity of contents, equal participation


of both partner NGOs, and flexibility for the future.The first priority in drafting a formal agreement should be to clarify theconcept, purpose, and activities of the partnership as well as the terms offunding and the roles and responsibilities of each partner. The analysis resultsof the sampled literature demonstrate that a variety of misunderstandingsand conflicts between NGOs during the partnership period derived from theperception gap between NGOs over the concept of the partnership itself,its purpose, and the roles of each partner. For instance, in the case ofpartnerships between Kenyan and Irish NGOs, whereas the Irish NGOsconsider partnerships as alternative approaches for effective service delivery,the Kenyan NGOs understood a partnership as “a long term collaborationto bring about sustained change” (Aburi et al. 2010:18). In other words,it is likely that while Kenyan NGOs see partnership as a super ordinateconcept of their work, Irish NGOs interpret partnership as one of the severalsub-strategies to promote their development objectives. Moreover, accordingto Hakkarainen and Katsui (2008), while NNGOs tend to understandpartnerships as shared agreements on development projects, most SNGOssee partnerships as “result-oriented action[s] and personal interaction, or justa source of money”. Therefore, prior to drafting a formal agreement, NGOsshould attempt to establish a consensus about the various elements of thepartnership. Once such a consensus is reached, a formal agreement can bedrafted that reflects the details that have been agreed on by the partnerorganizations.During the negotiation process equal participation of both partners mustbe guaranteed. In many cases SNGOs are placed in a disadvantageousnegotiating position, especially when NNGOs resort to abstract legallanguage that the SNGOs may not understand. The situation can become


even more unfavorable for SNGOs when the final version of the formalagreement appears in a language which they find difficult to understand.Thus, in order to address the issues of inequality that arise in writing formalpartnership agreements, some NGOs make use of an external consultant,who can work in the interests of both partners. This might be an effectiveway to guarantee the satisfaction of both NGOs during the earliest stagesof the partnership.Lastly, the terms of the formal agreement should not be formulated toorigidly. If the agreement contains provisions for the possibility of changesin relevant circumstances, then the partner NGOs will be able to respondwith flexibility if and when unexpected situations arise. Nevertheless, notall future circumstances can be predicted, so it may be necessary at timesto revise a formal agreement, such as when new joint activities are launched.

(4) AccountabilityWithin the field of international development, a complex network hasbeen developed among NNGOs, SNGOs, official donor agencies,international development organizations, and governments. This complicatedaid system has extended the link between donors and final beneficiaries andmade it more difficult for them to get direct access to each other. In thiscontext, the question of who should be accountable to whom has becomeincreasingly difficult to answer (Stirrrat and Henkel 1997). In line with thecomplexity of the international aid system, the way in which NGOs takeaccountability for their partner organizations and the local beneficiaries canalso be a crucial element in determining partnership effectiveness. NGOstend to establish a partnership for the sake of promoting the efficiency oftheir development activities toward beneficiaries. However, the formal


procedures for managing partnerships may bring about a complicatedaccountability system. The literature examined in the present study suggeststhat the usual accountability mechanisms in the current aid system implicitlyforce a one-way stream of accountability from the NNGOs to donor agenciesor governments, and from SNGOs to NNGOs. When NNGOs areaccountable only to the donor agencies fromwhich they received their funds,it is likely that they will serve their own interests rather than those of thelocal communities they claim to help.Accordingly, an issue for concern is how to facilitate mutual accountabilitybetween N-S NGOs and take the local beneficiaries into consideration. Thereare in fact several practical measures that can be taken to enhance mutualaccountability. In the first place, establishing a formal risk-sharing structureand joint evaluation and monitoring system, in which NGOs andbeneficiaries can both participate, may contribute to increasing mutual trustand accountability. The second way of enhancing mutual accountability isto form an accountability system on the basis, not only of financial resources,but also of a variety of resources exchanged between NGOs, such as localknowledge, expertise in development projects, human resources, and so on.If those measures come into effect in partnerships, the scope of accountabilitycould widen from the conventionally narrow, one-way track to a morecomprehensive structure that embraces both NGOs and the local people aswell.(5) Coping with ChangesHow NGOs cope with changing circumstances also plays an importantrole in determining the success of the partnership. In practice, NGOs couldbe faced with a variety of unexpected internal, external circumstances


surrounding their partnerships depending on domestic, regional, and globaldynamics. Thus, the extent to which both NGOs can accommodate thesechanges is another factor affecting the quality of a partnership. The factorsthat affect the flexibility of NGO partnerships are described below.First of all, more the communication channels there are between NGOs,the more quickly changes can be recognized and smoothly addressed. Theliterature suggests that many NGOs employ a face-to-face communicationsystem between staff members because they think that building trust andsolidarity among people can enhance flexibility in problem-solving moreeasily than relying solely on strict procedures of formal documentation.A second important factor concerns the creation of flexible terms offunding and reserve funds for emergencies. Sudden changes in circumstancescan affect the flow of money to an NNGO, which can in turn negativelyaffect an N-S NGO partnership. Effective partnerships require planning forsuch contingencies.Lastly, as mentioned above, it is important to draft agreements in sucha way as to allow for flexibility, recognizing their partnerships as evolvingprocesses that must sometimes adapt to changing circumstances.(6) Characteristics of PartnershipsPartnership effectiveness is also determined by characteristics of thepartnership such as duration, scope, and the types of joint activities engagedin. Above all, when a partnership is established based on a long-termcommitment, the impact and effectiveness of joint development activities islikely to be significant. NGOs that have established a durable partnershipfor the long time are well placed to set up a risk sharing system, to builda rapport among the staffs, and to organize more long-term development


programs. Thus, before deciding on the duration of a partnership, the firsttask for the concerned NGOs is to negotiate the nature of the partnership.Secondly, the manner in which the partnership is established may affectthe partnership effectiveness. Legitimate relationships between organizationsare diverse and include “collaboration, cooperation, alliances, consortia,networks or joint ventures” (Hoksbergen 2005, 26), and not all of thosecan be called partnerships. However, in practice various conflicts might occurdue to the different understandings between NGOs about the extent towhich each partner should get involved in their joint activities or the internaltasks of the partner organization. Therefore, clarifying the scope ofengagement of each partner and choosing the appropriate relationship modelcan be determinants for effectiveness of the joint works carried out, as wellas the satisfaction of both partners.Furthermore, partnership effectiveness may vary depending on the typesof joint activities the NGOs engage in. When advocacy, social learning, andcapacity building lie at the heart of joint activities, equality and reciprocityin partnerships are likely to be promoted. This is because those activitiesstand on the basis of a long-term commitment to partnership and the mutualexchange of knowledge, moving beyond a simple funding-based short-termproject. However, although most NGOs acknowledge the importance of thecapacity building of SNGOs, the question of how to set up appropriate rolesfor NNGOs and the extent to which they are engaged in this task mightalso affect the result of a partnership. For instance, if an NNGO unilaterallytries to take control of a SNGOs’ organizational development, thepartnership can become distorted and equality, respect and mutuality willnot be guaranteed. Meanwhile, if the NNGOs’ role for capacity buildingremains only that of a funding organization, and fails to move towards more


direct involvement in staff training or technical support, then theorganizational development of SNGOs may take a longer time to succeed.

2. Organizational Factors

The organizational factors that have an influence on partnershipeffectiveness are mainly comprised of the characteristics and values of theorganizations as well as their resources, management, and structure. Withinthese sub-categories, the core principles for partnership effectiveness can besummarized as similarity, capacity, credibility, clarity, openness, andtransparency.(1) Capacity, Size and Credibility of the OrganizationIn terms of organizational aspects, balanced partnerships that guaranteethe equality and autonomy of partners are usually found between NGOswhich have a similar capacity, size, and credibility.With respect to capacity issues, a number of challenges exist for NGOpartnerships, especially in relation to financial capacity. For instance, it oftenhappens that NNGOs are unable to guarantee long-term financial securityto SNGO in their joint activities and the effectiveness of their joint activitiesmay be reduced due to the financial insecurity of both NGOs. In thesecircumstances the credibility of the NGOs might also be weakened.(2) Organizational ValuesThe organizational values of NGOs and how they interpret those valuesmay also influence partnership effectiveness. When NGOs select a partnerand set up the partnership objectives, they are affected, either implicitly or


explicitly, by the values that penetrate through the organization. Thus, itis likely that the more NGOs share their organizational values and theunderstanding of development and partnerships, the faster they can reacha consensus on the partnership purposes and priorities of their joint works.On the other hand, if both NGOs do not have their own clear values, theirpartnership purposes and the roles of each partner inevitably become vague.And if one NGO is clear about its values and aims while its partner NGOis not, the partnership will inevitably be set up in its favor.Also, it is natural that each organization might have differentinterpretations of those values and concepts as well as different opinions onthe priorities among those values. Conflicts can arise when NGOs have adifferent understanding of terms like “participatory development” anddifferent strategies for achieving this common aim. And this can damagethe trust between the partners.(3) ResourcesClearly recognizing the resources that each NGO has may be the firststep in identifying the comparative advantages of both NGOs and, hence,optimizing the division of roles and responsibilities. However, in practicethere is a tendency that the resources that SNGOs have are often not fullypresented and are undervalued in the early stages of a partnership. Also,in the case of short-term, project-based partnerships, some NGOs tend toconcentrate solely on funding and consider other resources as secondary tothat. Even worse, some NGOs are not fully aware of what resources theyhave and how they could be utilized in partnerships. This can happen bothto NNGOs and SNGOs and can negatively affect the purposes and rangeof a partnership as well as the roles of each partner.


The analysis of the sampled literature identifies two crucially importantpoints concerning resources: SNGOs’ own experiences and knowledge of thelocal context. These two resources are closely interconnected with each other.In order to share a partner NGO’s experiences, learn from them, and betterunderstand the local context and position of beneficiaries, it is desirable forNNGOs to establish regional offices in the local areas or to activate thefunctions of their existing field offices. By doing so, NNGOs could acquirelocal knowledge and an understanding of the context in which the SNGOsoperate much more effectively than by relying on indirect communicationthrough documentation.(4) The Structure and Management of OrganizationsThe internal structure within an organization, especially the internaldecision-making governance of each NGO is another factor that determinesthe quality of a partnership. This refers to the extent to which the NGOconsiders the standpoints of other stakeholders, including its partnerorganizations and its beneficiaries, when they make decisions that caninfluence partner organizations and joint activities. Listening to the partnerorganization and taking their view into consideration in the internaldecision-making process can widen the scope of partnership.Furthermore, project implementation, culture, and the policies andprocedures within one organization can determine the style of a partnership.This includes setting up development agendas and priorities, determining theroles of regional offices and the method of dispatching staff to the local areas,internal communication structures, fund-raising policies, transparency, andthe internal evaluation and monitoring process. Ashman (2001) claims inhis study about partnerships between the U.S and African NGOs that the


main reason of their partnership obstacles can be found within the internalsystems of NNGOs, specifically, the process, policies, and cultures relatedto financial and management control, rather than their external relationships.

3. Resource Factors

Resource factors strongly determine partnership effectiveness. It has beenargued that the one-way flow of funds from NNGOs to SNGOs producesunequal power structures in N-S NGO partnerships (Lister 2000; Ashman2001; Transform Africa 2004; Hoksbergen 2005; Malavisi 2010; Aburi etal. 2010). Even though the concept of partnership refers to somethingbeyond the simple transfer of money, in practice many relationships betweenN-S NGOs remain one-way funding streams, despite the fact that they areoften called “partnerships.”At this point, several questions arise. The first question is whether moneyis the only resource which is exchanged between NGOs in partnerships. Andthe following question comes as to whether it is more desirable to have aone-way or a reciprocal flow of resources between NGOs. In fact there arevarious resources exchanged between N-S NGOs directly or indirectly, suchas knowledge, information, experience, and human resources. However, theresults of literature review demonstrate that NGOs tend to regard thefinancial element as the most influential factor among the resourcesexchanged between NGOs, particularly in the case of short-termproject-based partnerships. Furthermore, since in most cases funds goes froman NNGO to an SNGO the power structure is likely to be formed in favorof the NNGOs. The sampled literature shows that usually the more diversitythere is in the resources available to each NGO, the less the partnership


depends on money flows and the more equality there is in the partnership.A second point is that the duration of financing and the kind of activitiesfinancially supported might affect the partnership results. More specifically,when an NNGO provides financial support for the long-term organizationaldevelopment or capacity building of an SNGO, the financial andorganizational sustainability of the SNGO can be achieved and ultimatelythe partnership results would be better than if the NNGO providedshort-term funding for specific projects.Thirdly, the conditions of funding between SNGOs and NNGOs inrelation to a comprehensive aid framework are also important elements forthe financial sustainability of partnerships. Looking at the financial structureof NGOs within the larger framework of aid, it is clear that the fundingconditions that NNGOs impose on SNGOs are connected to the aid relationsbetween NNGOs and donors. For instance, in cases in which NNGOsimpose heavy conditions about funding on SNGOs, there is a high possibilitythat those terms are mostly derived from the conditions the donors placeon the NNGOs. In other words, when NNGOs rely on short-term,project-focused funding by donor agencies, they inevitably transfer theconditions of their short-term funds on to the SNGOs.Moreover, when it comes to conditions on funding, the issue of financialaccountability inevitably arises. According to Edwards and Hulme (1996, 9),there are two kinds of accountability: functional and strategic. While“strategic accountability” refers to “accounting for the impacts that anNGO’s actions have on the actions of other organizations and the widerenvironment”, “functional accountability” means that a provider of resourceshas “an exclusive right to take control of standards and procedures foraccountability.” This ‘functional accountability’ is directly connected to


“agent theory,” according to which “the giver of resources has the right toset conditions on how the resources will be used.” Ashman (2001) appliedthis agent theory to the current hierarchial funds-based relationship amongdonor agencies, NNGOs, and SNGOs. To be more specific, the frameworkof accountability has been formed upwardly, that is, from SNGOs toNNGOs, and from NNGOs to donor agencies. However, this trend basicallycontradicts the partnership paradigm.Finally, the question of how this one-way financial accountability couldbe addressed may hinge on the extent to which the sources of funds arediversified. Establishing matching funds (Hoksbergen 2005, 24-25), buildingup public-private partnerships in collaboration with private enterprises, orcollaborating with local governments are three of the ways in which thefinancial dependence of SNGOs on only their northern partners can bereduced.

4. Contextual Factors

It is commonly thought that the factors that influence N-S NGOpartnership effectiveness are to be found mostly within the relation of twopartner organizations. However, looking at these partnerships within theoverall aid framework of the international development field, a variety offactors that affect the quality of partnership can be seen in both domesticand global contexts.(1) The Domestic ContextThe domestic determinants of partnership effectiveness can be categorizedinto two parts: (a) the characteristics of civil society in a specific country


and (b) the government’s policy and the donor agency’s influence.In the first place, the extent to which the NGO sector has been developedwithin the country may play an important role in defining the characteristicsof N-S NGO partnerships. A key issue here is the extent to which peoplecan or are willing to participate in NGOs. When NGOs are well recognizedin one society and people are actively engaged in them by volunteerism ordonation, such as in most developed countries, those NGOs can be providedwith the human and financial resources from people or private institutionsand become gradually more self-sustainable and less dependent on donoragencies. On the other hand, in the countries where the donation culturehas yet to be developed, NGOs may experience difficulties in diversifyingthe funding sources within the civil society, and thereby come to rely heavilyon funds from the government. Consequently, they become more easilyinfluenced by the government’s aid policies and the donor agency’s fundingconditions. Hakkarainen and Katsui’s study (2008) of a partnership betweenJapanese, Finnish and Vietnamese NGOs illustrates how the domesticpolitical context has a great influence on the way in which N-S NGOpartnerships are established and managed. For instance, Vietnam has a highlycentralized, bureaucratic political system and the power of the centralgovernment is much stronger than the local authorities and civil society.Hence, the central government exerts significant influence over the NGOsector in Vietnam. Accordingly, it would be difficult for both NNGOs andVietnamese NGOs in partnership to apply participatory and bottom-upapproaches to their joint development activities at the local level.Secondly, the government’s aid policy and the influence of donor agencieson civil society may one element for determining the form of partnership.A government’s aid policies influence a donor agency’s budget and policies;


as a result, they also affect NNGOs’ policies and funding. In line with thissituation, when funding policies of Northern governments change, policiesof NNGOs are also likely to change (Transform Africa 2004, 25). Inparticular, when the domestic economy is stagnant, governmental aid maybe reduced. Alfred Sakafu, a key Transform Network member who hasworked in NGOs for many years developing N-S NGO partnerships, decriesthe fact that NNGOs are inevitably subordinated to governments byfunding.(2) The Global ContextThe global context surrounding the field of international development canindirectly influence N-S NGO partnerships. In the first place, it may beargued that the process as to how aid and development paradigms aregenerally shaped may influence the relationships between N-S NGOs. Theanalysis of the sampled literature demonstrates that one of the main causesof dissatisfaction among SNGOs’ and their mistrust of NNGOs is that theystrongly believe that those controlling the development agenda are mostlyfrom powerful countries and the actual beneficiaries have few opportunitiesto be involved in that process and express their opinions. Furthermore, themarginalization of the poor from the debates about global poverty isaccelerated by a discriminative diffusion of information technology across theworld, which is an obvious symbol of unequal globalization.Therefore, SNGOs may feel that the global development debates areproduced from the standpoint of the North, and they might conclude thatthe concepts of “development” and “partnership” do not work in favor ofthe developing countries. Moreover, this results in a situation in whichNNGOs and SNGOs have radically different understandings of the concepts


and goals of development and partnership. Consequently, disagreements andconflicts can easily occur in arranging development agendas and programsbetween NNGOs and SNGOs.

. An Axial Framework for Partnership EffectivenessⅣ

This study has explored the core principles that determine N-S NGOpartnership effectiveness by means of a comparative analysis of a variety ofcase studies. This concluding chapter will complete the axial framework forparticipant effectiveness. In doing so, it will also explain the dynamics andinterconnectedness between the aforementioned factors in Chapter .Ⅲ

<Figure 2> An Axial Framework for Partnership Effectiveness

<source: made by the author>

As indicated in the comprehensive framework for partnership effectivenessat <Figure 2>, the core factor is organizational. First, concerning thelinkage between the organizational and relational factors, similarity between


two NGOs in capacity, size, and organizational values may be the first stepfor achieving equality for both partners, and the capacity of the organizationsmay play the most significant role in establishing effective partnerships. Here,the term “capacity” implies a variety of abilities or assets including thefollowing: sufficient human, technical, and financial resources, ability toacquire necessary information, skills in dealing with changes flexibly, anda transparent, democratic management structure with clear organizationalvalues and objectives. And when establishing procedures for partnerships,such as writing formal agreements or setting up joint decision-makingstructures, the side having more available resources is most likely to takeadvantageous positions. The fact that some sizeable NGOs in Bangladesh,such as BRAC or Grameen Bank, tend to have a more egalitarian relationshipwith other international NGOs than other small-scale NGOs demonstratesthis argument (Lewis 1998; Haque 2002; World Bank 2006).Secondly, when it comes to the relation among the organizational,resource-related, and contextual factors, it may be claimed that the capacityof organizations is also the main key for fulfilling the core principles in bothresource and context factors. More specifically, the ability to diversify fundingsources and to guarantee long-term, reciprocal exchanges of resources forpartnership activities are possible only in the case that both organizationsbasically possesses a certain amount of resources. Thus, it is important torecognize the resources that the organization has and how to make the bestuse of them in partnerships. In addition, knowing clearly about their ownresources and managing them systemically is also an important part oforganizational capacity. In this context, resources include not only financialresources, but also a variety of non-financial resources, such as knowledge,human resource, and experience. Although most of the contextual factors,


either domestic or global, may act as variables that determine the externalenvironment surrounding the partnerships, an ability to cope with changingcircumstances and to respond to them flexibly may be also be derived fromthe organizational capacity of NGOs.Therefore, the capacity of each NGO may serve as a starting point toachieve core principles for partnership effectiveness. This study suggests thatthe capacity building of NGOs should be the first priority among a varietyof action plans for partnership effectiveness. However, while many SNGOsfind it difficult to obtain an equal position in partnerships with NNGOslargely due to their lack of capacity, the analysis of the sampled literaturedemonstrates that not all NNGOs have the capacity to be independent fromthe complex aid chain system in relation to donor agencies, governments,and external circumstances. Several scholars (Fisher 1994; James 1994; Lewis1998, 505) argue that capacity building is necessary not only for SNGOs,but also for NNGOs in that some NNGOs also have significant weaknessesin terms of their organizational and capability aspects. Additionally, if thisconcept is applied only to SNGOs, it would be linked with “subtlepaternalism” at a deeper level, which assumes that NNGOs are inherentlybetter placed for this role. Thus, the recommendation of this research is thatN-S NGO partnerships should be formed on the assumption that their jointdevelopment activities are largely focused on the capacity building ofSNGOs, and in addition, NNGOs also should apply this principle to theirown agencies through mutual learning (James 1994; Lewis 1998; Johnsonand Wilson 2006, 79).The practical action plans suggested by this research are as follows. Firstof all, the objective of capacity building must be the empowerment of theorganization. In this sense, two tasks should be carried out at the same time:


(a) improving the technical operational ability and (b) strengthening theoverall organizational capacity to be sustainable in the long term (HandicapInternational 2008).Secondly, both SNGOs and NNGOs should take a comprehensiveapproach to capacity building, not only in terms of finances, but also interms of other matters, such as management education or human resources.And in the process of making action plans, the opinions of SNGOs shouldbe fully reflected.Thirdly, in order to narrow the gap between NGOs over the prioritiesamong practical measures, advices from a third party or external consultantmight be effective in that they can play a mediating role about a potentialconflict between both partners, as in the case of Handicap International(2008, 29).Lastly, openness and transparency in sharing information and skillsbetween NGOs should be guaranteed during capacity building activities andnone of the resources of the NGOs should be overlooked. In particular,SNGOs’ local knowledge and experiences, which are easily undervalued,should be fully recognized and optimally utilized in order to realize a trueparticipatory approach to partnership building.

References

Aburi, Nancy and Wimber, Thomas and Makau, Winnie. 2010. Partnershipin Practice: a Kenyan Perspective on the Nature of Relationships with IrishNGOs. The Irish Association of Non-Governmental DevelopmentOrganizations (Dóchas).


Ashman, Darcy. 2001. “Sustainable North-South Partnerships: AddressingStructural Barriers to Mutual Influence.” IDR Reports, 16(4). Boston:Institute Development Research (IDR).

Bailey, Fiona and Dolan, M. Anna. 2011. “The Meaning of Partnership inDevelopment: Lessons in Development Education.” Policy & Practice:A Development Education Review 13(Autumn 2011): 30-48.

Barnes, Amy and Brown, W. Garrett. 2011. “The Idea of Partnership withinthe Millennium Development Goals: Context, Instrumentality andthe Normative Demands of Partnership.” ThirdWorld Quarterly 32(1):165-180.

Brehm, M. Vicky. 2001. Promoting Effective North-South NGO Partnerships.INTRAC Occasional Papers Series 35.

Brinkerhoff, M. Jennifer. 2002. Partnership for International Development:Rhetoric or Results? London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Corbin, J. Hope and Mittelmark, B. Maurice and Lie, Th. Gro. 2012.“Scaling-up and Rooting Down: A Case Study of North-SouthPartnerships for Health from Tanzania.” Global Health Action 5(Suppl.)

Edwards, Michael and Hulme, David. 1995. Non-governmental Organizations:Performance and Accountability Beyond the Magic Bullet. London:Earthscan.


Fisher, Julie. 1994. “Is the Iron Law of Oligarchy Rusting away in the ThirdWorld?” World Development 22(4): 129-143.

Fowler, Alan. 1991. “Building Partnerships between Northern and SouthernNGOs: Issues for the 1990s.” Development and Practice 1(1): 5-18.

Fowler, Alan. 1998. “Authentic NGDO Partnership in the New PolicyAgenda for International Aid: Dead End or Light Ahead?” Developmentand Change 29(1): 137-159.

Fowler, Alan. 2000a. “Beyond Partnership: Getting Real about NGORelationships in the Aid System.” IDS Bulletin 31(3): 1-13.

Fowler, Alan. 2000b. Partnerships: Negotiating Relationships, a Resource forNon-Governmental Development Organizations. INTRAC OccasionalPapers 32.

Gutierrez, David. 2008. “Beyond Disappointment: Transforming Ideologyand Practice in North-South Research Partnerships’.” Norrag News 41:19-22.

Hakkarainen, Minna and Katsui, Hisayo. 2009. “Partnership betweenNorthern NGOs and Their Vietnamese Counterpart Organization.”In: Proceedings of the European Development Aid and NGOs Conference:London. March 13 14. 2008.–

Handicap International. 2008. Capacity Development and Partnership: Overview


and Methodology. Munich: Handicap International.

Haque, M. Shamsul. 2002. “The Changing Balance of Power between theGovernment and NGOs in Bangladesh.” International Political ScienceReview 23(4): 411 435.–

Harrison, Tom. 2007. “The Role of Contestation in NGO Partnerships.”Journal of International Development 19: 389-400.

Hoksbergen, Roland. 2005. “Building Civil Society through Partnership:Lessons from a Case Study of the Christian Reformed World ReliefCommittee.” Development in Practice 15(1): 16-27.

James, Rick. 1994. Strengthening the Capacity of Southern NGO Partners.INTRAC Occasional Paper 5.

Johnson, Hazel and Wilson, Gordon. 2006. “North-South/South-NorthPartnerships: Closing the ‘Mutuality Gap’.” Public Administration &Development 26: 71-80.

Lewis, David and Sobhan, Babar. 1999. “Routes of Funding, Roots of Trust?Northern NGOs, Southern NGOs, Donors, and the Rise of DirectFunding.” Development in Practice 9(1&2): 117-129.

Lewis. David. 1998. “Development NGOs and the Challenge of Partnership:Changing Relations between North and South.” Social Policy andAdministration 32(5): 501-512.


Lewis, David. 2001. The Management of Non-Governmental DevelopmentOrganizations. New York: Routledge.

Lister, Sarah. 2000. Power in Partnerships? An Analysis of an NGO’sRelationships with Its Partners. CVO International Working Paper5.

Malavisi, Anna. 2010. “A Critical Analysis of the Relationship betweenSouthern Non-governmental Organization and NorthernNon-government Organizations in Bolivia.” Journal of Global Ethics6(1): 45-56

Malhotra, Kamal. 1997. ““Something Nothing” Words: Lessons inPartnership from Southern Experience.” Hately, Lynne and Malhotra,Kamal. eds. Between Rhetoric and Reality: Essays on Partnership inDevelopment. pp. 37-56. Ottawa: The North-South Institute.

Mawdsley, Emma and Townsend, G. Janet and Porter, Gina. 2005. “Trust,accountability, and face-to face interaction in North South NGO–

relations.” Development in Practice 15(1): 77 82.–

Mohiddin, A. 1998. “Partnership: A New Buzz Word or RealisticRelationship?” Journal of the Society for International Development 41(4):5-12.

TransformAfrica. 2004.Transforming Partnerships: The dynamics of North-Southpartnerships between development NGOs. London: Transform Africa.


UN Department of Public Information. 2010. “The MillenniumDevelopment Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership forD e v e l o p m e n t . ”http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG_FS_8_EN.pdf (accessed on October 10, 2013)

World Bank. 2006. Economics and Governance of Nongovernmental Organizationsin Bangladesh. Bangladesh Development Series Paper 11.

A Comparative Study of Partnerships between Northern and SouthernNGOs 95

국문초록< >

저개발국 개발도상국과 공여국간, NGO

파트너십에 관한 비교 연구

오 경 진

국제개발협력분야에서 파트너십 이라는용어는최근들어‘ ’학계에서큰화두가되고있다 이논문은흔히남쪽. (Global North)국가들이라고불리는저개발국가들과 북쪽국가들, (Global South)들이라고불리는선진국들에위치한 들간의파트너십에대NGO해분석하였다 특히 문헌자료에대한데이터분석을통하여파. ,트너십의효과성 을결정하는주요원칙들(Partnership Effectiveness)을가려내고 이러한원칙들에근거하여개발협력분야에서, NGO간에어떠한협력관계가이상적인파트너십으로판단될수있는지에 대하여 알아보았다.데이터분석결과 남쪽과북쪽국가들의 간파트너십의특, ngo성을규정하는요인들은조직적요인 관계적요인 보유자원과, ,관련한요인 맥락적요인 이렇게크게네가지범주로구분된다, , .또한 이네개의범주에속하는파트너십의세부결정요인들은,평등 상호관계 신뢰성 투명성(equality), (mutuality), (credibility),

연대 유사성 역량 명료(transparency), (solidarity), (similarity), (capacity),


성 개방성 다양화 장기적인헌신(clarity), (openness), (diversification),민주적참여 지구(long-term commitment), (democratic participation),

적안목 그리고유연성 이다 이러한원(global perspective), (flexibility) .칙들은 서로독립되어있지않고 긴밀하고복합적으로서로연,관되어있다 그리고이러한파트너십결정요인의포괄적체계.에대한분석결과 앞서말한네가지범주중에서도파트너십의,특성에가장근본적으로영향을미치는요인은조직적요인이다.그리고 조직적인 요인 가운데서도 파트너십을 형성하는 개별의역량이파트너십의효과성을결정짓는가장중요한구성NGO

요소라고 할 수 있다.따라서이연구는저개발국가와공여국의 간파트너십의NGO효과성을증진시키기위하여 저개발국의 에대한역량강화, NGO를 최우선적으로 고려할것을 궁극적으로 제안하고 있다 또한. ,공여국의 도파트너 와함께상호학습NGO NGO (mutual learning)을 통하여계속적으로조직의자체역량강화에힘써야할것이다.

주제어 파트너십 파트너십의효과성 저개발국 개발도상국및: , , ,공여국 역량 강화 파트너십의 결정 요인NGO, ,

투고 게재확정2013. 10. 15 ; 2013. 12. 10❙

A Comparative Study of Partnerships Between Northern and Southern NGOs

Documents

Transcript of A Comparative Study of Partnerships Between Northern and Southern NGOs