Equal Partnerships? The Partnership for Higher Education

in Africa

ARNOVA CONFERENCE 2013

P

A

R

T

N

E

R

S

H

I

P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R

 

A

 

T

 

I

 

O

 

N

296 Grantees

67 African Universities

39 U.S. Universities16 Other Universities57 Education Networks

and Consortia28 Research Institutes15 African Government

Agencies16 Foundations4 International Organizations

7 Museums2 Libraries

17 NGOs15 Parks & Botanical

Gardens4 Hospitals & Medical

Centers4 For-Profits 3 Arts Centers1 Audit Agency1 U.S. Embassy

MacArthur (joined 2000)

Rockefeller (joined 2000)

Hewlett (joined 2005)

Ford (joined 2000)

Kresge(joined 2007)

PHEA Secretariat

President Meetings

Working Groups(ICT,

NextGen, etc)

Executive & Steering

Committees

Carnegie (joined 2000)

Mellon(joined 2005)

Figure 4: The Partnership’s Strategic Alignment Model

The Spectrum of Engagement (The Philanthropy Initiative, 2009)

Mellon

Kresge

Hewlett

Rockefeller

Ford

Carnegie

MacAthur

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Culture & Values

Processes & Bureaucracy

Power & Leadership

Incentives & Value-added

Affinity & Collaboration

Consultation & Ownership

Policy & Context

Effectiveness & Accountability

Competition

Assets & Resources

Leverage

Sustainability

Neo-Institutional Resource-dependent

Institutional Culture as obstacles

I think first and foremost the biggest problems we have is that foundations come with their cultures...and these traditional cultures can be as rigid as any bureaucracy. In fact, can almost be beyond, in terms of the rigidities, almost like a culture, it’s almost like different princely orders.

(September 26, 2011 interview in New York with Tade Akin Aina, program director, Carnegie Corporation of New York)

Mellon

Ford

Macarthur

Hewlett

Carnegie

Rockefeller

Kresge

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

JointIndividual

Figure 9:Distribution of Joint andIndividual Grants by Foundation

Influence of Foundation Presidents

• charismatic authority of foundation leaders had a significant impact on the Partnership’s intra and extra-organizational equilibrium

• foundation leaders’ weight was substantial in the areas of program prioritization, power distribution and delegation.

President Foundation Presidency Previous Position

Jonathan F. Fanton MacArthur 1999-

2009President, New School for Social

Research

Gordon Conway Rockefeller 1998-2005 Vice-Chancellor, University of Sussex

Vartan Gregorian Carnegie 1997-now President, Brown University

Susan V. Berresford Ford 1996-

2007Executive Vice President, Ford

Foundation

William G. Bowen Mellon 1988-2006 President, Princeton University

Paul Brest Hewlett 2000-2012 Dean, Stanford Law School

Judith Rodin Rockefeller 2005- President, University of Pennsylvania

Don M. Randel Mellon 2006- President, University of Chicago

Rip Rapson Kresge 2006- President, McKnight Foundation

Luis A. Ubiñas Ford 2008- McKinsey & Company

Robert L. Gallucci MacArthur 2009- Dean, Georgetown University, Sch. of

Foreign Service

Table 6: PHEA’s Foundations’ Presidents

President/Vice-President (F)

Associates or Advisors (F)

Program Officers (F)

Program Director (F)

Administrator (U)

Faculty (U)

Researcher (U)

Vice-Chancellor (U)

Student (U)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Culture & Values

Processes & Bureaucracy

Power & Leadership

Incentives & Value-Added

Affinity & Collaboration

Consultation & Ownership

Policy & Context

Effectiveness & Accountability

Competition

Assets & Resources

Leverage

Sustainability

Power AssymetryI still recall a vice chancellor of an African university (incidentally he was the vice chancellor of one of the universities that were benefiting financially and otherwise from the partnership) … at one of the meetings… said

‘Is it a partnership of foundations or is it a partnership between foundations and African universities? How are we involved in defining the agenda and so forth?’

So that reflects that, in spite of all the efforts that we were making to be inclusive and conservative, we were not always successful in communicating that it was not [only] a partnership of four or five foundations but we wanted the voice of Africans to lead whatever we were doing (September 9, 2011 phone interview with Narciso Matos, former program director for the Carnegie Corporation of New York).

Power Asymmetry• grantees provided a form of approval and validation. • This was both sought after and orchestrated by the grantors.

• Grantee endorsement occurred within the context of power asymmetry.

• The unequal nature of the Partnership was a concern for grantees who always questioned their role and share of participation.

• This difference of status had a bearing on how the agenda was defined.

• Partnership remained a partnership of foundations, as several foundation staff indicated.

• Thus, running the risk of being perceived as dominating the agenda or imposing an American worldview on African universities was always a consideration.

Grantee endorsementOur agenda, in many respects, came from the universities the foundations were working with. Again, IT came directly from that. If you’re working with a group of universities and all of them are asking as part of their funding to dedicate some towards IT, you know IT is a priority. And that to me gives you permission to act on that because it’s clearly something that’s of interest. We did this, in that respect, a bottom-up. Not everything was bottom-up, but that was.

(August 10, 2011 interview in New York with Andrea Johnson, program officer for the Carnegie Corporation of New York)

Reciprocal Influence• foundations and select universities in Africa have influenced each other for a long period of time

• have established a competitive field which puts pressure on weaker institutions.

• Without other competing financial contributors or governmental constraints, the foundations were effective in asserting their leadership in the field of higher education, particularly in former British colonies.