Why Inter-Organizational Relationships Matter

The chapter starts off by describing the way in which the development arena has moved from practices referred to as serial monogamy to more complex and polygamous behaviours. With more cooperation between aid agencies, a shift can be seen from aid-based to rules-based development. Attention is turned more towards defining sector-wide programmes and macro level change. In inter-organizational terms, this might be described as a move from interaction generated by operational needs, to attempts to build more enduring relationships. There are major challenges in place trying to make sense of the underlying politics of the notion of cooperation, with focus on the real conflicts of interest and agenda which persist in all areas, and how these are managed.

The process of negotiation over development lies at the heart of the idea of 'public action', as a broad idea covering the purposeful manipulation of the public environment by a range of actors. This perspective involves looking at what strategies for cooperation there are (collaboration, advocacy, opposition), and choosing between them, as well as the development of skills for working with the different strategies. The starting point is that there are three 'ideal' modes of inter-organisational relationships: competition (market, firms), coordination (state, government at all levels), and cooperation (civil society, NGOs, trade unions). The authors recognise that often there are significant overlaps between what might be considered state, market and voluntary organisations, and often they work together in various arrangements.

• Competition: The institutional framework for organizing competition is provided by the market, thus the World Bank is pointed out as one of the principal proponents of competition as the basis for development. The use of the term is broad, including competition for scarce resources, ideas, constituencies, values and definitions of needs.
• Coordination: The most common notion of coordination is rule-regulated and hierarchically organised, generally associated with the state as a legitimate controller and coercer. In its positive sense, coordination by the state is based on the notion of a liberal state deriving its legitimacy through systems of elected representation. However, coordination, generally associated with hierarchies, is a relationship of power, which can be used or abused. Coordination has been a key form for organising development practice, but the context is changing, and the central actor, the government, has changed from all encompassing provider to that of a regulator.
• Cooperation: Cooperation tends to be associated with voluntary organisations, as non-hierarchical and with all parties involved on an equal basis with each other. Cooperation assumes power based on knowledge, expertise, and/or contribution, rather than power derived from hierarchy. On its positive side it is seen as a process of consensus building and sharing in public action. However, as already indicated, talk of cooperation frequently disguises power relations in the name of equality.