Current definitions
Increasingly, terms such as 'donor' and 'recipient' are being replaced with terms such as 'development partners' to imply a more equitable relationship based on a shared agenda for change. Most definitions of partnership include terminology such as common aim, vision, goals, mission or interests; joint rights, resources and responsibilities; autonomous and independent; equality and trust. Cadbury defines partnership as 'power being shared equally with all partners' (Cadbury, 1993: 11 in Cornwall et al., 2000), while Fowler refers to authentic partnerships as 'understood and mutually enabling, interdependent interactions with shared intentions' (Fowler, 1997: 117 in Cornwall et al., 2000).

Although the current definition has evolved from coordination and collaboration to mutual benefits and shared responsibility, there is no consensus on the meaning of partnership. Brinkerhoff (2004) suggests that the definition of partnership must include two critical elements:

• Mutuality: interdependence and commitment between partners, equality in decision making, rights and responsibilities;
  
• Organisational identity: the maintenance of each partner's own mission, strategies and values.

Agreements that link partners in joint activities also engage their internal procedures, systems and cultures. Literature on development partnerships suggests that organisational partners must be seen as bringing their own complex systems, shaped by internal interests and stakeholder demands, to the partnership; 'it's like a marriage, you don't get just the individual, you get the whole family.'(Ashman, 2001: 10).

Partnerships in practice
An online search of government agencies and international donors reveals a diverse partnership rhetoric and, more often than not, points to its symbolic use for public relations purposes. An analysis of available evidence suggests that there is frequently a gap between the 'egalitarian relationship implied by the language and the principal-agent reality embodied in the donor's operational system.'(Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff, 2004: 264).

The starting point for any partnership between Northern and Southern organisations should be the recognition that development partners often have different backgrounds and experience, along with different needs and expectations. This also holds true within the partner organisations themselves: the project team, for example, has different expectations from the finance department, from the publicity office, etc. By virtue of their role in initiating the relationship and controlling the available resources, Northern partners hold a disproportionate amount of power in relation to Southern partners, who generally play an implementing role. This power imbalance undermines the mutuality needed for effective partnerships. Underlying the concept of partnership, therefore, is the need to rebalance power relationships between developing country organisations and external (mainly developed country) funding agencies.

Another of the main factors that limit the achievement of full partnership potential relates to the administrative procedures and practices of the donor partner which do not enable proper implementation of partnership principles (Ashman, 2001: 2). One argument is that partnership behaviour is influenced by pre-existing factors in the partnership environment: internal factors such as organisational policies, systems and culture, procedures for accountability, as well as external factors such as policies of key external stakeholders (government, etc.) and economic trends.

The desired equality between partners, however, should not be understood as sameness. The distortion caused by the uneven capacity of partners, for example, can be minimised if the resourceful partner acknowledges and values the capacity and skills that the other partner brings to the relationship. This requires an indepth analysis of partners' strengths and weaknesses in order to identify their complementarity. A power balance can also be achieved by progressively transferring responsibility and ownership to the partner with less financial capacity, by encouraging joint decision making and ensuring that there are ongoing and open communication channels between partners.

The rigidity of administrative procedures and practices of donor partners can only be addressed through commitment to the partnership and willingness to revise existing organisational procedures and practices. In this respect, though often unrecognised in formal donor policy and practice, most scholars and practitioners support the view that partnerships require start-up investments to establish internal support for partnership work (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff, 2004). Therefore, one of the main challenges in partnership practice lies in coordinating partners' policies while promoting greater flexibility, responsiveness and innovation.

In the case of research partnerships which involve community groups, for example, once a relationship has been established, it is crucial that the community partners have representation and input into all aspects of the research project. Community groups can inform the research team about the needs of the community, as well as what design is valuable and practical for the community. The literature on partnerships between donors and community-based organisations also emphasises the potential advantages of giving the latter greater responsibility in the relationship. If community-based organisations take greater role in project monitoring and subsequent project redesign, this could greatly assist in fostering project ownership and enhance the potential for sustainability. Making clear the accountability of the project to the intended beneficiaries in this manner could also encourage them to ensure financial accountability with respect to project funds.

Successful partnerships
Although most discussion on partnerships used to be concerned with performance management, there has been a shift from achieving proposed goals to offering a more flexible framework in which factors such as shared responsibility, mutual trust, partner and beneficiary satisfaction, prevail. At its most basic level, a partnership means that both parties have agreed to work together in implementing a programme, and that each party has a clear role and say in how that implementation happens. It is critical that each organisation's roles and responsibilities are understood from the beginning and subject to continuous discussed and revision. Responsibility must be shared for both successes and failures.

Critical factors associated with effective partnerships are the development of trust, cooperative interpersonal relationships, and processes which promote communication, mutual influence and joint learning (Ashman, 2001: 2). A partnership should not be regarded as an end in itself, rather a means to achieve the respective goals of individual partners. The ultimate success of any partnership should be assessed based on whether it led to the realisation of partners' objectives which they would have not been able to achieve otherwise (Haque, 2004: 280).

Click on the links below for further information:

• Introduction and Current Thinking
• Accountability
• Annotated bibliography
• Organisations
• Key Websites

Back to Partnerships and Accountability index