Research project
Public–Private Development Interfaces in Ethiopia
Private enterprises, businesses and large corporations have, over the past decade, entered the field of international development on an unprecedented scale. While it was unthinkable and even considered illegitimate for traditional donors to partner with these private, market-driven actors a few years ago, public–private partnerships have now emerged as the new, unquestionable normal. The growing role of the private sector is reflected in the Agenda 2030, which pays due attention to the private sector as both an objective of and a means to implement the audacious SDGs. SDG17 – revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development – specifically underscores how private sector involvement is required to realise the SDGs in poorer countries.
This paradigmatic shift has made an imprint on official development policy globally: in Ethiopia, the government has tapped into this discourse to stimulate the business sector and create job opportunities. In Norway, the shift is reflected in the government’s recent White Paper on development policy and operationalised via Norad’s, its aid agency, new ‘strategic partnership’ programme, which aims to foster greater public–private development partnerships.
While the shift towards increased public–private partnerships is documented in existing literature, it is not clear how the inclusion of private actors has changed the meanings, processes and mechanisms of international development. Through detailed empirical case studies in Ethiopia, DEVINT will map and analyse these changes, the challenges and opportunities they present to development cooperation and the unintended consequences and impacts these changes have on development practice. The project will analyse different forms and renderings of public–private partnerships and how the involved actors perceive, navigate and implement these partnerships.
Combining the insights of post-development theory and actor oriented approaches to development, DEVINT explores public–private partnerships in practice. While the discursive approach of post-development theory attends to the level of policy, an actor perspective will, with a focus on the actors’ joint partnership formation and policymaking processes, grasp how these policies shape development practice. Focusing on the practical encounter of different actors allow us to study the intersection of different actors’ lifeworlds, interests, mandates, and how this shape the formation of joint partnerships and projects. Studying such situations of interface also enables us to explore the complex relationship between development policy and practice, including how actors employ strategies of brokerage and translation to manage and manoeuvre policy–practice and public–private interfaces.
While studying the new aid regime and public–private partnerships are important to understand and improve how bold SDG strategies and objectives are converted into practice, we also posit that doing so will reveal larger processes of governance, power and social change that are shaping the world today.
Project Manager
Participants
New publications
Public–Private Development Cooperation: Interface and Conflicting Logics in the Formation of a Strategic Partnership
Public–private development partnership constitutes the core of a deepening normative agenda that places private actors as active development agents and as means through which other development objectives are pursued in partnership with publicly funded aid actors. This normative agenda may challenge international development. This article goes beyond the official policy level to explore the formation of public– private development cooperation in practice, not just on paper. It zooms into the partnership between a Norwegian NGO and a multinational company and their joint project to renovate an old vocational college in Ethiopia to serve the private actor’s need for qualified workers. The article shows how a publicly funded development project becomes a proxy for private interests, but argues that the diversion of public aid is not due to bad intentions or conflicting interests. Rather, it is the result of interface situations created by the public–private partnership agenda and its intentional merger of actors with distinct institutional logics, accountabilities and rationales. The article demonstrates how actors put together as part of the public–private partnership agenda end up undermining the agenda itself because of the interface situations created in the nexus of public and private actors.
The Grammar of Status Competition: International Hierarchies and Domestic Politics
States do not only strive for wealth and security, but international status too. A burgeoning body of research has documented that states of all sizes spend considerable time, energy, and even blood and treasure when seeking status on the world stage. Yet, for all scholars' success in identifying instances of status seeking, they lack agreement on the nature of the international hierarchies that states are said to compete within. Making sense of this status ambiguity remains the key methodological and theoretical challenge facing status research in international relations scholarship. In The Grammar of Status Competition, Paul David Beaumont tackles this puzzle head on by making a strength out of status' widely acknowledged slipperiness. Given that states, statesmen, and citizens care about and pursue status despite its difficulty to assess, Beaumont argues that we can study international status hierarchies through these actors' attempts to grapple with this same status ambiguity. The book thus redirects inquiry toward the theories of international status (TIS) that governments and citizens themselves produce and use to make sense of their state's position in the world. Advancing a new framework for studying such TIS, the book illuminates how specific theories of international status emerge, solidify, and become contested, and how these processes influence domestic and foreign policy. Showcasing the value of a TIS approach via multiple historical case studies—from nuclear arms control to Norwegian education policy—Beaumont thereby addresses three major puzzles in IR status research: why states compete for status when the international rewards seem ephemeral; how states can escape the zero-sum game associated with quests for positional status; and how status scholars can overcome the methodological problem of disentangling status from other motivations
Bottom-up development as framed freedom: developmentality and donor power
International development assistance is founded on and reproduces a set of conceptual and structural binaries. Development actors themselves have attempted to alter lopsided aid relations, as illustrated by the prominent policy agendas of ownership and localisation in the 2010s. These are both expressions of bottom-up approaches to international aid, which challenge the very hierarchical nature of development as a particular Western instrument and historical project of intervention. This article argues that the top-heavy, donor-driven policies to turn development bottom-up fail not simply because of these discursive challenges. Aid asymmetries also persist because of the neoliberal audit culture evolving in tandem with the liberal contours of ownership and localisation agendas. This is analysed in terms of developmentality, which, as a tacit and indirect form of power, is both produced by and simultaneously undermines the liberal tenets of bottom-up approaches.
Localization and developmentality: Policy pragmatism in pandemic times
Motivation: Localization is increasingly invoked in debates about how to reform international aid: to improve aid effectiveness and address ethical concerns by turning hierarchical aid relations on their head. This has proved to be easier said than done. The COVID-19 pandemic produced logistical impediments to aid practitioners, which translated into a renewed, if temporary, interest in localization. Purpose: The initial scope of the research engaged with the notion of partnership during COVID-19, but almost all informants drew attention to the concept of localization. The article maps and analyses the challenges and advantages of localization, as seen from the practitioners' perspective. Approach and methods: The article draws on 24 interviews conducted in Oslo with representatives of various Norwegian development and humanitarian non-governmental organizations and government agencies, in addition to policy and grey literature review. Findings: The article shows that the re-emergence of the localization debate during COVID-19 occurred not because of any ambition to reform aid, but as a pragmatic and temporary response to the logistical impediments caused by the pandemic. Reflections from the interviewees on the pros and cons offer more substantial insights into why localization fails to change practice, while at the same time localization enables a form of indirect governance related to accountability regimes. This is analysed as developmentality, reflecting the logic that localization takes place when recipients do as donors want, but they do so voluntarily, which suggests that localization counterintuitively may reinforce existing power structures. Policy implications: Localization is poorly conceptualized. While a definition could be helpful in practice, one that is too rigid could undermine the diversity of actors and knowledge that localization aims to advance. At the operational level, localization requires greater flexibility and slack throughout the aid chain, especially in the audit and accountability regimes of donor and funding authorities, which permeate and uphold lopsided aid relations.
Revisiting the Case of Ethnography and International Relations
This article revisits the debate on the role of ethnography in International Relations. It primarily does this by elucidating three points of tension in the literature on ethnography in International Relations. Firstly, it tackles the challenges related to ‘getting on’ with ethnography after the reflexive methodological developments that have taken place within anthropology since the 1980s. Secondly, it investigates how to overcome certain matters of scale and how to conceptualise the ‘international’ methodologically, or more specifically, ethnographically. When looking at issues that somehow exist and operate on the international scale, the ethnographic task of immersion in local scenes does sometimes seem like an ill-suited approach. However, I argue, this problematisation is dependent on a certain methodological understanding of what the international is. I attempt to formulate an alternative methodological approach that takes seriously the idea that international relations always can be accessed locally. This paper suggests that one of the main solutions to the obstacle of scale is methodologically abandon the imaginary of totalities as a higher level. In this way, ethnography can enable important understandings of social relations that exist across scales of local and global.
Humanitarian–development nexus
This is a chapter in the book Elgar Encyclopedia of Development.