Development co‐operation and the partnership–ownership nexus: Lessons from the Canada–Ghana experience

Motivation Ownership and partnership are ubiquitous concepts in development co‐operation and are often treated as symbiotic. Yet, given their multiple forms and meanings, they have always been in tension. This tension is heightened as partnerships diversify in ways that strain traditional bilateral country relationships. Purpose This article probes how the proliferation of development actors and new forms of multi‐stakeholder partnership are affecting long‐standing bilateral government‐to‐government ties, and generating new challenges to ownership within them. It highlights the salience of thematic specialization as a response to these challenges. Approach and Methods The article distinguishes between instrumental and normative conceptions of partnership and ownership, situating bilateral country partnership in relation to this distinction. It illustrates the difficulties of fostering bilateral partnership/ownership through a “best case” study of the Canada–Ghana development relationship. Analysis is based on secondary and primary sources, as well as 18 semi‐structured interviews and consultations with participants and close observers of the relationship. Findings The Ghana–Canada case highlights several challenges to effective bilateral country ownership in a context of proliferating and diversifying partnerships. Some are familiar but deepening; others are more novel. They include renewed challenges of donor proliferation and co‐ordination; problems of recipient capacity and competition; and adapting to recipient “failure” and “success.” Most significantly, the trend towards more disciplined thematic focus in development co‐operation policies, manifested in Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, has complicated and compromised country ownership. Policy implications In their pursuit of innovative development partnerships and thematic specialization, donors face new challenges in negotiating bilateral relationships and country ownership. Systematic efforts are required to connect thematic priorities with those of groups and governments in recipient countries.