Multi-stakeholder partnerships for ICT4D: in whose interest? Reflections for USAID, 27 th March 2012 Tim Unwin Chief Executive Officer CTO
Jun 20, 2015
Multi-stakeholder partnerships for ICT4D: in whose interest?
Reflections for USAID, 27th March 2012
Tim Unwin Chief Executive Officer
CTO
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
No-one ever enters a partnership without interests!
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Outline
• Context • Origins of PPPs • Why partnerships and ICT4D? • A move to MSPs • Key success factors • Defining interests • Will partnerships really deliver
better development outcomes in ICT4D?
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Context
• Rural development, ICTs, learning, Critical Theory…
• Imfundo: Partnerships for IT in Education (Africa)
• World Economic Forum’s Partnerships for Education initiative with UNESCO
• Systematic review for DFID on impact of ICT4D partnerships (2011)
• GEI review (2012)
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Origins of partnerships: Public and Private
• A new world order: economic growth and liberal democracy – Following the overthrow of the Soviet Union
• UK Private Finance Initiative 1992 – Investment by private sector in public infrastructure – Risk sharing by states with the private sector
• A European phenomenon – 1990-2009 1340 PPPs
• Why should this not also work for ‘development’? • MDG8 target (f) – ICTs and partnerships
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Early ICT development partnerships
Most were indeed Public-Private – Imfundo’s origins
• Under-theorised – Many had little understanding of conceptual issues
• Little empirical experience – Most kept reinventing the wheel (and still do!)
• Private sector actively urging engagement with governments
• WSIS 2003 and 2005 – First major UN summit with substantial private sector
engagement
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
These background factors have had lasting effects on ICT4D partnerships
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Why partnerships specifically in the field of ICT4D?
• Complexity of ICT4D initiatives – Need different skills sets
o Technical o Development
• Most government officials lack understanding of technical aspects of ICT4D – Thus require private sector capacity
• Private sector driver of globalisation – Business solution for sustainability
• Formalising role of WSIS
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Two extreme models: circular and linear
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Circular: sustainability of the partnership
IBLF and Ros Tennyson
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Linear: focus on development impact
World Economic Forum’s GEI by Tom Cassidy
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
The move towards multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) • Some attempts to ‘impose’ a one-size fits all
model – But growing recognition that this is not appropriate
• PPPs widely seen as – Failing to deliver in practice – Concerns over coalition of interests between the
private sector and the state (Martens, 2007)
• The role of civil society – Central to effective ICT4D implementation
• Increased attention to MSPs – And PPP now often used for contractual
arrangements
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Martens’ (2007) eight risks of partnerships
• Influence of business in shaping political discourse
• Risks to reputation – choosing the wrong partner
• Distorting competition • Fragmentation of global governance • Unstable financing • Dubious complementarity • Sensitivity – governance gaps remain • Trends towards elite models of governance
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
DFID systematic review: success factors
1. Local context and local stakeholders involved 2. Clear intended development outcomes 3. Scalability and sustainability focus from start 4. Key importance of
– Trust – Honesty – Openness – Mutual understanding – Respect
5. Supportive wider ICT environment
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
DFID systematic review: challenges with process
• Remarkably few good evaluations • Diversity of methodologies causes great
difficulties in comparing evaluations • Very few baseline studies
– It is extremely difficult to say anything about impact
• Much “wish-fulfillment” – Very difficult to detect wider impact and unintended
consequences
• Success criteria vary for different partners – Re-emphasises concerns with “interests”
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Partnership challenges: evidence from the GEI
• Ensuring long-term sustainability • Underestimating difficulty in reaching
common goals and activities • Balancing the different interests of the
stakeholders • Determining the levels of contribution
from each partner • Identifying the resources needed • Co-operation between private sector
and national bodies is needed • Monitoring and evaluation often left to
the end
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Reflections from the GEI
• The need for high-level leadership • The role of a partnership broker
– Trusted and neutral – Knowledgeable about development outcomes
• Must start with agreement on intended development outcomes
• Central role of government ministries • Effective project management • Adequate resourcing • Consistent strategy and flexible delivery • Effective internal and external communications
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
In whose interest?
• Private Sector – Markets and sales – Innovative ideas and labour – Influencing geopolitical agendas
• Governments – Financing and risk reduction – Getting re-elected
• Civil Society – Raising international profiles – Delivering on needs of supporters
• Bilateral donors and international agencies – Delivering on development agendas
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
If development outcomes are achieved, does it matter if benefits are unevenly distributed?
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Resolving partnership interests
• Transparency throughout – Especially in interests
• Built around resource supply and demand framework
• Shared agreement on development objectives from the very beginning
• Clear allocation of financial resources
• Managing expectations
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Discussion
http://turkmenistan.usembassy.gov/usaid20110719b.html
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Exemplification of benefits (supply) and needs (demand) framework
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Towards a Multi-Stakeholder Partnership model
Demand partners
Supply partners: each has a niche role
Govern-ments
Local private sector
Private sector
Bilateral donors
Civil Society
Internat-ional agencies
Contributions
Expectations
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
The types of partner
Demand Supply End Beneficiaries
Local Partners Funding agencies
Private Sector Civil Society Organisations
Research Institutions
International Organisations
Local communities; p e o p l e w ith disabilities; teachers; health workers; learners
National and regional governments; local private sector; local c i v i l s o c i e t y organisations; religious groups
Multilateral and bilateral donors; International Financial Institutions; Charitable foundations
Companies providing hardware, software, networking, content, infrastructure, media organisations
Community action g roups ; non-governmental organisations; voluntary organisations; international advocacy and relief agencies; religious groups
Universities; consultancies; knowledge providers; innovators
Global organisations s u c h a s UNESCO; GeSCI; UN ICT Tas k Force
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Contributions and benefits
• Partnership contributions – Human resources – Physical ICT resources – Social networks – Infrastructures – Financial contributions
• Partner benefits – Corporate identity – Networking opportunities – Economic returns – Research and development opportunities
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Human resource contributions
Demand Supply End Beneficiaries
Local Partners Funding agencies
Private Sector
Civil Society Organisations
Research Institutions
International Organisations
Partnership Contributions Human resources § Knowledge
of relevant demands
§ Linguistic skills
§ Cultural sensitivity
§ Labour § Knowledge
of relevant health and educational initiatives
§ Technical support § Indigenous
knowledges § Cultural sensitivity § Linguistic skills § Labour § Capacity building
skills
§ Expertise in ‘development’ practice
§ Procurement expertise
§ Advisory capacity
§ Staff skilled in technology
§ Media skills § Project
manage-ment skills
§ Network engineering skills
§ Training expertise
§ Research and develop-ment skills
§ Staff secondment
§ Technical support
§ Expertise in delivery of practical activities
§ Local knowledge and networks
§ Knowledge of development practices
§ Project management
§ Linguistic skills
§ Advocacy skills
§ Staff secondment
§ Generic research skills
§ Knowledge of information and resources
§ Teaching and capacity building skills
§ Monitoring and evaluation skills
§ Staff secondment
§ Expertise in ICT and ‘development’
§ Expertise in delivery of educational initiatives
§ Lobbying expertise
© Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
Corporate Identity Benefits
Demand Supply End Beneficiaries
Local Partners Funding agencies
Private Sector
Civil Society Organisations
Research Institutions
International Organisations
Benefits of Partnership Corporate Identity § Opportunity
for enhanced visibility of poverty agendas
§ Raised international profile f o r l o c a l businesses and organisations
§ Opportunity to deliver on core mission to reduce poverty
§ Through local partnerships helping to ensure relevance and sustainability
§ Delivery on Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility targets
§ Raising brand identity internationally
§ Visible contribution t o a country’s economy
§ Delivery on core mission to reduce poverty through ICT activities
§ Increased international visibility
§ For some, opportunity to deliver on commitment to Knowledge for All
§ Opportunity to deliver o n core mission to reduce poverty
§ Through local partnerships helping to ensure relevance and sustainability