How is it possible to manage the competing tensions that arise in aid accountability? Based on governance assessments, this paper analyses current developments in mutual accountability relations between donors and aid recipients and how these relate to the domestic accountability of governments to their citizens. Donors are challenged by inaccurate perceptions of themselves and their operations, and often have little experience in engaging with the local public sphere. Donors should make better use of available indicators, adhere to existing initiatives, devise public relations strategy at a local level, and support local research capacities.
There is a tension between mutual accountability and domestic accountability – between donor-government relations and citizen-state relations. If donors are to dissolve this tension they must understand their analytical work as part of a process of engaging with the local public sphere. Donors can neither bypass government nor harmonise around one set of governance diagnostics. Rather, their generation of knowledge must make sense for the domestic debate.
The choice of the assessment methodology impacts both donor-partner relations and the impact on aid practice on the ground. When devising governance assessments, donors are faced with several dilemmas:
- The operating mode of agencies, their self-perception as technocratic problem-solvers, their (often three-year) project planning horizons and spending pressure make it difficult for sophisticated analyses to be taken up. It is also still difficult for donors to accept that they are political actors on the ground.
- There is a conflict between the aid effectiveness principle that calls for harmonisation and the democratic conviction that, in pluralist societies, diversity of opinions should compete amongst themselves.
- Donors have as yet little experience in engaging with the domestic public sphere. Donors usually focus on their relationship with the executive, in addition to their often instrumental relations with domestic civil society, constituting a much-reduced concept of ‘NGOs’.
Donors engaged in revising their assessment tools could: make use of some of the large number of available indicators; adhere to existing joint initiatives; start with what already exists; devise a public relations strategy at country level; and fund domestic research capacities.
- Though all available indicators have their methodological and ideological critics, they can at least be a good starting point for debate.
- Multilateral processes are increasingly applied in the development of assessment tools. Coordination of these tools seems to be successful, though more engagement by member states in the whole process is needed.
- When moving towards a more context-sensitive approach, an aid agency can initially rely on existing political economy analyses. Implicit knowledge can be made explicit.
- If developing a new assessment methodology and procedure, opt for a sector assessment according to the sector level division of labour and team up with specialised UN agencies and other multilateral institutions.
- Donors have to be accountable to the domestic public. Citizens have to be able to track their commitments and their influence on national policy.
- Funding of development research can be combined with support for local research capacities. Sound political economy research at country level requires independent research institutes.
