Recent aid and trade policies reveal a ‘paradigm shift’ in which traditional donors have moved away from a focus on poverty alleviation and returned to an approach firmly aimed at economic growth. In prioritising economic growth in their development agenda, donors encourage the private sector as an active partner in development. Dutch development aid is exemplary in following this international trend. By examining development projects financed by Dutch development aid in the Kenyan water supply and sanitation sector, this article analyses to what extent these projects achieve the policy objectives of increasing private sector involvement and investment in development projects. This analysis reveals that both private sector involvement and investment do not materialise in practice. Instead the policy impacts the landscape of non-profit development organisations by pushing them to adopt and incorporate behaviour and practices usually associated with the private sector or to pursue projects targeting the private sector. Rather than leading to increased private sector involvement, the policy thus stimulates a hybridisation of development organisations in which the boundaries between non-profit organisations and private sector companies become increasingly blurred. This process of hybridisation is supported by the Dutch Government as it needs these hybrid organisations to claim success of its aid and trade policy. What results is a rather paradoxical situation where hybrid non-profit organisations are needed to claim success for a policy fostering private sector involvement.
Abukar A (2016) Netherlandse ambassadeur in Kenya: Ontwikkelingshulp via de regering is eem bodemloze put. Vice versa Journalestiek over mondiale samenwerking. Vice Versa Magazine, cat.: Dossier, 30 June 2016. Available at: https://hetnieuwe.viceversaonline.nl/2016/06/30/het-bedrijfsleven-aan-zet-in-kenia/ (accessed 25 January 2016).
2.
Akvo (2013) Interview to Siemen Veenstra from Vitens Evides International. Available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAREd6enC5c (accessed 25 March 2016).
3.
AlnoorEBattilanaJMairJ (2014)
The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior34(2014): 81–100.
4.
Aqua for All (2016) Aqua for All website. Available at: http://aquaforall.org/ (accessed 15 March 2016).
5.
BakkerKJ (2003) An uncooperative commodity: Privatizing water in England and Wales.
USA:
Oxford University Press.
6.
Breinscope Consultants Limited (2016) Breinscope Consultants Limited Website. Available at: http://breinscope.com/index.html (accessed 25 February 2016).
7.
BremanJ (2011)
A change for the better? Dutch development aid in good times and bad times. Development and Change42(3): 833–848.
8.
BrinkmanIHoekAL (2005) Bricks, Mortar and Capacity Building 1965–2005: 40 Years of SNV Netherlands Development Organisation.
The Hague:
SNV Publication.
9.
BuegerC (2014)
Pathways to practice: Praxiography and international politics. European Political Science Review6(3): 383–406.
10.
BurkiSJPerryG (1998) Beyond the Washington Consensus: Institutions Matter.
World Bank.
11.
CleaverFDe KoningJ (2015)
Furthering critical institutionalism. International Journal of the Commons9(1): 1–18.
12.
Cordaid (2015) Cordaid Annual Report 2014 – Working on Flourishing Communities. Available at: www.cordaid.org/en (accessed 5 March 2016).
13.
Cordaid (2016) Cordaid Official Website. Available at: www.cordaid.org/en (accessed 5 March 2016).
14.
DouglasM (1973) Rules and Meanings: The Anthropology of Everyday Knowledge.
Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
15.
Government of the Netherlands (2013) Towards a new definition of development cooperation. Interministerial Policy Review. Available at: www.government.nl/ (accessed 10 February 2016).
GulrajaniN (2015)
Dilemmas in donor design: Organisational reform and the future of foreign aid agencies. Public Administration and Development35(2): 152–164.
18.
Fukuda-ParrS (2016)
From the millennium development goals to the sustainable development goals: Shifts in purpose, concept, and politics of global goal setting for development. Gender & Development24(1): 43–52.
KazimierczukA (2015) Historical Overview of Development Policies and Institutions in the Netherlands, in the Context of Private Sector Development and (Productive) Employment Creation. SC working paper, 122.
Leiden:
African Studies Centre.
21.
KernaghanK (2000)
The post-bureaucratic organization and public service values. International Review of Administrative Sciences66(1): 91–104.
22.
LaneJE (1994)
Will public management drive out public administration?Asian Journal of Public Administration16(2): 139–151.
23.
LundC (2006)
Twilight institutions: Public authority and local politics in Africa. Development and Change37(4): 685–705.
24.
MawdsleyE (2015)
DFID, the private sector and the re-centring of an economic growth agenda in international development. Global Society29(3): 339–358.
25.
MawdsleyESavageLSung-MiK (2013)
A 'post-aid world'? Paradigm shift in foreign aid and development cooperation at the 2011 Busan High Level Forum. The Geographic Journal180(1): 27–38.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (2011a) Letter to the House of Representatives presenting the spearheads of development cooperation policy. Available at: www.minbuza.nl (accessed 10 February 2016).
28.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (2011b) Policy Framework Dutch Cofinancing System II 2011–2015. Available at: www.rijksoverheid.nl (accessed 10 February 2016).
29.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (2012) Water voor Ontwikkeling (Water for development). Available at: www.rijksoverheid.nl (accessed 10 February 2016).
30.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (2013a) A world to gain. A new agenda for aid, trade and investment. Available at: www.government.nl (accessed 25 January 2016).
31.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (2013b) Modernising Dutch Diplomacy-Final Report. Available at: www.government.nl/ (accessed 14 March 2016).
32.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (2014) Letter of 25 April 2014 from the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation to the House of Representatives on a new instrument for infrastructure development. Available at: http://english.rvo.nl (accessed 27 January 2016).
33.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (2016) Contributing to water, sanitation and hygiene for all, forever. DGIS/IGG draft WASH policy and strategy note 2016–2030. [Mismatch]
34.
Netherlands Enterprise Agency (2014) Sustainable Water Fund Grant Policy Framework. Available at: www.rvo.nl (accessed 27 January 2016).
35.
NoordegraafM (2007)
From “pure” to “hybrid” professionalism present-day professionalism in ambiguous public domains. Administration & Society39(6): 761–785.
36.
PloumenL (2013)
A world to gain: Going faster and further in development. GREAT Insights Magazine2(8): November2013.
37.
PollittC (2003) The Essential Public Manager.
UK:
McGraw-Hill Education.
RottenburgRBrownALampertT (2009) Far-Fetched Facts: A Parable of Development Aid.
Cambridge:
MIT Press.
40.
SavelliE (2016) Aid and trade: From policy discourses to development practices. MSc Dissertation, UNESCO IHE Institute for Water Education, The Netherlands.
41.
SchinkelWNoordegraafM (2011)
Professionalism as symbolic capital: Materials for a Bourdieusian theory of professionalism. Comparative Sociology10(1): 67–96.
42.
Simavi (2014) Strategy 2014–2020. Available at: http://simavi.nl/ (accessed 7 March 2016).
43.
SkelcherCSmithSR (2015)
Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration93(2): 433–448.
44.
SNV (2016) SNV Netherlands Development Organisation Website. Available at: www.snv.org/ (accessed 20 March 2016).
45.
SynhaeveM (2015)
Aid Effectiveness 2.0: International cooperation and the role of the Netherlands. Peace, Conflict & Development2015(21): 41–84.
46.
TielensJ (2017)
The clash between aid and trade: Policy coherence leaves much to be desired. Vice Versa: Independent Journalism on Global Development51(1): 44–47.
Van der WalZDe GraafGLasthuizenK (2008)
What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration86(2): 465–482.
