This article examines decision making in the partnerships between three private aid agencies and their local partners in Ghana, India, and Nicaragua. Drawing upon a mixed methodology, the article maps the relative influence of these partners vis-à-vis the agencies and reveals the processes underlying decision-making outcomes. Three main findings are advanced: (a) Institutional rules regulate per topic the extent in which partners can participate in the decision making, ranging from exclusion to full decision-making authority; (b) four clusters of decision-making topics were identified reflecting the different degrees to which partners are allowed to participate in the decision making; and (c) while partners’ ability to influence decisions above all is affected by the institutional rules, some have more influence than others depending on their organizational capacity and their respective project-officer.
ArtsB.van TatenhoveJ. (2004). Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the “old” and “new” policy idioms’. Policy Sciences, 37, 339-356.
2.
AshmanD. (2001). Strengthening North-South partnerships for sustainable development. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 74-98.
3.
BaazM. (2005). The paternalism of partnership. A postcolonial reading of identity in development aid. London: Zed Books.
4.
BachrachP.BaratzM. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947-952.
5.
BarnettM.DuvallR. (2005). Power in International Politics. International Organization, 59(1), 39-75.
6.
BinkerhoffD. W.BrinkerhoffJ. M. (2004). Partnerships between international donors and non-governmental development organizations: Opportunities and constraints. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70, 253-270.
7.
CleggS. R. (1989). Frameworks of power. London: Sage.
8.
CleggS.CourpassonD.PhillipsN. (2006). Power in organizations. London: Sage.
9.
CohenI. J. (1989). Structuration theory. Anthony Giddens and the constitution of social life. New York: MacMillan.
10.
CrawfordG. (2003). Partnership or power? Deconstructing the “Partnership for governance reform” in Indonesia. Third World Quarterly, 24, 139-159.
11.
DahlR. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2, 202-210.
12.
EbrahimA. (2002). Information struggles: The role of information in the reproduction of NGO-funder relations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 85-113.
13.
EbrahimA. (2001). NGO behavior and development discourse: Cases from western India. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12(2), 79-101.
14.
EdwardsM.FowlerA. (2002). Introduction: changing challenges for NGDO Management. In EdwardsM.FowlerA. (Eds.), The Earthscan reader on NGO management (pp. 1-11). London: Earthscan.
15.
FernandoU. (2007). Uneasy encounters: Relationships between Dutch Donors and Sri Lankan NGOs. Amsterdam: AMIDSt.
16.
FowlerA. (1998) Authentic NGDO partnerships in the new policy agenda for international aid: dead end or light ahead?Development and Change, 29(1), 137-159.
17.
FowlerA. (2000). Beyond partnership: Getting real about NGO relationships in the aid system. IDS Bulletin, 31(3), 1-13.
18.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: An outline of the theory of Structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
19.
HeinrichV. (Ed.). (2007). CIVICUS Global survey of the state of civil society: Volume 1: Country profiles. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
20.
HilhorstD. (2003). The real world of NGOs: Discourses, diversity and development. London: Zed Books.
21.
HudockA. C. (1995). Sustaining Southern NGO’s in resource-dependent environments. Journal of International Development, 7, 653-667.
22.
ListerS. (2000). Power in partnership? An analysis of an NGO’s relationship with its partners. Journal of International Development, 12, 227-239.
23.
LukesS. (1974). Power: A radical view. New York: Macmillan.
24.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.
25.
MawdsleyE.TownsendJ. G.PorterG. (2005) Trust, accountability, and face-to-face interaction in North–South NGO relations. Development in Practice, 15(2), 77-82.
26.
MichaelS. (2004). Undermining development. The absence of power among local NGOs in Africa. Oxford, UK: James Currey.
27.
OstromE.CrawfordS. (2005). Classifying rules. In OstromE. (Eds.), Understanding institutional diversity (pp. 186-216). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
OwusuC. (2005). An International NGO’s staff reflections on power, procedures and relationships. In GravesL.HintonR. (Eds.), Inclusive aid, changing power and relationship in international development (pp. 108-122). London: Earthscan.
29.
SanyalP. (2006). Capacity building through partnership: Intermediary Nongovernmental Organizations as local and global actors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 66-82.
30.
ScottW. R. (2008). Institutions and Organizations (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks: Sage.
31.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.
32.
YoungD. R.KoenigB. L.NajamA.FisherJ. (1999). Strategy and structure in managing global associations. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10, 323-343.
