“Partnership” in foreign aid, as it originally appeared in Partners in Development published by the Pearson Commission in 1969, called for mutual commitment and accountability based on an equal relationship between donors and recipients. Partnership was thought difficult to implement because of asymmetric power relation between donors and recipients, disagreement as to what constitutes sound policies and donor accountability. Nevertheless, several international organizations addressing a wide range of human security issues arose around the beginning of the 2000s, advertising themselves as organizations underlain by partnership. These “partnership organizations” had governing bodies which included representatives from the governments of developing and developed countries, NGOs from the North and the South as well as the private sector, as members with equal voting rights. This article explores how these organizations introduced such governance structure despite the difficulties of institutionalizing partnership. Namely, it reviews the processes through which the Global Fund Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria as well as the Education for All Fast Track Initiative (later the Global Partnership for Education) introduced the decision-making mechanisms underpinned by partnership drawing on theoretical debates on institutional design in International Relations. It reveals that, in introducing inclusive decision-making mechanisms, the two organizations appealed to the connection between partnership and the effectiveness of aid, rather than advocating its normative value. Keywords: partnership, institutional design, foreign aid, international organization, human security
