研究ノート
開発援助における「オーナーシップ」概念の変遷と分類
2014 年 23 巻 1 号 p. 161-173
詳細
2014 年 23 巻 1 号 p. 161-173
Ownership has become an important concept in the context of international development. Officially, use of the term “ownership” began in 1996, with the DAC's New Development Strategy. It was after this publication that “ownership” was confirmed as an important concept in many conferences related to international development.
However, there is a gap between the rhetoric of ownership and practices on the ground. De Renzio et al. (2008) states that “in many aid dependent countries donors still dominated decision-making over which policies are adopted, how aid is spent, and what conditions are attached to its release”.
Why is there such a gap between rhetoric and practice? Previous research only mentions the difficulties for donors in respecting the ownership of recipients in decision-making processes, and for recipients in displaying sufficient ownership. These reasons are not enough to explain why the concept of “ownership” has failed to live up to its potential.
It is the opinion of the author that changes in the meanings of “ownership” are a significant factor contributing to this issue. The definition of “ownership” is unclear, and the term has come to hold a variety of meanings. The term “ownership” is sometimes used for decision-making, and sometimes for the enforcement of decisions. Both processes need to be included in the concept of “ownership,” but the term is often only used to refer to the latter.
This conceptual ambiguity contributes to the disparity between the rhetoric of ownership and actual development practices. This paper attempts to show how the meaning of “ownership” in the context of international development has evolved, and why such gaps in rhetoric and practices arose.
Additionally, specific classifications of “ownership” have been generated and proposed to reflect the decision-making and enforcement processes as distinct and separate procedures. These classifications help clarify the concept of ownership and should help to avoid future gaps between the rhetoric of development concepts and practices.
