12.07.2015 Views

Evaluating ICT for Education in Africa - Royal Holloway, University of ...

Evaluating ICT for Education in Africa - Royal Holloway, University of ...

Evaluating ICT for Education in Africa - Royal Holloway, University of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

6.3.1 Contrast<strong>in</strong>g bottom l<strong>in</strong>esPartnership advocates (Warner and Sullivan 2004, Tennyson 2003) are quickto identify the different partner attributes that can enrich collaboration.However, they largely fail to explore the important constra<strong>in</strong>ts with<strong>in</strong> thestructure <strong>of</strong> each partner affect<strong>in</strong>g their ability to operate collaboratively.Determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g creative and collaborative ways to overcome these is dependentupon a self-conscious awareness regard<strong>in</strong>g the contrast<strong>in</strong>g motivation,aspiration and subsequent bottom-l<strong>in</strong>e with<strong>in</strong> multi-stakeholderpartnerships. The significance <strong>of</strong> this was highlighted by an anonymousprivate sector partner from the Ethiopian case study (12/12/08):„When you have partnership between public and private sectorthere is <strong>of</strong>ten a fundamental tension <strong>in</strong> the contrast<strong>in</strong>gbottom-l<strong>in</strong>es. For one the bottom l<strong>in</strong>e is f<strong>in</strong>ancial and <strong>for</strong> theother the bottom l<strong>in</strong>e is political. This means that whenenter<strong>in</strong>g partnership, <strong>for</strong> either implementation or evaluation,it is vital to be fully-conscious <strong>of</strong> the differences and theimplications <strong>of</strong> these. This doesn‟t mean you should not havepartnership – the issue is one <strong>of</strong> consciousness and subsequentapproach to communication between players. This needs to bebuilt <strong>in</strong>to the monitor<strong>in</strong>g and approach and structure.‟6.3.2 Market-driven partnershipAs previously noted, there is widespread scepticism regard<strong>in</strong>g the role <strong>of</strong> theprivate sector with<strong>in</strong> development partnership (Martens 2004). This is due <strong>in</strong>part to historical failures <strong>of</strong> partnership and the broad array <strong>of</strong> practiceencompassed with<strong>in</strong> the term. Judgements regard<strong>in</strong>g attribution <strong>of</strong> causality<strong>for</strong> the frequent failure <strong>of</strong> partnerships <strong>in</strong> the past are <strong>of</strong>ten dependent on theideological perspective <strong>of</strong> the observer. As L<strong>of</strong>tus (2008 p.544) notes, „state<strong>in</strong>terference, market failure or the pr<strong>of</strong>it motive itself‟ are each <strong>of</strong>tensuggested as the def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g factor. With<strong>in</strong> this, a regularly articulated danger <strong>of</strong>multi-stakeholder partnership has been the tendency <strong>for</strong> the private sector toreap most <strong>of</strong> the benefit whilst the public sector pays most <strong>of</strong> the cost (L<strong>of</strong>tus229

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!