“Something for everyone”: Ownership as a moving target in Swedish and British regional foreign aid to Africa

Abstract

SummaryMotivationRegionalism in Africa is to a large extent financed from the outside, which has given rise to a deep‐seated ownership problem. African actors and donors struggle with whether the ownership deficit derives from unequal donor–recipient relationships or recipient‐related weaknesses. This study goes beyond these debates and adds new insights by exploring the preconceived notions, ideas, and practices of ownership within the donor agencies themselves.PurposeThe article explores the ownership of regional foreign aid to Africa through three generic questions: what is meant by “ownership” in a regional setting?; who are the “owners”?; and what strategies and activities are enacted to ensure ownership of regional foreign aid?Methods and approachThe study is based on a paired comparison of Sweden and the United Kingdom. While both are large donors of regional aid to Africa, they have diverging approaches to ownership. The empirical material consists of official regional strategies, internal planning documents, aid evaluations and more than 20 semi‐structured interviews with Swedish and British officials based both in headquarters and in field offices.FindingsThe meanings and principles, considerations about “owners,” as well as strategies and activities to strengthen ownership frequently change over time and for different actors. In both Sweden and the UK, ownership means different things to different officials. Internal contestations between top‐level and field‐based officials reinforce the ambiguities and contradictions within each donor agency. Contrary to expectations, there is more diversity within the Swedish aid machinery than in the British.Policy implicationsIn contrast to the widespread belief among both donors and African‐based actors that the ownership problem results from asymmetric donor–recipient relationships and/or weak African commitment to regional integration, the study shows that policy‐makers need to shift their attention towards the goals, strategies, and internal practices within donor agencies themselves.