Structural limitations of cross-sector partnerships in development

Moss and Lewis on Partnership Theory (Cross-Sector Partnerships)

Partnerships have been the model that has been applied to many of the world's woes in hopes that this platform can lead to collaborative benefits and meaningful social change. Cross-sector partnerships have been cited as the most promising approach to solving world issues such as extreme poverty, healthcare issues, educational issues, and environmental issues. Cross sectional partnerships can occur in one of four arenas that include categories such as business-nonprofit, business-government, government-nonprofit, and tri-sector partnerships (Selsky & Parker, 2006). The popularity of this approach has led to a strong multidisciplinary appeal from many researchers who represent significantly different perspectives on the subject.

While many researchers place a great deal of emphasis on this model as an opportunity to successfully address many pressing issues, some researchers have found that the model is not suitable in all arenas. For example, researchers found that cross-sector partnerships that involve the private sector and aim at addressing environmental issues have identified certain conditions that either undermine or enhance the objective of addressing environmental issues (Hahn & Pinkse, 2014). One of the key conditions is that the objectives and collective benefits are well aligned towards the goal of solving the environmental issue for the partnership to be effective. Many organizations in the private sector have a financial incentive to not place a great deal of emphasis on environmental issues as they must often sacrifice profitability to address such issues. This example illustrates the fact that certain conditions are more suitable for some partnership arrangements than others.

However the cross-sector partnership has many structural limitations that Mosse and Lewis have pointed out from their unique anthropological perspective. For example, in a forum article Mosse points out some of systemic problems that these models face.

"The comforting belief that the problems of widespread and extreme poverty in the world will be solved through the riches of global capitalism is pervasive. The major development agencies that have made poverty reduction the goal of development have also made economic growth its means. The problem is that this obscures and simplifies the relationship between the two, ignoring the various ways in which the relations of capitalism also create poverty…Indeed, broadly, the idea of globalization itself tends to overlook the political economy of capitalism as a system of power, just as trust in the regimes of global governance designed to regulate flows of capital, goods, and labor overlooks the ways in which the regulations involved in-build the interests of the most powerful players (Mosse, 2008)"

Mosse is focusing on some of the contradictions that exist when the interests of the parties involved and the power structures are considered.

Mosse and Lewis also point to the fact that the international consensus on development has been quick to assume international markets are the appropriate agent of change. They reference cases of "order and disjuncture" to illustrate the fact that the ideal world that are requested of development workers often do not mirror the reality of the individual circumstances that are found in different settings (Lewis & Mosse, 2006). The researchers point out the fact that, although they have not developed a fully formed framework, the encounter between developers and the people is far more complex and nuanced than most people realize -- that there exists something of a "messy reality" in practice and many of the most important decisions will come from the actual change agents trying to institute policy.

Lewis and Moss also added to this perspective by further refining their theory to include the roles of the "broker" and the "translator" as analytical tools that should be considered; these parties represent the bodies on the ground that play a major role in translating the strategic goals of policy makers into tactical goals that cohesively lead any development project (Dibley, 2014). The researchers clearly point out many of the tensions that exist between the different stakeholders that are in play in such projects. The broad structures of power might not have any appreciation for the local details and the local population might not have any appreciation for the objectives to the policy makers.