Country Ownership and the Tao of Leadership
Photos: Todd Shapera
The concept of country ownership for health sector gains is not new—U.S. Government agencies in partnership with host country partners have been working to accomplish sustainable, country-led and country-owned responses for many years. There is increasing local responsibility for health and development, and opportunities for new partnerships with donor countries (See June 2012 USAID Interagency Report on Country Ownership).
The LMG Project teams draw upon the over 40 years that the people of MSH pursue the mindset and practices needed to “walk-the-talk” of the Tao of Leadership. This approach of engaging in the field with local leaders and organizations serves us well as we explore ways to work with Sub Saharan Africa organizations like AREMF, ACHEST and AHLMN to implement the key characteristics of country ownership in our work. The concept of country ownership is multifaceted-true country ownership requires strength in several different factors.
Political Ownership. The host government has a clear aspiration for what should be accomplished in each stage of program development, implementation and monitoring, generated with input from their own cities and rural areas, civil society, NGOs, and private sector, as well as their own citizens. National plans are therefore aligned to national priorities to achieve planned targets and to apply scaled-up evidence-based best practices.
Institutional and Community Ownership. Host country institutions (inclusive of government, NGOs, civil society, and the private sector) constitute the primary vehicles through which health programs are delivered and take responsibility for each program. They manage funds and implement transparent, evidence-based policies/regulations for priority areas that align with national plans.
Capabilities. The host country has effective organizations, systems, and workforce able to perform activities and carry out responsibilities at multiple levels to achieve priority health outcomes. National coordinating bodies and local institutions have the ability to gather and analyze epidemiological and program data to plan and measure program progress and results. Additionally, they have the ability to perform or oversee activities for programs and subsequently modify them based on evidence and feedback from monitoring processes.
Mutual Accountability, Including Finance. The host country is responsible to country citizens and international stakeholders for achieving planned results. The host government is responsible for financial stewardship over health, while explicit roles and responsibilities are described with appropriate management. Information and processes are transparent and there are mechanisms for input and feedback from civil society, the private sector and donors.
James A. Rice, Ph.D., is the Project Director for the Leadership, Management & Governance (LMG) Project.
Date Published
- September 2017 (2)
- August 2017 (3)
- July 2017 (4)
- June 2017 (2)
- May 2017 (2)
- April 2017 (4)
- March 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (2)
- December 2016 (2)
- November 2016 (2)
- October 2016 (5)
- September 2016 (3)
- July 2016 (5)
- June 2016 (4)
- May 2016 (3)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (3)
- February 2016 (6)
- January 2016 (6)
- December 2015 (7)
- November 2015 (9)
- October 2015 (8)
- September 2015 (6)
- August 2015 (4)
- July 2015 (7)
- June 2015 (12)
- May 2015 (16)
- April 2015 (10)
- March 2015 (7)
- February 2015 (2)
- January 2015 (2)
- December 2014 (4)
- November 2014 (1)
- October 2014 (14)
- September 2014 (7)
- August 2014 (2)
- July 2014 (1)
- June 2014 (4)
- May 2014 (13)
- April 2014 (4)
- March 2014 (2)
- February 2014 (3)
- January 2014 (3)
- December 2013 (3)
- November 2013 (16)
- October 2013 (5)
- September 2013 (5)
- August 2013 (5)
- July 2013 (4)
- June 2013 (6)
- May 2013 (12)