Capacity building

Components

The World Bank, United Nations and European Commission describe capacity building to consist of five areas: a clear policy framework, institutional development and legal framework, citizen/democratic participation and oversight, human resources improvements including education and training, and sustainability.

The United Nations Development Group Capacity Development Guidelines presents a framework of capacity development comprising three interconnected levels of capacity: Individual, Institutional and Enabling Policy.

Thinking of capacity building as simply training or human resource development is insufficient.

Evolution

History

The discourse on and concept of capacity development has traditionally been closely associated with development cooperation.

The UNDP was one of the forerunners in designing international interventions in the category of capacity building and development. In the early 1970s, the UNDP offered guidance to its staff and governments on what it called "institution-building" which is one of the pillars of its current work and is part of a category of "public administration reform".

In the 1970s, international organizations emphasized building capacity through technical skills training in rural areas, and also in the administrative sectors of developing countries. In the 1980s they expanded the concept of institutional development further. "Institutional development" was viewed as a long-term process of interventions in a developing country's government, public and private sector institutions, and NGOs.

Under the UNDP's 2008–2013 "strategic plan for development", capacity building is the "organization's core contribution to development". The UNDP focused on building capacity at an institutional level and offers a six-step process for systematic capacity building. The six steps are: Conducting training need assessment, engage stakeholders on capacity development, assess capacity needs and assets, formulate a capacity development response, implement a capacity development response, evaluate capacity development.

Trends

Since about 2005, the capacity development agenda has also been adopted beyond the traditional aid community. This is particularly true for Africa: for example the African Union has developed a Capacity Development Strategic Framework and is using capacity development as one of three themes to structure its Development Effectiveness internet portal.

Trends in development cooperation shape how capacity development is discussed. These include for example: new forms of financing and less of a North–South dichotomy; more in-country leadership and less donor power; resilience as a framework in fragile environments; increasing private sector engagement.

Global goals

The UNDP integrated this capacity-building system into its work on reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by the year 2015. The UNDP states that it focused on building capacity at the institutional level because it believed that "institutions are at the heart of human development, and that when they are able to perform better, [...] they can contribute more meaningfully to the achievement of national human development goals."

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals mention capacity building (rather than capacity development) in several places: Sustainable Development Goal 17 is to "Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development". Target 9 of that goal is formulated as "Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the Sustainable Development Goals, including through north–south, South-South and triangular cooperation."

Sustainable Development Goal 6 also includes capacity building in its Target 6a which is to "By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies". Similarly, Sustainable Development Goal 8 Target 8.10 states "Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all".

Scale

As of 2009, some $20 billion per year of international development intervention funding went for capacity development; roughly 20% of total funding in this category The World Bank committed more than $1 billion per year to this service in loans or grants (more than 10% of its portfolio of nearly $10 billion).

A publication by OECD-DAC in 2005 estimated that "about a quarter of donor aid, or more than $15 billion a year, has gone into "Technical Cooperation", the bulk of which is ostensibly aimed at capacity development".

Processes for different entities

Governments

One of the most fundamental ideas associated with capacity building is the idea of building the capacities of governments in developing countries so they are able to handle the problems associated with environmental protection, economic and social needs. Developing a government's capacity whether at the local, regional or national level can improve governance and can lead to sustainable development and political reform. Capacity building in governments often targets a government's ability to budget, collect revenue, create and implement laws, promote civic engagement.

Local communities and NGOs

International donors often include capacity building as a form of interventions with local governments or NGOs working in developing areas. A study in 2001 observed that "the act of resetting aspirations and strategy is often the first step in improving an organization's capacity". Secondly good management is important (committed people in senior positions to make capacity building happen). Thirdly, patience is required: "there are few quick fixes when it comes to building capacity".

Some methods of capacity building for NGOs might include visiting training centers, organizing exposure visits, office and documentation support, on-the-job training, learning centers, and consultations.

Private sector organizations

For private sector organizations, capacity building may go beyond the improvement of services for public organizations and include fund-raising and income generation, diversity, partnerships and collaboration, marketing, positioning, planning and other activities relating to production and performance.^:35–36 Capacity development of private organizations involves the build-up of an organization's tangible and intangible assets. Organization development (OD) is the study and implementation of practices, systems, and techniques that affect organizational change. The goal of which is to modify an organization's performance and/or culture.

Evaluation

Challenges with evaluations

The difficulties with achieving results from capacity development projects have regularly been described in a range of publications. For example, in 2006, a document by OECD-DAC stated that: "evaluation results confirm that development of sustainable capacity remains one of the most difficult areas of international development practice. Capacity development has been one of the least responsive targets of donor assistance, lagging behind progress in infrastructure development or improving health and child mortality".

Since the arrival of capacity building as a dominant subject in international aid, donors and practitioners have struggled to create a concise mechanism for determining the effectiveness of capacity building initiatives.

Recognition of problems in capacity building interventions in evaluations funded and managed by international organizations dates back to the year 1999. A World Bank review in the year 2000 found many examples where capacity building interventions undermined public management efforts. In these cases, public sector reform and institution-building were hindered. In 2005, the Bank noted again in its evaluations that business practices to its capacity building work are not as rigorous as they are in other areas. For example, standard quality assurance processes were missing at the design stage. Similar problems were reported by UNDP in 2002 when they reviewed their capacity building projects.

Effective evaluation and monitoring

In 2007, specific criteria for effective evaluation and monitoring of the capacity building of NGOs were proposed, though only in generalities without clear measures for the tool. The proposal suggested only that evaluating the capacity building ability of NGOs should be based on a combination of monitoring the results of their activities and also a more open flexible way of monitoring that also takes into consideration, self-improvement and cooperation. Other wishes were that monitoring for capacity building effectiveness should include an organization's clarity of mission, an organization's leadership, an organization's learning, an organization's emphasis on on-the-job-development, an organization's monitoring processes.

In 2007, USAID published a report on its approach to monitoring and evaluating the capacity building. According to the report, USAID monitors program objectives, the links between projects and activities of an organization and its objectives, a program or organization's measurable indicators, data collection, and progress reports. USAID noted two types of indicators for progress: "output indicators" and "outcome indicators." Output indicators measure immediate changes or results such as the number of people trained. Outcome indicators measure the impact, such as laws changed due to trained advocates. Both the "numbers of people trained" and "laws changed" are, however, just inputs or intermediate inputs and do not measure actual improvements in "performance" in terms of measurable outcomes of public agencies that are the definition of capacity building.

Despite these claims of existence of these evaluation approaches, there was little more than lists of inputs and outputs without use of professional management standards or any kind of real oversight, and a report for the World Bank in 2009 noted that the failures were deep and systemic, where the measures used are "smile sheets", asking beneficiaries if they are "happy" or "better off" and measuring things like "raised awareness", "enhanced skills", and "improved teamwork" that are "locally driven", rather than on whether the underlying problems are solved, and refraining from asking whether there may be hidden agendas to buy influence, subsidize elites, and continue dependency.

An independent public measurement indicator for improvement and oversight of the large variety of capacity building initiatives was published in 2015, with scoring, and based on international development law and professional management principles. This comprehensive indicator for capacity building was proposed as part of the elements codifying international development law in a treatise. It consists of 20 specific elements that apply law, administrative principles, social science concepts, and education concepts, to troubleshoot the actual problems that occur and to promote public oversight and accountability. The indicator has two sections: one with 11 questions to assure proper application of the five recognized principles of capacity building, analyzing their application in diagnosis and design of an intervention (7 questions), sustainability of reform (2 questions), and good governance (2 questions), and second, with 9 questions to assure professionalism and safeguards against conflicts of interest, unintended consequences, and distortion of public and private systems. This indicator is one of 13 that is part of the treatise of international development law and can be applied with the other indicators for specific sectors and development principles, as well as assurance of quality of evaluation systems.

Critique

Critique of capacity development has centered on the ambiguity surrounding it in terms of its anticipated focus, its effectiveness, the role of infrastructure organisations (such as empowerment networks), and the unwillingness or inability of public agencies to apply their own principles and international law.

Capacity building has been called a buzzword within development which comes with a heavy normative load but little critical interrogation and appropriate review. The term capacity building is usually "loaded with positive value".

Despite some 20 years recognizing the problems, practitioners continue to note that some capacity development projects are just "throwing money at symptoms with no logic or analysis". Others are "disguised bribes to government officials and attempts to undermine entire government structures by setting up foreign run Ministries and foreign influenced political parties or civil society to lobby for foreign interests" using the interventions as a form of "soft power". One common problem of interventions that focus on education and training of foreign government officials is that they are akin to trying to "teach elephants to fly" or to "teach wolves not to eat sheep" while avoiding the actual changes needed for impact.

Under international development law, there is also concern that much of the implementation of capacity building has been and continues to be in violation of existing international treaties such as the U.N. Declaration Against Corruption and Bribery, Articles 15, 16, 18, and 19.

Examples

Below are examples of capacity building in developing countries:

• At state government level: In 1999, the UNDP supported capacity building of the state government in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The program focused on strengthening the state's government by fostering new organizational, leadership and management skills in government figures, improved the government's technical abilities to communicate with the international community and civil society within the country.
• In India the Sanitation Capacity Building platform (SCBP) was designed to "support and build the capacity of town/cities to plan and implement decentralized sanitation solutions" with funding by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation from 2015 to 2022.