Social change and Capacity Development

Despite improved quality of life of citizens around the world, solid economic growth in emergent economies the last decade and considerable progress in education and health, the sustainability and impact of foreign aid upon developing countries remain elusive. The effectiveness of aid as far as social change is concerned is being questioned by the World Bank (1998) which argues that ―the past four decade‘s practices of delivering foreign aid are

31

being called in question for poor achievements in sustainable impact, national ownership and appropriate technologies.‖

Within this context of redefinition of hitherto leading ideas in development thinking, the concept of Capacity Development which emerged in the 1980s, has gained actuality and momentum. However, it has been argued that because of its characteristic as an umbrella concept – that encompasses ideas to do with politics, culture, organizational development, finance, economics, sociology, and psychology – capacity development remains difficult to define and explain (Morgan 1996).

For the purpose of my study, I‘ll not delve into this debate. Rather I shall attempt an outline of different definitions of the concepts of capacity development that reflect four approaches, namely the organizational, the institutional, the systemic and participatory (Adrien, Lusthaus and Perstinger 1999). In the following definitions capacity development and capacity

building are used interchangeably. i) According to Peter Morgan (1996), capacity building is the ability of individuals, groups, institutions and organizations to identify and solve

development problems over time. Ii) In its approach to capacity development, UNDP suggest two definitions that embody both the organizational and the systemic approaches: ―capacity development is a concept which is broader than organizational development since it includes an emphasis on the overall system, environment or context within which individuals,

organizations and societies operate and interact (and not simply a single organization).

(UNDP, 1998) The second definition from UNDP stresses the organizational dimension, namely ―capacity development is the process by which individuals, groups, organizations and societies increase their abilities: to perform functions, solve problems and achieve objectives;

to understand and deal with their development need in a sustainable manner‖ (UNDP, 1997) The World Bank (1998) stresses the institutional dimension in its definition of capacity development: ―… capacity is the combination of people, institutions and practices that permits countries to reach their development goals… Capacity building is… investment in human capital, institutions and practices‖. Another definition of capacity development that lays the emphasis on different dimensions is the following developed by CIDA (1996):

―capacity building is a process by which individuals, groups, institutions, organizations and societies enhance their abilities to identify and meet development challenges in a sustainable way‖. The ―best fit‖ approach to capacity development which is centered on concepts such as participation, ownership and local knowledge stems from OECD (2006) which defines

capacity development as an endogenous process whereby people, organizations and society as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time. Within the wealth of definitions of capacity development, there are aspects that are recurrent, namely:

capacity development is concerned with the long-term perspective;

32

Capacity development should be demand-driven; capacity development should move away from the ―right answers‖ approach that characterizes capacity/institution building initiatives to a ―best fit‖ approach centered on ownership and participation of key

stakeholders/beneficiaries in the formulation and implementation of policies that concern their living conditions.

This is a clear departure from the traditional concept of capacity building which presupposes a

―process starting with a plain surface and involving the step-by-step erection of a new structure, based on a preconceived design(OECD, 2006)‖. The current understanding of the concept of capacity development is based on the assumption that capacity exist everywhere, but the question is about mobilizing existing resources along with creating an enabling environment so that individuals and organizations can perform their tasks in a satisfactorily manner.

In this study, capacity is understood as the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully (OEC 2006:12). Such an approach to capacity is mainly concerned with the performance of a human system – e.g. the local communities involved in the water projects – in delivering goods and services, and providing the enabling environment for change to occur and to be sustained. In line with this perspective, capacity development is understood as an endogenous process whereby people, organizations and society as a whole unleash, strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time (Ibid 2006). On the basis of this line of thought, capacity in the water projects in Katunguru, Kazinga and Kisenyi shall be defined as the ability of the technicians, water -committee members, local leaders and the local government to joint their efforts to manage the water projects successfully in partnership with Fontes Foundation.

At the individual level capacity refers to the competences i.e. the skills and abilities required to operate, maintain and sustain the technological facilities, along with deliver good services to the community; at the organizational level, capacity refers to the capabilities of the water committees to supply water to the community, mobilize the community for the common good, run a sound financial management of the water system, hold regular meetings and liaise with other bodies such as local leaders, Local Government, Uganda wild Life Authority, Fontes Foundation. At the institutional level, capacity shall refer to an enabling environment i.e. the prevailing institutions and power structures that influence the functioning of the local

organizations such as Water Committees. In this perspective institutions refer to the formal and informal rules of the game in society (North 1990) that shape or constrain the work being carried out by the water-committees and other constituencies at Local Government level.

33