09-12-2018, 12:15 PM
Capacity development of NGO is attracting more and more attention in the context of a changing aid architecture. Having previously been the recipient of capacity development efforts, NGOs now have the possibility to have an impact themselves on the capacity development of state institutions. “The current donor approach (through the Paris Declaration) emphasizes the need to strengthen the state and institutions, following two decades of downsizing of the public sector through policies and neo-liberalism. During this period, capacity building concentrated on NGOs "
hypotheses 1: NGOs are becoming more involved in capacity development for a variety of reasons. These reasons have been elaborated above and are related to the consolidation of NGOs’ role in development aid work and the multilateral aid agenda’s promotion of capacity development.
hypotheses 2: This involvement changes the way in which NGOs operate. Given that NGOs already play an important role in gap filling in education provision, traditional ‘project’ mode and non-formal education, we do not expect NGOs to abandon these essential activities in favour of capacity development. We do, however, expect NGOs to have taken on capacity-development activities directed towards the public education sector and governmental education planning and management. These constitute complementary activities to service delivery and as a result, diversify NGO action. This diversification can be interpreted as a strategy for ‘scaling up’ and corresponds to NGOs’ aspiration to increase their influence in education governance.
hypotheses 3: Through their involvement, they have an impact on the interpretation (in the fi eld) of capacity development. By taking part in capacity development efforts, NGOs contribute to shaping the content of capacity development. By integrating capacity development into their overall strategies of intervention in a coherent manner, that is in a way that corresponds to the ‘typicalities’ of NGO action in the education sector, NGOs attempt to redefine capacity development in their own image. As a result, NGOs’ efforts in this area will reflect traditional NGO action and values, such as a continued focus on the communities and local civil societies.
hypotheses 4: Through this new interpretation, capacity development can weaken central government, but also strengthen it in the long term. NGOs’ new activities, diversifying their action and impact in the education sector, reflect the strengthening of NGO capacities and influence on education governance. The increased involvement of NGOs in capacity development can prove to be to the detriment and to the benefit of government. The intricate question is precisely how NGO support to capacity development can contribute to strengthening government, without threatening the originality of NGO intervention. H5: Impact and obstacles. Given their place in the education sector, one would expect NGOs to have a substantial impact on government capacity and strategies, but also that they tend to encounter some of the same types of obstacles as other actors involved in capacity development. While previous research suggests that it is the concept and process of capacity development that complicates the task, and not necessarily the type of actor involved (it is not a question of agency), some actor-specific obstacles can be expected. If the third hypothesis presented finds support (that NGOs shape capacity development in their own image), one would expect to meet some obstacles that, to a larger or a lesser degree, depend on the capacity-developing actor in question, and therefore, are NGO-specific.
hypotheses 1: NGOs are becoming more involved in capacity development for a variety of reasons. These reasons have been elaborated above and are related to the consolidation of NGOs’ role in development aid work and the multilateral aid agenda’s promotion of capacity development.
hypotheses 2: This involvement changes the way in which NGOs operate. Given that NGOs already play an important role in gap filling in education provision, traditional ‘project’ mode and non-formal education, we do not expect NGOs to abandon these essential activities in favour of capacity development. We do, however, expect NGOs to have taken on capacity-development activities directed towards the public education sector and governmental education planning and management. These constitute complementary activities to service delivery and as a result, diversify NGO action. This diversification can be interpreted as a strategy for ‘scaling up’ and corresponds to NGOs’ aspiration to increase their influence in education governance.
hypotheses 3: Through their involvement, they have an impact on the interpretation (in the fi eld) of capacity development. By taking part in capacity development efforts, NGOs contribute to shaping the content of capacity development. By integrating capacity development into their overall strategies of intervention in a coherent manner, that is in a way that corresponds to the ‘typicalities’ of NGO action in the education sector, NGOs attempt to redefine capacity development in their own image. As a result, NGOs’ efforts in this area will reflect traditional NGO action and values, such as a continued focus on the communities and local civil societies.
hypotheses 4: Through this new interpretation, capacity development can weaken central government, but also strengthen it in the long term. NGOs’ new activities, diversifying their action and impact in the education sector, reflect the strengthening of NGO capacities and influence on education governance. The increased involvement of NGOs in capacity development can prove to be to the detriment and to the benefit of government. The intricate question is precisely how NGO support to capacity development can contribute to strengthening government, without threatening the originality of NGO intervention. H5: Impact and obstacles. Given their place in the education sector, one would expect NGOs to have a substantial impact on government capacity and strategies, but also that they tend to encounter some of the same types of obstacles as other actors involved in capacity development. While previous research suggests that it is the concept and process of capacity development that complicates the task, and not necessarily the type of actor involved (it is not a question of agency), some actor-specific obstacles can be expected. If the third hypothesis presented finds support (that NGOs shape capacity development in their own image), one would expect to meet some obstacles that, to a larger or a lesser degree, depend on the capacity-developing actor in question, and therefore, are NGO-specific.