It's Capacity, Stupid: International Assistance and National Implementation

Abstract

Issues associated with state inability (or incapacity) to meet international commitments-and how to build such capacity-are now ubiquitous in the theorizing, practice and research agendas of international environmental cooperation. Yet "capacity" and "capacity building" remain under-specified at the conceptual level. They are neglected areas of empirical research, and generally unreflective in practice. International and national level policy-makers are struggling with questions about how best to enhance state, local and NGO capacities to meet international commitments. To illustrate the need for more conceptual attention and empirical research around issues of public sector capacity, the article presents a multi-dimensional understanding of public sector capacity and highlights programs that appear to be successfully building capacity in recipient countries and programs that seem to be unsuccessful. The article draws examples from multilateral assistance programs within regional marine pollution control regimes and from bilateral assistance programs associated with cleaning up radioactive legacies of the Cold War in post-communist states. Copyright (c) 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda

“…To an extent, the gap between mandated system and practice can be considered a capacity development issue, whereby the skills and institutions needed to conduct the process need time to develop and mature (VanDeveer and Dabelko, 2001). However, whilst provision of guidance is generally regarded as being a valuable means of building capacity (Wood, 1999), the point has also been made that too much guidance can actually be a hindrance to practitioners who must try and assimilate multiple and lengthy sources (Waldeck et al, 2003).…”

Global–Local Linkage in the Western Balkans: The Politics of Environmental Capacity Building in Bosnia-Herzegovina

“…In his discussion of the factors limiting a state's environmental capacity, Martin Janicke includes ‘lack of ecological, technological or administrative knowledge, lack of material or legal resources, the weakness of environmental organisations or institutions in relation to vested interests’ (Janicke, 2002, p. 1). Analyses of a state's capacity tend to focus on the quality of public sector human resources, non‐governmental organisations and state or quasi‐state institutions (VanDeveer and Dabelko, 2001, p. 20). The environmental capacity of a particular country is not static: new issues and problems, plus the availability of new technology and approaches can alter the assessment of a country's ability and success in dealing with environmental issues.…”

“…As Stacy VanDeveer and Geoffrey Dabelko observe, ‘when efforts to build capacity fail, they often do so because of a lack of domestic concern in the recipient country about the policy objective ... If technical assistance programs fail, it is likely to be the fault of program design, not the fault of recipients’ (VanDeveer and Dabelko, 2001, p. 20).…”

“…The most obvious consequence of this is a sense of piecemeal initiatives designed, it is hoped, to kick‐start as many of the processes and functions deemed necessary to deliver effective environmental management as quickly as possible without fully acknowledging that, for example, the impact of a new piece of legislation or directive is directly determined by the effectiveness of institutions such as NGOs, scientific institutes or agencies responsible for implementation. While it is acknowledged that ‘capacity building efforts can be focused on any number of “sites”: government bodies, NGOs and civil society ... independent unions, scientific and technical communities’ (VanDeveer and Dabelko, 2001, p. 20), such segmentation runs the risk of downplaying the extent to which organisational capacity, levels of political openness, technological know‐how and legislative change are either contingent or dependent variables.…”

Negotiating Development Prescriptions: The Case of Population Policy in Nigeria

“…Such rejection can be thought of as an ''everyday'' form of resistance available to those who are otherwise disempowered (Scott 1985). As a result, the lack of policy implementation noted by neo-institutional scholars and referred to as ''decoupling'' (e.g., Meyer and Jepperson 2000) may thus not be evidence that policies were adopted because of normative emulation, but may instead indicate that they were adopted either because of coercion (Chamie 1994) or to serve negotiated purposes other than those stated directly in the policy, or simply that there was a lack of capacity to implement them (VanDeveer & Dabelko 2001).…”