Talk:Capacity building

Untitled
Hello, my name is Mary Desmond, I am a Newspaper and Online Journalism, International Relations student at Syracuse University. Over the next few weeks, I will be working on updating, and developing this article on Capacity Building, please let me know if you have any input or critques, or questions as to why I have included something. I look forward to working on this article and becoming a part of the wikipedia community! Msdesmon (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC) It seems that this article only deals with a very narrow definiton of capacity building. Actually the term 'capacity building' began to draw public attention at least dated back to the Earth Summit in 1992.

The concept of capacity building is included in chapter 37 of Agenda 21 in the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).

"Specifically, capacity building encompasses the country’s human, scientific, technological, organizational, institutional and resource capabilities. A fundamental goal of capacity building is to enhance the ability to evaluate and address the crucial questions related to policy choices and modes of implementation among development options, based on an understanding of environment potentials and limits and of needs perceived by the people of the country concerned". Capacity Building - Agenda 21’s definition (Chapter 37, UNCED, 1992.) Paladinhk 06:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)paladinhk

"also referred to as"
Well, then, if that's the case, we have two new perfect merge candidates. -- Kku 09:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I know there hase been a lengthy and controversial discussion in the development field about the two terms, and there are several papers and expert voices which postulate conceptual differences between the two concepts - so I think that a merge would not really be appropriate - more research and editing in both articles is needed on the state of knowledge on this. For a good summary stating some differences, see e.g. here. --balthas (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Not Just International Development
This article leaves the impression that "capacity building" is a term strictly used to describe work "Less Developed Countries" (or "Third World" or whatever your personal preferred terminology is) and on the wide civil society level. THis is not accurate. Capacity Building is a term also used by foundations and nonprofit entities in North America (at least) to describe their efforts to equip activists and organizations with the knowledge and resources necessary to fulfill their missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.120.253 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In Australia, "capacity building" is also being used in relation to people with disabilities to mean activities aimed at rehabilitation or building skills of an individual Markbrown00 (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Capacity building also means equipping market players to comply with regulations or take up roles that were considered to be terrain of the public sector. Sparsh85 (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding references
Hello, I noticed that there is a lot of uncited statements in this article. I will be working to verify some of the statements. Binoshita (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be great, thanks! User:Binoshita EMsmile (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capacity building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110408080351/http://www.wcoomd.org/home.htm to http://www.wcoomd.org/home.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

German translation NOT correct
"Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe" is something quite different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.131.246 (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * True. I have removed that link now. EMsmile (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @EMsmile You would need to remove the Esperanto link, too.--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @, OK, done. EMsmile (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

grammar/style ain't the problem
I came to this article because it was flagged for copy editing, but I don’t think it’s the grammar or style that makes it difficult to read.

The lead currently states "wide use of the term [capacity building] has resulted in controversy over its true meaning" and this gets to the heart of the problem. "Capacity building" has become a buzz word in a range of fields and is used to describe almost any activity that has some kind of teaching or training or infrastructure component.

So much of this article is difficult to understand because often nothing is being said, because nothing can be said.

It’s just the [|"teach a man to fish"] concept.

The section on Capacity Building here -- International_development -- seems to communicate just as much, more clearly, in fewer words.

Part of me thinks this article should be tagged afd; another part thinks maybe it should be merged with International_development

Thoughts?

- Markbrown00 (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Markbrown00, I think this article needs a lot of work, as it uses a lot of jargon and "academic" language. I wouldn't merge it into International_development but I think the content that is found there needs to match with the content found here. Perhaps even copy that content across to here and then just use an excerpt from the lead. That way, content doesn't have to be updated in two places. EMsmile (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions
I plan to do some work on this article in the next few weeks or months. But meanwhile I am putting some notes here in case someone else has time before I do:
 * The image caption of the lead image doesn't make it clear how this is capacity building. Is any image of a training course an image for capacity building? Would it be better to use a schematic here?
 * Headings need restructuring to use standard headings.
 * Too much content taken from one source (that 6 step bullet list is probably too long; Wikipedia is not a How-to guide). EMsmile (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * While I agree that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, for a topic as abstract and as wide as this, it may be a good idea to at least retain reference to the guide and the steps involved. This may guide interested people to the source. Sparsh85 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have condensed some of the content now where I felt that too much content and detail was taken from a single source; also removed some examples that were going into too much detail and some essay like content; I have re-arranged the section headings a bit as well. Much work still remains to be done but I feel that I have achieved some improvements with these changes.EMsmile (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed "further reading" list
I have taken out the further reading list as I don't think it adds any value. If any of these are so important, do include them as in-line citations:


 * Nussbaum, Martha C., Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, Harvard University Press, 2011
 * EMsmile (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nussbaum, Martha C., Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, Harvard University Press, 2011
 * EMsmile (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nussbaum, Martha C., Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, Harvard University Press, 2011
 * EMsmile (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * EMsmile (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * EMsmile (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Removed content on "isomophic mimicry"
I think this section on isomorphic mimicry is off-topic and potentially WP:OR. I think we should delete it:

Isomorphic mimicry
One approach that some developing countries have attempted to foster capacity building is through isomorphic mimicry. Similar to the concept of mimetic isomorphism used in organizational theory, isomorphic mimicry refers to the tendency of government to mimic other governments' successes, by replicating methods and policy designs deemed successful in other countries. While such an approach can be effective for solving certain development problems that have "a universal technical solution", it often ignores the political and organizational realities on the ground and produces little benefits to those using it.

An example of a failed mimicry relates to the legal reform in Melanesia. In response to a major international assistance mission to improve the quality of the justice system, a jail and a courthouse were built, costing millions of dollars. However, the new justice infrastructure has been rarely used since its establishment, because there has been a lack of bureaucracy and financial sources to support the expensive justice system. Accelerated modernization is an inappropriate strategy for enhancing the functionality of the legal system as solutions like this often require state capacities that developing countries do not have. Another example took place in Argentina. During the economic crisis in late 1980s, the government implemented a series of fiscal policies as recommended by IMF to regulate high point inflation affecting the country's economy. However, rather than constraining aggregate spending, the fiscal rule merely shifted spending from the central and to provincial governments. Adopting international best practices do not often translate into positive changes; in the case of Argentina, the mimicry produced little change to the vulnerable economy.

EMsmile (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Capacity Development Effectiveness section
This is in response to the reviewer EJ for his comments.

Now I see only one work is quoted in the critique section at the end. All three statements are quoted to just one paper that does not make sense? The critique presented in this section is infact very formalistic with so many indicators that no one can actually apply them. There is no supportive evidence that these indicators have ever been applied in any existing or past work, either in a development program or in a research. How then does this qualify as a valued critique? It will be better to include critique from a practitioners perspective.

Kindly allow me to include a short addition to this section and the previous section on effectiveness.

Kindly note.

The analysis/work I had quoted for this section is from a publication that I was a co author. https://niua.org/scbp/sites/default/files/Journey%20of%20Urban%20Sanitation%20in%20India%201_A.pdf

It is an original critique of "effectiveness of capacity development", in 3 parts of 38 pages. Part 1 and part 3 are commentaries on capacity development effectiveness, when applied to development programs in a historical perspective in India( 20 years) and with an extensive international literature review of capacity development effectiveness. Part 2 includes a presentation of how this was applied to a 5 year long $ 6 million capacity development initiative, funded by Gates Foundation. I have quoted not only Prof. Piers Blaikie(from his work on agriculture and deforestation) but also several other references - to highlight what effectiveness in capacity development means today for practitioners engaged in development programs. The capacity development effectiveness paper critiques the UNDAF capacity development framework substantially. A Capacity Development Effectiveness Ladder(CDEL) Framework is thus presented, based on a theory-practice, not as a sanitation capacity development framework but as a general capacity development framework that can be applied for any capacity development initiative.

Kindly let me know if i can make the additions to the two sections. There is a need to recognise the original work, learning and lessons from southern practitioners and researchers.

Pitampura (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not really clear to me what you want to add exactly? A few key sentences from your publication? Should be fine, just make sure it is in encyclopedic style (summary style) and that you observe due and undue (WP:DUE). Does your proposed content contradict content that is currently there, or support it or provide another perspective, or provide an example? Note that your project is already mentioned in the examples section as well. - Regarding the critique section, Wikipedia does not say which critique is "right" or "wrong". We summarise what has been published in the literature and try to present an objective account of what other people have said - without taking sides. Let the reader make up their own mind. So in general, showing several different statements and publications in the critique section is ideal. EMsmile (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Change name to "Capacity development"?
I am wondering if we should change the name of the article to "capacity development". According to the reference given in the article (OECD-DAC, 2006), "capacity development" is the more modern term, whereas "capacity building" would be the old-fashioned term. Looking at current publications though, one still sees both versions. This one from 2015 calls it "capacity development". Whereas this one from 2010 still calls it capacity building. Capacity development gets 1.2 Mio hits in Google. Capacity building gets 1.4 Mio hits. So it's quite similar. EMsmile (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * based on the look of the page now, there is no easy solution, because the article is just a narrow, partial take ungrounded in any solid discipline beyond a slight anchor to aid practice. Therefore we are defining a fuzzy matter. I listed above some of the weaknesses IMO. The cited paper by Lempert provides a useful diagnosis but remains disjointed from a proper anchor in a relevant discipline (public administration, organizational management, organizational development the last article not in better shape than this) and perpetuates the narrow take, without providing autoritative reference. The article needs grounding in the discipline.Tytire (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about formatting and curly quotes
Hi, just for my own learning: I am confused about the curly quotes thing that you recently changed in the article. Is there a guide that prefers one type of quotation marks over the other? If so, that would be good to know and I'll try to adhere to it in future; I've never paid much attention to it in the past. EMsmile (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:CURLY.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Learnt something again. (it must have happened when I copied something across from Word) EMsmile (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Planned revision work (June 2021)
I'm working on engaging some experts on capacity building to review and improve this article. I have found one person who has sent me a set of suggested changes which I now plan to look at carefully and then implement over time. This reviewer wants to stay anonymous. I'll call the reviewer "Reviewer EJ". This work is part of this project. If you have any concerns about the changes, please raise them here. This is from Reviewer EJ: "It took some more time than I planned because I looked at the whole page carefully and those pages that I thought should be connected with it so that the additions and changes would all be in context with Wikipedia. For example, there is no current Wikipedia page on "capacity" for public or private organizations, though there are several other pages for other meanings of "capacity". It obviously makes the most logical sense to be able to say that "capacity building" is an approach to improving something that is already defined as institutional or governmental capacity and that is measured, with a page that does that, but there isn't. There are also no pages for other standard international development interventions that overlap with or supplement what is currently in capacity building, such as UN and World Bank "public administration reform (PAR)" or "institution building" or "legal development". There is a page on "good governance" that currently does not mention "capacity building" at all. I looked for the best dictionary definition of "capacity" to cite (I used Merriam-Webster), which is the most objective way to start the article and to keep it focused where there is a clear bedrock consensus, rather than spiralling off in every direction by everyone wishing to redefine concepts to suit their individual purposes. So, in short, what I have done is just to take the introductory section and then the Evaluation sections and to focus on making these clear and concise and fully documented with sources on which there is agreement. I have added a total of 12 new sources, most of them directly from the World Bank, UN, and USAID and some cited more than once, many with their own explanations of what the term means or where it has been unclear and how that has led to specific problems. In my view, almost all of the other sections of the Capacity Building article, that I did not edit, are just filled with bureaucratic or academic jargon without real factual or objective content and with subject headings that don't seem to fit into any real logical framework from any definitions of capacity building. In my view, organizations and academics are promoting work without clear reasons as to why it is relevant or important, just trying to fit it in but without justification. It may very well be relevant or important, but from the way it is written now, it makes no sense to me as an expert who works in the field as to why it is in the capacity building page. Maybe it should be somewhere else if it is really important." FYI, EMsmile (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have started the work on this now. I have worked on the lead and the section of measurement and critique. There is some content in the lead now that still needs to be weaved into the article (as the lead is meant to be a summary). Also when we are finished with reworking the article, we'll have to revisit the lead so that it becomes a good summary of the article (4 paragraphs long). Work in progress. EMsmile (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have completed the overhaul of the article now. Feedback welcome. The version before I started was very much focused on just UNDP's work on capacity building. Now the article is more broad. It also has more content on evaluation of effectiveness. EMsmile (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @User:EMsmile I did not go to read the page before your intervention but would recommend further cuts to the woolly language of this page, resembling one of those brochures of international aid organizations where concepts are spun with little attention to concrete aspects. There are interesting aspects but the fluffy incipit, the lack of background in public administration theories and practice beyond aid jargon, and an ideologically inspired critique, can be improved. Tytire (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Tytire, yea, the article is still not great (if you want to compare with the older version (prior to mid 2021), click on "view history" at the top and scroll down; every version ever saved can be viewed). I worked on it middle of last year together with an external expert and we added quite a few references to publications by Lampert. Do you have good references at hand which could be used to improve this article further and to remove its focus on development cooperation if needed? I don't really know enough about the topic; I currently work together with topic experts to improve Wikipedia articles in the fields of SDG 6, 13 and 14. But for the topic of capacity development I haven't found many experts who're willing to help. Can you help? EMsmile (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-focus, re-anchoring, other publications
Copied from my talk page: Yea, time constraints is always a problem for all of us. However, I didn't see in your talk page comments any mention of particular publications. Perhaps if you can list there the top 3 publications that you'd say should be consulted and utilised, this will be useful for the next editor who comes along and has time. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The main point I tried to convey is to have a background in public administration. The decontextualised summary of aid guidelines on the topic is already there. Tytire (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't get what "to have a background in public administration" means with regards to editing the page. If you could recommend a few publications that would really help. - I'll copy this across to the talk page of the article so that we (or others) can discuss it there further). Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this talk way back. I meant that in many if not most cases CB relates to reforms of the public administration. It is a very vast topic. Now the page reads like a summary of one of those glossy UN brochures. I wonder what may learn from this any reader who does not have a clue. Any textbook in public administration can help improve this and make the presentation concrete. Some aid agencies have good and practical guidelines, you may google EC guidelines for capacity development or similar from USAID etc. Tytire (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)