The practice of capacity development

The previous section outlined a set of factors that indicate the fundamental alienation between theories of capacity development and its practice in the field. It also pointed out that the field practice of capacity development is inherently simpler than its complex theories, although it is entwined with notions of productivity and resilience.

Moreover, it suggested that capacity development achieved an almost synonymous meaning to training. The restriction of capacity development to training further questions its validity. This section analyses the effects of the increasing equation of

the two terms. It contours the different grades of hollowing out and disintegration that accompanies the practice of capacity development.

6.4.1 The uni-dimensionality of capacity development

Section 2.1 suggested that donors’ view capacity development as a set of methods that provide instruments for systemically approaching development challenges (Morgan 2005, 2006). On contrary to this, I suggested in the previous sections that capacity development lacks a concise methodology that is implemented in the field.

In fact, development practitioners simplify the complex theories of capacity development by exclusively focusing on enabling individuals. Subsection 6.3.1 already referred to the inherent risk inherent in this simplification: capacity development increasingly becomes synonymous with training. The following accounts also testify to the amalgamation of training and capacity development:

Capacity development is that you get training. (ET 13)

Well, speaking of the term itself […], based on my experience working in the development field, it is always related to training people. And giving them information through training. (EG 10)

Normally, if you take an overall picture, capacity building means trainings. (EG 05)

Academic critics of capacity development have criticised the lack of clarity with regard to the methodologies and instruments of capacity development since the early 1990s (Cohen 1994; Lusthaus et al. 1999). As shown in Section 6.1, the theory-building of capacity development only produced more elaborate models for capacity development. These theories were, however, not translated into instruments. Therefore, training remained by far the most prominent form of capacity development in the field. A high level Ethiopian government representative expressed his concern about the methodological uni-dimensionality of capacity development:

People [donor representatives] are only talking about training and training.

Development agencies should show other dimensions of capacity development. [...] Other aspects of it were not propagated well. (ET 07)

This peculiarly restricted perception of capacity development among my interview partners is, however, very similar to my own observations. Through my own practice at GTZ/GIZ in Ethiopia and Egypt, I was closely involved with the development and deployment of training as a capacity development measure.

Between 2010 and 2013, I supervised the training of approximately 2,500 individuals (1,821 people in Egypt during 2012-13, Source: GIZ 2014; for Ethiopia only estimates are available). These experiences exposed me to the mass production of training and made me aware of the way capacity development amalgamated training practices and was eventually rendered non-distinguishable from these. The following excerpt from my research diary also underlines the difficulty of identifying other instruments of capacity development.

X [a male GTZ colleague in Ethiopia], Y [a female intern] and I met today to help structure her thesis. X suggested to use her research in order to try to find new dimensions of capacity development. Despite the repeated claims of X that at least five different forms existed, we could not come up with more than three: training, study visits and gate keeping (Research diary, 12/11/2009, Addis Ababa)

My interviews eventually confirmed the previous observation from the field.

The great majority (32 out 36 interviewees, 70%) of my respondents equated capacity development with training. However, these accounts also indicated that this uni-dimensionality of capacity development potentially harbours and facilitates its own demise. Both in Ethiopia and Egypt, respondents framed training as a wasteful practice that does not produce impact:

[Capacity development is] wasting a lot of money on trainings that doesn´t bring any impact. (ET 04)

I hate to use the word capacity building because it is associated with a massive number of people trained. (EG 11)

The significance of the interplay between the uni-dimensionality of capacity development and the resulting oversupply of training cannot be underrated. I suggest that the popularity of capacity development led to the further increase of training-based formats in delivering development programmes. The absence of other formats that led to the dominance of training within the practice of capacity development, however, contributed to the devaluation of this notion.

This subsection suggested the inherent uni-dimensionality of capacity development. The following subsections explore two distinct phenomena (the commoditisation of and disillusionment with capacity development), which illustrate the hollowing-out and subsequent demise of capacity development.

6.4.2 The commoditisation of capacity development

The previous subsection suggested that capacity development became synonymous with training in both Ethiopia and Egypt. In the absence of other methods, training dominates the field practice of capacity development. The oversupply of training, however, further enforces the encapsulation of capacity development. This subsection continues to unpack this increasingly quixotic phenomenon of training that has dominated the practice of development for decades. My goal is to understand the negative impact created by the association of capacity development with training.

A donor representative in Ethiopia explained that capacity development initiated a culture of training (“Trainingskultur”) among Ethiopian government employees:

Es [capacity development] ist problematisch wegen der Fluktuation (der Beamten). Nach erfolgreichem capacity building gehen die Leute weg. Dies hat mich persöhnlich demotiviert. Aber aus gesellschaftlicher Sicht ist es erfolgreich. Es hat sich ein Trainingskultur entwickelt. Deswegen wollen wir per diems abschaffen. (It [capacity development] is problematic because of the fluctuation [of public servants]. After successful capacity building, they leave the organization. This has demotivated me personally. But from the