ACBF
Strategic Medium Term Plan, 2002 - 2006 and
Report of World Bank Operational Task Force
on Capacity Development in Africa - Striking
Similarities |
|
In
2004 the World Bank set up a Task Force on
Capacity
Development in Africa to explore
ways of identifying new ways
of tackling the continent’s
development challenges. The Task
Force produced a Report in 2005.
The core message of the Report
is that Africa’s poor development
performance over the decades has
been underwritten by weak and inadequate
capacity to deliver the developmental
expectations of the citizenry such
as better public services, improved
governance and overall empowered
communities. To propel itself onto
a higher development path Africa
must build effective states and
engaged societies. The task of
agencies such as the ACBF would
be to help that process of building
effective states and forging engaged
societies. This article argues
that ACBF has been involved in
capacity building with a viewing
to developing effective states
and engaged societies in Africa.
The recommendations of the World
Bank (WB) Task Force thus reinforce
the relevance of ACBF’s work
and its programmatic strategies
as outlined in the Foundation’s
SMTP I. |
|
What
do we mean by ‘capacity
building’, ‘effective states’ and ‘engaged
societies’? Some conceptual issues
In recent years ‘capacity building’ has
become one of the buzzwords in
development lexicon. The concept is not quite uniformly defined. The United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992) defined capacity building
as enhancing 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 the needs
as perceived by the people of the country concerned.
Sako (2001) defined it as: “a process of equipping
individuals, groups and communities with skills, knowledge,
competencies, resources, abilities as well as the attitudinal
change and behavioural characteristics to define and
perform specific missions, tasks and activities in
the pursuit of sustainable development and poverty
reduction”. What is apparent is that capacity
building need not be confused with technical assistance
that tends to be short-term oriented and with limited
local resource content.
For states to be effective and the wider society
engaging, they need the necessary capacity to deliver
on their various ‘mandates’. The Task
Force defined an effective state as one that “delivers
quality public goods and services meeting the needs
of the population”. The various societies have
to remain engaged by demanding change and accountability
on the part of government as it delivers the goods
and services. The Task Force noted that “[A]chieving
an effective state is not merely a technical exercise;
it is rooted in the political economy of a country.
Beyond building human capacity at the individual
level, which involves stronger skills and a more
professional culture, an effective state calls for
organizational capacity based on monetary and non-monetary
incentives, performance accountability systems and
access to transparent information. The effectiveness
of the state also depends crucially on the quality
of political and economic governance at the level
of society, including the rule of law and the accountability
and transparency of the executive, the legislative
and the judicial The effective state delivers public
goods and services to the population; provides an
enabling environment for growth and private sector
development; and ensures peace and security. The
engaged society participates in public decision-making;
contributes to the provision of public goods and
services, and holds authorities accountable for the
means and results of public action. Thus, social
inclusion is both an end and a means, and capacity
is needed to develop both the effective state and
the engaged society” (p. viii, vii). The major
difference between the SMPT I and the Task Force’s
notion of an effective state is that the former is
limited to the provision of public services without
a clear analysis of the role of policy making and
creation of workable frameworks for the private sector
to thrive (e.g. regulatory duties, legislative functions,
etc.)
Is there
a paradigm shift in capacity building? A closer
look at ACBF’s
SMTP I
The Task Force argues that there
has been a paradigm shift in capacity building since
the 1990s from one which emphasized resolving short-term
technical constraints to project implementation to
one that focuses on institutional change and capacity
utilization and with due weight given to local political
imperatives for effecting change (p. 50). The ‘new’ paradigm
to capacity building allegedly emphasizes enhancing
government effectiveness and raising social inclusion.
But a close look at the work of the ACBF over the
years since its inception, and more importantly,
the SMTP I for 2002-2006, show no new change in direction.
Indeed, one could argue that the SMTP I reflects
the shift of the 1990s. Are the recommendations of
the Task Force therefore old wine in new vessels?
The ACBF’s SMTP I for 2002-2006
set out the areas of core competencies where the
Foundation has
been and is working, all of which contribute in developing
an effective state and forging engaged societies.
The box below shows the overlap between what the
ACBF core competencies areas and the Task Force’s
notion of effective state and engaged societies.
How is ACBF supporting the building of effective
states and forging engaged societies?
Box
1: Similarities between ACBF Core Competencies
and the Task
Force ‘Entry
Points’ |
| ACBF CORE COMPETENCIES |
CORRESPONDING WB TASK FORCE PROPOSED ENTRY
POINTS |
- Economic Policy Analysis and Management
- Public Administration and Management
- Financial Management and Accountability
- Strengthening National Statistics
|
Interventions for Building “Effective
States” |
- Strengthening of National Parliaments
and Parliamentary Institutions
- Professionalization of the Voices of Civil Society
and Private Sector
|
Interventions for the
Emergence of “Engaged
Societies” |
- Strengthening
economic policy analysis and management
as a means of building an effective state:
effective economic
policy-making and management is crucial
for sustainable development and poverty reduction.
The inability
of African states to put in place robust
economic policy analysis and management framework
in the 1970s
and 1980s was partly responsible for the
poor economic performance thereof. Poverty
has remained persistently high with the figure
rising to about 40% of the total population
in the last two decades alone. Inflation and
general macroeconomic instability was commonplace.
Indeed the 1980s and 1990s saw a period of
radical economic reforms in the name of structural
adjustments. While the reforms introduced new
ways of economic management, in some instances
it speeded up the process of capacity decay
and under utilization as skilled personnel
faced with retrenchment left the public service
or the country altogether. It was in this climate
that the ACBF started to operationalise its
current approach to capacity building focusing
on removing capacity constraints, filling gaps
and supporting the development of new capacity
not just in economic policy analysis and management
but also in the other core competence areas.
It was organisationally understood then in
ACBF that government’s ability to provide
quality goods and services is closely linked
to its ability to effectively develop good
economic policies and operationalise them.
- Effective public administration and management
is at the core of state effectiveness: as noted
by ACBF (2002): “[T]o address the challenges
for sustained growth and poverty reduction
in sub-Saharan Africa, the public sector must
play a significant role. The sector is however
barely equipped to do so….Economic and
institutional reforms being undertaken by African
countries and the rapid pace with which world
economies are becoming integrated, call for
a significant shift in the role and the effectiveness
of the public sector in sub-Saharan Africa” (p.
19). The ability of the state to effectively
respond to the demands of the citizen depends
partly on an effective and efficient public
sector. This point is echoed by the Task Force
when it noted that: “[A] reality that
confronts many governments is that their public
services, although large, lack the managerial
and professional skills and the service-delivery
orientation required to respond to popular
pressure for results” (p. 35). Building
an effective state and forging engagement of
the wider society in the development process
do require an effective and responsive public
administration and management. Ineffective
mechanisms for administrative control and the
monitoring and evaluation of performance and
behaviour accentuate unethical practices that
induce weak accountability (UNECA, 1991:13-14).
The Foundation undertook in its SMTP I to “support
institutional reform and capacity building
in Government”
- Without financial management and accountability
the state cannot deliver effectively: it is
almost common knowledge that many governments
in sub-Saharan Africa have been undermined
by allegations of corruption and financial
mismanagement. The capacity to plan, budget,
use and account for public funds is crucial
for the state to deliver on its mandate. There
would thus be need for greater transparency
on how resources are budgeted and utilized
which in turn strengthens accountability and
democratic governance1. In this regard ACBF
undertook to support “reform of systems,
processes and procedures for enhanced transparency,
accountability and effectiveness of public
expenditure and revenue management”
|
-
Effective states make policy
and programmes on the basis of concrete evidence:
to be able
to make informed decisions states and the wider
society need reliable and timely information.
This means developing an effective national
statistical system to provide information to
public, state and business community in the
economic, demographic, social and environment
arena. Such information is crucial for policy
and programme development in the various areas
and for mutual knowledge across states and
citizens of the world. Statistics are collated
and disseminated to answer burning questions
and, in some instances, to allow research questions
to be formulated with sufficient precision
(UNDESA, 2003:45).
-
Improving governance through
strong parliamentary framework is crucial for
engaging society as
well as making states effective: the link
between good governance and sustainable development
has been known for some time. Good governance
encourages social inclusion and the development
of social capital and a cohesive and stable
society. The history of governance in African
states in the last few decades has been
characterized
by dictatorship, corruption and nepotism:
a society where little demands were made on the
state for the provision of basic social
services
as well as the respect of human rights.
In the 1990s a new wave of social transformation – especially
democratisation – swept across the continent.
Parliamentary elections have been held and
other forms of representative government instituted – especially
at the local levels. These processes have seen
the emergence of more responsive governments
and articulate civil groups demanding better
social services and accountable government.
Despite the changes, the capacities of both
states and civil groups to quickly take advantage
of these changes remained weak. The ACBF support
to parliament and related institutions is not
just to ensure better accountability but forge
a society that engages the state for better
performance on its mandate.
-
To be effective in their role
of watchdog and participants in policy
development and implementation, society acquires
skills to
articulate its demands on the state:
the ACBF’s
SMTP I explicitly recognized the need to strengthen
the relationship among the public sector, civil
society and the private sector through its interface
interventions. There is an explicit recognition
of the equal and mutual importance of state and
non-state actors for the development of an inclusive
society. Knight et al (2002:161-172) called this
approach the ‘new consensus’ to
governance characterized by building
an effective state and
an engaged society, deepening democracy
and democratic culture, and enlarging
the political space for
citizens. The Foundation supported national
consultative councils and strengthened
dialogue among public
sector, private and civil society with
a view to improving good governance be
it corporate or otherwise
and developing a culture of social responsibility.
Professionalising the voice of civil
society changes the relationship between
the state and civil society
from one that may be characterized by
patronage to one of partnership2. The
efforts by the ACBF
tally well with the recommendations being
made by the Task Force on the improvement
of governance
systems in sub-Saharan Africa.
Are there any programmatic differences
between SMTP I and those suggested by
the Task Force?
There are usually two driving
forces to capacity: supply-side and demand-side.
From the supply-side the Foundation
identifies a capacity needs and approaches various
potential stakeholders to partner
in the
programme or project. This usually
occurs after a capacity gap assessment of a particular
country or sector has been carried
out.
The demand-side is characterized
by various agencies making proposals to the Foundation
for possibility of funding. If
the request
falls within the six core competence
areas, it would get considered for support. The
notion of ‘demand-driven’ capacity
is much broader in that it should
reflect the engagement of various
development agencies
by communities to deliver on their
mandates. For example, support
to civil society that
strengthens its voice and ability
to make other development partners
accountable
would be classified as demand-driven
in this broader sense.
Programmatically, the Foundation
has strategically operated at multiple levels: programs
as
well as at project levels, regional
as well as national. The choice of intervention
strategy be it in terms of a programme
or project approach is driven by
a desire for cost efficiency and support effectiveness
given the risks and assumptions around
the intervention. The entry point
is thus
determined through a rigorous appraisal
process and without apriori and ad
hoc determination. Some of the core elements
of ACBF’s approach to capacity building
are that it is based on: needs assessments,
local ownership, sustainability, complementarity
and synergy with related interventions.
The Task Force proposals to shift to a
programme approach may miss out on significant
opportunities at the project level with
considerable poverty reduction multiplier
effects. Arguably, such a shift should
not be a replacement of one blueprint – a
one-size-fits-all approach – by
another one. The ACBF considers that
it is the
situational specificity of countries,
which should determine the project
versus programme
approach.
The general constraint that can
be made obviously clear between the two documents
is the limited financing levels
which came
through to support SMTP I, given
the enormous capacity needs of the continent. The
commitments
made by the developed countries
to assist developing countries achieve the MDGs by
raising ODA to 0.7% of the GDP
is yet far
from being realized and may not
materialise by 2015. This slackness in translating
promises into tangible resources
by Africa’s
development partners resulted into the ‘under-funding’ of
the Partnership for Capacity Building in Africa
(PACT) despite the relevance of the framework.
Despite the repetitive commitments of the International
Community, any transitions the ACBF has to
make to become a fully-fledged Foundation need
to be supported by the various stakeholders
and cannot be achieved ad hoc.
On the notion of value added in capacity
building
The rationale for the existence of ACBF,
or any agency like it, is the value-added
it brings to capacity building necessary
for the forging of an effective state and
an engaged-society. In variably, value-added
in capacity building is long-term and in
many senses very difficult to quantify and
yet it can be qualified. The qualitative
approach to devising tracking indicators
is in many senses un-orthodox in the world
of donor-driven development financing. The
value added of agencies like the ACBF is
not so much in the money they need to mobilize
in building huge and sometimes mammoth endeavours,
but in the ‘software’ advice
and demonstrable programmes and projects
they support. In many instances, the capacity
needs assessment conducted in sub-Saharan
Africa by ACBF is a ‘public good’ that
other stakeholders can tap into but have
not done so adequately. Over the years, ACBF
has come to be perceived as an honest broker
in capacity building in Africa and well placed
to bring greater integrity rather than politicking
into that process as tend to be the case
in traditional technical assistance.
ACBF over the years has developed and adapted
to the reality of the modern information
age. This adaptation has seen the birth of
knowledge management as a key area of ‘intervention’ for
the Foundation as it seeks to ensure speedy
generation, sharing and utilization of current
and new knowledge. Knowledge networks have
been developed horizontally as well as vertically.
Horizontal networks exist at the same levels
of operations while vertical ones cut across
levels to encourage sector wide approaches
and beyond.
Conclusion
There are many similarities between the
SMTP I and the Task Force Report. Indeed
the Report reiterates many of the issues
identified in the SMTP I and urgency of being
innovative in carrying out capacity building
in Africa in order to move the continent
into a position of strength in the modern
global economy. The Task Force Report does
mark a significant ideological shift from
what is known in the literature as the ‘Washington
Consensus’ of the 1980s where an effective
and strong state was seen as a constrain
on rather than a facilitator of social transformation
and sustainable development within which
citizens achieved their aspirations and enjoyed
equal rights. The engagement of society to
make states account when they failed to deliver
on the Lockean mandate was not here nor there
as markets were perceived to more than often
generate the optimal outcomes. The ACBF’s
SMTP I has provided the inspiration and shown
that there are real limits to sustainable
development without effective states and
engaged societies.
Dr. George Kararach
Program Officer - Operations Zone 1,
Eastern
and Southern Africa, ACBF
(Contributor of
Article)
|
References
ACBF (2002):
Helping Africa Make the 21st Century – a
New Horizon in Capacity Building – Consolidated
Strategic Medium-Term Plan, 2002-2006; ACBF Secretariat – Harare.
ACBF (2005): “Comments and observations by
the ACBF on Task Force Report on capacity development
in Africa”; ACBF Secretariat – Harare.
Drydyk, J. (2005): “When is development democratic”;
in Journal of Human Development, vol. 6 (2).
Knight, B.; Chigudu, H. and Tandon, R. (2002): Reviving
Democracy: Citizens at the Heart of Governance; Earthscan:
London.
Narayan, D; Patel, R.; Schafft, K.; Rademacher, A.
and Koche-Schelte, S. (2000): Voices of the Poor:
can anyone hear us; Oxford University Press: New
York.
Sako, S. (2001): “Capacity Building- A Priority
Agenda for Africa”, MWENGO Newsletter Issue
1 March.
Smillie, I. (ed.) (2001): Patronage or Partnership:
local capacity building in humanitarian crises; Kumarian
Press: Bloomfield.
UNDESA (2003): Handbook of Statistical Organisation;
UN: New York.
UNECA (1991): Ethics and Accountability in
African Public Services; UNECA: Addis Ababa.
World Bank (2005): “Building effective states
and forging engaged societies: report of the task
force on capacity development in Africa”, World
Bank: Washington. |
