Based on the African Union/New Partnership for Africa's Development (AU/NEPAD) principles of African leadership, ownership, resourcefulness and innovation, the Capacity Development Strategic Framework (CDSF) is the first continent-wide strategy and integrated capacity development tool created by and for African countries, sub-regions and institutions. Overall, the CDSF seeks to galvanize effective implementation of the continent's development priorities, including attaining the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the AU/NEPAD agenda.
You are here
Part of a series of UNICEF and UNDP papers and activities that attempt to clarify the term capacity development (CD) and ways to plan, monitor and evaluate its interventions (Alley & Negretto, 1999). In this review of CD literature, the authors explore some of the conceptual and practical issues associated with CD and summarize implications for planning, monitoring and evaluating results.
This book presents a vision that builds on new possibilities for knowledge-sharing. A team of eminent development professionals and economists examine the achievements of technical cooperation and offer recommendations for reform in the context of globalization, democratization, the information revolution and the growth of capacities in the South.
This study was designed to: 1) enhance understanding of the interrelationships among capacity, change and performance across a wide range of development experiences; and 2) provide general recommendations and frameworks to support the effectiveness of external interventions aimed at improving capacity and performance. The authors pay particular attention to endogenous aspecits of capacity--how capacity develops from within--rather than looking only at what outsiders, usually international agencies, can do to induce it.
Presents lessons from the Overseas Development Institute’s Research and Policy in Development Programme's involvement in large multiyear projects where it has been responsible for helping local institutions and organizations build their capacity to use knowledge to improve policies and practices. Setting aside the issue of knowledge-to-policy links, this paper serves to 1) reflect on what capacity is and how it develops; 2) identify implications of this for approaches used to promote capacity improvement processes; and 3) assess what this means for funding practices.
This issue of the online magazine covers the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) study on capacity; models for promoting change; capacity lessons from NGOs; lessons from the Caribbean; and performance amid conflict, epidemics, and poverty.
The book draws on the work of thinkers and doers throughout the world who have grappled with the challenge of planning complex institutions, especially health systems and development projects. The authors advocate facilitated participatory planning (FPP) as an effective way of working in a world that is complex, competitive, and fast-changing; a world where managers, staff and other stakeholders must have their say and own the ideas for any plan to work.
"To fulfill their promise, civil society organizations (CSOs) must themselves grapple with clarifying their legitimacy as social and political actors and their accountabilities to key stakeholders that ensure that they contribute to the public good. This paper teases apart some of the complexities of civil society legitimacy and accountability and describes examples of the growing array of systems and practices for responding to legitimacy and accountability challenges.
This study combines both extensive and intensive analysis of development assistance programs in Asia, focusing on five case studies which provide the basis for the author's strong conviction that Third World development assistance programs must be part of a holistically-perceived learning process, as opposed to a bureaucratically-mandated blueprint.
In the last of a series of three blog posts looking at the implications of complexity theory for development, Owen Barder and Ben Ramalingam look at the implications of complexity for the trend towards results-based management in development cooperation. They argue that is a common mistake to see a contradiction between recognizing complexity and focusing on results: on the contrary, complexity provides a powerful reason for pursuing the results agenda, but it has to be done in ways which reflect the context.