|
  Reforming Technical Cooperation for Capacity Development
Ready for Change?
The Recipient Side - Terms of Reference
Recipient countries range along a wide TC continuum, from those that are indeed in the “driving seat” for
TC to those “failed states” that suffer from an absence of leadership and lack a strategic vision -- and
many that fall somewhere between. While national governments are responsible for providing a stable
and enabling environment, capacity development is a process that involves society at large. In some cases
local governments, NGOs and civil society organizations have become recognized partners in TC,
important in ensuring genuine ownership and the development of social capital. In other cases one finds a
loose and incoherent set of entities serving their own interests with different support systems.
The OECD/DAC principles unequivocally give prime responsibility for development to the recipient
country and recognize that this includes responsibility for the outcome of all technical cooperation. This
position is endorsed by the G77, which represents virtually all recipient countries. Even so, there are
many examples of countries not seizing this role, but instead allowing donors to dictate or at least play an
inappropriately strong role in determining the allocation of TC resources. This acquiescence extends to
the implementation of the joint effort, when external resources are brought in with little consideration to
their appropriateness or their cost-effectiveness. TC obviously fills a budget gap and many countries are
literally dependent on it. There are also often “perks” with TC, which may lead to decisions being taken
on grounds that are not strictly objective.
Objectives of the study:
- Examine why recipient countries do not always and sufficiently assert their acknowledged right to
determine the use of TC and to select the most appropriate and cost-effective inputs.
- Analyse the technical, non-technical and personal factors that influence decision-making by recipient
officials. Which interests does the fragmented, donor-driven TC system serve?
- Explore examples of failed and promising attempts to change practice and identify favourable factors
(political, economic, cultural, etc) for reform.
Issues to be considered include:
- What purposes (beyond those stated in project documents) does TC serve for recipient governments?
Is TC an easy way to avoid hard decisions (e.g., civil service reform)?
- Does assigning TC less than top priority mean that no one person feels responsible for outcomes?
Are there vested interests in maintaining the existing system? How do these interests exert pressure?
- How does civil society and private sector contribute to developing capacities and knowledge transfer?
- Flow of TC resources by major sector both as part of as well as outside recipient national budgets;
- Degree to which extra-budgetary flows are not subject to scrutiny by legitimate national processes;
- How does TC relate to power and influence (e.g., among line ministries, national versus local, etc.)?
- To what extent does an "odourless money" syndrome operate: salary supplements, secondary
benefits, “perks,” such as the prestige of an expatriate advisor, the use of a new vehicle and other
equipment; the possibility of foreign travel, study tours up to corruption, nepotism, etc.?
- Organizational ethos, culture, motivations, attitudes, notions of TC, ideology, expectations, interests
of different players;
- Which skills and systems are most needed to take full ownership of TC flows?
- TC and political or economic considerations (investments, technology, credit, strategic alliances);
- Which conditions help recipients to assert ownership and enable them to say “no” to misguided TC?
- Why despite identified needs, are large amounts of external resources not delivered in a timely way?
- What kind of "ownership" mechanisms have been set up? What is new and what is the real progress?
Other "Ready for Change?" Focus Studies
General Information (applicable to all Focus Studies)
|
|
