Қабілетті күшейту процесінің сипаттамасы

Process by which individuals or organizations improve their capability to produce, perform or deploy

Capacity building (or capacity development, capacity strengthening) is the improvement in an individual's or organization's facility (or capability) "to produce, perform or deploy". The terms capacity building and capacity development have often been used interchangeably, although a publication by OECD DAC stated in 2006 that capacity development was the preferable term. The UN system applies it in almost every sector, including several of the Sustainable Development Goals to be achieved by 2030. For example, the Sustainable Development Goal 17 advocates for enhanced international support for capacity building in developing countries to support national plans to implement the 2030 Agenda. Under the codification of international development law, capacity building is a "cross cutting modality of international intervention". It often overlaps or is part of interventions in public administration reform, good governance and education in line sectors of public services. The consensus approach of the international community for the components of capacity building as established by the World Bank, United Nations and European Commission consists of five areas: a clear policy framework, institutional development and legal framework, citizen participation and oversight, human resources improvements including education and training, and sustainability. Some of these overlap with other interventions and sectors. Much of the actual focus has been on training and educational inputs where it may be a euphemism for education and training. For example, UNDP focuses on training needs in its assessment methodology rather than on actual performance goals. The pervasive use of the term for these multiple sectors and elements and the huge amount of development aid funding devoted to it has resulted in controversy over its true meaning. There is also concern over its use and impacts. In international development funding, evaluations by the World Bank and other donors have consistently revealed problems in this overall category of funding dating back to the year 2000. Since the arrival of capacity building as a dominant subject in international aid, donors and practitioners have struggled to create a concise mechanism for determining the effectiveness of capacity building initiatives. An independent public measurement indicator for improvement and oversight of the large variety of capacity building initiatives was published in 2015. This scoring system is based on international development law and professional management principles. Capacity is understood as "the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully". It is an attribute of people, individual organizations and groups of organizations. Capacity is shaped by, adapting to and reacting to external factors and actors, but it is not something external — it is internal to people, organizations and groups or systems of organizations. Thus, capacity development is a change process internal to organizations and people. The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), formerly the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), defines capacity development in the disaster risk reduction domain as "the process by which people, organizations and society systematically stimulate and develop their capability over time to achieve social and economic goals, including through improvement of knowledge, skills, systems, and institutions – within a wider social and cultural enabling environment." Outside of international interventions, capacity building can refer to strengthening the skills of people and communities, in small businesses and local grassroots movements. Organizational capacity building is used by NGOs and governments to guide their internal development and activities as a form of managerial improvements following administrative practices.

The United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration in 2006 offered an additional term, "community capacity building". It is defined as a long term continual process of development that involves all stakeholders as opposed to practices which limit oversight and involvement in interventions with governments. The list of parties that it defines as "community" includes ministries, local authorities, non governmental organizations, professionals, community members, academics and more. According to the Committee, capacity building takes place at an individual, an institutional, societal level and "non training" level. It is, however, difficult to distinguish it from the practice of "community development". It is "built on a deficit model of communities which fails to engage properly with their own skills, knowledge and interests". Therefore, it does not properly address structural reasons for poverty and inequality. Thinking of capacity building as simply training or human resource development is insufficient.

The discourse on and concept of capacity development has traditionally been closely associated with development cooperation. The UNDP was one of the forerunners in designing international interventions in the category of capacity building and development. In the early 1970s, the UNDP offered guidance to its staff and governments on what it called "institution building" which is one of the pillars of its current work and is part of a category of "public administration reform". In the 1970s, international organizations emphasized building capacity through technical skills training in rural areas, and also in the administrative sectors of developing countries. In the 1980s they expanded the concept of institutional development further. "Institutional development" was viewed as a long term process of interventions in a developing country's government, public and private sector institutions, and NGOs. The UNDP states that it focused on building capacity at the institutional level because it believed that "institutions are at the heart of human development, and that when they are able to perform better, [ ] they can contribute more meaningfully to the achievement of national human development goals." Sustainable Development Goal 6 also includes capacity building in its Target 6a which is to "By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity building support to developing countries in water and sanitation related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies". The World Bank committed more than $1 billion per year to this service in loans or grants (more than 10% of its portfolio of nearly $10 billion).

International donors often include capacity building as a form of interventions with local governments or NGOs working in developing areas. :35–36 Capacity development of private organizations involves the build up of an organization's tangible and intangible assets. Organization development (OD) is the study and implementation of practices, systems, and techniques that affect organizational change. The goal of which is to modify an organization's performance and/or culture.

The difficulties with achieving results from capacity development projects have regularly been described in a range of publications. For example, in 2006, a document by OECD DAC stated that: "evaluation results confirm that development of sustainable capacity remains one of the most difficult areas of international development practice. Capacity development has been one of the least responsive targets of donor assistance, lagging behind progress in infrastructure development or improving health and child mortality". The proposal suggested only that evaluating the capacity building ability of NGOs should be based on a combination of monitoring the results of their activities and also a more open flexible way of monitoring that also takes into consideration, self improvement and cooperation. Other wishes were that monitoring for capacity building effectiveness should include an organization's clarity of mission, an organization's leadership, an organization's learning, an organization's emphasis on on the job development, an organization's monitoring processes. In 2007, USAID published a report on its approach to monitoring and evaluating the capacity building. According to the report, USAID monitors program objectives, the links between projects and activities of an organization and its objectives, a program or organization's measurable indicators, data collection, and progress reports. USAID noted two types of indicators for progress: "output indicators" and "outcome indicators." Output indicators measure immediate changes or results such as the number of people trained. Outcome indicators measure the impact, such as laws changed due to trained advocates. Both the "numbers of people trained" and "laws changed" are, however, just inputs or intermediate inputs and do not measure actual improvements in "performance" in terms of measurable outcomes of public agencies that are the definition of capacity building. Despite these claims of existence of these evaluation approaches, there was little more than lists of inputs and outputs without use of professional management standards or any kind of real oversight, and a report for the World Bank in 2009 noted that the failures were deep and systemic, where the measures used are "smile sheets", asking beneficiaries if they are "happy" or "better off" and measuring things like "raised awareness", "enhanced skills", and "improved teamwork" that are "locally driven", rather than on whether the underlying problems are solved, and refraining from asking whether there may be hidden agendas to buy influence, subsidize elites, and continue dependency. Despite some 20 years recognizing the problems, practitioners continue to note that some capacity development projects are just "throwing money at symptoms with no logic or analysis". Others are "disguised bribes to government officials and attempts to undermine entire government structures by setting up foreign run Ministries and foreign influenced political parties or civil society to lobby for foreign interests" using the interventions as a form of "soft power".