STRATEGIC CAPACITY BUILDING:
THE 20:80 RULE
Eduardo Araral, Jr., Ph.D
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
National University of Singapore
1. Introduction
Capacity building models by donors in developing countries often consists ofthree components: training, pilot demonstration projects and provision of technicalassistance experts and equipment. However, this model has been criticized as being
ineffective in building institutional capacity, undermines local ownership, distorts
priorities, promotes islands of excellence but meager in its impact and is unsustainable(UNDP 2002, OECD 1992, World Bank 1998).
UNDP’s criticism of this model of capacity building stems from several flawed
assumptions. First, this model assumes that it is possible to simply ignore existing
capacities in developing countries and replace them with knowledge and systems
produced elsewhere. Second, it assumes that the relationship between donors andrecipients as one of equal partnership but in reality it is more asymmetric, distorted anddiscontinuous. Third, the model assumes that human resource is at the core of capacity
development, a problem that can be addressed through formal trainings that aims totransfer knowledge in a top-down manner, a model which assumes that there is no needto reinvent the wheel.
Of the three approaches to capacity building, training plays a central role. For
instance, the World Bank finances $720M in trainings yearly, 90 percent of which areconducted through project loans. In 60 percent of its projects, training is integral to theachievement of project objectives. Projects in the health, nutrition, and population
sector involve the most training accounting for 16 percent of total project costs. For
JICA, training also plays a central role in its capacity building portfolio with anemphasis on building technical skills and knowledge as well as improving motivationand commitment.
Despite its importance, few donors bother to rigorously evaluate theeffectiveness of trainings. One example is the recent study by the Independent
Evaluation Group of the World Bank (2008) on Bank funded trainings. The study – wasnotable for its fairly rigorous methodology - focused on three questions, namely: 1) Did
training result in acquisition of new knowledge and skills relevant to the achievement ofdevelopment objectives? 2) Are trainees applying acquired skills in the workplace in amanner likely to contribute to the achievement of broader development goals? 3) Isthere evidence of improved institutions or enhanced organizational performance as aresult of training?
To answer these questions, the report undertook 1) field studies of 37 training
programs worldwide, 2) desk review of projects, 3) literature review, 4) participant
survey in six country training programs, 5) benchmarking of good training practices, 6)
pre- and post-test data from 45 client skill-building courses, 7) process analysis to327

identify success factors as well as 8) a series of key informant surveys. The reportacknowledges that the absence of even basic results measurement in much
Bank-financed training is a major shortcoming. No similar studies of comparable
methodology are available from JICA funded governance capacity trainings.
The study finds a troubling conclusion - that current approaches to training
are often ineffective, inefficient and unsustainable. For instance, in World Bank fundedtrainings, participants learn less than 10 percent of the material; 20 percent of training
courses have no statistically significant impact on learning, individual learning results
are poor predictors of enhanced workplace performance and in only 50 percent of thetime did training lead to substantial changes to work place performance or enhanced
development capacity of target institutions.
Three factors are cited in the study to explain why current approaches totraining are often times ineffective: poor pedagogy, inadequate support for transfer oflearning to workplace and inadequate targeting of training to organizational needs. First,
the problem of poor pedagogy is associated with two common problems: the mismatchin the design of the curriculum with the training needs of participants and teaching
methods that are not appropriate for participant level training goals. Second, theproblem of inadequate support for transfer of learning to workplace is associated withthe lack of in-class preparation to facilitate implementation of learning in the workplace,for example lack of action learning and practical exercises appropriate to the workplace
and lack of follow-up support. Finally, the problem of inadequate targeting of training
to organizational needs arises in part because of 1) lack of organizational capacity
diagnosis (it is not clear whether training is the solution to organizational capacity
problems); 2) training needs assessment are seldom undertaken and 3) poor selection oftraining participants.
The purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for governance capacity
building to increase its effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. Examples fromWorld Bank, USAID and JICA will be examined to draw practical lessons. The rest of
the paper is organized as follows. In the next section, I examine the governance capacity
building efforts by JICA in terms of its history, philosophy, thematic areas and how its
approaches differ from other donors such as the USAID. In the next section, I propose aframework for capacity building that integrates approaches to individual, organizational
and institutional capacity building. In this section, I draw on some practical lessons
from the experience of the World Bank and reflect on their implications to Japanese
assistance in capacity building. A concluding section summarizes the arguments andtheir implications.
2. Governance Capacity Building by JICA
Since the late 1990s, JICA’s portfolio of governance capacity building projects
has included assistance for fair elections, operational reform of the police, judiciary andparliament, improvement of administrative functions, and development of laws andlegal systems. However, these programs have been implemented solely in specific areas
on an ad hoc basis. To address these limitations, JICA has since adopted a frameworkfor governance-capacity building by systematically clarifying the concept of governance,
streamline its efforts and identify the strengths and weaknesses of JICA's assistance in328this area. Annex 1 provides a framework for JICA’s governance capacity building
programs.
In general, JICA’s role in governance capacity building in developing countries
focuses on building individual and organizational capacities. Its role can be summed up
in as follows (JICA 2005): 1) to raise awareness and provide options for developing
new systems and mechanisms among government organizations and stakeholders; 2) toassist in the development of new institutions and mechanisms; and 3) to assist in thedevelopment of detailed measures and methods and the necessary organizational reformand human resource development for putting the systems and mechanisms into
operation. Although the scope and scale varies, the number of projects focusing on thedevelopment of detailed measures and methods for organizational reform and humanresource development is the largest among JICA’s portfolio of governance projects, anarea in which it has a long track record and a comparative advantage.
In practice, these objectives for governance capacity building are translated
into six themes, namely: 1) capability building for administration of criminal justicesystem; 2) development of national statistical systems; 3) administration of criminal
justice system; 4) local governance; 5) legal, electoral and judicial development and 6)
administrative reforms. JICA undertakes these training programs in a selected set ofdeveloping countries around the world but in all these areas, training plays a central rolein capacity building. Annex 2 summarizes these governance capacity building programsof JICA worldwide.
A distinct feature of JICA’s approach to governance capacity building is its
emphasis on country ownership, a philosophy summed up in the following policy
statement:“JICA considers it important that the government of the partner country promote
improvement of governance and enhancement and consolidation of democratic
institutions on its own initiative. In order to facilitate the endogenous processes without
forcing a certain type of institutional reform from the outside, JICA assists thegovernment of the partner country to select, develop and operate the necessary systems
and institutions by providing information and engaging in dialog. In other words, it
adopts approaches such as „the provision of policy options‟ or „joint thinking.”
JICA’s country ownership model is different from the supply driven models ofother donors that requires aid assistance to be tied to the donor countries’ strategic
objectives in the areas of foreign policy, security and trade. For example, the USAID
model of technical assistance to the Philippines is organized around the strategicinterests and explicit policy preferences of the United States in the Philippines (Annex
3).
A second example is in the area of promoting democratic governance. Whereas
the USAID approach to capacity development explicitly and aggressively promotes its
liberal democratic model – multi-party elections and open contestation of politicalpower, free press, human rights, judicial and legislative independence, vibrant civilsociety, among others, - Japan’s model do not seek to question the political values of thecountry but rather attempts to raise awareness of alternative institutional arrangements
such as that of Japan and other countries. This includes introducing the concept of
democratic elections and how elections are held in other countries as well as voter

329

education to promote participation, election monitoring and post-election follow-up.
In addition to awareness raising, JICA’s assistance to democratic governance also
focuses on the development of administrative systems and procedures, for example
strengthening of election management and election boards.
A third example is in the area of administrative reform. JICA’s business model
focuses on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative functions ingovernment agencies. This includes assistance to facilitate reorganization of key
government ministries, strengthening coordination across departments, strengthening oftax and customs administration, development of systems for public expenditure
management, establishment of systems and procedures to improve citizen access to
information, among others.
A fourth example is in the area of strengthening legal capacities. Here, thefocus of JICA’s assistance is on the development of skills in the drafting of legislative
proposals or bills (usually focused on civil and commercial laws), provision of manuals
on the drafting of judgments in civil cases and manuals how to prepare basic legal
documents such as judicial precedent records, book of statutes and other legal manuals.
The preceding examples illustrate the point that JICA’s business model isbased on the assumption that technical cooperation with a specific focus on certain
capacities in the public sector –with examples cited above – can contribute to capacity
development and institution building on a broader scale when properly planed andmanaged. Thus, JICA’s model of governance capacity building is largely focused on thedevelopment of specific organizational capacities, among others by improving
organizational hardware and software – the structures, strategies, shared values,
development of systems and procedures as well as provision of technical, legal andmanagement and organizational skills, - and aligning them with the development
challenges faced by their partner countries. JICA’s business model is similar with thatof other donors in its focus on individual skills and knowledge transfers but it differswith others in its emphasis on targeting government agencies and strengthening
capacities for policy making and implementation.
3. Framework for Governance Capacity Development
Thus far, I have discussed the importance of training in capacity building andthe need to improve training outcomes. I have also discussed JICA’s focus on building
organizational effectiveness by improving on administrative systems and raisingawareness of alternative options.
I suggest that while training and improving organizational effectiveness areimportant in the overall scheme of capacity development, they are often inadequate andunlikely to have substantial, systemic and sustained impact given their incremental,
fragmented and small scale effects. To substantially scale up the impacts of individual
trainings and organizational capacity development, it is equally important to get theinstitutional context right. The relationships among individual and organizational
capacity and the institutional context are presented in a stylized manner in Figure 1.

330

Training(Individual
Capacity)

Organizational
Capacity

Institutional
Development

Development
Capacity

Figure 1 - The relationship between individual capacity, organizational capacity,
institutional context and development capacity.
Envisioning and differentiating among individual capacity, organizational
capacity and development capacity is important because individual capacities acquired
through trainings do not readily translate directly into organizational capacity andorganizational capacity does not necessarily translate to development capacity.
Individuals in an organization can be capable but their organizations can be
dysfunctional and embedded in a perverse set of incentives created by the broader
institutional context. Individual government agencies can be islands of excellence in asea of a dysfunctional institutional context.
Here, it is important to distinguish what we mean by organizations, institutions,
governance and public policies. For these concepts to be operationally useful, we needto clearly define what we mean by each of these terms. An analogy from sports – sayfootball – is useful. Institutions refer to the rules of the game – the formal andinformal rules that facilitate or restrain behavior. Organizations refer to the players of
the game, including the referees who monitor and enforce the rules of the game.
Governance refers to the play of the game i.e. how organizations play the game given
their strategic interests. Finally, public policy refers to the desired outcomes of the game(i.e. winning the game).
Seen this way, the impact of development capacity is a function of theinstitutional context which affects the functioning of organizations, the organizational
context which affects workplace performance outcomes as well as the extent to which
individual learning outcomes contribute to the improvement of workplace outcomes.
Individual learning outcomes, however is a function of, among others, a good training
design. These relationships are illustrated in Figure 2.

331

Figure 2 - Framework for linking individual learning to workplace performanceoutcomes and development capacity impacts
Thus, the proposed framework for governance capacity building envisions theintegration of 1) individual capacity building through trainings that develop knowledge,
values and skills; 2) organizational capacity building that focuses on ensuring thestrategic fit among various hardware and software components of the organization and3) improving the institutional context to increase the ability of organizations to meet thecountry’s development challenges. In the following sections, I discuss each of theseelements of the framework.
3.1. Individual capacity building
Training is a widely used instrument to develop individual capacity yet current
models of training have been criticized as being ineffective. The question that needs tobe asked then is what kind of a training design can help maximize the learning process
in a significant and meaningful way? Studies have shown three factors to be crucial inensuring the efficacy of training (Figure 3): 1) good pedagogy; 2) adequate support for
the transfer of learning to the workplace and 3) adequate targeting of training to theneeds of the organization.

332

Figure 3 Design factors associated with successful training

The training processes associated with each of these factors is outlined in the
Table 1.
Factorsforefficacy
Good pedagogy

training Associated training processesProfessional curriculum design matched totraining needs
Didactic methods are varied and appropriate forparticipant level and training goals
Adequate
supportfor 
In-class preparation to facilitate learning in thetransfer of learning to workplace through action learning and practical exercises
workplaceOn-the job follow up support
Adequate targeting of 
What organization capacity gaps exists? Is
training to organizational training an appropriate means to addressing the gaps?
needs
Training needs assessment. What is the present
capacity of those to be trained? What training is needed toaddress the existing capacity gaps?
Strategic participant selection. Who should betrained to meet organizational goals?
Table 1 Design factors for successful training
Source: Independent Evaluation Group -World Bank (2008)

Pedagogy
There are various pedagogical models used in trainings, the most common ofwhich is the lecture method. An alternative and more comprehensive pedagogical model333

– referred to as the experiential learning model – is one example that could potentially
improve the training learning process. In this model, participants are provided with
opportunities to 1) experience the activity (do it); 2) share the experience (describe it);3) process the experience (draw common themes); 4) generalize the experience (drawprinciples) and 5) apply the learning experience (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 Framework for a training design using the experiential learning model
Communities of Practice
One model of support for the transfer of learning to workplace is throughcommunities of practice (COPs) – web based groups or knowledge hubs with a common
portal for exchanging ideas (Figure 5). COPs are fast becoming a standard approach todeveloping and sustaining networked based capacity building programs at a costeffective manner. Some examples include the COP for Managing for Development
Results (MfDR), a community of practitioners and academics interested in sharing ideas
on aid effectiveness. (www.adb.org/MfDR/CoP/default.asp). This is one model of capacity
building that JICA can explore and build on more cost effectively and leverage on its
vast alumni network.

334

Figure 5 – Community of practice and knowledge hubs as a model of capacity
building
Strategic Targeting
Training effectiveness is also a function of the adequacy of targeting of training
to organizational need. Strategic targeting requires three components: organizational
diagnosis, training needs assessment for individuals and strategic participant selection(figure 6). Diagnosis of capacity gaps involves assessment of existing organizational,
institutional, and human capacity gaps and of the appropriateness of training as a means
to address these gaps. Training-needs assessment roots training design in anunderstanding of the present capacities of the individuals to be trained and the specificknowledge and skills that participants must acquire in order to meet development
objectives. Strategic participant selection is necessary to ensure that the participants
trained are those whose capacities must be built up in order to meet development
objectives.

Figure 6 Strategic targeting of participants

335

Putting it all together
A framework is needed to summarize and put together in a coherent manner thevarious ideas discuss so far. Figure 7 integrates the training results chain i.e. how
training is translated into individual learning, change in workplace performance andeventually its impact on development capacity. It also specifies the various assumptions
that go along each of the results chain as well as the associated training processes
needed.
For example, some of the training processes associated with this integrated
framework includes 1) training needs assessment; 2) clear and specific learning goals;
3) professional curriculum design and pedagogy; 4) organizational capacity diagnosis;5) strategic participant selection; 6) attention to organizational / institutional context; 7)
practical learning exercises; and 8) mechanisms for follow up support, for example
communities of practice.

Figure 7 A results oriented framework for training
Source: World Bank (2008)336

3.2. Organizational Capacity Building
While improving the effectiveness of training is a necessary condition to
improve the capacity of developing countries to address their development constraints,
it is not a sufficient condition. Individual capacity building through trainings does notnecessarily translate into organizational effectiveness nor does organizational
effectiveness translate into development capacity. The reason for this is that individuals
in public bureaucracies in developing countries can be embedded in an organizational
context rife with perverse incentive problems that effectively constraints their abilities
to effect change.
While much is known in the theoretical literature on these incentive problems
in public bureaucracies in developing countries, little is known empirically how these
problems are played out. Indeed, there is a paucity of literature on this subject. A
meta-analysis of 94 articles devoted to the study of public bureaucracies in developing
countries from 1954 to 1983 shows that only 11 articles were written during this periodthat empirically examines the subject of incentives in public organizations in developing
countries.
More recently, in the public choice literature, scholars have hypothesized about
various incentive problems faced by public bureaucracies in general. However, few
empirical work are available in the case of developing countries, one example is Araral(2005). Among these incentive problems, for instance, include multiple agency
problems, non-credible threat of bankruptcy, weak or non-existent competition,
rigidities and performance measurement problems (Weimer and Vining 1999). For
governance capacity building to be more effective, these incentive problems would haveto be recognized and addressed in the design of capacity building programs.
For example, a key incentive problem in public bureaucracies is that agents
have very little stake in the social implications of their efforts since their compensation
is divorced from their performance (Mookerjee, 1997). For instance, these can be seenin the relationship between the salaries of most tax collectors in relation to tax
collection, pollution inspectors to air quality, irrigation officials to water services
delivered, forest officials to levels of deforestation, public school teachers to
educational standards, etc.
Compounding the principal agent problem is the difficulty of valuing outputs
and performance and the lack of competition among public bureaus. This in turn makes
it difficult to determine the optimal sizes of public bureaucracies which can lead todifferent kinds and degrees of inefficiencies. Public managers also face greater diversity
and intensity in political influence and therefore have greater needs for political support
from client groups, constituencies and formal authorities to obtain appropriations andauthorization for actions (Rainey 1998). In the context of developing countries withweak and corrupted institutions and are faced with severe resource constraints, theseincentive problems become more pronounced.
Framework for organizational analysis
A good understanding of incentives embedded in public bureaucracies indeveloping countries is an important element of governance capacity building. For this,a framework for organizational analysis is needed (Figure 8).

337

As the framework suggests, any organizational context consists of seveninterrelated elements – comprising the so called 7S model: the hardware component(structure, strategy, staffing, systems) and the software component (leadership style,shared values and skills).
Structure refers to the organizational structure – i.e. it can be hierarchical likethe military, matrix type, flat, concentric or other forms of organization. Systems referto the organization’s operating procedures and include information management
systems, budget and accounting systems, personnel management systems, and so on.
Style refers to the style of the organization’s leaders and could range from authoritarian
to democratic leadership styles. Shared values refer to the organization’s culture – its
norms, beliefs, traditions and practices. Skills refer to the skill sets in the organization
which could include administrative skills, technical, managerial and other skills.
Strategy refers to the means that the organization is using to achieve its objectives.
Examples of strategies in the business sector include diversification, integration,
decentralization, consolidation, and so on.

Figure 8 Framework to understand the organizational context of training
Source: Author’s adaptation of the 7S Framework
The key point to understand in the organizational framework is that each of theseven elements would have to be aligned or would have to be in a strategic fit among
the rest of the elements to improve the functionality of the organization. For instance,
the organization’s shared values would have to be aligned with its strategy andstructure, otherwise the organization would likely to become dysfunctional when338

shared values are weak or are misaligned. To be considered appropriate, theorganizational structure must serve the purpose of the organization, i.e. the structure isdesigned around the organizational strategy – or in the terms of biologists, form follows
function. The style of the organization’s leadership is equally important to achieving theorganization’s purpose. Leadership styles would have to fit or mould the organization’sshared values as well as fit its structure and strategy. Authoritarian leadership styles ina matrix and collegial type structure – for instance in research and academic settings - islikely to be dysfunctional.
While trainees typically learn a variety of technical skills, they are seldom
trained in political skills how to manage reform. This is a real problem because theimpact of training on development capacity depends not only on learning technicalsubjects in the curriculum but also on participants’ ability to implement and manage
reform in the workplace and in society as a whole. It is important to recognize thatgovernance reform is inherently a political process: 1) there are gainers and losers in theprocess of reform; 2) a variety of interests would have to be taken into account; and 3)
reformers create enemies among those who benefit from the status quo. The ability to
execute change in the workplace, thus, requires a set of political leadership skills suchas decision making skills, effective oral, written and presentation skills, including
persuasion, advocacy, mobilization, media relations and a host of organizational andmanagement skills. These skills are seldom learned in one training session and most of
it is acquired through practice and experience. Unfortunately, most of these soft skills
are not typically built into the curriculum of most training designs.
From this perspective, development capacity is a product of organizational
capacities which in turn is a function of a continuous process of achieving a strategic fit
among various hardware and software components of the organization for which
training plays a central role. These relationships are illustrated in Figure 9.

339

Training

Training
Development
Capacity

Development
Capacity

Training

Development
Capacity

Development
Capacity

Training

Figure 9 The relationship among training, organizational capacity anddevelopment capacity
3.3.Capacity Building as Getting Institutions Right
The third component of the framework for capacity building is institutional
reform.
While building individual and organizational capacities are necessary, they are notsufficient. The reason for this is that public sector organizations are embedded in a
broader institutional framework that either facilitates or constrains their effectiveness.
Understanding this institutional context therefore is important. As an example, thedevelopment of market economies require an institutional or legal framework thatdefines, transfers and protect property rights (Figure10). What this implies is thatcapacity building is a process of getting market supporting institutions right.

340

Figure 10 Capacity building as a process of getting market supporting institutions
right
These fundamental functions of defining, transferring and protecting property
rights are expressed in a matrix of formal institutions or laws such as property law,commercial law, contract law, civil law, laws on intellectual property such as trademark,patent and copyright laws, bankruptcy laws, securities regulation, competition laws,banking and finance laws, tax laws, social welfare, environmental and labor laws,
among many others. In all of these, modern bureaucracies – executive, legislative andjudicial bureaucracies play an important role in shaping, monitoring and enforcing theselaws. Put another way, these bureaucracies play an important role in shaping
governance structures, reducing or increasing transaction costs and thereby facilitatingor restricting exchange in a market economy. In this sense, capacity building for themarket economy is a process of getting market supporting institutions right.
Getting institutions right is a process that involves trial and error and takes
considerable political will and time. As the experience of the now developed economies
show, these market supporting institutions have evolved over decades if not centuries.
Annex 4 summarizes the evolution of these market supporting institutions in the now
developed economies. What this lesson from history tells us is that it is unrealistic fordonors to expect developing countries to get their institutions right in a matter of years,
given the challenges that developing countries are struggling with domestically and in
the face of globalization. The other lesson is that, and this is nothing new, if institution
building is to succeed, this process would have to be owned and driven by thedeveloping countries themselves but capacity building assistance can play a role infacilitating this process.

341

4. Conclusion
Conventional models of capacity building in developing countries – trainings,
pilot projects and deployment of foreign technical experts - have been criticized as
being ineffective, inefficient and unsustainable.
Training plays a central role in capacity building yet studies suggest thatcurrent approaches to training are ineffective. For example, in World Bank fundedtrainings, participants learn less than 10 percent of the material; 20 percent of training
courses have no statistically significant impact on learning, individual learning results
are poor predictors of enhanced workplace performance and in only 50 percent of thetime did training lead to substantial changes to work place performance or enhanced
development capacity of target institutions.
Based on the experiences of the World Bank, USAID and JICA, this paper has
proposed a framework for governance capacity building that seeks to integrate andimprove on existing approaches to capacity building at the individual, organizational
and institutional levels. In practice, this means three things. First, get the training modelright. Improving capacity building through training requires improving training
pedagogy, providing adequate support for transfer of learning to the workplace andimproving the targeting of training to organizational needs through strategic participant
selection. The training processes associated with these include 1) training needs
assessment; 2) clear and specific learning goals; 3) professional curriculum design andpedagogy; 4) organizational capacity diagnosis; 5) strategic participant selection; 6)
attention to organizational / institutional context; 7) practical learning exercises; and 8)
mechanisms for follow up support, for example communities of practice. None of these
are new but having a clear model of what constitutes an effective training design canhelp improve training outcomes.
However, individual capacity building is not adequate because individuals – nomatter how well they have been trained – can do little in a dysfunctional organizationalsetting. The second approach to capacity building, therefore, is to help improve thefunctioning of government organizations. One way to do this is to facilitate the processof achieving a strategic fit between the hardware and software components of theorganization using the 7S framework. This means that the hardware components (thestrategy, structure, systems and procedures) are in a strategic fit with the software
components (skills, leadership style and shared values). In this sense, capacity building
suggests the need to develop leadership and political skills to manage organizational
reforms which are not normally taught in technical assistance courses. These set ofleadership skills include decision making skills, effective oral, written and presentation
skills, including persuasion, advocacy, mobilization, media relations and a host oforganizational and management skills. These skills are needed if lessons learned fromtraining courses can be effectively adapted to the context of public organizations andorganizational reforms are to take root and be sustained. Training participants andhelping government agencies improve their administrative systems - the focus of JICA’sefforts – needs to be complemented with other sets of skills needed to facilitate, broaden
and sustain organizational reform efforts.
However, while improving the functioning of government organizations isimportant to capacity building, they are not sufficient especially in the context of adysfunctional institutional environment. Here, capacity building implies the need to get

342the institutions right. In the context of developing market supporting institutions,capacity building requires a focus on three key institutional functions that facilitate thefunctioning of a market economy: developing institutions that help define, transfer
and protect property rights. Getting institutions right is a process that involves trial anderror and takes considerable political will and time, as shown from the experience of
now developed economies. Developing countries, however, need not have to reinvent
the wheel as they can learn from the lessons of history, itself a process that can befacilitated through capacity building.

343

Annex 1 – JICA framework for governance capacity building344

Annex 2 Thematic areas of governance capacity building by JICA
Training

Beneficiary Countries

1.
Capability building for administration of criminal
justice system
Kenya,
Myanmar,
Objectives: i) Improvement of the system for treatment of Philippines, Costa Rica,
criminals, through the dispatch of experts; ii) training China and Central Asia
assistance for improving the capacity of prison guards,
and iii) assistance that contributes to crime prevention
through effective coordination among the police,prosecution and courts
Courses







Crime prevention
Treatment of offenders
Corruption control in criminal justice
Parole probation
Juvenile correctional institutions
Criminal justice system reform

2.
Capacity building for development of national Argentina,
Tanzania,
statistical systems
Indonesia, Myanmar andCambodia
Population census
Economic statisticsManagement information systems

3.

Law enforcement

Indonesia,
Thailand,Cambodia,
Philippines,
Objectives: Assistance aimed at the i) establishment of a Vietnam, China, Iraq,
democratic and highly transparent police system; ii)
improving specific police skills and police organizations,
including criminal
identification, criminal investigation and drug control andimprovement of the police communication system
Courses
Civilian and police relations
Community policing
Criminal investigationPublic securityDrug control
Traffic administration345


Law enforcement Information and administrative
system4.
reformCapacity building for local governance
Urban and rural development
Natural resource management
Human resource management
Local government administration / civil service
Socio economic planning
Decentralized delivery of basic services
Central and local cooperation

Indonesia,
Thailand,Philippine,
Laos,
Cambodia,
Vietnam,
Pakistan, Bhutan, PNG,
Kyrgistan, Honduras, Peru,
Kenya,
Zambia,Tanzania,
Malawi,Afghanistan, Palestine,

5.
Capacity building for legal and judicial
development
Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos,
Objectives: Assist countries in the drafting and enactment Uzbekistan,
China,of bills, improvement of systems for law enforcement, and Indonesia, Mongolia,
the nurturing of the legal profession
Legal and judicial reformTraining of prosecutors and judges
Contract lawCommercial law and arbitration

Civil lawIntellectual Property law
Criminal justice system reforms

6.
Capacity building for administrative reforms
Ghana, Laos, Nepal,
Objectives: Contribute to the improvement of efficiency Argentina,
Vietnam,and effectiveness of administrative functions, harmonized Thailand, Bangladesh
decentralization, and improvement of participation andtransparency
Courses
Public sector capacity trainingAnti – corruption
Public investment programming
Monitoring and evaluation

Human resource management
Project management
Auditing346

7.

Electoral reforms

Central America, Africa,
Objectives: i) Facilitate the development of a democratic Central Asia
political system through the implementation of fair andfree elections; ii) developing a democratic electoral
system (including information provision and awarenessraising, through seminars which introduce the concept of
democratic elections and how elections are held in othercountries); iii) strengthening of election management andelection boards and iv) voter education to promoteparticipation, election monitoring and post-election
follow-up

347

Annex 3 How USAID ties its assistance to the Philippines to its strategic objectives
Source: http://philippines.usaid.gov/

348

ANNEX 4: Summary of the evolution of market supporting institutions in selected OECD countries Source: xx
Democracy
Male Suffrage
Universal Suffrage
Modern Bureaucracy
Modern JudiciaryIntellectual Property Rights
Patent Law'Modern' Patent Law 1'Modern' Copyright Law 2
Trademark Law
Corporate GovernanceInstitutions
Generalized Limited Liability
Bankruptcy Law'Modern' Bankruptcy Law5
'Modern' Auditing/ Disclosure6
Competition Law
Effective Competition Law
Financial Institutions'Modern' Banking7
Central Banking'Modern' Central Banking8
Securities Regulation'Modern' Securities Regulation10
Income Tax
Social Welfare and Labour
Industrial Accident Insurance
Health Insurance

First Adoption

Majority Adoption

Last Adoption

UK

US

1848 (France)
1907 (New Zealand)
19th century (Prussia)

1907 a1946 a1925 (Japan)a1971 (Switzerland)a

1918
1928
mid- 1800s
1930s?

1870

1474 (Venice)1836 (USA)1840s b1912 (Netherlands)b

1623

1793
1836
1891 (1988) 3

1960s

b

1990s (Spain, Canada)

b

1852

1862 (UK)18621844 (Sweden)

1856 (1862) 4
1542
1849
1948
1919
1956

1800
1898
1933
1890
1914

mid- 1920s
1694
1844
1679
1939
1842

1913
1929
mid-1800s
1933
1913

1897
1911

1930
Still absent

1890 (USA)1914 (USA)mid-1920s (UK)1688 (Sweden)
1844 (UK)
1679 (UK)

c

c,9

1847
1891 c1913 (USA)1929 (USA) c,91898 d1911 d1930 (USA, Canada) d
Still absent in the USA d

1842 (UK)
1871 (Germany)
1883 (Germany)

349

State Pension
Unemployment InsuranceChild Labour Regulation
Modern' Child Labour Regulation 11
NOTES:

1889 (Germany)
1905 (France)
1787 (Austria)
1878 (UK/Prussia)

1909 d1920 d1873e

1946 (Switzerland) d1945 (Australia) d1913 (Portugal)e

1908
1911
1802
1878

1946
1935
1904
1938

* The institutions entered in italics denote 'pre-modern' varieties, which fell so short of modern standards in terms of coverage and enforcement thatthey are usually better regarded in a different category to their 'modern' descendants.
a Out of the 19 countries for which the information is available (Australia, Austria. Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Fin and, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain. Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA)b Out of the I 7 countries for which the information is available (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, theNetherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden. Switzerland, UK, USA). At this time, the German states that had patent law were Prussia, Bavaria,
Wiirttemberg, and Saxony. The Italian states that had it were Sardinia and the Vatican State.
c Out of the I I countries for which information is available (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, UK, USA)d. Out of the 17 countries for which information is available (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland. France, Germany, Ireland,
Italy, the Netherlands. New Zealand. Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA)e. Out of the 15 countries for which information is available (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Norway, Portugal. Prussia,
Saxony, Spain. Sweden, Switzerland. UK. USA).
1.
'Modern' patent law is defined as a patent law that has provisions such as strict checks on originality of the invention, equal protection of foreign
citizens' invention, and patents on chemical and pharmaceutical substances.
2.
'Modern' copyright law is defined as a copyright law that, above all, provides equal protection of foreign citizens' copyrights.
3.
Until 1988, the USA did not acknowledge foreign citizens' copyrights unless the material had been printed in the USA
4.
Banks were only given limited liability in 1857 and insurance companies in 1862.
5.
'Modern' bankruptcy law is defined as a bankruptcy law that applies to everyone without any asset threshold and gives the debtors a second
chance.
6.
'Modern' auditing and disclosure rules require external auditing, reporting of up-to-date balance sheets, and the disclosure of detailed
information.
7.
'Modern' banking is defined as banking with very wide coverage, little insider lending, and one price across regions.
8.
'Modern' central banking applies to central banks with a note issue monopoly, acting as lender-of-last-resort, and having control over all banks.
9.
Although the USA established the Federal Reserve System in 1913. even in 1915 only 30 per cent of the banks (accounting for 50 per cent of
total banking assets) were under the system. Until 1929. the Federal Reserve System still did not cover 65 per cent of the banks (although with only 20

350per cent of total banking assets).
10.
'Modern' securities regulation is defined as regulation requiring the faithful representation of information, full information disclosure,
licensing of traders and power of the regulatory authority to initiate investigation.
11.
'Modern' child labour regulation is defined as child labour regulation with comprehensive coverage and effective enforcement351