CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AND INSTITUTIONALCHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
COOPERATION
Shunji MATSUOKA, Ph. D. and Professor
Graduate School of Asia-Pacific Studies, Waseda University
1-21-1 Nishi-Waseda, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 169-0051, Japan
Email: smatsu@waseda.jp

Summary: The capacity development approach was proposed by UNDP and European donors as a
new approach based upon the African aid failure in the1980s and the end of the Cold War instead of
conventional aid approach. In this paper, capacity development approach comes into collision withinstitutional studies in social sciences on purpose to accelerate knowledge evolution. This paper
presents a new perspective on the development process and on aid policy. It is named an approach of―capacity development and institutional change‖. By using this new approach of ―capacity
development and institutional change‖, capacity development is able to cover not only technicalcooperation but also lending matters. Moreover, the program approach is realized into development
strategy and aid policy. The program approach indicates criteria of selectivity and priority ofallocation of development resources including aid resources. Program approach concentrates moreon the policy making process or on the top down (upstream) approach. Furthermore, this paper
shows the importance of field experiences, meaning the advantages of Japanese aid compared toEuropean aid, especially with regards to making the program approach more effective. The micro(field experience) and macro (top down) loop is a critical factor for aid effectiveness.

1. Introduction
During the 1990s, it became apparent that the replacement approach, i.e., the one-sided
transfer of knowledge and technology from advanced countries to developing countries wasinsufficient to deal with the issues of international development assistance. Moreover, a recent study
conducted using the capacity development approach (Fukuda-Parr et al. 2002) revealed that the
self-efforts of the developing countries are necessary to improve their social capacity and enable
them to achieve sustainable development performance. Although there has been some progress in thestakeholder and the institutional analyses (see Morgan and Taschereau, 1996; Lopes and Theisohn,2003), there still exists a need to further intensify the research and development on capacity
assessment and institutional change.
The historical background of capacity development is the failure of African development
assistance in the 1980s and the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Moreover, theacademic background of capacity development is the emerging studies of new or modern
institutional approach in social sciences in the 1980s and 1990s. Capacity development discussions
and institutional studies are different at a glance, but these two have the same orientation when they
focus on the social context and institutions which are formulated historically in developing countries.
This paper aims to accelerate the knowledge exchange between capacity development andinstitutional change, to make a new approach of ―capacity development and institutional change‖ fora new development paradigm.
This paper is divided into seven sections. Section 2 introduces the starting point andhistorical background of capacity development discussions. Section 3 assesses the concept ofcapacity of UNDP and describes how to conceptualize the social capacity development process.
Section 4 discusses what institutions mean. Section 5 provides a detailed description of the following
analytical methods of social capacity assessment: (1) actor-factor Analysis; (2) indicator47

development; (3) institutional analysis; (4) path analysis; and (5) development stage analysis.
Section 6 discusses the program design for social capacity development and institutional change
based on the analytical approaches described in section 5. Finally, section 7 presents the summaries
and conclusions of this analysis.
In this paper, the author comes to the conclusion that we should evolve a new approach of―capacity development and institutional change‖ from the ―capacity development approach‖ and thisnew approach logically needs to be based on a program approach which stands on a wider scope ofoperations, bigger budget, more human resources, and longer time period. Moreover, a clear
selection criteria of aid allocation promoting aid effectiveness is needed for a new approach of―capacity development and institutional change‖ as stated in the Paris Declaration in 2005.
2. The Starting Point of Capacity Development
The discussion of capacity development has, roughly speaking, been focused on two
historical events; one is the failure of African development and the other is the end of the Cold War.
Most Western donors have been mainly implementing their aid activities in Africancountries. However, many African countries recorded minus economic growth ratios in terms of
GDP per capita in the 1980s and the minus growth also meant the failure of African aid by European
donors. At the same time, the development society paid more attention to evaluate aid activities froma more comprehensive point of view. Due to these situations, conventional aid approach wascriticized for low effectiveness and low efficiency. Donors had to change their conventional
approach. This has been discussed extensively in Robert Cassen’s well known book; ―Does Aid
Work?‖ (1986).
Moreover, the end of the Cold War meant that the political motivation to assist developing
countries in Western countries decreased, and as a result an era of ―aid fatigue‖ came about in
European countries.
African aid failure and the end of the Cold War caused many critiques on European donors,
especially on technical cooperation.
Fukuda-Parr Sakiko wrote about the following in her edited book in 2002.
"Technical cooperation is still frequently criticized for:
*Undermining local capacity: Rather than helping to build sustainable institutions and othercapabilities, technical cooperation tends to displace or inhibit local alternatives.
*Distorting priorities: The funding for technical cooperation generally bypasses budgetaryprocesses, escaping the priority-setting disciplines of formal reviews.
*Choosing high-profile activities: Donors frequently cherry-pick the more visible activities
that appeal to their home constituencies, leaving recipient governments to finance the other routine
but necessary functions as best they can.
*Fragmenting management: Each donor sends its own package of funds and other resources
for individual programmes, and demands that recipients follow distinctive procedures, formats andstandards for reporting, all of which absorb scare time and resources.
*Using expensive methods: Donors often require that projects purchase goods and hire
experts from the donor country, although it would be far cheaper to source them elsewhere.
*Ignoring local wishes: the donors pay too little attention either to the communities who aresupposed to benefit from development activities, to the local authorities, or to NGOs, all of whomshould comprise the foundation on which to develop stronger local capacity.
*Fixating on targets: Donors prefer activities that display clear profiles and tangible outputs.
Successful capacity development, on the other hand is only intrinsically included.‖ (Fukuda-Parr etal. 2002, pp.5-8.)
According to these kinds of criticism, UNDP and the European donors developed thediscussion of capacity development (Fukuda-Parr 1996, Fukuda-Parr, Lopes, and Malik 2002).
In Japan, JICA has strongly advocated the capacity development approach from the 2000s
and has published many materials and documents such as the ―Handbook of Capacity Development‖
in 2004.
There are several discussion points on the development communities’ discussion of capacity
development.
48

Firstly, the capacity development approach must not focus on technical cooperation. The
capacity development approach should cover not only technical cooperation but also concessionalloans to build infrastructure. The building of economic and social infrastructure is not only a fiscal
matter but it heavily depends on the local capacity and institutions in developing countries.
Secondly, institutions are critically important for the capacity development processes.
However, the discussion of capacity development in the past did not fully pay attention to therelationship between the capacity development and the institutional change. The capacity depends on
institutions, while institutions depend on the capacity in the society. The development process of thecapacity in the society will cause institutional change that means the change of collective actions inthe society. Institutional change will develop social capacity in developing countries.
Thirdly, the historical background of capacity development discussion in Japan is quite
different from Europe’s. As I mentioned already, the European discussion is based upon European
donors’ experience of giving aid to Africa and the African aid failure in the 1980s. However, themain focus of Japanese aid has been on East Asia and most of East Asian countries developed
dramatically in the 1980s and 1990s. The Japanese discussion on the capacity development reflects
recent successes of economic development in East Asia. Therefore, it is difficult to make thelimitation of conventional Japanese aid approach clear. Since JICA has been successful in theirdevelopment aid approach as can be seen in their projects in East Asia, they have not felt it importantto change their development approach.
For example, JICA aims to transform their operational framework from project management
to program management in the ―Management Handbook of JICA Operation‖ in the end of 2007.
However, the program management in this document means that a program is based upon a set ofseveral projects in a similar field. Project based program management is a more suitable word for
JICA’s program management approach.
3. What is meant by Capacity?
In this section, we discuss what capacity is in order to pick up environmental management
capacity cases in developing countries.
According to UNDP and JICA, ―Capacity is defined as the ability to perform functions, solve
problems, and set and achieve objectives‖ (Fukuda-Parr et al. 2002, p.8) and the capacity consists ofthree levels; individuals, organizations/institutions, and society. However, UNDP’s definition on thecapacity is not effective to solve micro/macro paradox due to its approach from individual to society.
As this paper discusses on institutions in the section 4, UNDP’s definition is based upon themethodological individualism. We have to understand dual characteristics of the capacity. Therefore,
this paper defines the capacity from a macro view point.
Determining the target capacity level and obtaining information about the system factors of
capacity development, i.e., socio-economic factors, environmental quality, and external factors, arethe initial problems faced during the assessment of social capacity. Since the SCA has to be appliedby the developing countries, it should be inexpensive, simple, and based on scientific research.
Moreover, the development of the self-assessment ability of a developing country must also be
considered, in order to enable the country to assess its own social capacity.
The Social Capacity for Environmental Management (SCEM) is defined as the capacity to
manage environmental problems in a social system composed of three social actors, i.e., government,
firms, and citizens and their interrelationships (see Figure 1). The Social Environmental
Management System (SEMS) is defined as the system of interaction between the SCEM andinstitutions (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 also shows the interrelationships between the SEMS, the socio-economic
conditions, the environmental qualities, and the external factors in the total system. The SEMS of acountry is constrained by the existing socio-economic conditions and the condition of theenvironmental quality. Furthermore, here we observe the inter-prescribing relations between
environmental quality and socio-economic conditions (See, e.g., Matsuoka and Kuchiki 2003,
Matsuoka et al. 2004 and Matsuoka ed. 2007).
As evident in figure 3, the SCA is designed to analyze the interactions between the SEMS,
the socio-economic condition, and the environmental quality of the total system. Apart from this, it is49

also designed to analyze the social capacity of each actor and the interactions between all the social
actors. Thus, the SCA reveals the current social capacity and the development path of a particularregion and/or a country. The SCA includes the following five steps: 1. Actor-Factor Analysis, 2.
Indicator Development, 3. Institutional Analysis, 4. Path Analysis, and 5. Developing Stage Analysis.
The section 5 provides a brief introduction to these steps.

Figure 1 Social capacity for
Environmental Management

Figure 2 Social Environmental

Source: Matsuoka and Kuchiki (2003)

Management in Total System
Source: Matsuoka (2005)

Figure 3
SCEM and Social Capacity Assessment
Source: Matsuoka (2005)
4. What is meant by Institutions?
A debate on traditional capacity development has developed from the following:
conceptualization of capacity development, the relationship between capacity development anddevelopment policy, and the methodology to embody the capacity development (Machida & Hayashi
2006). Even though there are various debates on capacity development, its theorization andembodiment has not necessarily developed because developing countries did not regard institutionalchange as an essential factor. The previous studies by North and Aoki show the importance ofinstitutional approach. Institutional approach has been studied by not only economics but also50political science and sociology. Putnam, a political scientist and Coleman, a sociologist both develop
the theory of social capital, while Rosenau studies institutions related to governance from thediscipline of international relations (Hodgson 1998, Williamson 2000, and Isoya 2004).
North (1990) defines institutions as the following. Institutions are the rules of the game in asociety or, more formally, the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction. As aconsequence, they structure incentives in human exchange, whether political, social, or economic(North 1990, p.3). Whether it is formal institutions such as law or informal institutions such as social
norm, institutions form the way people behave in the society.
Aoki (2001) points out the importance of comparative institutional analysis based on thegame-theoretic approach. He defines institutions as self-managed systems shared with groups andanalyzes how people play an important role in the game. The economic entity is deeply related to
how people make their strategic choices. Therefore, institutions are formed by strategic interaction
by economic entities, but their strategic choices are always made under ever-changing environment(Aoki 2001, p.33).
Ostrom (2005), who studies the ―commons‖ phenomenon, broadly defines institutions as thefollowing: Institutions are the prescriptions that humans use to organize all forms of repetitive andstructured interactions including those within families, neighborhoods, markets, firms, sports leagues,
churches, private associations, and governments at all scales. Moreover, she expresses institutions as
rule-structured situations (Ostrom 2005, p.3).
Strictly speaking, there are some differences in the meanings and definitions of institutions
that North, Aoki, and Ostrom defined, but their definitions are similar in some respects. Institutions
mean that a variety of actors who construct society have their own recurrent activities in theirinterrelationships. If individual action is regulated by traditional rules or social norms, it will beclassified as informal institution, while if it is related to legal laws that people must obey, it will beclassified as formal institution.
North regards institutions as patterned objects conducted by social actions of people, while
Aoki and Ostrom regard institutions as objects based on methodological individualism, so they
insists that these institutions are sometimes re-established, developed, and disappear, in order for
people to facilitate their social actions. Institutional change is caused by efficiency such as socialtransaction cost reduction and its change which is connected to some sort of sustainability. Needlessto say, institutions formed throughout history have constructed ―a bundle of institutions‖ which has acharacteristic of durability. Therefore it is not easy for institutions to change. In many cases,
institutional change is the gradual process characterized by ―path dependency‖.
On the other hand, Scott (1994) has different opinions regarding institutions. According to
his definition, institutions consist of cognitive, normative, and regulative structures which provide ameaning and stability for social actions. Institutions themselves give a meaning and stability topeople’s social actions. Where institutions already exist, they are seen as methodological holism.
Therefore, the mechanism of institutional change is expressed as the weeding-out or the evolutional
process conducted by collective actions in the society. Scott’s institutions that take the side ofmethodological holism focus more on the process of social development than North’s institutions do.
Institutions have two characteristics, one as institutions that regulate people’s behavior andtwo, as institutions that expand the possibility of people’s behavior (Isoya 2004). With regards to therelationships between social capacity and institutions, institutions are prescribed by social capacity,and they can also cause institutional change by the development of social capacity. For that reason,social capacity and institutions have interdependent relationships. Given that institutions have thetwo characteristics stated above, the ―micro/macro loop‖ will be formed by adopting social capacity
at the micro level and institutions at the macro level when human action and social capacity aretransmitted by these institutions (Alexander 1987, Imai & Kaneko 1998, and Shiozawa 1999). To
make the micro/macro loop, institutions are critically important factors to transport information
between the micro and the macro, and to set up the place of knowledge creation.
In order to bring capacity development into place, it is necessary to change people’s
behavior by new institutions. The author concludes that institutional changes should be clearlyspecified in the definitions of capacity development. Therefore the author suggests that the capacity
development approach needs to evolve into a new approach, the ―capacity development andinstitutional change approach‖.
51

5. Social Capacity Assessment (SCA)
In this section, social capacity assessment method is discussed in detail for realize a new
approach ―capacity development and institutional change‖ into international development
cooperation.
5.1. Actor-Factor Analysis
The actor-factor analysis reveals the level of social capacity by combining the results of boththe actors and factors approaches. This provides us with a concrete estimation of the social capacity.
The results obtained by the actor-factor analysis enable us to design suitable programs forinternational development assistance.
In order to appropriately conduct the actor-factor analysis, we propose an actor-factor
matrix (see Table 1) of 3 actors and 3 factors, i.e., a 3×3 matrix. The data used to construct thismatrix is obtained from statistical tables and through the interview and survey of each social actor.
The cells of this matrix indicate the level of social capacity attained by each social actor. Table 1
displays the information regarding the programs and projects designed to compensate for thecapacity gap, i.e., the difference between the actual social capacity and the critical minimum ofsocial capacity established for each social actor’s contribution to the designated factors.
Table 1

Actor-Factor Analysis: The Actor-Factor Matrix

Source:Matsuoka et al. (2008)

The critical minimum that is obtained for each factor and is assumed to yield good results interms of the environmental performance is distributed among the actors proportional to the roles they
perform in their respective societies. However, this distribution is not always fixed, and changes in
the initial situation might induce changes in the distribution of the critical minimum. These changes
depend on institutions such as a political system and the relationship between the actors, historicalpath dependency, and the characteristics of the environmental problem. Moreover, the time required
for the transition to the next development stage might also induce changes in the distribution ofcritical minimum among the social actors. (For details, see section 3.5).
For the purpose of our analysis, we assume the government (G), firms (F) and citizens (C)as the social actors. However, it is also possible to consider a collection of scientists and media as
the fourth social actor (Zhang et al. 2004). Furthermore, we define the SCEM as the environmental
management capacity stipulated by the capacity levels of the social actors and the correlation
between them. Table 2 shows the classification of actors that are targeted for assessment. Amongprevious researches that have contributed to our understanding of the factors of environmental
management capacity, the joint work by the UNEP and WHO, which focused on the air quality
management capacities in cities, is worth a mention (UNEP/WHO 1996). The above-mentioned
52

study assumes that the capacity for air quality management comprises four elements (see Figure 4).
However, the targets in this study were limited to the capacity of the government and the local
administration for managing the air quality. Thus, we focus on extending this parameter of analysis
by including the capacities of firms and citizens. Table 3 shows an example of the results of anassessment using the actor-factor analysis for air quality management in China. Considering thecapacity of the government in China, we find that the critical minimum for the capacity for air
quality management had been achieved during the mid 1990s.
Table 2

Classification of Actors in the Actor-Factor Analysis

Source:Figure 4

Matsuoka et al. (2008)

Air quality management capacities

Source: UNDP/WHO (1996)

53

Table 3

Actor-Factor Analysis: Air Quality Management in China

Source:Matsuoka et al. (2008)

5.2. Indicator Development
We develop two SCEM indicators using the following different statistical approaches: (1)Frontier/Tobit approach and (2) Factor Analysis approach. This section describes the methodology
and the empirical applications of both these approaches.
5.2.1. Frontier/Tobit ApproachThis approach is based on the Total System conceptual framework. In this framework, the
SCEM as well as socio-economic conditions are included as a single component influencing theenvironmental performance (see Figure 2). Our analytical framework is as follows: First, thedirectional distance function estimates the emission-based environmental efficiency asenvironmental performance (of air quality). The Tobit model is then applied and the estimatedenvironmental efficiency is used to identify the SCEM variables affecting the efficiency scores.
Finally, the SCEM indicator is calculated as the weighted average of the SCEM variables.
We begin our analysis with the measurement of the environmental efficiency. Figure 5
illustrates the relationship between production (y) and the corresponding SO2 emissions (b). Supposethat the current level of production of a firm i is y, while the observed SO2 emission level is b.
However, if this firm incorporates and operates with the best practice technology, then the SO 2
emission can be reduced to b* with the output remaining constant. The production frontier line
indicates the efficient (i.e., minimum feasible) SO2 emission at the given output. We define
environmental efficiency as the distance between observed and efficient levels of SO 2 (b, b*); thesmaller the distance the greater is the efficiency. In this study, the environmental efficiency isempirically estimated by using the directional distance function (Fare et al. 1994).
Once the environmental efficiency is estimated, the next step is to evaluate the role of the
SCEM using the Tobit model. In this study, the Tobit model selects one SCEM variable for each of
the three actors, The identified variables are used to construct the indicator for the SCEM. This isdefined as follows:



~
~
~
Sit   g Git   f Fit  c Cit



(1)

54

~

~

~

where S it is the level of SCEM for province i in year t. Git , Fit , Cit represent theenvironmental management capacities of the government, the firms, and the citizens, respectively.
 g ,  f , and  c represent their weights. These are adjusted such that  g   f   c  1 . Thus,
our indicator proves to be a convenient measure because it always ranges between 0 and 1.

Figure 5 Production frontier and environmental efficiency
Source: Tanaka and Watanabe (2005)
An empirical application of this framework is conducted by using the province-level data ofChina’s manufacturing industry from the period 1994–2002. Using the Tobit model, we identify the
total number of monitoring stations as the government’s capacity and the ratio of SO 2 reduction as
the firms’ capacity. However, due to limited data, we are unable to include the citizens’ capacity as apart of our model. Thus, the SCEM in this application refers only to the capacities of the government
and the firms.
Figure 6 depicts the SCEM and the normalized SO2 emissions in China’s manufacturingsector for the period 1994–2002. The figure indicates a significant increase of nearly 40% in the
SCEM - from 0.25 in 1994 to 0.35 in 2002 - during the estimation period. In addition, the SO 2
emission is shown to be fairly responsive to the SCEM. Figure 7 illustrates the environmental
management capacities for the government and the firms during the same estimation period. The
firms’ capacity (SO2 reduction rate) increased from 0.19 in 1994 to 0.42 in 2002 - an increase of
more than 120%. On the other hand the government’s capacity (total number of monitoring stations)development rate improved by a mere 8%, i.e., from 0.31 in 1994 to 0.34 in 2002. Thus, the SCEM
development in this period is largely due to an improvement in the firms’ capacity, while thecontribution by the government is rather limited.
In this section, we developed the indicator for the SCEM using the Frontier/Tobit approach.
We observed a rapid increase in the SCEM in China for the period 1994–2002. Moreover, the results
indicated a significant contribution of the firms in the development of the SCEM, while suggesting alimited contribution of the government. However, in order to provide future suggestions andrecommendations, a further interpretation of these results is required. Finally, this approach can beextended to conduct an international comparison using international panel data. In future studies, wewill use the same approach to analyze the SCEM development in Asian countries.

55

Figure 6 SCEM indicator and SO2

Figure 7 Actor-specific environmental

emission in China’s manufacturing

management capacity

Sector

Source: Tanaka and Watanabe (2005)

Source: Tanaka and Watanabe (2005)

5.2.2. Factor analysis approach
Factor analysis is a statistical analysis technique that is used to uncover the latent
relationships between many observed variables. This approach allows numerous correlated variablesof air quality management policy to be summarized by fewer
Table 4 Factor Loading and Contribution of Factor Loading (1) (Kitakyushu-city)

Source: Murakami and Matsuoka (2005)

Table 5 Factor Loading and Contribution of Factor Loading (2) (Osaka-city)

Source: Murakami and Matsuoka (2005)

dimensions, i.e., factors. In the context of this research, the factors are interpreted as the elements of56

capacity for air quality management that contribute to the environmental performance. Murakami
and Matsuoka (2005) estimate the factors of government capacity for air quality management in
Kitakyushu and Osaka cities by using the factor analysis. In this study, the capacity for air quality
management is assumed to be equal to the factor scores and to the contribution of factor loadingsthat are estimated by using the data on air quality management policies in Kitakyushu and Osaka
cities from 1970 to 2000. Tables 4 and 5 show the results of factor analysis for each city. The screen
test for factor analysis reveals four elements of capacity in each city. The four elements are further
arranged into three factors, i.e., Policy & Measure, Human & Organization, and Knowledge &Technology (see Table 6).
By using the factor scores and the contribution of factor loadings, we estimate the weighted
average for all the four elements. This is assumed to be an indicator of the capacity for air quality
management in each city. The contribution of factor loadings is assumed to be the weights forcapacity elements. The average weights of the factors of capacity of the two cities are as follows:
Knowledge & Technology is 7.5%, Human & Organization is 47.3%, and Policy & Measure is
31.8%.
Table 6

Correlation of the Three Actors and Critical Minimum

Note: The State of Correlation of the Three Actors has an effect on the Critical Minimum Level.
Source: Matsuoka et al. (2008)

Figure 8 Trend of government capacity

Figure 9 Trend of government capacity for air

quality management (Kitakyushu-city in Japan)

quality management (Osaka-city in Japan)

Source: Murakami and Matsuoka (2005)

Source: Murakami and Matsuoka (2005)

57

Figure 8 and 9 show the change in the government’s capacity for air quality managementfrom 1970 to 2000. It can be observed that the rapid improvement in government capacity in theearly 1970s resulted in a dramatic reduction in the SO 2 concentration. Additionally, the effects ofeach indicator of capacity on the SO2 concentration are estimated by a simple regression analysis.
5.3. Institutional Analysis
The institutional analysis of the SCA investigates a group of institutions (see, e.g., Aoki andOkuno, 1996) that constrain social actors’ activities and capacities. It also regulates the current
capacity level and affects the future formulations of social capacity. Therefore, this study will focus
on the role of the individual institutions and the group of institutions as well as the processes oftransitions among them. For this purpose, we will classify the institutions into two categories:
principal institutions and secondary institutions, and then, we will classify each category into two
subcategories, i.e., formal and informal institutions.
The method of classifying an institution as a principal or a secondary institution is based on
analyzing them according to the level of their incentive or disincentive, i.e., the upper levels are
principal institutions, and the lower levels are secondary institutions. Further, in order to classify theinstitutions into the subcategories, i.e., formal and informal institutions, this study follows North’s
study (1990) and defines formal institutions as public formalized rules, such as state laws, andinformal institutions as unspoken rules, such as social norms and customs that influence the behaviorof social actors.
While investigating informal institutions, we pay close attention to the changes in therelationships between the social actors. Figure 10 indicates the basic concepts for analyzing theinformal institutions. Based on these concepts, we identify three types of relationships between thesocial actors: one-side (or direct) relationships, mutual relationships, and multilateral relationships(partnership). As shown in table 6, each relationship has an effect on the critical minimum capacityof each actor. Thus, the next step is to analyze the impact of each relationship between the actors on
their critical minimum capacities.
In order to conduct this analysis, we introduce a case study wherein we have analyzed theinstitutional changes in Ube City. Ube City, often referred to as the ―Ube Model‖ or the ―Ube
System‖ (Nose, 1996), is a model Japanese city that has succeeded in effectively managing the
problem of air pollution. The most important characteristic of the Ube model is that thedecision-making process is not solely dependent on government regulations; rather, it is a joint
exercise carried out by a committee comprising representatives from industry, government,
educational system, and general population. It is therefore believed that the spirit of the Ube model
can be replicated by formally institutionalizing the informal institutions, however, keeping in mind,
the specific culture and customs of a city (see Table 7).

58

Figure 10 The Benchmarks for the social actor’s relationship
Source: Matsuoka et al. (2008)

Table 7The Benchmarks for The Social Actor’s Relationships

Source:Matsuoka et al. (2008)59

Table 8

Environmental Policy and the Characteristics in Ube City

Source. Matsuoka et al. (2004)

Table 8 indicates the environmental policies and their characteristics in Ube City. Figure 11
shows the relationship between institutional changes (formal and informal) and the SCEM of Ube
City, while figure 12 shows the systemic change and the formulation of SCEM in Ube City. Thus,
we observe that as compared with the policy for dust pollution, the measures for controlling SO2 in
Ube City were delayed until the enactment of the pollution control agreement in 1970. According tothis investigation, we conclude that (1) the knowledge and technology were not sufficient to control
SO2 pollution in Ube City, and (2) the characteristics of the Ube Model. Thus, these conclusions
highlight the following:(1) The institutions needed for controlling pollution differ on a case by case basis and dependon the type of pollution;(2) The efficiency of the performance of the institutions is closely related to the SCEM in theregion.
Therefore, in order to achieve a higher capacity level for a country, it is important to analyze
the nature of the existing institutions, i.e., whether they are principal/secondary and formal/informal.
Moreover, it is also important to ascertain whether the actors’ capacities of environmental
management satisfy the efficient performance requirement of the institution.
5.4. Path Analysis
The path analysis clarifies the information and the conditions that are prerequisites for setting
a rational capacity level target. Moreover, an analysis of the path (strategy or program) adopted forthe current social capacity level helps in identifying the ideal path toward achieving the set target.
As discussed in the previous section, social capacity is developed through the interactions
between the actors and the institutions. In a broader sense, we can consider the capacity level as
defined by the interrelationship among the capacity level, the socio-economic levels and theperformance levels (environmental quality). First, the path analysis deals with the development60

process of the total system, which consists of three components.

Figure11 Institutional change and social capacity environmental management
Source: Matsuoka et al. (2004)

Figure 12 Social capacity for environmental management in Ube City
Source: Matsuoka et al. (2004)

Figure 13

Transition of SCEM, socio-economic conditions, and environmental performance:
The case of SO2 in Japan
Source: Ministry of Environment, Japan (2005)

61

Figure 14
Path analysis
Source: Matsuoka et al. (2008)
Figure 13 informs us about the indicators pertain to SO 2 in Japan. We adopted the SO 2
general monitoring stations as the capacity level, per capita GDP as the socio-economic level, andthe performance level as the average monitoring data at the stations; although, due to limited
information, this data was compiled after the peak of the observed SO 2 value. According to thefigure, we observe that until the mid 1980s all the three components improved (capacity andsocio-economic level increased, while the performance level decreased). However, post the 1980s
the socio-economic level continued to improve, while the capacity level remained almost constantand the performance level stabilized at a low level. Based on this information, it can be said that
until the mid 1980s the system operated efficiently resulting in an improvement in the environmental
performance. However, since then the system continues to operate at a necessary minimum capacity,irrespective of any improvement in the socio-economic level.
By conducting a thorough analysis of the cases of different countries and theirenvironmental issues, we can identify the characteristics responsible for the improvement of theenvironmental performance in each case. For example, figure 14 clearly demonstrates the differences
between the cases wherein the adopted path changes from SCEM-led to socio-economic
conditions-led and vice versa. Moreover, such a path analysis enables us to identify the course that
we must adopt for improving environmental performance in the future.
Thus far, we have focused on the change in the level of the three components of the total
system. However, in order to understand the development process of the system, it is necessary to
bear in mind that these changes do not occur independently; rather, they undergo a transition in thecontext of the interrelationship between the three components. Honda et al. (2004) analyzed therelationship between these three components for 47 prefectures in Japan. From among these analyses
related to several environmental issues, let us present the case of SO 2. The analysis is carried out
using the Granger Causality Test and is based on the data for the period ranging from 1982 to 2000.
Figure 15 confirms the existence of interrelationships between the three components for 23 out of 47
prefectures. In order to complete the path analysis, we need to verify the hypothesis that the change
would occur from a state of weak or partial interrelationship at an early stage to that of a strong
interrelationship with an interactive impact on all the three components (we do not exclude thepossibility of plural paths to achieve the target). Thus, we shall now investigate the methodology andpursue these analyses.
In addition, the development processes of the capacities of social actors and theirrelationships also form a part of the path analysis’ targets. In this case, we assume a certain level ofsubstitutability among the actors; for instance, part of the government’s role can be borne by a firm
or a citizen. Future efficient capacity development paths are different for cases with different paths,
such as government-led and citizen-led; however, they have the same level of social capacity as awhole. Regarding aid policy, this proposition implies that there should be cases wherein firms or62

citizens would not rely on the government to government approach and would be the direct
beneficiaries of the aid.

Figure 15

Interrelationship between SCEM, socio-economic conditions, andenvironmental performance
Source: Honda et al. (2004)

5.5. Development Stage Analysis
The development stage analysis that is conducted on the basis of the actor/factor analysis, theindicator development, the institutional analysis, and the path analysis, aims at specifying thedevelopment stage based on the benchmarks and then presenting the development process and the
direction for further development. The analytical results highlight certain preconditions that clarify
appropriate quantity, quality, and timing of input in order to enable development and aid policies tobe implemented as programs.
Matsuoka and Kuchiki (2003), bearing in mind industrial pollution, assumed the following
three development stages for the SEMS: system-making stage, system-working stage, andself-management stage. Table 9 indicates the stages and the benchmarks of SEMS.

63

Table 9 The Stages and Benchmarks of Social Environmental Management System

Source: Matsuoka and Kuchiki (2003)

The system-making stage focuses on the development of the fundamental functions of theSEMS. Since this stage particularly focuses on the capacity development in the government sector,
the benchmarks in this stage should be the development of the environmental law (basic law and acts
for specific pollution control mechanisms), environmental administration, and environmental
information. With regard to the environmental information benchmark, it is important to arrange thedata by networking, understanding the environmental status, and then presenting the policy measures.
Thus, we use not only the number of monitoring stations but also the first publication of the State of
the Environment and the like as specific evaluation indicators.
In the system-working stage, the system actually starts functioning to improve theenvironmental quality. This occurs in response to the improvement of the basic environmental
administrative institutions. As the pollution trend changes—from increasing to decreasing—aturning point of the so-called environmental Kuznets curve is observed. With reference to this, we
focus upon the results of the implementation of government regulation (reduction of pollution byfirms) and the consequent change to a decrease in pollution levels. In order to evaluate theachievement of pollution reduction measures, the standard achievement ratio of SOx—a typicalindustrial pollutant—will be observed as the indicator. If the achievement ratio for all the monitoring
stations in the country is higher than 90%, then it is considered to be an indication of the end of SOx
64pollution. In developed countries, the Command and Control (CAC) has played a significant role inpollution reduction at the system-working stage. The CAC requires the government to utilize its
administrative capacity in order to understand the state of pollution, set regulation standards, andensure that those responsible for pollution are complying with the regulations. It is observed that ascompared to the governments of developed countries, the governments of developing countries lack
this administrative capacity and are therefore ineffective in implementing the CAC. However,pollution reduction can be realized efficiently by effectively introducing the market based
instruments (MBIs) for environmental regulation and utilizing the market mechanism (Matsuoka,
2000).
The self-management stage is the stage wherein the system develops in a sustainable
manner through the strong interrelations between the government, firms, and citizens, and acomprehensive environmental policy is enforced. At this stage, firms and citizens voluntarily adopt
and participate in initiatives for environmental management. For instance, firms voluntarily upgrade
their facilities in order to obtain the ISO 14000 certification as an in-house environmental
management program, and in order to increase the efficiency of environmental management, they
adopt environmental accounting. Moreover, they highlight their environmental management
achievements in order to court consumer appreciation and thus gain a competitive advantage in themarket. With regard to international cooperation, at this stage, a developing country becomes lessdependent on donor's assistance and utilizes its own financial and human resources.
As a country experiences the development of SEMS, the roles and relationships of the three
actors also evolve. The government sector plays an important role in managing and coordinating
issues at the system-making and system-working stages; however, at the self-management stage, its
responsibility evolves to supporting the firms and the citizens by designing a framework forcomprehensive environmental management.

Figure 16
Development stages of SCEM: The case of China
Source: Japan Society for International Development (2004)

65

Figure 17
Social capacity development in trade: Malaysian case
Source: Hiroshima University - Mitsubishi Research Institute Inc. Joint Venture (2005)
Figure 16 shows the development of SCEM with the stages and benchmarks mentioned
above (China's case). Considering economic indicators or passage of time as the horizontal principal
and SCEM index (a group of indicators) as the vertical principal, it can be presumed that, by andlarge, China adopted the capacity development process that is shown in the figure. After theenactment of the Environmental Protection Law as the starting point of system-making, China
entered a full-scale system-working stage during the 9th Five Year Plan (1996–2000). The 10th Five
Year Plan (2001–2005) further accelerated this process. It is expected that China will be able to lay
the foundation for initiating the self-management stage between the period of the Beijing Olympic
Games in 2008 and the Shanghai Expo in 2010.
In terms of relationship between the three actors, the SEMS in China has changed drastically.
As shown in figure 16, the government had exclusively performed all the functions and roles at thesystem-making stage. However, during the system-working stage, although the government
continued to institute vigorous steps, the firms did render some important tangible contributions tocurtail pollution. In addition, the relationships between the actors, particularly between thegovernment and the firms grew stronger. Based on this, we can expect that during theself-management stage, a more balanced relationship, entailing the promotion of environmental
industry and self-sustained growth of an environment-oriented market will be developed.
Moreover, we have also begun to apply the development stage analysis beyond the field ofenvironmental management. Figure 17 describes the development stage analysis of social capacity
development for trade (particularly export promotion) in Malaysia. The research is conducted for the
JICA evaluation project (Thematic Evaluation: Economic Partnership). We observe that it is possible
to conduct the analysis based on a similar format of benchmarks and stage setting; nevertheless, thetrade capacity has its peculiar characteristics, such as the limited role of citizens and the vulnerabilityof performance level to external conditions.
This section introduced and discussed the basic designs of specific analytical methods thatform the components of the SCA. The methodology enabled developing countries themselves tounderstand the current state of pollution and the problem of social capacity. Adopting the analyticalmethod mentioned here as a precondition, the final section deals with the following question: How totransform development and aid policies into effective programs for attaining the capacity level thatdeveloping countries regard as their target.
6. Designing the Program for Social Capacity Development and Institutional ChangeThis section describes the program design for social capacity development and institutionalchange. Based on the SCA framework, the author develops the program approach to identify thetarget level of capacity, and to provide specific strategies to achieve the target. The program presents
an overall package consisting of: (1) the relationship between social actors, (2) the input
66resources—their quantity and timing, and (3) the institutional changes.
The program approach differs from the conventional stand-alone projects in many respects.
This approach considers the following: (a) wide and systematic approach; (b) recognition of mutual
dependence of society, economy, and culture; (c) long-term project implementation; (d) the
harmonization of system development and its process; (e) focus on the capacity of the recipient
countries; and (f) cost reduction by avoiding redundant aid projects (Bolger 2000). Table 10 shows adetailed comparison between stand-alone projects and the program for social capacity development.
Sector-wide approaches (SWAPs) for social capacity development can be classified as oneof the approaches of the program. The SWAPs are primarily carried out in basic education andhealthcare sectors in the African countries. Jones and Lawson (2000) characterize the SWAPs as
follows: (i) the harmonization of policies between the donor and recipient countries (policyalignment), (ii) efficiency improvement in internal and external resource allocations, (iii) developing
partnerships with local stakeholders, and (iv) emphasis on ownership. This characterization, however,is insufficient. According to the new definition discussed in this paper, the program is defined as aprogram involving three actors (government, firms, and citizens) and three factors (policy andmeasure, human and organizations, and knowledge and technology). Thus, the new social capacity
development approach always takes the form of the program.
Table 10Programs and Stand-alone Projects

Source: Lavergne and Alba (2003)

67

Figure 18
SCA and Program Design
Source: Matsuoka et al. (2008)
The program design begins with social capacity assessment based on the actor-factor matrix
presented in figure 18. When analyzing the pollution problem, the matrix is used to evaluate: (1) the
current capacity for pollution abatement, (2) the critical minimum capacity during thesystem-working stage, and (3) the gap between current and critical minimum capacities.
It should be noted that in this paper, it is assumed that capacities are substitutable between
the actors, but not between the factors, i.e., the capacities are complements between the factors. For
instance, suppose that the critical minimums for policy and measure, human and organizations, andknowledge and technology are 30, 50, and 10, respectively. Then, the critical minimum of policy andmeasure (30) can either be accepted solely by the government or it can also be accepted by thegovernment and the firms jointly. Any combination of actors is possible in order to achieve thecritical minimum; however, this is not true in the case of factors. Thus, the ―Substitutability ofactors‖ and ―complementarities of factors‖ are equally important in our framework. The capacity
gaps identified through the actor-factor matrix are expected to be filled by the projects. These
projects are the ones based on the program (referred to as program-based projects) and are different
from the conventional stand-alone projects.
Entry and exit points of the program and the projects themselves can be determined throughthe development stage analysis of social capacity. Figure 19 illustrates the brown issue example. The
figure shows the following institutional milestones during the system-making stage: (1) enacting
environmental law, (2) the establishment of environmental administration, and (3) environmental
information disclosure. Technical aids, such as the environmental center, are commonly provided by
the JICA and can be effective in the latter half of the system-making stage (i.e., developing thesystem of environmental information disclosure).
In the system-working stage, it is important to focus on environmental business planning,68resource allocation and organizational development, and research and development pertaining topollution reduction. In addition to these, the pollution control management certification system,compliance with regulations, and financial assistance for developing environmental technologies arealso important. Aid programs/projects can generally reach their exit point when the level of pollution
decreases as per the target. In this stage, the environmental cooperation is horizontal, such astechnology exchange, research exchange, and civil exchange. At the same time, the environmental
policy measures take the form of economic instruments and self-regulation. Once this is achieved,
the recipient countries will gradually move toward the self-management stage.
Based on the basic design of the SCA studies, Figure 19 shows an entry and exit point of aid
in the case of social capacity and institutional change of environmental management in developing
countries.

Figure 19
Entry, Exit Point, and the Development Stages
Source: Matsuoka et al. (2007)

7.

Conclusions

Considering the previous sections, what does a new approach to ―capacity development andinstitutional change‖ mean as a development aid policy? Considering that the new JICA will embody
the aid approach, what does it mean? From Oct. 1st, 2008, yen loans by JBIC and grant aids by the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be integrated into the new JICA. Therefore, this paper will focus on
this point in conclusion.
According to a new approach of ―capacity development and institutional change‖, andconsidering what the new JICA should do and how integration (synergy) effect is generated, the needand inevitability to convert to the ―program approach‖ as a new paradigm of development aid isevident.
The embodiment of a new approach of ―capacity development and institutional change‖
logically requires a target which development aid should keep in mind and further, the enlargementof a scope which includes relationships with social actors, relevance among capacities, and a timeframe as shown in Fig. 18 should also be kept in mind. This logic clearly shows how the ―projectapproach‖ can be converted to the ―program approach‖. The author defines the program approach asa target and scope of framework as introduced in Fig. 18. Based on the program approach in Fig. 18,
individual projects, even though they are the developing countries’ own projects or donor-supported
projects, will be allocated in Fig. 18. These projects based on the program generally have large
dimensions and long-term performances.
The new JICA (Japan) should be a leading donor, which aggressively moves ahead toeffective aid in accordance with the Paris Declaration in 2005, promoting not only public private
partnerships (PPP) with comprehensive operation of grant, technical cooperation and yen loans but
also public sectors like CSOs/NGOs or private firms, and it should furthermore cooperate with
developing countries and/or donors.
69However, these suggestions should be simultaneously considered while a new approach of―capacity development and institutional change‖ is converted to the program approach. In order toexpand the input scale within the range of constraints of financial or human aid resources from thedonor’s side, it is important to select programs (including the selection of aid allocation to recipient
countries) based on certain priority. It is imperative that the criteria and methods for theseevaluations be established.
According to the Paris Declaration (MOFA 2005), it is obvious that a conversion to the―program approach‖ by donors (new JICA) demands a program based approach (PBA) as adevelopment plan (including budgetary plan) in developing countries. However, the problem is that
there are some shortcomings in the planning capacity of developing countries. The planning capacity
is divided into four factors: plan-making capacity, plan implementing capacity, plan evaluating
capacity, knowledge of plans, and planning techniques. Those are important points that developing
countries should engage in, in order to improve their planning capacity. In this regard, the ―programapproach‖ has characteristics to expand input scale, time frame and emphasize upstream (on the topside).
In order to effectively work the program approach based on a new approach of ―capacity
development and institutional change‖ as a top-oriented and a upper oriented approach, it isindispensable for not only the top-down approach (macro level) as planning oriented, but also for thebottom-up approach (micro level) to make a full use of the plan based on information from the field.
Institutions for the ―macro/micro loop‖ connected to the macro and micro play an importantrole and fulfill important functions. Utilizing an advantage of the Japanese-style of aid, a new
approach of ―capacity development and institutional change‖ can be considered as an approach
which makes the new JICA produce integrative effects. The new JICA includes grant aid, technicalcooperation, and yen loans.
Conversion to the ―program approach‖ as an embodiment of a new approach of ―capacity
development and institutional change‖ has a characteristic which focuses on total managed plan by a
top-down approach, while information in the field is also important to carry out the program andincrease the effectiveness with which institutions work.
The ―Feedback systems of macro and micro‖, the so-called institutions of the ―macro/microloop‖, is considered as a decisively important factor for effective program implementation andeffective aid as stated in the Paris Declaration. Information from the field, which has been
considered as one of JICA’s strongest points, should be utilized in the process of the program in the
future.

Acknowledgements
This paper was presented at the Seminar on Capacity Development andInstitutional Change as a keynote speech on July 17 & 18, 2008 at JICA-IFIC in Tokyo. This paper
is mainly based upon Matsuoka ed. 2007 and Matsuoka et al. 2008. Some of discussion points in thispaper also are based on Research Group on International Development Cooperation at Waseda
University. This Research Group is organized by not only academic community but also aid
community like JICA and JBIC. Mr. Hidekazu Iwamoto and Ms. Ragnheidur Reynisdottir at Waseda
University assisted me to make this English paper.

References
Alexander, J. C. et al. eds. (1987), the Micro-Macro Link, Univ. of California Press, Berkley
Aoki, M. and Okuno, M. eds. (1996), Comparative Institutional Analysis of Economic Systems,
Tokyo University Press, (in Japanese).
Aoki, M. (2001), Towards a Comparative Institutional Analysis, MIT,
Bergs, E. and UNDP (1993), Rethinking Technical Cooperation: Reforms for Capacity-Building in
Africa, UNDP
Bolger, J. (2000) Capacity Development: Why, What and How, Capacity Development Occasional
Series, No. 1, Canadian International Development Agency.
70

Brown, S. ed. (2002), Developing Capacity through Technical Cooperation, Earthscan, London.
Cassen, R. (1986), Does Aid Work?, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
Evaluation Team on Environmental Cooperation, Japan Society for International Development(JASID) (2004) Thematic Evaluation (Environment) by External Party, Environmental
Center Approach: Development of Social Capacity for Environmental Management indeveloping Countries and Japan's Environmental Cooperation, Japan International
Cooperation Agency, (in Japanese).
Fare, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., and Zhang, Z. (1994) Productivity Growth, Technical Progress,and Efficiency Change in Industrialized Countries, American Economic Review, Vol. 84,
Issue 1: 66–83.
Fukuda-Parr, S. （ 1996 ） ,‖Beyond Rethinking Technical Cooperation‖, Journal of TechnicalCooperation, 2(2), pp.145-157
Fukuda-Parr, S. et al. ed. (2002) Capacity for Development: New Solutions to Old Problems,
Earthscan.
Hiroshima University-Mitsubishi Research Institute Inc. Joint Venture (2005), JICA Asia Region
Thematic Evaluation ―Economic Partnership‖, Briefing Material for 4th Review Meeting,(in Japanese).
Honda, N., Matsuoka, S. and Tanaka, K. (2004) Causal and Structural Analysis on Social Capacity
Development for Environmental Management in Japan’s Air Pollution Problems, HICEC
Discussion Paper Series Vol. 2004–7, (in Japanese).
Jones, S. and A. Lawson (2000), Moving from Projects to Programmatic Aid, OED Working Paper
Series, 5.
Lavergne, R. and Alba, A. (2003) CIDA Primer on Program-Based Approaches, CanadianInternational Development Agency (CIDA).
Lopes, C. and Theisohn, T. (2003), Ownership, Leadership and Transformation: Can We Do Better
for Capacity Development, Earthscan.
Matsuoka, S. (2000) Environmental policy in Developing Countries: Instruments and Efficiency ofRegulations. Journal of International Development Studies, 9.2:17–37, (in Japanese).
Matsuoka, S. and Kuchiki, A. ed. (2003), Social Capacity Development for Environmental
Management in Asia: Japan’s Environmental Cooperation after the Johannesburg Summit
2002. IDE Spot Survey, IDE-JETRO.
Matsuoka, S., ed. (2004), International Development Studies, Toyo-Keizai-Shinpo-sha, (inJapanese).
Matsuoka, S., Okada, S., Kido, K. and Honda, N. (2004), Development of Social Capacity for
Environment and Institutional Change, Journal of International Development Studies, 13(2),31–50, (in Japanese).
Matsuoka, S. (2005), Social Capacity Development for Environmental Management andInternational Cooperation, in the second research report. Incubation Research Project 31“Total Changes in Environment and building the society for regional environmental
cooperation in East Asia”, (in Japanese).
Matsuoka, S. ed. (2007), Effective Environmental Management in Developing Countries: Assessing
Social Capacity Development, Palgrave-Macmillan, London.
Matsuoka, S. et al. (2008), Capacity Development and Social Capacity Assessment (SCA),
Journal of Evaluation Studies, 8(2), pp.3-23.
Ministry of Environment, Japan (2005) Quality of the Environment
Morgan, P. and Taschereau, S. (1996), Capacity and Institutional Assessment; Framework, Methods
and Tools for Analysis, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).
Murakami, K. and Matsuoka, S. (2005), Evaluation of Social Capacity for Environmental
Management, Submitted to the Japanese Journal of Evaluation Studies, (in Japanese).
North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, Cambridge
University Press.
Nose, Y. (1996) Ecological Community-Roles of Public Health Scholars for the 21st Century.
Kindai-bungeisya, (in Japanese).
71Ostrom, E. (2005), Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton U. P., Princeton
Scott, W. R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Tanaka, K. and Watanabe, M. (2005), Social Capacity for Environmental Management and its
Indicator Development: Environmental Efficiency Approach, Presented at the Japan Society
for International Development, 16th Conference, November 26–27, 2005, Kobe, Japan, (inJapanese).
Taylor, p. and P. Clarke (2008), Capacity for Change, IDS
http://content.undp.org/go/cms-service/stream/asset/?asset_id=1531706(2008/5/7)

UNDP (1994), Capacity Development: Lessons of Experience and Guiding Principles, UNDP
UNDP (1998), Capacity Assessment and Development in a Systems and Strategic Management
Context, UNDP
UNDP (2006), Institutional Reform and Change Management: Managing Change in Public Sector
Organizations, UNDPUNEP /WHO（1996）, Air Quality Management and Assessment Capabilities in 20 Major Cities,
MARC, London
UNDP/WHO (1996), Air Quality Management and Assessment Capabilities in 20 Major Cities, theMonitoring and Assessment Research Center.
UNDP (1998), Capacity Assessment and Development in a Systems and Strategic Management
Context, UNDP/BDP/Management Development and Governance Division.
Williamson, O. E. (2000), ―the New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead‖, J. of
Economic Literature, 38(3), pp.593-613
World Bank (2007), Capacity Development in the World Bank Group: A Review of Nonlending
Approaches,
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCDRC/Resources/CDBrief23.pdf（2008/03/18）
Yeager, T. J. (1999), Institutions, Transition Economies, and Economic Development, Westview
Press.
Zhang, J., Fujiwara, A., Tanaka, K., Senbil, M., and Nagashima, K. (2004), Methodology ofDeveloping Social Capacity Indicators for Environmental Management: State-of-Art andFuture Directions, Proceedings of the Second Expert Meeting on SCEM Capacity Indicatorsand Development Process Modeling, (in Japanese).
(日本語, Japanese materials)
今井賢一・金子郁容（1998),『ネットワーク組織論』,岩波書店
磯谷明徳（2004）『制度経済学のフロンティア』,ミネルヴァ書房
国際協力銀行（2005）『海外経済協力業務実施方針』, JBIC
http://www.jbic.go.jp/japanese/oec/policy/index.php（2008/3/18）
国際協力機構（2004）,『キャパシティ・ディベロップメント・ハンドブック：JICA 事業の有効性と持続性を高めるために』, JICA
http://www.jica.go.jp/kokusouken/enterprise/chosakenkyu/cd/200403_b.html(2008/6/18)

国際協力機構（2006）,『途上国の主体性に基づく総合的課題対処能力の向上を目指して/キャパシティ・ディベロップメント（CD）～CD とは何か、JICA で CD をどう捉え、JICA
事業の改善にどう活かすか～』, JICA
72

http://www.jica.go.jp/kokusouken/enterprise/chosakenkyu/cd/200603_aid.html (2008/6/18)
国際協力機構（2007）,『事業マネジメント・ハンドブック』,JICA
http://www.jica.go.jp/kokusouken/enterprise/chosakenkyu/field/200712_aid.html（2008/02/13）
町田陽子・林泰史（2006）,『国際援助機関並びに二国間援助機関によるキャパシティ・ディベロップメント支援の動向（平成 17 年度キャパシティ・ディベロップメント研究報告書）』, FASID
松岡俊二・本田直子（2002）「開発援助における能力開発とは何か」『国際開発研究（国際開発学会）』, 11（2）,pp.149-172
塩沢由典（1999）,「ミクロ・マクロ・ループについて」,『経済論叢』,164（5）, pp.1-73.

73