Partners Learning Agenda on
Local Organization Capacity Development
The Capable
Guideline Series
#1: Understanding Country Context as It
Relates to LCD
INTRODUCTION
While many of the challenges faced by local organizations are surprisingly common, context
should remain the determining factor in USAID’s decisions about what kind of LCD intervention
to undertake, at what level, and in what way.
In addition to investing solid homework on the details of each element of country context that
would bear on LCD and working more with local organizations (the regulatory framework for CS,
the array of legal forms that CSOs may take, the degree of public trust of civil society, the size and
composition of the local organization sector, the prospects for local philanthropy, and so on)
perhaps the most important aspect of context to understand is the trajectory of each element – for
example in considering the degree of public trust of civil society, the useful question to ask is not
“what is it?” but “is it on the wane or on the rise?” In short the challenge in doing an analysis of
country context is to capture the dynamics of the situation – a challenge, obviously, because the
target is moving.
The Learning Agenda (LA) research suggests that to make a contextual analysis more useful to
the goal of strengthening country systems, it would be important to think about the differences
between a somewhat standard approach to context and some less standard elements that could add
greater value to the analysis. Below are some examples:
STANDARD CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
LESS STANDARD CONTEXTUAL
FACTORS
Donor emphases
Culturally embedded habits that work against
CS strengthening
Legacies of non–productive habits from prior
development efforts
Status of health in the country
Status of education, literacy in the country
Governance & Democratization issues
Legal and Regulatory environment for CS
Degree to which CS is capital-centric
Social status of CS
Potential of the diaspora to contribute to CS
Role of political parties
Philanthropic potential of wealthy families or
firms
State of the economy
Ambitions of “best and brightest,” i.e., nature
of the HR pool for CS
Size and composition of CS
Size, numbers, and
intermediary institutions
composition
Conflicts, ethnic or religious
Potential of the media and of academia to
support CS
of Informal “rules of the game” and their
influence on CS
Potential for religious institutions to bridge
differences.
Guideline Series #1 – Understanding Country Context as It Relates to LCD
Page 2 of 8
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT
History is too often given little attention in contextual analyses. Looking at pre- and postindependence history for most developing countries gives considerable insight into current Civil
Society (CS). For example, in Tanzania, one of the challenges faced in CS is the legacy of a postindependence emphasis on learning classical Kiswahili to the detriment of English. While this has
been a plus for national identity, this policy is showing up as a practical constraint for those CSOs
and NGOs wishing to connect with the international community, including donors like USAID. In
Moldova, to take another example, independence is very recent, and former cold war tensions and
east-west contrasts still have some residual effects – to some in civil society a model for change is
more acceptable if it is seen as “western,” for others if it is “eastern”; likewise some look to the
immediate west (Rumania) for intellectual influence and for consultants, while others to the east
(Russia). Such historical ‘left-overs” and their dynamics are important to understand the country
context.
Similarly the trajectory or dynamic of more recent history is important to take into account.
 Is the country coming out of conflict? If so, how deep do the memories go? How long ago did
the conflict end? What are the lingering effects?
 Is the country transitioning to democracy after communism; after a period of authoritarian
rule?
 Has there been a major shift in political leadership or structure (party, constitution, etc.)?
 How do people view the future – optimistically, pessimistically…?
In each such case, the basic question to ask is: are local organizations (civil society, NGOs,
government units) ready for “prime time” intervention (such as becoming the “prime” in a
contract), or is a patient, slower, more experimental approach (with lower per-unit funding and
perhaps more hands-on) more appropriate? Alternatively, an approach that echoes the notion of
“letting a hundred flowers bloom” would be to cast the LCD net widely and offer initial support
to many organizations in order, later on, to sort out promising organizations from less promising
ones.
A view of the historical legacies, both positive and negative, along with their dynamics might
determine, for example, whether an appropriate strategy would be to “shake things up a bit,” that
is to get the CS sector out of a certain rut and get it re-invigorated, or instead to “shape things up”
– that is, to focus on moving it to the next level of greater effectiveness and professionalism.
Finally, of course is the option of a more indirect approach to CS involvement and that is to work
on issues dealing with the enabling environment – rationalization of registration regimes,
developing certification protocols and institutions, better understanding the prospects for local
philanthropy, and so on.
Guideline Series #1 – Understanding Country Context as It Relates to LCD
Page 3 of 8
OTHER MACRO FACTORS
Size and Geography
Notwithstanding their many other differences, size differences between a large country like India
or Indonesia and a small one like Moldova or Rwanda suggest different possible retail or wholesale
approaches to LCD. In India, a capital-centric approach makes less sense than in Moldova; regional
or sub-regional concentrations of effort make sense in one place and less so in others. Likewise
topography presents different challenges. Indonesia and the Philippines are island nations with
accompanying limitations in terms of infrastructure, communication and transport. A sense of
integration in the Philippines, a nation with some 2,000 inhabited islands, is problematic; outlying
regions can feel isolated. To help CSOs become stronger may mean different things depending on
where they are in the country, and how large the country is.
Culture and Social Structure
Whether the country is culturally homogeneous or not makes a difference. In a caste-based system,
a country with a dominant ethnic group, or one with a minority religion seeking recognition or
greater autonomy, a one-size-fits-all approach to LCD makes little sense. Among different groups
there may be significantly different mental frameworks for interpreting capacity, just as in the
world of finance, there are different values around the earning of interest – clearly legitimate in
one place, and taboo in another.
Obviously the area of culture and social structure is thick with different meanings and levels of
meanings around all kinds of values and habits, from politeness and courtesy, to what constitutes
trust. For example, in one culture an agreement based on trust may mean that to ask for regular
verification of expenses is seen as insulting. At the least such cultural factors need to be
acknowledged; then creative ways may be found to work around them.
Depending on history and other influences a country or region of a country can be inward-looking,
culturally ‘self-reliant,’ inward-looking and fearful, outward-looking with the confidence that it
can adapt to outside views/innovations, outward-looking but lacking in confidence, and so on –
the permutations and combinations are many. Understanding such aspects of a culture and the
dynamics inherent in those aspects – asking whether the trend is more inward, more outward, more
confident, less confident, etc. – will enable a donor to decide, for example, on the speed of an CD
intervention; should one go slowly, gradually, patiently, gently, or more rapidly and forcefully?
Political Economy
As thorough analysis as possible of the political economy around local institutions and
organizations is necessary as well. A standard approach begins with understanding the flows of
money and power; who controls what and how decisions are made. This leads one to look for
example at the role of elites, dominant families, oligarchic structures, etc. Much of that can be
accessible by reading studies of the system and talking to those who are in it, both those who study
the system, those who criticize it, or in turn defend it.
Guideline Series #1 – Understanding Country Context as It Relates to LCD
Page 4 of 8
The more demanding analysis is getting at the informal and often somewhat hidden aspects of the
political economy. There are often differences between policy or law and actual practice; between
the nominal official rules and actual accepted practice. That is not to say that institutions always
tend to find ways to get around a law or policy, but that there can be and often are informal rules
beneath the surface, and these can have more force than the formal ones.
Thus one wants to know what are the mediations possible between formal rules and informal rules;
between formally guided behaviors and informally patterned behaviors? How do people negotiate
around the rules, what means do they use (e.g., patron-client patterns, gift-giving, reciprocal
obligations, rent-seeking, tribal or family alignments and connections, etc.)?
Tracing connections for example between leading family members may reveal those who may
become actors in civil society and initially appear to be independent-minded leaders but on closer
examination are really representing entrenched interests. Understanding these informal aspects (or
“hidden rules of the game”) takes diligence and time, but allows for more mindful decisions about
which organizations to work with and how. It is common for donors to work always with the “usual
suspects,” the organizations most well known and best connected, but these are not necessarily the
“right” ones to work with if the goal is a broader strengthening of civil society.
Civil Society Leaders and Laggards
It is also worthwhile to understand the degree to which the avowed agenda of a local organization
is way out in front of where prevailing opinion in society is. Some issues – for example protecting
animal rights in a country where people are starving – are simply not “ready” enough (too far out
in front of the rest of society) to warrant full-scale support.
THE PROS AND CONS OF MAPPING
Mapping, as presently done, tends to be a fill-in-the-boxes exercise – useful in determining
numbers, types, and the stated sector emphases of CSOs – but not very useful in getting at
dynamics and trends, not to mention those aspects of organizational character and culture (passion,
vision, values etc. ) that are hard to capture, and that have much to do with effective capacity.
One of the key findings from our research is that the size and age of organizations matter. Just as
in the world of small and medium scale business, once a business reaches a certain size and has
passed through a number of years of trial and error, its chances of survival are greater than is the
case with start–ups in their first few years. Therefore in any mapping exercise including data on
the trajectory of the organization’s financial health over its life to date is critical.
One should look for “projectization” patterns for example – the phenomenon of a small
organization oscillating between a few years of financial good health and a couple of years of poor
health – because they live from grant to grant and have no operating reserves in the lean times.
Capturing these ‘life-cycle’ trends requires looking not only at a snapshot of the civil society sector
today, but a probe into the past.
Guideline Series #1 – Understanding Country Context as It Relates to LCD
Page 5 of 8
If, say in country “X” there are 9,000 CSOs registered and only 20 of these are big and have a
healthy financial support structure, then USAID may want to decide to help another 20 reach that
stage, or in wholesale manner, spend its time and money on trying to advance the knowledge of
why such a small number are able to reach scale; on a deeper understanding of the constraints that
prevent scale.
QUESTIONS TO ASK

How new is the civil society sector? Has there been any recent proliferation in CSOs? If so,
what prompted it? Are there signs of a sorting out of CSOs?

How does government see civil society? What does government believe CS can and should
do? Are there examples of partnerships? What kind?

How does the public see civil society (look at the NGOSI, or any local surveys done on public
attitudes)?

What do people believe CSOs should do? Can do?

How do educated young people see CSOs? Are they interested in working in them? And how
have these views changed over time? Obviously if the human resource pool for CSOs is
changing, this is important to take into account.

How much are CSOs dependent on volunteering? Does volunteer dependency hamper
professionalization of the organization, or add to it?

With regard to the regulatory framework, what is the ease or difficulty of registration, is the
registration regime complex (in many countries there are several government agencies with
which an NGO can register); is the registration regime changing?

With respect to legal forms for CSOs, are there clear statutes with respect to tax incentives for
non-profits, statutes that encourage local philanthropy, etc.?
Overall, one wants to get at the barriers and bridges in the system as a whole.
DONORS
Donors in the country are a critical part of the ecosystem for civil society and government. One
needs, therefore, to understand their past influence, their record of achievement, their current
interests and priorities and – most important, where they are heading in the future. Obviously, in
many countries that are moving towards lower middle or middle income status, some donors are
considering leaving the scene or lowering their inputs. Gauging how this will affect civil society
is important.
Guideline Series #1 – Understanding Country Context as It Relates to LCD
Page 6 of 8
Donors’ legacies in terms of government systems and habits, CSO systems and habits ought to be
thought about as well. If, for example, a series of donor projects in a particular sector (i.e.,
HIV/AIDS) has ended and left behind a number of local organizations that have become dependent
on donor inputs such as advice, financing, equipment and technical training specific only to
HIV/AID, it may be difficult for these organizations to take on work in related sectors; or, they
may lack confidence about their capacity to survive on their own. But more important, there may
be a legacy of raised expectations based on past donor habits; and so, adjusting to a shift from
donor emphasis to local ownership will be daunting.
NETWORK ANALYSIS
Finally, a Mission may want to engage in a network analysis similar to that undertaken in the
Learning Agenda in Nepal and Tanzania (conducted by the U.S. NGO Root Change). The
objective of network analysis – which involves focus groups, interviews and responses to an online mapping software – is to trace the lines of interaction, influence, and exchange that exist
informally in a local ecosystem.
CONCLUSION
The point of conducting an analysis of country context is to capture the dynamics and trajectory
of the situation. This poses a challenge because the target is moving. The process is organic.
Moreover, there is no one-size-fits-all: every situation is unique and different.
Investigating less standard elements of context is likely to add greater value to the analysis. Going
beyond the perfunctory, standard approach to context improves both significance and validity. The
analysis becomes more robust.
Historical analysis provides insight to any country analysis. Capturing ‘life-cycle’ trends requires
looking not only at a snapshot of the civil society sector today, but a probe into the past. USAID’s
Knowledge Center (i.e. library) is a valuable resource for any number of historical texts and videos.
The Knowledge Center librarians will construct lists of relevant reading for country context. This
includes both external reading and information on USAID’s work within that country.
Macro factors need to be accounted for. These are factors like country size, geography, culture and
social structure, and political economy.
The traditional approach to country mapping has both pros and cons. Nevertheless, while useful
to determine numbers, types, and sector emphases of CSOs, mapping does not provide as much
value regarding the trajectory, dynamics and trends, yet alone aspects of organizational character
and culture. Passion, vision and values are pivotal for effective capacity and are difficult to capture.
Donors in the country are a critical part of the ecosystem for civil society and government and
should be considered in any country analysis. As well, networks help trace the lines of interaction,
influence, and exchange that exist informally in a local ecosystem.
Guideline Series #1 – Understanding Country Context as It Relates to LCD
Page 7 of 8
Finally, the number and consistency of projects reveals current and historical data that explain
factors that help or hinder CSOs’ eventual sustainability and effectiveness.
Guideline Series #1 – Understanding Country Context as It Relates to LCD
Page 8 of 8