Introduction

Abstract

As has been noted recently (Cornwall, 2007), the field of international and community development is a haven for buzzwords, jargon and acronyms. The development lexicon is full of commonly used terms that have been assigned specific meaning within the development context: consider for example participation, gender, empowerment, sustainability, partnership — or indeed the word ‘development’ itself. None of these words are ‘innocent’. They carry with them particular theoretical and normative standpoints. In some cases they are infused with contradictory or melded meanings and operate as Trojan horses for a new set of ideological predispositions (Kenny, 2002). Common terms that are heavily imbued with significance all too often assume an aura of infallibility, which in turn can limit meaning, debate and discussion. Capacity building is one such term. It has the power to foreground certain approaches to development, such as those based around human resource and organisational enhancement, while silencing others, such those based around as activism and environmentalism (see Ife, Chapter 4 in this volume). Of course in and of itself, the term capacity building is innocuous enough, but within the development context, the practices, meaning and importance of capacity building are often simply assumed. Whether or not the meaning and importance are assumed or explicitly defined, the term is usually loaded with positive value.