11.07.2015 Views

Index of Paper Presentations for the Parallel Sessions - Academy of ...

Index of Paper Presentations for the Parallel Sessions - Academy of ...

Index of Paper Presentations for the Parallel Sessions - Academy of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

A nation‘s capacity embodies <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> nation, in our case <strong>the</strong> GOI, to carry outspecific governmental functions such as <strong>the</strong> fight against HIV/AIDS. This conception <strong>of</strong> nation‘scapacity is embodied in NACO‘s approach to HIV/AIDS; specifically <strong>the</strong> technical andadministrative capacities as <strong>the</strong>y relate to <strong>the</strong> GOI‘s ability to implement macro policies (i.e.technical capacity) and <strong>the</strong> ability to manage several stakeholders <strong>for</strong> increased social welfare.Our analysis shows that through <strong>the</strong> first two NACP phases, <strong>the</strong> GOI developed a set <strong>of</strong>capabilities that to a great extent seem to have been developed organically; this is at <strong>the</strong> core <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> resource-based view <strong>the</strong>ory (Barney, 1986; Dierickx & Cool, 1989). While resource-basedview <strong>the</strong>orists are concerned with capability heterogeneity across firms, our focus is on <strong>the</strong> types<strong>of</strong> capabilities as <strong>the</strong>y could explain <strong>the</strong> deficiencies on <strong>the</strong> governance structure adopted byNACO in <strong>the</strong> fight against HIV/AIDS. More specifically, our analysis shows that as a result <strong>of</strong>NACP-I and NACP-II, NACO developed tangible (i.e. technical) and intangible (i.e.administrative) capabilities which were not aligned and as result we observed governancedeficiencies.Tangible capabilities are easier to codify and transfer (at minimal cost) from <strong>the</strong>capability holder to <strong>the</strong> final user. These are, <strong>for</strong> example, capabilities imbedded in manuals andprocedures or even in technology. More specifically, <strong>the</strong>se are capabilities associated withsurveillance and blood testing. On <strong>the</strong> contrary, intangible capabilities (such as monitoring <strong>of</strong>behaviour, producing research and managerial reports and so on) are difficult to codify and <strong>the</strong>transfer from <strong>the</strong> capability holder to <strong>the</strong> final user is very expensive. These are <strong>of</strong>ten capabilitiesdeveloped <strong>for</strong> specific set <strong>of</strong> circumstances which may not be duplicated and that may involvemany stakeholders in its development.Table 2. Capabilities and NACPNACP-I1992-1999Tangible capabilities developedduring this phase Surveillance by centralgovernment (focused on high riskgroups)Intangible capabilities developed duringthis phase Capacity building (with regards tocoordination <strong>for</strong> surveillance) at <strong>the</strong>central government level.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!