JIIS Archives

Iberoamerica - Vol. 17 , No. 1

[ Article ]
Iberoamerica - Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 293-344
ISSN: 1229-9111 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2015
Received 30 Apr 2015 Revised 29 Jun 2015 Accepted 29 Jun 2015

Effectiveness of Donor Support for Capacity Development in Guatemala:
A Study of Scholarship Provision for Overseas Postgraduate Education
Kleinsy Bonilla** ; Kwak, Jae-Sung***
**Kleinsy Bonilla is a Specialist at the Korean Embassy in Santiago, Chile (kleinsy@gmail.com)
***Kwak, Jae-Sung is a Professor at the Graduate School of Pan-Pacific International Studies at Kyung Hee University (kwakjaesung@gmaillcom)

Efectividad de la Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo de Capacidad Humana en Guatemala:
Un Estudio de los Programas de Becarios para la Educación de Posgrados
Funding Information ▼

Abstract

This paper surveys the provision of postgraduate scholarships as a mechanism by which selected donor countries have cooperated with Guatemala for the development of capacity. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effectiveness of this donor support. Drawing from capacity development, aid effectiveness, and international education literature, this study proposes a model to examine the effectiveness of this international cooperation approach. This research presents a narrative account of the provision of scholarships by nine donor countries, which have funded postgraduate academic programs (master or doctoral degrees). Purposeful sampling allowed the participation of 84 participants. The findings provide evidence that the studied donor support has indeed contributed to the development of capacity in Guatemala however, the absence of public policies for human resource management, the dynamics of the international cooperation process, and particular features of the domestic context hinder the effectiveness of the international cooperation scheme, consequently limiting its outcomes and impact. Considering the prevalence of the donor’s perspective in the existing literature, this research entitles a practical contribution by including the viewpoint of all stakeholders according to their level of involvement; this permits advancing scholarly debates on the effectiveness of the studied international cooperation approach.

Resumen

Este trabajo pasa revista a la concesión de becas de postgrado como un mecanismo por el cual países donantes han cooperado con Guatemala para el desarrollo capacidad humana. El propósito de este estudio es analizar la eficacia de este apoyo de los donantes. A partir del análisis de categorías como creación de capacidad humana, efectividad de la ayuda para el desarrollo, así como literatura enfocada a la educación internacional, este estudio propone un formato para examinar este enfoque de la cooperación internacional. Esta investigación presenta un relato narrativo del proceso de otorgamiento de becas de postgrado de nueve países donantes que han financiado programas académicos (maestría o doctorado) de guatemaltecos/ as en universidades ubicadas en territorio de los países cooperantes. Usar la técnica de muestreo dirigido permitió la participación de ochenta y cuatro entrevistados. Los resultados proporcionan evidencia de que el apoyo de los donantes ha contribuido efectivamente al desarrollo de capacidades en Guatemala; sin embargo, la ausencia de políticas públicas para la gestión de recursos humanos, la dinámica del proceso de la cooperación internacional, y las características particulares del contexto nacional dificultan la efectividad del programa de cooperación internacional, en consecuencia, sus efectos e impacto se han visto limitados. Teniendo en cuenta la prevalencia de la perspectiva del donante en la literatura existente, esta investigación es una contribución práctica al incluir el punto de vista de todos los actores de acuerdo con su nivel de participación, lo que permite avanzar en los debates académicos sobre la eficacia del enfoque de la cooperación internacional estudiado.


Keywords: Guatemala, Capacity Development, International Development Cooperation, Postgraduate Scholarships Program, Aid Effectiveness
Palabras claves: Guatemala, Desarrollo de Capacidad Humana, Cooperación Internacional de Desarrollo, Becas para la Educación de Posgrados, Efectividad de la Cooperación Internacional

Ⅰ. Introduction

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effectiveness of the overseas postgraduate scholarship programs for Guatemalans, presenting a narrative account of the provision of those programs. Guatemala is one of the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean with the worst problems of access, efficiency and quality of educational results. Since the 1990s, Guatemala has been one of the countries spending the smallest percentage of its national income on education in the region. Education in Guatemala is characterized by poor access to pre-school education and low pupil retention rates in primary and secondary education. The Guatemalan higher education system, with limited number of universities, has also failed to train qualified human resource to be responsible for sustained national development. Instead, therefore, this role was taken by international donors. Training and education are recurrent mechanisms used in international cooperation efforts to build capacity in developing countries. As a result, different schemes have been applied for this purpose such as short-term training programs, online education, project training, degree-seeking academic programs, amongst others (Pearson 2010; Day, Stackhouse and Geddes 2009; World Bank 2008, Gilboy et al., 2004). Of these mechanisms, this paper is focused on studying the effectiveness of postgraduate (master/doctoral) education supported by nine selected donors, which have cooperated with Guatemala for the development of capacity. As stated by Day, Stackhouse and Geddes (2009: v) the “higher education sector is now widely recognized as a vital contributor for socioeconomic development and growth; international scholarships can play an important role in this goal”. While iterative international cooperation discourse coincides, the connections between this international cooperation scheme and the development of capacity in the home country of the direct beneficiaries (scholarship awardees) are complex and frequently difficult to prove. Moreover, few assessments are to be found addressing the effectiveness of this approach.

Admittedly, the construct of capacity development or capacity building has been seen frequently as too elusive and complex to be measured (Pearson 2010; UNDP 1997; Morgan 1997). Nonetheless, every year significant resources are devoted to funding international cooperation training and education programs for this purpose. Worldwide estimates propose that several billions of US dollars are spent on educational programs supported by different donor countries (USAID 2012; Pearson 2010; World Bank 2008), of which part of these resources target the development of capacity in Guatemala. For this reason effectiveness assessment efforts could provide valuable information to find out whether these capacity development mechanisms are being implemented to their full potential.

Multiple layers of analysis on capacity development are attempted to assess the postgraduate scholarship program supported by donor countries. Firstly, the departure point should consider changes on individual levels and private returns for the direct participants. This aspect would turn the acquired knowledge and developed skills into a core matter, as well as provide positive career achievements and access to better job opportunities in favor of the graduates. A second issue is the applicability of such newly acquired or developed knowledge and skills, which would result in the strengthening of the local organizations and institutions of the partner country. In perspective, even if capacity is achieved at the individual level, only the effective transit of capacity into a broader spectrum would reveal ownership and sustainability of the international cooperation efforts, or in other words, capacity development at the institutional/organization level. A third aspect is the societal gains from the capacity development intervention to which this aspect would signify impact with effects in governance and national cohesion. Depending on the process, structure, and incentives, the allocation of the aid resources to educate a particular individual might result in a narrowed personal gain (i.e. improvement of one’s curriculum vitae) in contrast to producing a more committed individual. This individual, enabled by empowering conditions, could further contribute to strengthening capacities in their organization/institutions, influencing the development of the home country. Nevertheless, various challenges have hindered the effectiveness of the donor support, which will be explored throughout the paper. Some of these challenges such as the lack of a national educationneed assessment, the absence of clear policies to develop capacities, confusion in the roles and responsibilities to be fulfilled by each stakeholder during the different stages of the international cooperation initiative, and overlooking particular conditions of the Guatemalan social, demographic, and economic reality, have hindered the effectiveness of the capacity development mechanism, and, consequently, has limited its outcomes and impact at the organizational/institutional and national level.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that donor provision of postgraduate scholarships for Guatemalans started as early as the 1970s, few research efforts have examined the effectiveness of this international cooperation scheme. For this reason, this inquiry proposes a model to examine the effectiveness of the donor support by which selected developed nations have cooperated with Guatemala in providing postgraduate scholarships to develop capacity.


Ⅱ. Review of literature

Despite the considerable amount of international cooperation resources devoted to building capacity in developing countries several authors have acknowledged that few studies have examined the effectiveness of the donor support (Pearson 2010; World Bank 2008, Gosling 2008; McGrath 2002). This shortage of relevant studies is acute when considering postgraduate scholarships to educate potential young leaders in overseas universities (Schraven, Eguavoen and Manske 2009), especially when referring to the Latin American region, particularly Guatemala (Gonzalez 2013; Goyzueta 2013; Arenas 2012; Acevedo and Arreola 2011). At the same time, other studies conclude that the accumulation of literature and studies regarding the theoretical foundations, awarding process, program delivery and impact of international cooperation support for educational mechanisms to build capacity in developing countries is scarce (Moral and Pombo 2011; Day, Stackhouse and Geddes 2009; Gilboy et al 2003, Low et al., 2001; Eley et al. 2001).

On the other hand, the debate at the individual, organizational/institutional, and societal level is constantly concerned with the social return and verifiable achievement of capacity development, particularly when the international mobilization of graduate students is simpler and higher than ever. Previous studies claim that scholarship provision contributes to the development of capacity in developing countries by facilitating access to new knowledge and good practices (Gilboy et al. 2004; Eley et al. 2001). Eley et al. (2001) reported assessing the impact of the postgraduate program offered to developing countries aiming to build capacity in sub-Saharan Africa. The cooperation was offered to build capacity through long-term degree training. According to the findings of the study, there “was a direct contribution of the postgraduate education program by the acquisition of new knowledge and the development of skills” (Eley et al. 2001, 1). Similarly, Gilboy et al. (2004) published a report based on a study about the development impact of a USAID long-term university training enforced in Africa from 1963 to 2003. This research highlighted the attribution that could be given to the provided training in terms of explaining the career development and performance betterment of the trainees. However, assessing organization improvement and wider societal gains from the education remain challenging. Gilboy et al. (2004: xi) place special emphasis on “individual career advancement of training (master and doctoral training) beneficiaries measured by tangible outcomes such as job promotions, publications and self-reported training application in the work place.” Once again, the research concentrates on the individual spectrum of capacity development.

Transforming individual capacity development into organizational/institutional and national capacity development continually puzzles researchers (Ramkripa 2010; World Bank 2008). The World Bank (2008) presented a research report titled “Using Training to Build Capacity for Development” in which the authors aimed to assess the investment in technical assistance in the form of training and studies for “building stronger institutions and organizations in client countries” (World Bank 2008, 17). This report follows the “attribution” approach by which the multilateral cooperation organism trained individuals to contribute to their country’s development. The findings of the study remark that the flaws in the training implementation process hinder its effectiveness due to the “lack of monitoring or evaluation demise the training results in the work place” (World Bank 2008, 67). According to this study, the training process can be enhanced through ensuring participation, checking the understanding of the participants, giving feedback to participants, and focusing on the results. One of the main conclusions of this research illustrates the importance of the on-the-job support needed to adapt the developed capacity to real-life situations, enabling long-term impact. Correspondingly, Ramkripa and Kupfer (2010) in their article “Tracking Trainees to Success” claims the need for a trainee tracking system that focuses on career follow-up and highlights the participation of individuals in particular educational or skill-development programs. Nevertheless, they assert that “capacity development at the individual level is easier to examine, in contrast to the organization/ institution and nation-wide impact” (Ramkripa and Kupfer 2010, 4).

Effectiveness of scholarships for capacity development is achieved only when the international cooperation intervention is appropriated by the partner country as this increases sustainability and long-term positive impacts (Moral and Pombo 2009; Gosling 2008). Gosling (2008) analyses the effectiveness of scholarships as an aid modality of the Australian government and concludes that “in order to increase effectiveness of scholarships, country programs should attempt to link them more closely to the overall capacity development of the partner countries” (Gosling 2008, 12). Likewise, Moral and Pombo (2009) argue that the benefits of international student mobility should affect positively not only the direct individual beneficiaries, but also change the nation’s social behaviors, enhance productivity and elevate the general academic, cultural, economic and social achievements of the home country.

Monitoring, evaluation and mutual accountability are fundamental features for the effectiveness of the scholarship provision (Day, Stackhouse and Geddes 2009; Acevedo and Arreola, 2011). Day, Stackhouse and Geddes (2009) found in their research that through Commonwealth Scholarships the United Kingdom has impacted “individuals, institutions and wider society by enabling recipients to undertake new or more senior roles in their occupation, pass on skills, or introduce new practices” (Day, Stackhouse and Geddes: vi). Their study acknowledges that tracing scholarship award holders is rather challenging even when financial and human resources are engaged in the process. Day, Stackhouse and Geddes (2009: xi) explain that “scholarships are a long-term investment. All the costs are up front, whilst benefits will accrue over the full working life of the recipients”. This feature of the specific development cooperation practice of funding graduate studies adds to the importance of evaluation and assessment.

Finally, considering particular characteristics of the social and economic context of the partner country is fundamental for the effectiveness of the provision of scholarships for capacity development (Schraven, Eguavoen and Manske 2009; Acevedo and Arreola 2011). Multicultural environment, existence of marginalized groups, rural-urban imbalances, conditions of local higher education, among other particular circumstances of the partner country should be considered in the design and implementation of the scholarship provision mechanisms. Acevedo and Arreola (2011) present a systematization of a particular international scholarship experience applied in Guatemala. The study examined the support provided by the Ford Foundation for Guatemalans to pursue postgraduate academic programs in overseas universities and emphasized the “capacity building effect on traditionally marginalized groups based on ethnicity, poverty trap, and gender or physically challenged people” (13). They also concluded that “in countries like Guatemala providing only financial support [for postgraduate studies] does not guarantee academic success and the effectiveness of the contribution of the program. A comprehensive design is needed providing orientation and follow up [to the returned graduates] in order to make the most out of the cooperation” (Ibid, 54).

The review of literature reveals that theoretical frameworks and consolidated research methodologies are still being developed. Kotvojs (2010, 1) acknowledges that in view of the existence of dozens of frameworks the emergence of a “simple, clear framework to examine the capacity development initiatives in international cooperation” appears necessary. Moreover, stronger research tools could be helpful when examining the international mobility of graduate students from developing countries to pursue academic programs overseas; this has become a recurrent mechanism supported by donors (Pearson 2010; Schraven, Eguavoen and Manske 2009). This international cooperation approach indeed is attracting growing interest from the academic community; however, few sources exist to help understand the effectiveness of the donor support from a multi-stakeholder perspective (Day and Stakhouse 2009; Gosling 2008). For this reason, the present research attempts to fill this gap.


Ⅲ. Methodology

In this qualitative research design, an exploratory interpretive paradigm was employed. <Figure 1> summarizes the steps followed during the enquiry which started by selecting the capacity development intervention: postgraduate scholarship programs supported by selected donor countries as main a main driver for the development of capacity in Guatemala. The proposed model in <Figure 1> enabled to collect relevant data and apply the effectiveness analysis framework in order to respond the following research question: “To what extent has the donor support for postgraduate education been effective for the development of capacity in Guatemala?” The second and third steps of the research design were fundamental to advance in the research process. The lack of registries and limited clarity in the roles and responsibilities of the participants motivated the researchers of this study to first identify the stakeholders involved in the initiative and to collect comprehensive data from the different sources in order to articulate the issues that are known about the development cooperation intervention.

Once steps one, two and three of the research design were completed, the framework for effectiveness analysis allowed the sorting of the collected data to identify constrains or, rather, barriers to the transition from individual capacity development to organizational/institutional and societal capacity development. Drawing from the five pillars established in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in 2005, interpretation of each component allowed the researchers to draw conclusions on barriers to enabling Ownership, Alignment, Harmonization, and Managing for Results and Mutual Accountability. The nature of the international cooperation intervention under study limited the use of quantitative indicators, thereby making it necessary to use descriptive data to support the observations included in the section of findings and discussion.


<Figure 1> 
Effectiveness of Donor Support for Capacity Development

(Source: Prepared by the authors)



The application of the effectiveness analysis design allowed the researchers sorting the data to identify themes and sub-themes addressing the transition between the different layers of capacity development, moving from the individual (Micro) to the entities (Meso) and ultimately to the societal level (Macro). Drawing from the capacity development analysis frameworks proposed by UNDP (1997, 32) and Cheema (2003, 6).


<Figure 2> 
Capacity Development and Effectiveness

(Source: Cheema, 2003: 12; UNDP, 1997: 5. Modified by the authors)



To collect necessary information, field research took place in Guatemala from December 2012 to February 2013. A 10-week period allowed a first-hand data collection process to be unfolded, which included the application of in-depth semi-structured open-ended interviews of stakeholders who participated in the capacity development initiative. A second period of complementary field research took place in Guatemala over a 2-weeks period during Feb. 1 to Feb. 12, 2014.

The sampling method followed the purposive sampling. For the donor support, nine scholarship programs were selected based on three criteria: (a) The program claimed to support capacity development, (b) Scholarships mobilized Guatemalans to study postgraduate education (master/doctor degree) in universities located in the donor’s territory, (c) Donor support covered complete expenses (full scholarship). By using both criteria, comparisons and contrasts became a possibility. These programs included four European countries: Germany (German Academic Exchange Service, DAAD), the United Kingdom (Chevening Scholarships), Spain (El Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación a través de la Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo, MAEC-AECID), the Netherlands (NFP-NUFFIC), three Asian countries: Japan (MONBUGAKUSHO-MEXT), Korea (Korea International Cooperation Agency, KOICA), Taiwan (International Cooperation and Development Fund, ICDF) – and two from the Americas – the United States (Fulbright Program) and Mexico (Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriore, SRE).

Returned Guatemalan graduates from the nine scholarship programs were invited to participate through different strategies: social media, alumni associations, diplomatic missions of the selected donor countries located in Guatemala, and partial registries from the Government of Guatemala. In addition, the snow-ball sampling technique was applied. Experts estimate (Soto 2013; Arenas 2012) that since its creation, the nine scholarship programs have produced nearly 500 participants (There is no record for successful completion or graduation). Four criteria were used for selecting returned graduates: (a) Completion of a postgraduate (master, doctoral) academic program in a university located in the donor country, (b) Having received a full scholarship, (c) Having returned to Guatemala, (d) Provision of the support by one of the nine selected donor countries. This segment of interviewees is identified as “returned graduate” when quoting directly extract of their interviews.

From the Government of Guatemala, the participants were invited from institutions with a legal mandate to act in the development of capacity with donor support. In addition, key informants from the academy, private sector and civil society in Guatemala were selected to participate.

<Table 1> below summarizes the interviewee’s information per sector. A total of 84 participants who were traceable as well as available to cooperate for the research reported their experience through face-to-face interview sessions with open-ended questions based on a semi-structured questionnaire.1

<Table 1> 
Summary of Interviewees: Stakeholders Different Sectors
Interviewees per Sector Description n= ( )
Government of Guatemala
SEGEPLAN(a)
MINEX(b)
MINFIN(c)
SENACYT(d)
INAP(e)
Public officers and authorities from different Government Institutions related to the development cooperation scheme subject of this study 5
2
2
1
1
Donors and Donor Agencies Representatives/ staff from the selected donors 9
Direct Beneficiaries Returned Graduates from the donor-support postgraduate academic programs 46
Other Stakeholders Authorities of universities and higher education institutions, research centers, organized private sector, civil society 18
Total n= 84
(Source: Prepared by the authors)
Note: (a)SEGEPLAN: National Secretariat for Planning and Programming of the Presidency
(b)MINEX: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (c)MINFIN: Ministry of Finance
(d)National Secretariat for Science and Technology, (e)National Institute of Public Administration


Ⅳ. Findings and discussions

A systemic data analysis was implemented to sort and examine the collected data. Cheema (2003, 7) sustains that a proper capacity development initiative will examine all dimension of capacity at all levels from a systems perspective”. From the in-depth analysis of the collected data three main themes were identified: a. Effectiveness for Individual Capacity Development, b. Effectiveness for Organization/Institution Capacity Development, and c. Effectiveness for Societal capacity development. The three main themes include subsections as shown in <Table 2> Findings and discussion are depicted as follows:

<Table 2> 
Data Analysis for capacity development, themes and subthemes
LEVEL Capacity Development/Thematic Analysis Category
MICRO: Effectiveness for Individual Capacity Development: Skills, experience and knowledge that are vested in people Understanding of individual responsibilities and sense of commitment
Focus on acquisition/development of core competencies for the development of Guatemala
Inclusion and equal access to opportunities
MESO: Effectiveness for Organizational/Institutional Capacity Development: Occupation of leadership position and decision-making posts
Application of the newly acquired knowledge and skills
Supportive work environment
MACRO: Effectiveness for Societal Capacity Development: National strategy for capacity development
Engagement among different sectors of society to participate in the capacity development mechanism
Reliable information to make informed intelligent decisions about policy
(Source: Prepared by the authors)

1. Effectiveness on Individual Capacity Development

Scholarships for postgraduate education provided by the donor countries have contributed to the development of individual capacity. This international cooperation mechanism has played a valuable role in filling the gaps created by underdeveloped the domestic higher education system of Guatemala. Different sources acknowledge difficulties in efficiency, coverage, and access to Guatemalan universities (Sacayon 2012; Tobar 2011; Godinez and Tobar 2005). Therefore, donor support has alleviated shortages of highly educated Guatemalan human resources. Experts (Soto 2013; Arenas 2012) estimate that nearly 500 Guatemalans have been awarded full scholarships to pursue postgraduate education (master/doctorate), considered in this study up to February 2013. This is consistent with the data collected from donors and from the Government of Guatemala summarized in <Table 3>. Valuable financial resources have enabled Guatemalans to access postgraduate education in foreign universities, without which they would be unable to attend.

<Table 3> 
Donor Support for Overseas Postgraduate Education of Guatemalans
Donor/Program Year(a) No. (b) Scholarship Amount in US$ (Master/Ph.D.(c))
Germany/ DAAD – German Institute for Academic Exchange 1982 46 58,000 Masters
80,240 Doctor
United Kingdom/ CHEVENING 2006(d) 12 39,500 Masters
Japan/ MONGBUGAKUSHO – MEXT 1974 58 80,000 Masters
150,000 Doctor
Korea/ KOICA 2005 45 45,000 Masters
Mexico / Scholarships of the Mexican Government for Foreigners 2006 24 25,000 Masters
Spain/ MAEC-AECID 2006 67 49,500 Masters
66,470 Doctor
Taiwan/ ICDF 2006 15 35,000 Masters
60,000 Doctor
The Netherlands/ NFP-NUFFIC 1994(e) 34 60,000 Masters
101,000 Doctor
The United States of America/ FULBRIGHT 1984 145 62,000 Masters
108,000 Doctor
(Source: Compiled by authors from various sources)
Notes: (a)Year of the first scholarship awarding, (b) No.of Scholarship Awarded up to Feb. 2013

(c) Based on reports of donors and returned graduates, (d)The program changed denomination: was known as the British Council Scholarship prior to 2006, (e)The program changed denomination: has been known as the NFP-NUFFIC since 2003


Considering that capacity development at the individual level includes knowledge acquisition and skills improvement (UNDP 1997), there is an evidence that postgraduate scholarships equip graduates with advanced knowledge in their fields. A returned graduate shared her experience:

“I became [a] specialist in my field. Before going overseas I was a general doctor, but after my studies in Germany, a new opportunity was opened for me to obtain innovative techniques and cutting-edge knowledge about preventive and curative health.” (Interview with a returned graduate)

According to Hamza (2010), having an international experience in higher education might enable transformative learning resulting in changes in professional attitudes as well as behavioral transformations. This is consistent with Gilboy et al. (2004) who argue that overseas education exposes the participants to other practices, lifestyles, and mind-sets, which will produce complementary transformation in the international students. In this sense, another interviewee expressed that the international education not only facilitated the acquisition of technical knowledge but also the development of other skills:

“I became an international worker, with advanced academic English skills. I gained deeper analytic skills, research abilities, and a wider understanding of international affairs. In negotiations I became more skillful, with a better understanding of the international job market, and the relations Guatemala can develop with more countries with better results.” (Interview with a returned graduate)

While successful completion of overseas postgraduate educational programs with the reward of an advanced academic degree might be considered as an evidence of capacity development at the individual level (acquisition of knowledge and development of skills), qualitative data provides evidences that the effectiveness of the donor support at this level has encountered certain challenges.

Understanding of responsibilities and sense of commitment. Attitudes of direct beneficiaries (scholarship awardees) tend to determine the sense of responsibility and commitment toward scholarship. Arenas (2012) remarks that “in several cases people benefitted from full scholarships consider such opportunities as a recognition to their academic achievements instead of a commitment to contribute to the development of Guatemala”. Returned graduates were asked about their perception regarding the meaning of a full scholarship award. Their responses were divided into two categories: inward implications and outward implications. The former emphasized on individual gains or personal improvements while the latter outward implications expressed concerns not only for themselves but for wider social benefits. As it can be seen in <Table 4> 65% of interviewees were included in the first category by using terms such as “access to better employment opportunities”, “salary increment”, “interest in job promotions”, “securing higher degree of influence”, while 35% reported outward implications such as“ contribution to the development of my country”, “import better practices and knowledge from abroad”, “gaining advanced knowledge to teach to my students”, “help to build progress in Guatemala.”

<Table 4> 
Motivation of the Candidates when Applying for a Scholarship to Pursue Postgraduate Studies Abroad
Motivation No. Category and Examples
Inward Motivations 30 Direct reference to a personal improvement: “Access to better employment opportunities” “salary increment”, “interest in promotions” “securing higher degree of influence”, etc.
Outward Motivations 16 Direct reference to gains other that individual betterment: “contribute to the development of my country”, “import better practices and knowledge from abroad”, “gaining advanced knowledge to teach to my students”, etc.
(Source: Compiled by the authors based on survey results)

Having career expectations and ambitions for better employment are legitimate individual goals. However, as scholarships are publically arranged foreign aid resources, a sense of responsibility for the development of Guatemala is expected for scholarship awardees. Cheema (2003, 7) sustains that “individuals must have clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities; personal commitment and a spirit of cooperation need to be recognized”. This is consistent with Bolger (2000, 5) who argues that individual knowledge “skills and abilities have to contribute to the realization of development goals”. From the capacity development perspective, change at the individual level should be contemplated as part of a broader framework; without a systemic approach the effectiveness of the international cooperation intervention might be compromised.

Focus on acquisition of core competencies for the development of Guatemala. For decades, the production of highly educated human resources (holders of a master/doctor degree) concentrated heavily in the field of social sciences in Guatemala (Godinez and Tobar 2006). Also, this is the generalized pattern in other Latin American countries. Multiple sources (Brunner 2012; Oppenheimer 2009; Walter 2000) sustain that science and technology is understudied in Latin America. In the case of Guatemala, there is an acute need for specialization apart from the social sciences. In 2011, the entire higher education system of Guatemala produced thirty-seven doctors of philosophy, all of whom concentrated in the social sciences (RYCIT 2013). Those Guatemalans who graduated with master’s degrees registered similar areas of concentration. From the 2,093 Guatemalans who completed their masters, 63% studied in the social sciences (RYCIT 2013). Also, this skewness is shown in the scholarships provided by donor countries, with 42% of the programs concentrated in the social sciences, followed by engineering with 24%, natural sciences with 21%, and medical sciences with 14% (see <Table 5>). Countries with the economic and social stage of development like Guatemala require further human resources educated in innovation and entrepreneurship (Rubio, 2013).This premise could motivate the targeting of scholarships toward such fields. In addition, 91% of the donor support is concentrated in master’s program.

<Table 5> 
Characteristics of the Donor-sponsored Overseas Academic Programs
Category Indicator
Level of Education Masters Doctorate
42 4
Academic Fields/Areas of Knowledge Social Sciences Exact Sciences Engineering Medical Sciences
19 10 11 6
(Source: Compiled by the authors)

Mismatch between the education needs for national development and the fields in which donor support has been concentrated could be explained by the inexistence of diagnosis and clear public policies. In addition, limited dialogue between donors and the relevant public institutions in Guatemala could have resulted in a “get-the-most-out-of-the-system attitude” (Lopes and Theison 2003, 171) in which donors offer scholarships according to their own agenda and Guatemala accepts them without questioning. One interviewee manifested:

“The Government of Guatemala has not approached us to present the needs for training and education. Therefore, we follow our own guidelines. For example, Guatemala suffers from child malnutrition. If we are requested to allocate the scholarship programs into that particular need to combat such problems, I am positive it would be highly considered by the donor.” (Interview with a returned graduate)

We can see that typical supply driven approach prevailed in the scholarship programs without any sign of ownership from demand (Guatemala) side. In order to progress in the alignment of the international cooperation efforts to the postgraduate education needs of Guatemala, both the Government of the partner country and donors have to engage in further dialogue.

Inclusion and equal access to opportunities. Like all other countries, for centuries, higher education has been considered as a privilege reserved for the elites in Guatemala. During the colonial period of 1523 and 1821, only the direct descendants of Spanish conquerors had an access to higher education (Tobar 2011) and only a few citizens could be considered academics or scholars. Even after Guatemala gained independence, a systemic exclusion of women, indigenous and the poor prevailed until after the 1944 revolution when higher education became more accessible to the less privileged. Even today, the inequality that prevails within the social and economic layers of the Guatemalan society can be explained partly by education divide (Torres-Rivas 2006). The indigenous population represents over 50% of the total Guatemalans. However, the access of the native Guatemalans to higher education has been limited for various reasons. Edda (2004, 49) enumerates that “discrimination, linguistic barriers, poverty, lack of higher education facilities in rural areas, restrictive admission requirements, among others” attribute to these limitations.

Unfortunately, the data collected for this study indicates that donor support for postgraduate scholarships poses similar restrictions to the traditionally excluded: women, indigenous, poor and rural Guatemalans. From the 46 graduates interviewed for this study, only two (less than 1%) identified themselves as indigenous. Two-thirds were male and an overwhelming 89% reported to come from urban areas. One key barrier for many to access donor support for international education was the requirement of English proficiency. From the nine scholarship programs only two conducted postgraduate education in Spanish, and, conversely, seven of them required advanced English skills without providing language training. Understandably, English proficiency is required for international education, but, nevertheless, particular social, ethnic, and historical characteristics of Guatemala could be considered to avoid excluding marginalized groups.

2. Effectiveness for Organization/Institution Apacity Development

The consolidation of capacity development at the organizational/institutional level requires different conditions. A well-trained, productive person needs access to finance, information, technology, infrastructure and other resources (UNDP 1997). Often this means working within (or related to) an entity that has an organizational structure with a clear mission, clear goals, functions, systems and resources (such as a public body, a private business, an NGO or a community-based group). This would imply that development of human capacity by itself is not sufficient to achieve the ultimate goal of international development efforts: producing nationwide impact on development. The organizational approach sees an entity, organization or sets of organizations as the key for development (Lusthaus, Adrien and Pertinger 1999). Consequently, the assessment on the effectiveness of capacity development at the organizational/institutional level, influence of the returned graduates in their job positions upon return, applicability of acquired knowledge and skills and the nature (supportive/ unsupportive) of working environments is necessary.

Occupation of leadership position and decision-making posts. Such activities of acquisition of new knowledge and skills development by individuals are not automatically converted to social capital by itself. Well-trained people have to be recognized by wider groups and organizations in order to achieve capacity development impact (Pearson 2010, 8). This recognition is a merit-based working context which might be understood in terms of promotions and career development. When considering “career development,” this means promotions, increments of salary, or acquisition of directive powers in the place of employment. Amongst the forty-six interviewees, thirty-nine (85%) reported to have been holding middle-rank jobs at the time of the scholarship awarding, while four (8%) held an operative position, and three (7%) were occupying managerial positions. The figure was significantly different at the time of the interview as fourteen (26%) reported to holding middle-rank jobs while none of them was holding an operative position, and as many as thirty four (74%) were occupying managerial positions.

This research makes the case for “contribution” instead of “attribution” when explaining the influence of obtaining a foreign postgraduate degree in explaining job improvements. Alternative explanations for the work incentives of the returning graduates might be the normal pass of time, complementary training, and good performance, among others. However, various interviewees also attributed to their international education experience increment in their level of influence and responsibilities upon return. Similarly, nearly 90% of the interviewees reported to have gained a salary increase after returning from the international education, while 10% expressed that their work compensation remained the same as prior to their overseas postgraduate studies. None of them reported a decrease in their salary. By establishing incentives (promotions, salary increments etc.), organizations increase their possibilities by absorbing and retaining highly educated human resources and mitigate the risk of brain drain from Guatemala.

Application of the newly acquired knowledge and skills. In Guatemala there prevails a wide-spread skepticism about the applicability of advanced knowledge acquired abroad. Some researchers consider that higher education is only effective to the extent that it is related to the social problems of the country (Arenas 2012; Forg et al. 2009). Forg et al. (2009, 6) argue that “capacity development cannot be achieved through the knowledge and know-how of the individuals concerned, the institutions in which these individuals and groups live must be of certain quality.” Participants of the present study were asked about their experience in the application of knowledge and skills once they returned to Guatemala. One interviewee shared her experience:

“When I decided to go abroad to study the production of edible fungi as a dietary alternative to combat undernourishment that sadly affects over 40% of children under 6 years old, my peers and family were not supportive, as they believed that it would be impossible to use my knowledge in Guatemala as our staple continues to be beans and corn. Yet, I obtained a scholarship and specialized in the matter. Indeed, local institutions did not hire me… not even my previous employer [San Carlos University of Guatemala]. Consequently, I opened my own laboratory and founded a farm for edible new plantations, but even getting financing was extremely hard, however I managed to transfer this technology to Guatemala.” (Interview with a returned graduate)

In this case, resistance to change and the lack of financing place challenges to the application of new knowledge. Another interviewee mentioned equipment and inadequate technology as main obstacles:

“Applying my new knowledge in Guatemala was not easy. The National Hospital San Juan de Dios did not accept my proposals to improve the services. The hospital claimed lack of equipment, and insufficient medical protocols. The needed technology was not available in Guatemala either. Losing practice and continuity is not recommended when engaged in surgical procedures.” (Interview with a returned graduate)

Nevertheless, some institutions dedicated to teaching and research provided more fertile spaces to facilitate transfer of knowledge and application of skills, although limitations remain.

“Yes, we are doing progressive changes in my department, but we have been realistic. The number of researchers and professors with international experience is still limited, and in order for us to promote deeper changes related to publications, journals and knowledge production, it has to be done with the participation of higher numbers, a massive effort, but currently we still have only isolated attempts. For example, by having more peers with research interests and international experience we have access to peer reviewers, but right now we are still in the process of accreditation of our majors and improvement of the quality of our academic programs. We are still far away from other more advanced universities, but we are trying to improve”. (Interview with a returned graduate)

Supportive work environment. The stage of social and economic development of Guatemala determines the need of capacity development in Guatemala. On one hand, the prevalence of an economic structure based on exporting agricultural products and trading commodities and raw materials with limited value addition questions to the necessity of having a skillful and highly educated work force. Some interviewees consider that the agriculture based economic structure of Guatemala makes it harder for highly educated people to find employment opportunities. One of the returned graduates expressed:

“The moment that in Guatemala having a doctoral degree is required to be employed in a sugar cane plantation… then our human talent will be appreciated. Economic conditions are given for manual work, we are still far from moving toward a knowledgebased economy in which science and technology play a significant role, only then human talent will be in need.” (Interview with a returned graduate)

On the other hand, the low indicator of higher education enrollment and successful completion, along with the limited offer of postgraduate education with satisfactory quality, has resulted in shortages of specialized human capital. Frequently, Guatemalans do not apply for scholarships due to fear of losing job during the reincorporation process (Gonzalez 2013). Most of the beneficiaries are forced to quit before going abroad for study. Thirty-four (74%) out of the forty-six interviewees reported either voluntarily or involuntarily terminating their work relation with their employer before applying for the scholarship. Some of the interviewees reported to have passed through a “traumatic experience” when applying for a new job as their overseas obtained degree was disregarded or even discarded, being “overqualified” for the position, whereas others attributed the same cause to a higher degree of acceptance and better job opportunities.

“I didn’t come back to work for the Ministry of Economy. There was a change in government authorities: the new policies and programs of the elected government were not a continuation of the ones we promoted before departure. Also, staff had also changed, the mystic was depleted, and therefore I moved to a different job when I returned.” (Interview with a returned graduate)

Lack of meritocracy, understood as the process by which an employer hires new employees based on his/her knowledge, abilities, or skills, makes it difficult for the returned graduates to be considered for positions (Goyzueta 2013; de Leon 2013). Organizations and institutions in Guatemala would greatly benefit by implementing merit-based recruitment process as this would make them more attractive to human talent and enforce a systematic strengthening work culture.

3. Effectiveness for Societal Capacity Development

To address the effectiveness of a capacity development intervention at the societal level, it is imperative to consider the existence of relevant public policies, plans, as well as related legal frameworks. Morra-Imas and Rist (2006) emphasize the responsibility of partner countries to integrate specific capacity-development objectives into national strategies. These instruments reflect the ability and willingness of global systems (private and public sector, organized civil society and other actors) to reform (UNDP 1997), and the optimum use of synergies among the different sectors of a society whichever maximizes or hinders the outcomes and impact of a capacity development intervention. In addition, Honalde (1981, 577) frames societal capacity development as the “ability to make informed decisions, and attract and absorb resources” as well as forces of the global context that might provide either an enabling or a constraining environment (cited in Bolger 2000). For the purpose of this study, the collected data was analyzed to see the existence of a national strategy for capacity development targeting highly educated human resources. Also, the discussion includes the engagement among different sectors of the society for the optimum use of the knowledge and skills incorporated to Guatemala through the returned graduates and the importance of producing reliable information to make informed decisions.

National strategy for capacity development. Guatemala needs to embrace the challenge of designing and implementing a national strategy for capacity development in order to produce and manage effectively its human capital. Different sources (Gutierrez 2014; Meza 2013; Cuevas, Lee and Pineda 2010) coincide that the prevalence of national leaderships based on a short-term vision, unstable institutional structures, and an insufficient maturity of the political and institutional systems have resulted in the inability to produce solid strategies for national development. Instead, every president in office has been implementing a four year government plan. Moreover, a new administration discards most plans and projects designed and implemented by the predecessor by starting from scratch. Berthelemy and Varoudakis (1996) emphasize that “political commitment to condition policies and structures to the efficient use of the skills available can influence growth; human capital is necessary to assimilate and master modern production techniques or to design technical innovations” (Berthelemy and Varoudakis, 1996, 32). In this perspective, the lack of continuity in demand-driven development processes, periodic changes in government, and an incipient civil service partially explain the absence of capacity development from the public debate. Experts (Mack 2013; Arenas 2012) explain that in order to maximize the social impact of the donor-sponsored postgraduate scholarships, more attention should be given to build a policy framework and a capacity development national strategy.

The Government of Guatemala participates in the donor support for postgraduate scholarships through two institutions: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MINEX) and the National Secretariat for Planning and Programming of the Presidency (SEGEPLAN). The former is in charge of the establishment and expansion of relations with the donor countries as well as attending to Guatemalans during their postgraduate education in the host countries. The latter administers the information about scholarships’ provisions and intermediates some of the processes in which SEGEPLAN performs an active role, either by handling the paper work or participating in the selection committees. MINEX plays a passive role, mainly through the embassies and foreign missions posted in the respective donor countries. There is no evidence on the existence of focused strategy to efficiently negotiate and direct the donor support in scholarship program. MINEX limits its function to receiving only the offers and delivering them to SEGEPLAN as well as keeping an outdated registry of applicants to the different programs.

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has oriented the foreign policy of Guatemala in different areas such as diplomatic and political relations, commercial ties, tourism, and culture promotion. As for specific cooperation for education and training of Guatemalans overseas, the responsibility has been granted to SEGEPLAN…this is the institution in charge of concentrating the international cooperation policies of Guatemala; therefore, there has been a shared and coordinated work between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and SEGEPLAN. However, for the past decades human resource’s development has not been a national priority” (Interview with Salazar, former vice-Minister of MINEX 2013).

Traditionally, SEGEPLAN has played an intermediary role between the candidates applying for scholarships and the donors, some of whom are included in this study. SEGEPLAN is actively engaged in advertising and spreading information pertaining to scholarships by means of a complex informatics system accessible to the citizens through the internet. The intermediary role of SEGEPLAN has been recurrently criticized as it is limited to “handling paperwork without a critical participation in the process” (Goyzueta 2013). For the most part, government officials acknowledge that SEGEPLAN’s participation in the capacity development intervention follows a procurement approach instead of holding a long-term policy oriented perspective (Perez 2013).

“SEGEPLAN is the institution legally entitled to administrate the scholarships and training opportunities offered by the donor community [for Guatemala]. There are several functions and responsibilities that the legal frame of Guatemala assigns to SEGEPLAN. We try to promote an optimum use of this international cooperation, as we understand the importance of human capital for the development of our nation. However, this mechanism is usually relegated to attend other priorities” (Interview with E. Parrilla, National Secretary of SEGEPLAN, 4 May, 2013).

Human capital is fundamental for the development of Guatemala. Therefore isolated efforts to produce a highly skilled labor force will have limited impact on the society unless those actions are framed into a concerted national work, as Bolger (2000, 4) suggests “poorly conceived policies can make for a disabling environment” with constraining consequences for capacity development initiatives.

Engagement among different sectors of society to participate in the capacity development mechanism. Society is formed by various systems and subsystems, which have different levels of participation in particular initiatives. For the purpose of this study, different sectors of the Guatemalan society were consulted through key informants regarding their involvement in the development of capacity through postgraduate scholarship provision. These sectors included the public sector, the private sector, higher education institutions and civil society. The role of the public sector was reported by different interviewees as “not being sensitive” to facilitate the participation of civil servants in capacity development program. Various scholarship programs target public officers for scholarships to study abroad, but authorization for leave of absence is not granted to scholarships awardees. Of the 46 graduates interviewed, 10 (22%) were working for public institutions at the time of the nomination and all of them reported that their employers denied them permission to participate in overseas educational programs. This situation forced them to terminate their positions. Mack (2012) remarked that a “restrictive work culture in this sense dissuades civil servants to apply for a scholarship opportunity”. Furthermore, little appreciation for academic qualifications makes the public sector less attractive for returning graduates. In addition, interviewees reported the job seeking process as “one of the biggest challenges” of returning from their academic programs abroad.2

On the other hand, the Guatemalan private sector was regarded by various interviewees as being more supportive towards training and education efforts. Mayora (2013) explained that “private firms of medium and large capital usually are opened to nominate candidates for scholarships and later re-incorporate returned graduates to job positions as long as these are available.” However, most private businesses recruit less skilled workers as they are not willing to increase their salary burden. Additionally, lack of networks and unclear recruitment processes remain a barrier for highly skilled human resources when they spend important periods of time away from Guatemala (Manpower Group 2013). This situation contrasts with the reflections of the Task Force (2002, 11) who says, “[i]ncreasing openness, encouraging the development of knowledge and revenue sharing links with business, and the deepening of the dialogue among sectors will lead to stronger democracy and more resilient nation states.”

Also, higher education institutions were condemned for not facilitating the reincorporation of the returned graduates. Some of the interviewees mentioned: “lack of transparent and competitive recruitment procedures, unclear rules and insufficient incentives” among others as defects of the home country academic institutions. This finding is surprising as the institution in charge of higher education policies and guidelines in Guatemala –San Carlos of Guatemala University- has recognized the urgent need to upgrade the qualification of professors and faculty members of universities in Guatemala (Galvez 2006). Various interviewees confirmed that they were willing to become full-time professors or to engage in teaching activities, but the opportunity was never made available. One interviewee indicated:

“I tried to contribute to Guatemala based on the benefits I received through the scholarship, I wanted to teaching at USAC [San Carlos University of Guatemala] but the doors did not open for me; they [authorities] told me I could not be considered for a teaching position if I did not join the political activism for the incumbent Dean.” (Interview with a returned graduate)

As for the private universities, they welcome faculty with foreign obtained degrees; however, working conditions are not as satisfactory as public institutions. Professors are underpaid and have limited access to the necessary resources to improve academic performance. Nevertheless, two private universities were preferred as attractive destination to many of the returned graduates: Rafael Landivar and del Valle University. Both of them have made nascent efforts towards education quality improvement and research requirements for faculty members. Universities in Guatemala could greatly enhance the capacity by recruiting returning graduates. Studies (Dodani and Laporte 2005; Kapur 2001; The Task Force 2000) sustain that faculty with international experience and networking capabilities can facilitate local academic institutions to create a more advanced academic atmosphere, enabling technology absorption and developing “wisdom gain” (Dodani and Laporte 2005).

For this study, civil society defined as non-government organizations playing a role in the development of capacity through postgraduate education programs for Guatemalans. One of them is the Institute for the Development of Higher Education in Guatemala: INDESGUA. Many graduates, government officers and donor representatives, indicate that INDESGUA is the most experienced organization participating in the capacity development intervention with 10,000 members who actively work in counseling, advising … couching Guatemalan candidates applying for scholarships; also, facilitating access to information for the sake of higher education in Guatemala (Gonzalez 2013, 19).

A second organization is the Center of Mesoamerican Studies (CIRMA in Spanish).CIRMA operated in Guatemala from 2003 to 2012 and gave scholarships through the Ford Foundation to one hundred and twenty-eight professionals from different ethnic groups and regions of the country. This organization promoted leadership and academic excellence; as well as included disadvantaged groups and committed to community development. Corresponding efforts by the different sectors of the Guatemalan society would lead to enhancing the impact of the donor support. Admittedly, this is challenging “given the allegiances to traditional ways of doing business, competing priorities and lack of coordination” (Bolger 2000). Nevertheless, capacity problems, constraints, and solutions need to be considered from a systems perspective through the consideration of the dynamics and inter-relationships among various issues and actors in different dimensions.

Reliable information to make informed intelligent decisions about policy. A key element for transparency and good policy formulation is the production of reliable information for intelligent decision making. Data, statistics and different sorts of registries are fundamental for planning and programming of capacity development initiatives. Gewalli (2009, 1) claims that “every country needs to create knowledge on society as a prerequisite for making political decisions on a sound basis.” Therefore, reliable and trustworthy information is needed so policy makers can make evidencebased planning and policy decisions.

Regrettably, diagnosis for capacity development needs have not been attempted yet in Guatemala. Similarly, a systematic outlook of the current situation does not appear as a priority for the public agenda. Sacayon (2012) sustains that “the constant replacement of personnel, lack of registries and weak culture of planning and programming has had pervasive negative effects on the availability of information on human resources in Guatemala.” Under the circumstances, lack of the steady source of reliable and consolidated information eliminates the possibility of measuring progress and impact of postgraduate scholarships. The study has consulted with the relevant institutions of the Government of Guatemala as well as with the nine representatives of the selected donors. Both parties remarked that registries –when available– are outdated and incomplete. Currently, the lack of information is constant for every stage of the capacity development intervention. For example, databases of scholarship awardees have been generated by some of the donors; however, they register only the grant of the scholarship without follow-ups. In other words, most donors (with the exception of the Fulbright program) do not track down those who successfully completed their academic degree. The records of the Government of Guatemala are even less available. One officer of SEGEPLAN indicated:

“After the scholarships are awarded the accepted students travel abroad without further control. Rarely SEGEPLAN is notified of follow-up updates, most importantly, we don’t know if the beneficiaries complete their programs or if they return to Guatemala.” (Interview with E. Perez, 6 Jan, 2013)

San Carlos of Guatemala University is supposed to be responsible for the registration and validation of foreign degrees received by Guatemalans. However, from the forty-six interviewees only three reported to completing the recognition process. Most of them expressed that the incorporation was: “bureaucratic, lengthy, expensive and complicated.” Also, they mentioned that the validation of their degrees to the Guatemalan context did not make any difference when seeking employment, so they did not consider it necessary. The breach of this requirement makes it virtually impossible to keep a reliable registry of the highly educated Guatemalans who have obtained academic degrees from overseas universities and institutions of higher education. Also, all interviewees were asked whether they had participated in a study, assessment exercise, or other mechanism examining their international educational experience. The majority (95%) of all interviewees responded they have never been exposed to any related study conducted by the Government of Guatemala, donors or by independent researchers. Singh (2002) proposes that the recipient government is responsible to ensure adequate mechanism to empower capacity development interventions, including the provision of relevant information, data, and indicators. This is relevant to guarantee all actors to make informed decisions. Otherwise, Gewalli (2009, 4) warns that “lack of evidence-based decision making can lead to both public and donor resources being poorly targeted and wasted.” Conversely, access to information increases the effectiveness of donor support allocation and gives citizens further opportunities to hold their government accountable.


Ⅴ. Conclusions

Undeniably, donor support for the development of capacity in Guatemala has been contributing to alleviate shortages of highly educated human resources. Since the 1970s, international cooperation efforts have provided postgraduate scholarships to educate promising young leaders in overseas universities. This mechanism has enabled nearly 500 Guatemalans to obtain masters and doctoral degrees from overseas universities. From the capacity development perspective, this study provides evidence of changes at the individual level. Career advancements, promotions, salary increment, among other positive variations, were attributed by the returned graduates to the relevance for international education experience. Nonetheless, certain issues were identified as constraining its outputs at national level.

Firstly, most of the graduates consider the scholarship as a recognition to their academic or professional achievements, and, therefore, expectations for personal gains emerged more strongly than a sense of commitment for social or national gains. In other words, genuine pledge for contribution should be accentuated to the direct beneficiaries (scholarship awardees). The second problem is the overconcentration of overseas scholarship programs in social sciences. Different sources provide evidence (RYCIT 2013; Godinez and Tobar 2006; Calderon 2005) that the domestic higher education system of Guatemala displays shortages in the production of graduates in natural sciences, engineering and other fields encouraging innovation. It has long been emphasized that Guatemala should diversify professional expertise into non-traditional knowledge fields such as engineering to fulfill human capital needs for development. This is particularly relevant in a global economy based on new technologies. The third constraint regards inequality in the access of donor support by excluding women, indigenous and rural populations. Some characteristics of the capacity development mechanism implementation have limited the awarding of scholarships to the referred groups due to strict requirements of academic achievement and foreign language proficiency. This situation is worrisome for a country with over 50% indigenous population. The social and demographic context of Guatemala should be considered in order to improve the effectiveness of the donor support for capacity development.

Considering capacity development at the organization and institution level, interviewees reported positive outcomes concerning the application of newly acquired knowledge as well as a transfer of good practices learnt during the international education experience. Lusthaus, Adrien and Perstinger (2009) view organizations “as processing systems changed by individuals who turn them into system capacities”, though they acknowledge that “it can be more difficult to plan, monitor and evaluate an intervention” at this level of capacity development (Lusthaus, Adrien and Perstinger, 2009: 6). Additionally, findings of this study provide evidence from the contributions brought by the returned graduates to their employing organizations/ institutions. They reported higher levels of influence and stronger possibilities to impact their cultures. Equally relevant are the findings which depict an unsupportive work environment that discourages potential candidates of from applying for scholarships. Various scholarship programs reported insufficient applications for donor support, resulting in discarded opportunity and unused resources.

Finally, the most complex level of the capacity development intervention –the societal– concerns the process of developing a global perspective. The inexistence of a national strategy for capacity development has resulted in donors allowing their own agenda to dominate intervention. As a result, one of the fundamental principles for aid effectiveness –ownership– has not been exercised.

Also, donors have only been partially aligning their objectives to the needs of Guatemala in terms of capacity development. Most selected donors award scholarships based on their own criteria with limited involvement with the Guatemalan Government. Implemented units of the donor countries run most of the process of scholarship calling, candidacy revisions, and support allocation. As a result, donors have not been coordinating efforts, simplifying procedures, nor sharing information with Guatemala. Cooperation has become unpredictable, and occasionally donors compete for the same pool of candidates.

Inexistent data bases, lack of registries and systematization of information have limited the production of reliable data for decision-making. As well, this problem is accentuated by the absence of performance and progress assessments. Donors and partners are accountable for development results. Indicators have not been established and objectives have not been made.

For international cooperation with Guatemala to be effective, it is required that both donors and the partner countries assume the responsibility of transparency with each other. In the case of the Government of Guatemala, it should be more accountable to its citizens. The new paradigm for a successful partnership imposes mutual obligations on developed and developing countries. One of these obligations includes monitoring progress on both ends of the chain of development cooperation. For sustainable and efficient management of international development intervention, systematic evaluation, feedback and constructive criticism is necessary in order to reinforce positive outcomes. At the same time, by assessing progress, effectiveness and efficiency for all countries might be enhanced.


Note
1 For the questionnaires and the full list of the interviewees, please contact the authors.
2 This is a universal Latin problem. For instance, upon the experience of the Graduate School of Pan-Pacific International Studies of Kyung Hee University in hosting KOICA scholarship programs for more than 13 years, percentage of civil servants from Latin America and the Caribbean region is considerably lower than those of Asia and Africa.

Acknowledgments

* This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government(NRF-2013S1A3A2043521)


Bibliography
1. Acevedo, Anabella, and Lucrecia Maria Arreola, (2011), El Programa Internacional de Becas en Guatemala: Promoviendo la Inclusion, Abriendo Oportunidades [The International of Scholarships in Guatemala: Promoting Inclusion, Opening Opportunities], Guatemala, Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamerica CIRMA and Programa Internacional de Becas Fundacion Ford.
2. Berthelemy, Jean-Claude, and Aristomene Varoukdakis, (1996), Policies for Economic Take-Off, Paris, OECD Development Center.
3. Bolger, J., 2000, May, Capacity Development: Why, What, and How. CIDA CAnadian International Development Agency, Quebec, CIDA.
4. Calderon, J. H., (2005), Estudio sobre la Repitencia y Desercion en la Educacion Superior de Guatemala [Study about Repeating and Abandonment in Superior Education of Guatemala], Guatemala City, UNESCO-IESALC.
5. Cheema, S. G., (2003), Capacity Development at the Country Level, a Ten Point Agenda for Action. Economic and Social Affaits, New York, United Nations.
6. Cuevas, Mario, Sigfrido Lee, and Birsmarck Pineda, (2010), Industrial Policy in Guatemala: A Case of Policy Inertia under Changing Paradigms, Guatemala City, IDB.
7. DAC Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, (1992), OECD/DAC Criteria for International Development Evaluation, Paris.
8. Day, Rachel, Julie Stackshouse, and Norman Geddes, (2009), Evaluating Commonwalth Scholarships in the United Kingdonm: Assessing Impact in Key Priority Areas, London, Association of Commonwalth Universities (CSC).
9. de Leon, S., 2013, Feb, 17, De Guatemala para el Mundo: Mentes que Brillan [From Guatemala to the World: Brillian Minds], El Periodico.
10. Dodani, Sunita, and Ronald LaPorte, (2005), “Brain Drain from Developing Countries: How can Brain Drain be Converted into Wisdom Gain?”, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, p487-491.
11. Edda, F., (2004), La Educacion Superior para los Pueblos Indigenas, caso Guatemala. [Higher Education for Indigenous People, case Guatemala], Guatemala City, UNESCO.
12. Eley, R., Ibrahim, H., Demeke, M., & Smalley, M., (2011), Evaluating the Impact of the Graduate Fellowship Programme of the International Livestock Resarch Institute, Kenya, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).
13. Forg, Elisabeth, Michaela Flenner, and Reinhold Gruber, (2009), Higher Education and Scientific Cooperation, Vienna, Austrian Development Cooperation.
14. Galvez, E., 2006, Jul, 09, La USAC es el Reflejo de la Sociedad [USAC is the Reflextion of the Society], Prensa Libre, p16-17.
15. Gewalli, L. E., (2009), Statistics for Development, Copenhaguen, Denmark Statistics.
16. Gilboy, A., Carr, H., Kane, T., & Torene, R., (2004), Generations of Quiet Progress: The Development Impact of U. S. Long-Term University Training on Africa from 1963 to 2003, Washington, D.C., USAID and Aguirre International.
17. Godinez, Maria del Rosario, Luis Alfredo Tobar Piril, (2006), Los Estudios de Postgrado en la Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala [Postgraduate Education in San Carlos of Guatemala University], Guatemala City, USAC/IESAL-UNESCO.
18. Gonzales, M. L., 2013, November, 17, “Por que tan pocos Becarios? [Why so Few Scholarship Fellows?]”, Revista D Prensa Libre, p18-21.
19. Gosling, M., (2008), Scholarship Effectiveness Review, Sidney, AUSAid.
20. Goyzueta, J. M., (2013), “La Leyenda Urbana de las Becas en Guatemala [The Urban Legend of the Scholarships in Guatemala]”, Plaza Publica March.
21. Gutierrez, E., 2014, April, “Guatemala: Dos Experimentos de Modernizacion [Guatemala, two experiments of modernization]”, Analisis de la Realidad Nacional, 47(3), p13-19.
22. Hamza, A., (2010), “International Experience. An Opportunity for Professional Development in Higher Education”, Journal of Studies in International Education, 14(1), p50-69.
23. Heaton, J., (2008), Secondary Analysis of Qualitative Data, Historical Social Research, 33(3), p33-45.
24. Herfkens, Eveline, and Madeep Bains, (2009), Reaching Our Development Goals: Why Does Aid Effectiveness Matter?, Paris, Gravee.
25. Honaldle, B. W., (1981), “Capacity-Building Framework: A Serch for Concept and Purpose”, Public Administration Review, 41(5), p575-580.
26. Kapur, D., (2001), Diasporas and Technology Transfer, Journal of Human Development, p265-286.
27. Knut, W., (2000), La Educacion en Centroamerica: Relexiones en Torno a sus Problemas y Potencial [Education in Central America: Problems and Potential], Hamburg, Institut fur Iberoamerika-Kunde.
28. Kotvojs, F., (2009), Development of Framework for Evaluating Capacity Development Initiatives in International Development, p1-12, Cardiff, AusAID.
29. Lopes, Carlos, and Theisonh, T., (2003), Ownership, Leadership and Transformation: Can We Do Better for Capacity Development?, New York, Earthscan.
30. Lusthaus, Charles, Marie-Helene Adriene, and Mark Perstinger, (1999), “Capacity Development: Definitions, Issues and Implications for Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation”, Universalia, (35), p1-21.
31. ManpowerGroup, 2013, February, 16, “Se Nececista Talento [Talent is Needed]”, Prensa Libre, p8.
32. McGrath, S., (2002), “Skills for Development: A New Approach to International Cooperation in Skills Development”, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 54(3), p413-430.
33. Meza, F., (2013), “La Participacion Politica de la Juventud para el Desarrollo Nacional [Political participation of youth for the national development]”, Analisis Politico,, 1, p4-30.
34. Moral Felix, and Nieves Pombo, (2011), Informe Sociologico sobre la Encuesta del Valor Social de las Becas de la Fundacion Carolina [Sociological report on the social value of the Carolina Foundation scholarships], Madrid, Fundacion Carolina CeCALCI.
35. Morgan, P., (1997), The Design and Use of Capacity Development Indicators, Otawa, Policy Branch of CIDA.
36. Morra-Imas, Linda, and Ray C. Rist, 2006, June, The Capacity to Evaluate: Why Countries Need It, Retrieved from Capacity Development Briefs, Sharing Knowledge and Lessons Learned: http://www.worldbank.org/capacity.
37. OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, (2005), The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.
38. Oppenheimer, A., (2009), Los Estados Desunidos de Latinoamerica, Mexico D. F., Algaba Ediciones.
39. Pearson, J., (2010), Seeking Better Practice for Capacity Development: Training & Beyond. OECD DAC-LeCD Special Consultancy.
40. Ramkripa, Raghavan, and Lina Kupfer, 2010, January, 04, Tracking Trainees to Success. Retrieved from Georgia Institute of Technology.
41. Ritchie, Jane, and Liz Spencer, (1994), “Qualitatite Data Analysis”. in A. B. Burges, Analyzing Qualitative Data, p173-194, London, SAGE.
42. RYCIT Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnologia Iberoamericana e Interamericana [Iberoamerican and Interamerican Network of Indicators of Science and Tecnology], (2013), Indicators of Inputs, Retrieved, December 23, 2013, from http://www.ricyt.org/.
43. Sacayon, E. E., (2012), Los Sistemas de Acceso, Normativas de Permanencia y Estrategias de Tutoria y Retencion de Estudiantes de Educacion Superior, Informe Nacional Guatemala [Systems for acess, regulations, permanece and strategies of tutoring and retaining superior education], Guatemala City, Institute for Interethnic Studies, San Carlos of Guatemala University.
44. Schraven, Benjamin, Irit Eguavoen, and Gunther Manske, (2009), Doctoral Degrees for Capacity Development, Bonn, Univeritat Bonn.
45. SEGEPLAN National Secretariat for Planning and Programing of the Presidency, (2011b), Primer Informe Nacional sobre Cooperacion Internacional para el Desarrollo y Eficacia de la Ayuda en Guatemala 2008-2010 [First National Report about International Development Cooperation and the Efficacy of Aid in Guatemala 2008-2010], Guatemala City, SEGEPLAN.
46. Singh, S., (2002), “Technical Cooperation and Stakeholder Ownership”, Development Policy Journal, 2, p47-71.
47. The Task Force on Higher Education and Society, (2000), Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise, Washington, The World Bank.
48. Tobar, L. A., (2011), “La Educacion Superior en Guatemala en la Primera Decada del Siglo XXI [Superior Education in Guatemala during the first decade of XXI century]”, Revista Innovacion Educativa, 11(57), p69-80.
49. Torres-Rivas, E., (2006), Guatemala: Un Edificiode Cinco Niveles [Guatemala, a Five-Story Building], Retrieved from http://www.crearmundos.net/reflexionados/edelbertotorres.pdf.
50. UNDP United Nations Development Program, (1997), Capacity Development. Management Development and Governance Division. Technical Advisory Paper 2.
51. USAID, 2012, March, 28, Human and Institutional Capacity Development, Retrieved from http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/201maf.pdf.
52. World Bank, (2008), Using Training to Build Capacity for Development: An Evaluation of the World Bank’s Project-Based and WBI Training.

List of Interviewees (No returnees are listed)
53. Arenas, L. E., 2012, november, 15, Director General of the Institute for the Development of Superior Education in Guatemala. (K. Bonilla, Interviewer).
54. Mack, L. F., 2013, May, 22, Former Head of the National Institute for Public Administration INAP. (K. Bonilla, Interviewer).
55. Mayora, C., 2013, July, 27, Executive Chief of the Chamber of Commerce of Guatemala. (K. Bonilla, Interviewer).
56. Parrilla, E., 2013, May, 04, National Secretary for Planning and Programming of the Presidency of Guatemala SEGEPLAN. (K. Bonilla, Interviewer).
57. Perez, E., 2013, Jan, 06, Coordinator of Scholarship Programs. (K. Bonilla, Interviewer).
58. Rubio, M. P., 2013, October, 22, Head of the National Secretariat for Science and Technology of Guatemala. (K. Bonilla, Interviewer).
59. Salazar, R. A., 2013, February, 18, Former Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and Senior Diplomat. (K. Bonilla, Interviewer).
60. Soto, Y., 2013, November, 04, Executive Manager Foundation GUATEFUTURO. (K. Bonilla, Interviewer).