Hack:
The MaFI-festo: changing the rules of the international development "game" to unleash the power of markets to end poverty
Bilateral and multilateral donors and NGOs re-write the rules of the International Development Cooperation System to unleash the real potential of markets and the private sector to end poverty at a large scale... easier, faster and cheaper. How? Through trust-based partnerships, complexity science, effective organisational learning, systemic M&E and co-volutionary experimentation.
The international development cooperation system was built upon values, assumptions and principles of charity, Western superiority, and Cold War fears. It's methods have been deeply rooted in top-down planning, centralised administration, heavy-industry engineering and the promise of silver bullets. For more than six decades these foundations have shaped the ways in which poverty is perceived, addressed and measured as well as the evolution of donor agencies and NGOs.
During the 1980s and 90s, the success of microcredit programmes and pro-poor business development services driven by donors and NGOs had an important influence on the architects of capitalism. Instead of a mere tax payer or an autocratic philanthropist, the private sector started to see itself as a dynamic and innovative development agent with the potential to reduce poverty whilst making a profit. "According to World Bank figures, net private capital flows to developing countries in 2007 topped $1tn. In the same year, overseas aid from OECD countries totalled $103.7bn […] The question is not whether the private sector is relevant to development, but how better to harness the dynamism of companies and the market." (Peter Davies).
We are currently witnessing a convergence of donors, NGOs and private firms at the so-called “bottom of the pyramid” with mixed results. On the one hand, this is promoting an exchange of approaches and tools that value efficiency, accountability, flexibility, innovation, social sensitivity and environmental sustainability. However, this exchange is in most cases patchy, sluggish or superficial. On the other hand, such convergence is putting these actors on a collision course where lack of trust and cut-throat competition is leading to wasted resources, lost opportunities and a legitimacy crisis of the international development system and capitalism as a whole.
“At present, the private sector has significant developmental impacts but these are poorly understood and largely ignored by the donor community" (idem). Unfortunately, the misconceptions and sweeping generalisations do not stop there. It is not unusual to hear representatives of donor agencies, NGOs and firms saying that NGOs are inefficient and unsustainable; that the private sector is greedy, evil and unscrupulous; and that donors are bureaucratic and only interested in benefiting their tax-payers and entrepreneurs.
No wonder that even the diplomats who met last year at the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan (Korea) recognised that, despite the “many positive results” achieved by the international development co-operation system, “progress has been uneven and neither fast nor far-reaching enough” and that “aid is becoming increasingly fragmented, despite some initiatives that aim to address this challenge”.
One of the main problems is that the foundations that gave birth and still sustain the current development system have been hardly touched. This has created deep fractures between the fundamental paradigms, principles and procedures of the private sector, donors and NGOs. Such fractures have to be healed before these stakeholders can effectively combine their strengths, resources and skills to unleash the true potential or markets and capitalism to reduce poverty faster at a large scale and to protect the environment at the lowest costs possible.
- Changing how we work in the field
- Balancing flexibility and accountability
- Building the capacity of facilitators
- Changing what and how we measure change
- governments and their donor agencies enforcing rules, creating enabling environments for the private sector, NGOs, grassroots organisations and academia (R&D).
- NGOs empowering marginalised producers to engage with other markets actors using their assets and knowledge to their full potential; helping them to add value to the markets and increase the adaptability of these markets to future shocks; and identifying both possibilities and needs from marginalised actors.
- private firms listening to the signals from the NGOs about possibilities and needs of marginalised producers and consumers; designing, field-testing and taking to scale new products, services and business models that leverage the potential of marginalised actors or satisfy their needs; and using their distribution networks to buy produce from marginalised farmers and sell appropriate products and services to marginalised consumers.
- Study the MaFI-festo and identify the issues and recommendations that resonate with the organisation (it can be a donor, and NGO or a private firm investing in the development of a particular market system)
- Participate in the MaFI-festo Dialogues (workshops, seminars, conferences, etc.) that will start in 2012 in different countries.
- Join MaFI on LinkedIn or any of the Web platforms that MaFI and its members will set up to keep the MaFI-festo champions coordinated and informed
- Participate in the SEEP Network Mid-Year Meeting (27-28 June) and in the SEEP Annual Conference in November (both events in Washington, D.C.)
- Participate in the other two synergic initiatives that MaFI is promoting with the support of The SEEP Network: The Complexity Dialogues and a global research & training programme on Systemic M&E (coming up soon).
- The Complexity Dialogues have two main objectives: (i) to bring together complexity experts and inclusive market development practitioners to learn from one another and (ii) to introduce complexity thinking into development projects designed to make markets work better to reduce poverty and protect the environment.
- The research/training programme on Systemic M&E will help donors, NGOs and private firms to develop and field-test frameworks, indicators and approaches to measure the impact of their investments and interventions using complex systems and organisational learning theories.
- All MaFI members who participated in the discussions that led to the current version of the MaFI-festo (see a list below). Also those MaFI members who believe in this idea, are talking about it in their own circles, and will help to make it a reality.
- The SEEP Network for its constant support to MaFI, in particular, Sharon D'Onofrio and Margie Brand.
- Some visionaries within donors agencies USAID and DFID such as Jason Wolfe, Stacey Young, Jeanne Downing, Lane Pollack and Catherine Martin who see the potential of the MaFI-festo and are exploring ways to make synergies with it.
- Marcus Jenal for his help synthesising the lengthy and intricate discussions that led to the current version of the MaFI-festo and for his endless energy and enthusiasm.
A list of MaFI members without whom the MaFI-festo would not exist (in no particular order):
- Shawn Cunningham
- Jason Wolfe
- James Tj
- Christian Pennotti
- Mary Morgan
- Chris Pienaar
- Helen Schneider
- Rajiv Pradhan
- Anuj Jain
- Marcus Jenal
- Fouzia Nasreen
- Erinch Sahan
- Ekanath Khatiwada
- Alexis Morcrette
- Mona Gupta
- Alison Griffith
- Mara Bolis
- Christine Hicks
- Margie Brand
- Conor Riggs
- Sonali Chowdhary
- Hannah Schiff
- Kamran Niazi
- Paul Bundick
- Ben Ramalingam
- Yibin Chu
The duration, number and complexity of the discussions have been very high and it is very likely that some names are missing. Sincere apologies.
The uber-high level meeting on aid-effectiveness wrote on the development industry’s report card: “Has made scant progress since last Parents’ Evening. Neat and tidy, good at making mediocre work look better than it is. Moderate effort that doesn’t really translate into achievement.”
At the worst of times the development industry is a perfect case example of how to utterly kill innovation.
The development industry convinces everyone that it’s got it figured: it knows how to get results. We have to otherwise the gravy train dries up. We get very good at placing the goal posts of our performance so that we look successful. The gravy train encourages us to do so and it kills our incentives to acknowledge the limitations of our approaches, experiment and learn from success and failure. Sometimes we even get confused by our own simplifications, by the smoke screens and mirrors that we ourselves put up. We don’t recognise the complexity of the contexts we work in, the need to learn as we go, to manage adaptively, and improve iteratively. We neglect the need to collaborate to broaden our perspectives, to build something that is more than the sum of its parts. We also under-estimate the need to deploy the best and the brightest and to invest in their skills and competencies. While the academics' vantage points allow them to see our failings, their distance from what's really going on makes their advice too coarse-grained to be of much use.
It’s not always like this. Far from it. But in my experience the picture I paint above is the rule, and MaFI and the MaFI-festo are an exception. MaFI members are breaking the rules of the game. The purpose of the MaFI-festo is to change the rules of the game. When the issue at stake is the well-being of the world and everyone in it, today and for generations to come, how can this not be the most important management innovation?
- Log in to post comments
Dear Alexis
I really found your comment on the report card really funny. I could add something to that. "Is never caught bullying on the playground, but there are sometimes complaints of intimidation if not manipulation. Fixed on own ideas of how things really are and push their own ideas during play-sessions. Not willing to follow initiative by others".
Best wishes,
Shawn
- Log in to post comments
With regards to the whole idea of the MIX, reinventing management.
I wonder how ready global development partners are for the consequences of the ongoing dialogue about complexity sciences and its impact on the linear development field. Some questions I am often asked are:
* How will high level development management cope with the need to design programmes that are more sensitive to local context?
* How do we design programmes that are less specific on certain indicators but more sensitive to changing behavior?
Another popular question is about the nature of development programming itself. It seems that there is a strong emphasis shift away from "interventions" towards "facilitation" and providing technical support (I know that is not entirely new for many). But the question is how will development programmes spend their budgets?
* Facilitation is not as expensive as building things, buying equipment, and creating infrastructure.
Best wishes,
Shawn
- Log in to post comments
As Alexis notes in his comment, international aid has been criticized from all corners regarding its ineffectiveness to spark innovation and subsequently growth and development in developing countries. Many debates have been held on how aid can be made more effective. The high level meetings in Rome, Paris, Accra and now Busan are important in this regard, but - as said - very high level and with only a limited effect on the ground.
With the MaFI-festo, a group of development practitioners have taken up the challenge and developed an initiative to complement the aid effectiveness with a push from the implementation level, with a reality check from the field. The result is a discussion paper that shows the way forward towards more equitable and inclusive growth and development.
- Log in to post comments
As Alexis notes in his comment, international aid has been criticized from all corners regarding its ineffectiveness to spark innovation and subsequently growth and development in developing countries. Many debates have been held on how aid can be made more effective. The high level meetings in Rome, Paris, Accra and now Busan are important in this regard, but - as said - very high level and with only a limited effect on the ground.
With the MaFI-festo, a group of development practitioners have taken up the challenge and developed an initiative to complement the aid effectiveness with a push from the implementation level, with a reality check from the field. The result is a discussion paper that shows the way forward towards more equitable and inclusive growth and development.
- Log in to post comments
Thanks Marcus and Alexis for your comments. One of the greatest lessons during the process of producing the MaFI-festo as a network (at least for me) was the realisation that this could not be a monologue whereby practitioners told or begged the donors to change and that we needed to engage in a dialogue where compromises and synergies had to be made.
In fact, the problem with international development cooperation is that is suffers from SYSTEMIC problems that involve its deepest roots and a wide range of actors. We are all in this together, including the private sector. We are all part of the problem and this is precisely why we are all part of the solution.
This is why I believe the MaFi-festo and the MaFI-festo Dialogues are moving in the right direction.
- Log in to post comments
Tacit knowledge and the social dimension to knowledge are much too often overlooked in the aid industry. I believe we must strive to create strategies that are fully grounded in local knowledge, which is one of the key strengths of effective local actors, due to their proximity to the grassroots, deep contextual knowledge, community embeddedness, resourcefulness, flexibility, language and cultural capacities, and the ability to operate in a responsive manner to local needs, are those that NGOs and donors often lack. Hence, the inter-dependence between community-based organizations and international organizations should be acknowledged.
The “expertise infusion” development model is indeed being transformed before our eyes. We can no longer be sectorally-focused. We cannot look for accountability only on paper. This requires the time and skill to see what is living in markets, organizations and communities that is authentic, that has potential, accompanied by a deep respect for what is local and indigenous. This also requires a subtlety of practice to give thoughtful and careful support where it is needed, which is indeed difficult within the project cycles that currently dictate our day-to-day work in the aid industry.
The aid agency of the future focuses on building its own skills to accompany and support local change makers, community leaders, and grassroots initiatives, rather than overpower or co-opt them. The aid agency of the future is able to restructure and revise their accountability requirements to focus on the minimum structure and financial controls necessary, rather than asking local implementing "partners" to change. The aid agency of the future is lowering the “glass ceiling” for local groups to participate in decision-making about aid resources, is bucking the paradigm of development without local sovereignty, and is demonstrably serious about downward accountability.
- Log in to post comments
Hi Jennifer: One section that resonates with the MaFI-festo Dialogues is the one about aid agencies working with "local change makers [including entrepreneurs and enterprises of any size], community leaders and grassroots initiatives". The MaFI-festo Dialogues are basically about promoting this collaboration at the local level to change the rules that shape and drive the international development cooperation system. In your post you mention some of those "rules" (paradigms, approaches, procedures): give more importance to local knowledge, enable the local change-makers, restructuring/revising accountability requirements, local decision-making about "aid" resources, etc. And the list goes on... (let alone the changes that NGOs and the private need to make too!).
Thanks a lot for sharing your ideas here.
- Log in to post comments
A very similar initiative to yours in the global health sector is MIDEGO, Inc.: http://www.midego.com/ They have a mentorship model for health professionals, also with a focus on M&E, that may be of interest and offer ideas about how to operationalize the manifesto.
- Log in to post comments
Hi Jennifer: Many thanks for flagging up MIDEGO. One of the things that the MaFI-festo Dialogues want to promote is collaboration with the networks/movements that are already working from different fields or sectors towards a better international development cooperation system. The health sector is a perfect example of one where a better int'l cooperation system will enable better coordination/collaboration between donors, NGOs and private firms, which in turn is critical to deliver services and medicines to large numbers of marginalised people, quickly and in ways that are appropriate to them.
Do you know who we should contact in MIDEGO to start exploring areas of synergy? Thanks!
- Log in to post comments
You need to register in order to submit a comment.