What is the TTIP and what effect will it have on developing countries?

The TTIP is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the USA and the EU. The gains for the US and EU businesses, particularly large corporations in the USA and emerging SMEs in central Europe are huge.

"Between the two of them, the United States and the EU stand for 40 percent of global economic production; their bilateral economic links are the most expansive in the world. The liberalization of these ties would boost global competitiveness and market confidence in a time of economic crisis, and according to some predictions, could create more than two million new jobs. This naturally lends it significant support from many Central European governments." (Center for European Policy Analysis)

There may even be benefits for the UK as a member of the EU. An open editorial by UK policy advisors for the Guardian makes the following points:

TTIP is about doing away with those barriers on both sides. We believe that the agreement of a transatlantic trade deal would benefit the European economy in the long run by up to £100bn – £10bn a year to the UK alone – an adrenalin boost for jobs and growth in our countries when we need it the most. Crucially, the businesses that have most to gain are not large corporations but small and middle-sized enterprises. They don’t have the big firms’ economies of scale or the in-house lawyers to overcome trade barriers.

The criticisms of the TTIP focus around the fact that firstly, it will exacerbate trade imbalances by putting in preferential trade mechanisms (going over and above simply alleviating trade barriers) between the USA and the EU and secondly, result in huge social cost at local level as well as for the Global South.

The UK Parliament , a briefing paper describes the TTIP as follows:

Average tariffs on trade between the EU and US are relatively low. Much of the negotiation therefore centres around non-tariff barriers to trade, such as harmonising product regulation and standards and on measures to protect the rights of investors. 

and frames the benefits as follows:

The economic benefits of TTIP are contested. A study for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills estimated that the gains to the UK would be £4 billion to £10 billion annually (0.14% to 0.35% of GDP) by 2027. Critics of TTIP argue that these estimates overstate the gains, and that alignment of regulatory standards in areas such as consumer safety, environmental protection and public health could have social costs

 and frame the most contested issues as follows:

Probably the most controversial element of TTIP is Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). These provisions allow investors to bring proceedings against foreign governments that are party to the treaty. These cases are heard in tribunals outside the domestic legal system. The concern is that the ISDS provisions might affect governments’ ability to determine public policy if they are concerned they might be sued by corporations.

In the UK, the main area of concern has been the NHS – in particular, whether any future measures to reduce the private sector’s involvement might be challenged under these provisions. The UK Government and the European Commission have sought to allay these concerns but critics remain to be convinced. Besides ISDS, there are a number of other areas of concern with TTIP including food standards, public procurement, intellectual property, transport and financial services.

 Here is what the War on Want, a civil rights and advocacy organisation, thinks about the TTIP (War on Want)

"...the main goal of TTIP is to remove regulatory ‘barriers’ which restrict the potential profits to be made by transnational corporations on both sides of the Atlantic

Here is what the head of  UNISON, one of the UK's largest trade unions, thinks about the TTIP (Bond)

"TTIP may be a US – EU trade deal, but its impact will be felt all over the world. Multinational corporations will profit, but millions will lose out. People in Britain are angry about the impact TTIP will have on their lives. Unless we also get them angry about the impact of TTIP on the Global South, we will have missed an opportunity, and millions will be a great deal poorer as a result."

 On the impact of the TTIP on the 'Global South', here is what policy advisors suggest might be the impact (Green European Journal):

"[the Global South] is not a homogeneous bloc, but consists, rather, of a range of extremely diverse states which will certainly be negatively affected by any potential US-EU trade agreement. Such effects will result primarily from the diversion of trade flows, but also from, for example, the bilateral setting of global standards. Countries for whom, say, the US represents a main trading partner will be forced to enter into competition with the EU when the T-TIP comes into force.

and cites the following possible impacts on specific trade zones:

It is Mexico’s economy that will suffer most from the T-TIP, as it maintains very close trade relations with both the EU and the US. (...) With the T-TIP the Mexican garment industry, for example, could face increased competition from Europe. (...) the garment industries of both the EU and Mexico are already in competition for access to the US market and, if T-TIP favours European products by lowering tariffs, this would negatively affect Mexico’s garment industry. Another example is the trade in citrus fruits. In the EU, they are mainly imported from South Africa, Egypt and Morocco. So far, the US’s biggest export markets are Canada, Japan and the Netherlands. A trade deal could see US citrus fruit exports to the EU rise, forcing South Africa, Egypt and Morocco to look for new markets.

----
http://www.cepa.org/content/ttip-setting-global-standards
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/16/ttip-transatlantic-trade-deal-businesses
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06688
http://www.waronwant.org/our-work
http://www.bond.org.uk/blog/119/whos-really-profiting?utm_source=Bond&utm_campaign=995c1d212a-Your_Network_June_2015_W4&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9e0673822f-995c1d212a-247690901
http://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/the-eu-us-free-trade-agreement-bad-prospects-for-the-global-south/

The many faces of CSR - some concerns

CSR is ...

... a collection of small piecemeal fixes that cost millions whilst companies stand in the way of wider systemic reforms (The Atlantic)

... a response to and/or a driver of ineffective regulation and enforcement mechanisms (aka corruption) (NBER Working Paper)

... the antithesis of sustainable? doing as much (or as little) as the legal compliance frameworks deem necessary, social (green)washing, a disregard for systems change and an appropriation of cheap labour and culture... (Triple Pundit)

... old, redundant and anemic, desperately seeking new energy to bring about real change both within the organisations, which espouse it as well within the markets, economies and systems in which they operate? (New Global Citizen)

... missing an opportunity to respond to new consumer-driven preferences and evolving buying behaviour?

• Tetra Pak research found that 60 per cent of consumers that they surveyed said that they would look for environmental information on products they buy and would be influenced by what they read
• In a survey by Mintel, 60 per cent of respondents said that guaranteeing that ingredients used in its products are responsibly sourced was of major importance (Supplymanagement.com)
• Several brands, such as Fairtrade, pay producers a higher wage than other buyer. They demonstrate the market for niche consumer groups that have a willingness and ability to pay a significant premium for higher quality product 
• Labour Behind the Label also makes the point that paying producers a living wage for basic products, such as t-shirts, may mean increasing the retail price by only 3%, which is something that might be barely noticed by a customer

...
http://www.supplymanagement.com/news/2015/responsible-sourcing-a-key-concern-for-majority-of-uk-consumers

"It is wise to direct your anger towards problems, not people, to focus your energies on answers, not excuses." - William Arthur Ward

Do market-based approaches hold too many false assumptions?

This blog post from the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) attempts to reflect the main challenges in implementing market-based approaches. It questions the "false assumptions" of market development and systems thinking for poverty reduction.

In fact, what is most evident is that a very damaging assumption held by policy makers and practitioners alike is that market-based approaches simply mean "business" and "market access". In fact these are two outcomes of a functioning market system - among many others - but not the end-goal. In reality, well-designed market-based approaches that adopt systemic principles also deliver the following benefits:

• Production and supply systems that respond to demand and the needs of the market so that relationships are inherently win-win and about capturing the value within the system 
• Inclusivity of poor, marginalised, vulnerable groups as key actors and influencers (including, women, youth, disabled, etc.) 
• Market resilience and the ability of the system to stay strong and react positively to economic, social, political shocks even after any development intervention 
• Innovation is from within the market itself and emergence of new products and services (both for mainstream as well as niche users)
• Better relationships between market actors and market-driven design and testing and learning so that products and services respond to market needs 

When talking about market-based systemic approaches to poverty reduction, the first step is for all parties to get on the same page. For advisors to development projects, these are some things to look out for:

• An inaccurate understanding of systemic thinking and a persistence towards value chain approaches. The former is about the structures, patterns and cycles in systems, and the systemic constraints that affect the functioning of a system (rather than any specific events or element or value chain). Systemic analyses then lead to solutions and leverage points that generate long-term change throughout the wider system (and not for any particular market actor value chain or sector). 
• Visible conflicts between projects and market partners and disagreements around 'ownership' and 'control'. There can often be a tug-of-war between 'who does' and 'who pays'. The project may be doing too much and be paying too much and can be reticent to relinquish control and allow market forces and systemic pressures to take over. 
• A lack of understanding of what a better functioning market system looks like. Poverty is often considered a 'wicked problem'. As a result, without diversity for multiple viewpoints in problem-solving, there can often be difficulty in envisioning a better future. Some projects also perceive that by formalising all things informal and turning informal activities into formal value chains will somehow naturally strengthen systems. 
• A lack of appreciation for (and a fear of) complexity. As a result, there may be a pattern of efforts to simplify, delineate, isolate and control within specific timeframes and outcomes, leading to tick-box approaches to measuring systems change. 
• A heavy emphasis on quantity over quality in project activities. In particular, a tendency to prioritise activities that promise large impacts for lots of beneficiaries as soon as possible ... over and above interventions at leverage points in the system that take time but draw people into the system and bring about sustainability through relationships, value creation, growth, feedback, market response and evolution 
• A tendency to directly intervene in the market instead of employing facilitative approaches and market-based tactics. Examples: 
• running 'project pilots' instead of working through market actors and offering opportunities for 'market exposure and idea testing' 
• dragging actors into the market through 'cost-sharing' instead of supporting existing interest and willingness for 'early-stage market entry' 
• organising and leading 'stakeholder forums' to get buy-in for the project's bright ideas instead of facilitating membership based groupings around common market constraints 
• when buying down the risk in new markets, offering a heavy amount of 'financial subsidy' to businesses instead of non-financial options such as 'networking, capacity building, coaching, information-sharing and relationship-building' 
• a lack of adequate focus on the incentives, relationships and behaviours in markets. This can be evidenced by projects that make broad assumptions about why the private sector does not already work in marginalised markets. e.g. ICT4Development projects often make the mistake that ICT constraints are primarily technical software issues, and do not spend enough time addressing the incentives and facilitating the relationships and interactions between firms and the market (mostly small rural-based enterprises).

Dealing with prejudice in social settings

Often, I am out with friends or friends of friends or co-workers or in fact, complete strangers and I am confronted by horribly sexist, homophobic, racists and other prejudiced opinions. I naturally end up confronting these people to expose the bigotry in their thinking. However, very often I leave feeling dissatisfied, frustrated, more angry or even ashamed if the group plays a dominant domineering role in society (as often happens if I am talking to white privileged male heterosexual able-bodied people).

Here are a selection of blogs and articles and thought pieces that I have found to help deal with bigotry in social settings.

• Make a plea for empathy - "For example, during a recent conversation where someone was saying some very stupid things about a trans person who had recently come "out" at work, I made the comment that. "Yeah, it can be weird, but I always think with this sort of thing that it must be much harder for them than it is for you really.." Which didn't actively disagree with what they were saying but made a plea for empathy." 
• Remember you are "an emissary from the next generation" and there are things you can do to share the Word from your own (biblical or non-biblical) gospels. This is some of the very inspired thinking behind the #blacklivesmatter hashtags on Twitter and others. 
• If you have suffered prejudice and have been deeply wounded, apply antiseptic, de-sensitise the area of attach and opt for pragmatism in building prejudice-free environments in places where you have power and control. Remember, prejudice is learned and can be unlearned. Prejudices are attitudes rooted in ignorance and a fear of differences. Work within social and commercial spaces to plan an appropriate response. 
• Set up projects (such as this one) to record, monitor, map, measure prejudice in honour of the the 'victims' and their voices and remain vigilant in the face of aggression, paranoia and hate

Inclusive governance of informal markets: street vendors

Interesting article here from IIED on formalising the informal sector. The key takeaways are to look for mechanisms that incentivise and reward informal traders to participate in formal structures. And in turn, look for mechanisms that help governing bodies better understand the needs of informal traders.

Inclusive governance of informal markets: the street vendors of Surakarta
Ronnie S Natawidjaja, Endang Siti Rahayu, Joko SutrisnoJun 2015 - IIED 

Surakarta’s informal street vendors are well known, acting as a tourism attraction and — as in many cities in developing countries — making an important contribution to the food security and incomes of the urban poor. But it wasn’t always so. Informal street vending is often ignored by policymakers, or regarded as a problem to be eliminated. This was also true in the city of Surakarta, Indonesia until the mayor led a very different dialogue-based approach. By offering street vendors desirable and well-planned physical spaces and formally recognising them as viable and important businesses, the city enabled them to make a meaningful contribution to urban transformation and economic growth. The mayor’s first programme of engagement, designed to genuinely communicate with these marginalised economic actors, saw 17 per cent of street vendors move to mutually-agreed locations 2005. By 2014, more than three quarters of informal street vendors were operating from purpose-built facilities.

Scaling and systemic change in market systems programmes

Many reports on pro-poor business, especially from the grey literature, call for companies to ‘scale
up’ their impacts, with systemic change sometimes seen as a means to scale, as well as impact. Yet
there is an important distinction to be drawn between systemic change and efforts to achieve scale.

Scale is about numbers. It is about increasing the size, amount or extent of a business and development approach, through working with large corporations that have a vast reach, through
partnerships, or through replicating and multiplying results. The WBCSD (2013) describes scale as a
combination of the number of people reached, geographic footprint, and sales or procurement volume. While economies of scale and return on investment are important for business, as they can determine whether ventures are commercially viable, scale implies nothing specific about development impact.

Systemic change is about transformation in the structure, dynamics and relationships of a system.
Where business and development initiatives target systemic change this implies delving behind immediate problems or symptoms and tackling underlying causes to deliver tangible and enduring benefits with significant impacts on the material conditions or behaviours of large numbers of people, going beyond those directly involved in the initiative.

There is also a time element. Scale may be achieved in a (relatively) short period, but changes are not necessarily long-lasting. With systemic change, often the initial activities are niche, involving small and isolated impacts and unstable structures, which take a long time to strengthen and stabilise. However, where these innovations eventually drive systemic change, the result can be dramatic with lasting impacts over long time horizons.

Market systems analysis to evaluate change and transformation of a market system can be carried out by looking at 3 main questions:

1. How was ownership in a pro-poor business initiative structured? Initiatives led by an existing company, initiatives led by a new company that was created in response to a specific development challenge, formal partnerships between two or more entities, and multi-party platforms involving a large number of organisations with broad, shared objectives are different ways in which ownership by the market actors in a system (and not the donor or the market facilitator) will lead to actual systemic change.
2. Were key elements of systemic change part of the design of the initiative? Did it address issues that originate from the system and its elements (institutions, policies, relationships, resources, power structures, values and behavioural norms), rather than challenges specifically relating to the value chain and individual actors. Did the initiative distinguish between incremental initiatives around efficiency, quality and productivity, which rarely drive systemic change, and radical niche innovations that change the underlying constraints in the system?
3. How have changes to behaviours and norms been observed and monitored? How have they demonstrated that change has been sustained and long-term and not short-term, ad-hoc, or with undesirable unexpected consequences?

Adapted from John Humphrey, Professorial Fellow Institute of Development Studies (IDS), 'Market systems approaches: A literature review', December 2014 and available at Beam Exchange and Jodie Thorpe, 'Business and international development: Is systemic change part of a business approach?', Evidence report 42, August 2014 and available at Institute of Development Studies (IDS) 

Article - In health, let countries run their own programmes and take a systems perspective

A nice blog on lessons learnt in global health. Advice? Let poor countries run their own programmes and take a systems perspective ...

This blog was originally published here on the Guardian website.

Lessons in global health: let poor countries run their own programmes

In 2008, Square Mkwanda found himself in a quandary: international pharmaceutical companies had just donated millions of dollars worth of drugs to treat Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) in his native Malawi but the civil servant had no money to distribute them and they were stockpiling in the ministry of health’s warehouses. “I thought, what am I going to tell pharmaceutical companies? That I let billions of kwachas’ [Malawi’s currency] worth of drugs expire because we couldn’t spend just a few millions to distribute them?”

So he talked to his minister of health and they managed to free up enough funds to distribute the drugs in eight districts. By 2009, the distribution programme had reached all 26 districts and was entirely funded by Malawi. Seven years on, Mkwanda, who is the lymphatic filariasis (LF) and NTD coordinator at Malawi’s ministry of health, proudly announced that Malawi has interrupted transmission of LF (pdf), the second country in Africa to do so.

Putting neglected tropical diseases under spotlight

Read more

Leadership like that demonstrated by Malawi was one of the key themes in thethird progress report of the London declaration on NTDs, produced by the consortium Uniting to Combat NTDs and released at the end of June. The report said: “Endemic countries are demonstrating strong ownership and leadership, in variable financial, political and environmental circumstances, to ensure their NTD programs are successful in meeting 2020 targets. Countries are achieving elimination goals, more people are being reached, and the drug donation program for NTDs, the largest public health drug donation program in the world, continues to grow.”

In the wake of the Ebola crisis and in preparation for the sustainable development goals, these success stories are important best practice examples for the global health community as it rethinks how to effectively deliver sustainable programmes. Recognising the opportunities for lessons learned, the World Health Organisation called the elimination and control of NTDs a “litmus test for universal health coverage (UHC)” – one of the targets of the new development agenda.

Other countries are joining Malawi to take charge of their public health initiatives. Bangladesh, the Philippines and India are now financing 85%, 94% and 100% of their NTD programmes respectively. Motivated by growing evidence of the impact of NTDs on child development and productivity (and as a result on economic growth) 26 endemic countries met in December 2014 to sign the Addis Ababa NTD Commitment, in which they agreed to increase domestic investment for NTD programme implementation. The Addis commitment was an initiative of Ethiopia’s minister of health Kesetebirhan Admasu. Explaining why more governments are showing interest in this work, Admasu said: “NTDs are not only a health agenda, but a development agenda too, for which the poor pay the highest price.”

These country-owned programmes come in different guises but at the heart of every successful one is an integrated, multi-sectoral approach. Ethiopia for instance requires that every partner working on trachoma implement the fullSAFE strategy – Surgery, Antibiotics, Facial Hygiene, Environmental Improvements – and not just the ‘S’ or ‘A’, on which development programmes tend to focus.

Brazil decided to include NTDs in its national poverty reduction programme, which has other development targets such as education, water and sanitation. Municipalities, who implement the programme, are given free rein to tailor interventions to best suit their circumstances (a peri-urban municipality would have different issues from an Amazonian location for instance). 

Other countries used the single funded programme they had – onchocerciasis in Burundi’s case – as the building block to a fully integrated, multi-disease programme. There the ministry of health put in place a dedicated NTD team and worked with national and international partners to build a national programme that has been immensely successful. By end of the programme in 2011, national prevalence of schistosomiasis had been reduced from 12% to 1.4%. 

Will the SDGs be the last hope for lost causes?

Read more

Country ownership doesn’t just encourage policymakers to come up with strategies to reach their entire populations with health interventions but it also enables them to practice good resource management. Mkwanda says that NTDs brought good discipline at the ministry of health. “As with NTDs, we sit and budget. And we do not segregate diseases – integration isn’t just for NTDs, it’s for the whole essential care package.” 

The story gets even better as countries in the global south, such as Brazil and Nigeria, are not just coming up with their own programmes but also funding others’. Marcia de Souza Lima, deputy director of the Global Network for Neglected Tropical Diseases says the new funding streams will guarantee that NTD programmes outlive traditional support (a large proportion from philanthropic foundations) but she concedes it also makes them susceptible to leadership change – although recent elections in Brazil and Nigeria suggest this hasn’t been the case.

Article - Apparel sourcing opportunities in Madagascar and Mauritius

An interesting perspective on apparel industries in southern Africa. The video also includes evidence of how intra-Africa trade is supporting the growth of the apparel industry where the exports of fabric from Mauritius go to Madagascar to feed producers and workshops.

Madagascar and Mauritius are not small fish third-tier suppliers. Their factories supply to major global retailers - CMT cited in the Mauritius segment of the video supplies to Puma, Marks and Spencer, Topshop and H&M.

"Courage is the most important of all the virtues because without courage, you can't practice any other virtue consistently." - Maya Angelou

Article - Why re-think retail? Consumer expectations are changing

The blog was first publshed here on Thoughtworks by Dianne Inniss

We explored why retailers need to evolve, and what they should consider in response. How they respond tactically will vary by retailer, but here’s some food for thought

Why Re-think Retail? Consumer Expectations are Changing

 Consumers are making their voices heard like never before. Here's what they're asking for:

• Immediacy: Like the fictitious Veruca Salt. consumers are saying “I want it now”. One hour Amazon delivery, Uber on demand and streaming media are all responses to  - as well as drivers of - this demand for immediate gratification. And delivery expectations will only continue to accelerate. 
• Personalization:  Consumers are saying “I want what I want.” They are expecting more personalized and customized services that cater to them as individuals. Whether it is personal stylist recommendations from StitchFix or Le Tote, custom portfolios and investment products from online financial advisors or artisanal coffee at their local cafe, consumers expect retailers and other service providers to deliver solutions that are uniquely targeted to them and their needs.
   
• Ubiquity:  Consumer are saying “I want it wherever and - however - I want it.” Although the term omni-channel is quickly becoming hackneyed from overuse, consumers do want to be able to use whatever channel they want, in the ways they want, at the time that best suits them, not the retailer. They also want to conduct transactions on their own terms, defining how they want retailers to interact with them (from full service to completely self-service) at any given time.
   
• Information Control: Consumers are saying “I have all the information I need… now I want to be edu-tained.” Consumers are inundated with information. Brands and retailers no longer define themselves. Rather, they are being defined by customers who have access to peer reviews, blog posts and more information than ever before. Given the overload of information, consumers are looking for retailers to help make sense of it all… and to cut through the clutter by entertaining them and keeping them engaged.
   
• Congruence:  Customers want their retail experience to fit into the broader context of their lives, and to be seamless across channels. They want their service providers to recognize them no matter where they enter a transaction or how they choose to interact. Put simply, they are saying “I want a unified experience.” 

• Implications  - What Consumers Need

   Given these changing expectations, retailers must provide customers with solutions that address their well-defined needs:
  • Context – “Understand me where I am. Fit into what I am trying to do.”
     
  • Empowerment – “Give me the tools to be a smarter consumer, and to lead a better life.”
     
  • Engagement – “Entertain me; my attention span is short and lots of people are competing for my attention and my time.” 

  What to Do About It:  Retail Response

  We think that the way to address these needs is to bring disruption to the retail value chain. As consumers interact with retailers, many incremental steps add value to or subtract value from the experience. Disruption is about increasing the ratio of value-adding elements throughout the path to purchase.
  We propose that there are three possible strategic choices when creating disruption to drive value
  • Disrupt the product delivery value chain – Find ways to reduce the non-value-adding steps between the time a customer identifies a need and the time that the customer uses the product which addresses that need. For example, Amazon Dash allows customers to order certain products with the touch of a button as soon as they realize they need them.
     
  • Disrupt the customer experience value chain - Understand customers’ transactions within the context of their whole lives, and address the broader set of needs beyond any individual transaction. For example, ALDO uses “look books” at the point of purchase to help customers understand how a pair of shoes might into a complete wardrobe, or work for multiple different wearing occasions.
     
  • Disrupt the retail model value chain – Challenge the notion of what it means to be a retailer. This might mean becoming a clearinghouse for consumer-to-consumer transactions and/ or expanding the definition of retail to create new means of entertainment and engagement. Domino’s Pizza Mogul program in Australia has managed to do both. 
  These options provide an initial framework. Each retailer needs to tailor its response with an approach that is anchored in its own unique brand promise. Couple this with investments in the business processes and enabling technology to create strategic differentiation, and retailers will open a host of new ways to address changing customer expectations. 

Article - Oversimplifying behaviourial science

Why are simplistic solutions dangerous when addressing complexity? Do they promote simplified and lazy thinking? Do they result in linear solutions based on 'low-hanging fruit' for complex problems?

Does the new found energy and excitement around behaviourial science, psychology and marketing for selling products (both in wealthy consumer driven markets as well as in low-income bottom-of-the-pyramid markets) run the same risks?

This blog post was originally published here by Jesse Singal

Here's an excerpt.

"Although this product sounds like a fun idea, I’d worry that it could be distracting for drivers and it’s misleading to cite these rather complex and nuanced studies as evidence that looking at a smiley emoticon will make us all happier on the road," he concluded.

So no, MotorMood isn’t scientifically proven. But why should it be? It’s a light-up smiley face! Either people will like it and support it and buy it, or they won’t. Science shouldn’t have anything to do with it.

I’m only picking on this one Kickstarter because it’s a particularly silly example, and because this style of claim is so common right now. The emails arrive daily with the expectation that Science of Us and, presumably, the dozen other sites a given company is pitching, will breathlessly report shaky scientific claims that exist solely to prop up or draw attention to a given product or company.

This is a waste of everyone’s time, and in the long run it makes it hard for people who don’t think or write about this stuff for a living to understand what scientific claims really are, and what making and testing them entails.Surely there’s enough room in the world for actual, real-life science, and for products that are just fun (or stupid, depending on your opinion) but don’t need science’s imprimatur.

In other words, there’s no need to drag behavioral science into areas where it doesn’t belong. Like, you know, light-up smiley faces on Kickstarter.

The Iceberg Illusion by Sylvia Duckworth

The picture was originally found here on a Facebook feed

"A Bad System Will Beat a Good Person Every Time" - W. Edwards Deming

"Things which matter most must never be at the mercy of things which matter least." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Article - UK supermarkets criticised over misleading pricing tactics

Great steps forward in the UK. Helping consumers feel justified in their feelings of anxiety, confusion and mistrust. I know in the past, supermarket managers have hidden behind trading standards and claimed that their price tactics are in line with the rules and fully endorsed by the trading standards office.

And, this argument is very relevant everywhere where are market systems at work!

When working in 'retail' as a market system intervention, one thing that development projects need to remember is their role in market regulation. This means the policies and institutions and an adequate oversight function in the system to curtail predatory, confusing, misleading behaviour by retailers. Including agro-inputs firms (agrovets), animal and human health service providers, small grocery shops for the urban or rural poor etc...

The article was originally published here on the Guardian website.

UK supermarkets criticised over misleading pricing tactics
Rebecca Smithers Consumer affairs correspondent
Thursday 16 July 2015 09.09 BST

The competition regulator has criticised the UK’s leading supermarkets over their pricing, after a three-month inquiry uncovered evidence of “poor practice that could confuse or mislead shoppers”.

The Competition and Markets Authority stopped short of a full-blown market investigation but has announced a series of recommendations to bring more clarity to pricing and promotions to the grocery sector.

The top tricks supermarkets use to confuse customers

 

Read more

It plans to work with businesses to cut out potentially misleading promotional practices such as “was/now” offers, where a product is on sale at a discounted price for longer than the higher price applied. It also wants guidelines to be issued to supermarkets and has published its own at-a-glance guidance for consumers.

The investigation by the CMA was launched following a “super-complaint”lodged by the consumer group Which? in April, which claimed supermarkets had duped shoppers out of hundreds of millions of pounds through misleading pricing tactics.

Which? submitted a dossier setting out details of “dodgy multi-buys, shrinking products and baffling sales offers” to the authority, saying retailers were creating the illusion of savings, with 40% of groceries sold on promotion. Supermarkets were fooling shoppers into choosing products they might not have bought if they knew the full facts, it complained.

The supermarket sector was worth an estimated £148bn - 178bn to the UK economy in 2014.

In its formal response to the super-complaint, the CMA said the problems raised by the investigation were “not occurring in large numbers across the whole sector” and that retailers were generally taking compliance seriously. But it admitted more could be done to reduce the complexity in the way individual items were priced, particularly with complex ‘unit pricing’.

We have found that, whilst supermarkets want to comply with the law and shoppers enjoy a wide range of choices, with an estimated 40% of grocery spending being on items on promotion, there are still areas of poor practice that could confuse or mislead shoppers. So we are recommending further action to improve compliance and ensure that shoppers have clear, accurate information.”Nisha Arora, the CMA’s senior director, consumer, said: “We welcomed the super-complaint, which presented us with information that demanded closer inspection. We have gathered and examined a great deal of further evidence over the past three months and are now announcing what further action we are taking and recommending others to take.

Richard Lloyd, the executive director of Which?, said: “The CMA’s report confirms what our research over many years has repeatedly highlighted: there are hundreds of misleading offers on the shelves every day that do not comply with the rules.This puts supermarkets on notice to clean up their pricing practices or face legal action.

“Given the findings, we now expect to see urgent enforcement action from the CMA. The government must also quickly strengthen the rules so that retailers have no more excuses. As a result of our super-complaint, if all the changes are implemented widely, this will be good for consumers, competition and, ultimately, the economy.”

The CMA has been in close contact with retailers cited in the dossier, asking them for explanations for the misleading pricing and promotions. For the first time in its history, it has used social media including Twitter and Facebook to get more consumer and focus group feedback. 

This is only the sixth time Which? has used its super-complaint power since it was granted the right in 2002. It last issued a super-complaint in 2011 when it asked the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to investigate excessive credit and debit card surcharges. The OFT upheld its complaint. The right to make a super-complaint to the CMA or an industry regulator is limited to a small number of consumer bodies such as Which? and Energywatch. After Which? submitted its dossier to the CMA, the regulator had 90 days in which to respond. Which? said more than 120,000 consumers had signed a petition supporting the super-complaint and urging the CMA to take action.

A decade ago Citizens Advice helped bring the payment protection insurance scandal to public attention by lodging a super-complaint with the now-defunct Office of Fair Trading.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/16/uk-supermarkets-criticised-misleading-pricing

"Confidence comes not from always being right but from not fearing to be wrong." - Peter T. Mcintyre

"Outside show is a poor substitute for inner worth." - Aesop

Working with the private sector in market systems projects

What have I learnt working with the private sector in market systems projects?

Identify the systemic constraint and address the change at that leverage point. It is important to identify what is stopping the private sector from already reaching out to these markets. In one project, we found that livestock inputs suppliers were interested in developing distribution networks in very poor marginalised pastoralist communities but what had stopped them in the past was a lack of experience in in these markets. For them, lack of experience made the cost of market entry and market testing too high. The project therefore supported a market entry testing process for the firms. Each one carried out market research, tested their own distribution models and learnt from successes and failures. Over time, specific firms saw market potential and fully immersed themselves in the process, often evolving their strategies to respond to their insights on market dynamics.

From the outset, build in a pathway to market outreach with the private sector. In one project, we solicited proposals from firms to provide business services to agriculture firms working with smallholder farmers. We added a question asking firms to describe a) what they would try and find out about the market through the grant and b) how they would design market outreach and development strategies beyond the grant to continue interactions with market actors. The outcome was that firms better understood the catalyst nature of the grant. This also aligned expectations and incentives and all subsequent discussions between the firms and the project focussed on what was being learnt about the market and how the firm would scale out in the future.

Look at the market actor and seek out evidence of internal leverage points. Many firms will have engaged with hard-to-reach markets in the past. They may have made investments that have not worked out, or at least, invested in some basic research (codified or tacit) to test the water. When talking to firms about partnerships, look for resources that are vestiges of this history (a person, a report, a process, etc.). These can be put into the mix. A project can layer in additional resources, or improve the functioning of the resource, or help scale out out the resource, etc. In one project, we found that a university had set up an internship programme for agribusinesses students. However, this internship was not very successful because the university did not have the networks and knowledge to develop relationships with the private sector in rural areas. The project helped build these relationships. At the same time, the project helped train the interns who then on-trained rural firms> Over time, the university gathered enough knowledge to develop appropriate short courses for these rural firms – incorporating the expertise from the project as well as through the interns.

Article - Are we spoiling the private sector?

This blog was originally published here on the SEEP MaFI website.

Are We Spoiling the Private Sector?
by Md. Rubaiyath Sarwar in 2012

"As market facilitators, we strive to make the market inclusive...facilitate some small changes with the hope that the market system will open up to the poor! And we work with our ever so accommodating partners-more often than not lead firms. In the process, we keep on knocking from door to door, asking the private sector if they are willing to partner with us. And then, we negotiate, select the partners and implement our interventions. The interventions fetch excellent results. So much so that we do the same thing with the same partner in a larger scale. We call it replication. And then we involve more partners to do the same thing. We call it scale up. In some cases we say no to our beloved partner as we believe we have solved the market problem. But to our surpise, few months later, we see our partner doing almost the same thing with another project funded by another donor. Do we see another form of distortion taking place? Aren't we making ourselves too dependent on the lead firms? Why are our interventions often skewed towards the lead firms? What about other market system actors which include- civil society, professional associations, the government, the NGOs, cooperatives...? Do we always need to have commercial incentives to have sustainable impacts on scale?"

---

Over the last decade we have observed increasing donor investment on market development projects for ‘large scale,’ ‘systemic ‘ and ‘sustainable change’ in agricultural and industrial sectors in Africa, South Asia and South East Asia. The projects proved that the donors can get better value for their investment if the private sector is attracted to invest on the interventions. More importantly, the partnership between the private sector and the project on cost sharing basis evolved as a principle tool to reposition development projects from being providers of critical services to being facilitators of the services.  I have been a direct participant in this paradigm shift and evolved from being a project manager to becoming a technical advisor and evaluator of market development projects in agricultural, industrial and health sectors in several countries that include Bangladesh and Nigeria, the two hotspots for market development projects in the world. 

As my roles shifted and my exposure expanded across different sectors in different countries and contexts, I observed an alarming trend.  It was becoming increasingly evident that (i) market development and support to lead firms was becoming increasingly synonymous (ii) there were projects inThe question attracted wide range of participants contributing to a technically rich discussion. Contributors included Mary Morgan-Inclusive Market Development Expert, Scott Merrill- Independent Consultant, Marcus Jenal, Specialist on Systemic Approaches for Development and James Blewett, Director of Markets, Enterprise and Trade Division at Landell Mills Ltd. All the contributors shared the feeling that indeed there is a risk that market development projects, if not carefully managed, can lead to a new form of market distortion where the private sector become reliant on donor funds.  However, they also reiterated the importance and significance of the collaboration with the lead firms and suggested several approaches that could mitigate the risk of the private sector becoming reliant on donor funds.

Mary suggested that partnerships work when the disparate goals of the private sector (making profits), vulnerable and poor producers (being able to produce and sell their produce at an acceptable price) and the development projects (increasing income and employment for the poor) converge towards the overall goal of inclusive market development (sustainable and systemic change in the market for employment and income generation of the poor).  While acknowledging the potential pitfall of partnerships, Mary pointed out that the risk might be higher in their absence.  She contributed further to the discussion by raising the point that often the support provided by the projects is much too heavy for the private sector to deliver once project support is withdrawn.  As evidence, she cited a case involving Wal-Mart and Mercy Corps in an intervention on developing an inclusive supply chain for Wal-Mart in Guatemala.

The questions raised by Mary were addressed by Scott who argued that the risk of distortion is high when the projects fail to adopt good practices for partnerships. He proposed that instead of pushing the private sector towards the partnership, the development projects should seek to pull the private sector towards the development goal by soliciting proposals from the lead firms. He suggested that we should be careful with how we use the term ‘partnership’ since it could be interpreted as the lead firms being subcontractors or sub-grantees. Scott emphasized on the need to establish objective selection criteria, conduct due diligence and structure relationships with lead firms to ensure sustainability of the interventions. Scott proposed to support the lead firms to develop a business plan so that the commercial benefit from the intervention could be laid out in details prior to the inception of the intervention. This could ensure that the firm owned the development activities and continued to deliver the service after the project support was withdrawn. 

James Blewett reflected on his experience in managing a challenge fund project in Afghanistan and argued that challenge funds reduce the risk of distortion in private sector engagement since it seeks to proactively engage the prospective grantees (which include lead firms) in design, co-investment and management of the interventions.  He also suggested the use of financial modeling tools used by investment projects to determine ‘tipping points’ so that the project’s financial contribution to the intervention is just enough to incentivize the private sector to address the investment risk associated with the intervention.

A very important contribution to the discussion came from Marcus who suggested that before deciding on the financial arrangements and technical support, the projects should ask why the private sector is not investing on the intervention on its own if it made commercial sense. He advocated for ‘form follows function’ approach and suggested that the projects should partner with lead firms when it is clear that the vulnerable will benefit from the partnership. Marcus argued that the lead firms often do not invest to reach out to the vulnerable not because they haven’t seen the opportunities, but because of a dysfunctional regulatory system, which according to him is the systemic constraint that needs to be tackled.

From the discussion it was evident that while the need for collaboration with the private sector is real, there needs to be further push from the donors, development projects and practitioners to ensure good practices and reduce risk of distortion in the market systems due to over-engagement with the private sector. The discussion also revealed that there are good practices and models that are being followed and discussion around these models could help market development practitioners to be better able to answer to why they have partnered with the lead firm, what support (financial and technical) they should be providing and why, and finally, how the lead firm is expected to sustain the intervention after the project support is withdrawn.  the same region or country competing for partnership with same lead firms (given that there are not too many in the country that qualifies to become a partner) (iii) the proliferation of market development projects in the same sector led to increasing number of lead firms receiving funds from them that ended up subsidizing their R&D, distribution and marketing costs and (iv) it was becoming difficult to evaluate whether the intervention resulted in systemic change since the lead firms continued to replicate the intervention with funds from other projects once the support from the original project was withdrawn. This prompted me to ask the members of the Market Facilitation Initiative (MaFI) whether they shared the feeling that probably it is time for us market development practitioners to be a little cautious when we approach lead firms.   

Do housing vouchers work for poor people?

One way of reducing poverty is by increasing the ability to pay. And one mechanism is to give cash directly to low-income people either as cash itself or through a voucher system. 

This piece of research from the Urban Institute looks at using vouchers (i.e. one type of conditional cash transfers) to help families pay for housing. The theory goes that helping families pay rent (the largest part of household budgets), they are less likely to experience economic stress and food insecurity.

The research is very optimistic about vouchers. But, it is very important to point out the potential impacts of using vouchers as welfare support on the system.

1. Vouchers can create perverse incentives. Low-income families may go to shelters in order to be eligible for vouchers. This points to a need to identify the deeper problem within the system. Families that leave housing for shelters to get vouchers to go back to housing must be thinking about things that we can't see. What are the incentives to drive this kind of behaviour? Who is making that decision to move? Is it the family career or is there pressure coming from elsewhere? What is the quality of the housing? What makes shelters (and vouchers) so attractive compared to housing?
2. Vouchers can create free rider effects and increase welfare and reduce employment. However, this is a simplistic understanding of the problem. The article points out that we should also keep in mind that helping families get jobs and better-paying jobs is not just about getting rid of disincentives to work; it is also about opportunities for people to build job skills, and access basic benefits, such as health insurance.
3. Vouchers can be expensive. A systemic analysis would look at the costs of different options and determine if vouchers is the most value-for-money considering the systemic constraints. Additional information would be needed to build a value/cost model: How long do families remain on vouchers? How do the ongoing costs of vouchers compare with not providing vouchers (i.e. families cycling in and out of shelter)? How do count families that cycle in and out of shelter (i.e. churn)?

"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid." - Goethe

A systems-thinking approach to public policy

(The blog has been reproduced from where it was originally found on the LSE website here.)

A systems-thinking approach to public policy eschews linear model for more holistic understanding of decision-making.

By Joseph A. Curtatone and Mark Esposito, September 25th, 2014

In Somerville, we’re working to bring this kind of intuitive, systems-focused thinking into the policy-making process in partnership with an internationally acclaimed systems-thinking course now in its fourth summer at Harvard University and taught by one of the authors of this article. Harvard students are working with staff from the city’s SomerStat Office of Innovation and Analytics, thinking holistically about how, for instance, a policy decision regarding affordable housing might affect education and public health, and vice versa. This class is serving as an ideas incubator for the city’s new NEXUS initiative, which aims to engage city officials and residents alike in thinking about issues facing the community not as isolated threads but as part of an interwoven community fabric.

This isn’t a theoretical exercise. It’s about applying this holistic way of thinking in a practical way to real-world problems. Opioid abuse and overdose, for example, is an urgent and critical issue facing Somerville and other cities, and intuitively we know that there are many factors driving this epidemic. It’s a question that the students are examining this summer with a wide-angle lens, trying to understand how this issue enmeshes with others such as education, housing and social cohesion within the community.

As for childhood obesity, Somerville has employed systems thinking to tackle that problem as well. The city’s Shape Up Somerville program instituted healthier school food menus and policies focused on getting kids active at school and beyond. Infrastructure, zoning and planning work aim to make the city more walkable and bikeable. Parks, open spaces and community events invite people out. Families have better access to healthier foods through Shape Up-approved restaurants as well as farmers’ markets and a year-round mobile market where people can use their SNAP and WIC benefits. And the city’s urban-agriculture ordinance makes it easier to grow fresh, healthy foods at home. By attacking the problem of childhood obesity holistically, Somerville created a model that has achieved real, measurable results: fewer Somerville children were obese or overweight after two full years of the intervention. Shape Up Somerville was cited by first lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” program.

The impact of the systems-thinking approach can already be felt far beyond Somerville: The Harvard students are getting real-world experience in applying concepts that they’ll be able to take into their respective fields and careers. Many of the students come from business backgrounds, a realm where systems thinking has been in use for decades. The Harvard course was selected in 2013 by European Parliament President Martin Schulz as an incubator for ideas for dealing with the European Union’s financial crisis.

We live in the era of Big Data. But while number-tracking and crunching have deepened our understanding of issues, data analytics is mostly aimed at figuring out linear relationships. The other piece of the puzzle is discerning complex webs of interrelationships — the broader, more holistic approach to policy-making that we need to tackle problems that are rarely linear.

This article first appeared at Governing.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/09/25/systems-thinking-approach-to-public-policy/