Has anyone applied systems thinking to international development?

The short answer is Yes!

The longer answer is that this area is still undergoing an attrition and evolution with people in the sector trying to shape what this means for them and their work. There is a real dearth of good M&E/impact evaluation support for systems thinkers in development, which makes the work harder. There are some organisations that addressing this issue head on and are moving away from M&E and towards more knowledge, learning and practice. To do this requires building the capacity within field teams, management, senior management and also, with donors.

For me, the most interesting thing is how systems thinking principles are used effectively. The aim should be to help developing countries determine what kind of system they want to have and what people will want to do in the system. A big danger to the space that in our attempts to 'bring about a better way of doing things', we determine what the system should look like *for* countries and we hard code these principles activities and behaviours *for* people. Moreover, integrative, participatory and democratic approaches for systems thinking are often just not enough because it can set up a situation where there is still a dominant thinking that others are being encouraged to conform to or align with.

In a nutshell, systems thinking for development cannot be the end-goal. It should be a starting point to think about doing development differently and better.

Originally published on Quora here

Habits of a Systems Thinker

Source: www.watersfoundation.org/systems-thinking/habits-of-a-systems-thinker/

The Iceberg Illusion

An illustration on mental models for systems thinking

The graphic was originally found on Twitter posted by Amy Koo ‏@awykoo, who had come across it at a sustainability and systems workshop in November 2015: http://watersfoundation.org/category/newsletter-archives/march-2014/

Why might some poverty reduction project incorporate behaviour change theories?

Nudges
(behaviour change tactics)

• Commitment device. A commitment device is a choice that an individual makes in the present which restricts his own set of choices in the future, often as a means of controlling future impulsive behavior and limiting choices to those that reflect long-term goals.
• Temptation bundling 
• Loss aversion. More pain with loss than the pleasure for what we gain. The customers that cancel with you are more worried about what they will lose than what they could gain by switching and going elsewhere

System actors
(for market actors integrating nudges)
Market actors who may be interested in behaviour change nudges are diverse. We see commercial enterprises looking to develop a customer base within a low-income population at the bottom-of-the-pyramid; we see Governments wanting to affect the behaviour of citizens such as through giving up smoking, reducing speeds on the roads and paying taxes on time; and we see opinion leaders/institutions/social networks wanting to influence and change socio-cultural dynamics - think of #blacklivesmatter.

System change
(why?)
We think that some behaviour change nudging is needed when the context is new for people, such as a unprecedented growth in the market economy, or recent modernisation, or evolving non-traditional systems, or new sectors and economic activity that require new practice and behaviours.

Facilitation using behaviour change
(for development practitioners)

• Avoid prescribing behaviour. Instead, help system actors find the behaviour they want to adopt; let it be self-deterministic and self-motivated. This makes it easier to find the right nudge - through the process, system actors will indicate the right nudge for them and what it will take to adhere to the effects of the nudge. 
• Be intuitive and look for deeper narratives. System actors will tell you what they want but this will not be overt, out-loud and obvious. This will be through their attitudes, behaviours, mindset, actions, and perceptions. You will need to read all of these cues to understand the full script of what the actor is (not) saying to you.
• Look into the socio-economic benefits for sharing the costs of desgining and implementing nudges and the socio-economic benefits for the value created. This should be the basis for programming the nudge into the market system
• Celebrate the effort not just the intellect. Telling people that they are smart and intelligent can create situations where the individual relies on their intelligence to get them through complex situations. Often what is needed more is a combination of patience, commitment, sacrifice, and possibly super-normal hard work (= effort)

RCTs in poverty reduction and development: why are some practitioners abandoning RCTs?

This blogpost about ethics in international development is about a randomised control trial (RCT) in Kenya. In the experiment, some households in Kenya were given unconditional cash transfers of either USD 404 or USD 1525. The researchers found, unsurprisingly, that the lucky ones were happier and that their unlucky neighbours were unhappy. The paper is aptly titled “Your Gain is my Pain”.

Most importantly, however, the blogger reflects on why this type of research is done at all: "Am I the only one to think that is not ethical dishing out large sums of money in small communities and observing how jealous and unhappy this makes the unlucky members of these tight knit communities?" 

For myself, as a development practitioner with a systems thinking perspective, RCTs can come across as having very limited usefulness and application. They can also be quite machine-based: they either choose to wilfully ignore human behaviour or they simply limit their interactions with other disciplines (psychology, sociology, anthropology) so that they can create more simple hypotheses. Thus, it is felt that the applicability of an RCT for complex problems (such as systemic poverty) is limited.

The RCT we have seen from Kenya seems to fall into that trap too. This RCT seems to need to test the notion that poor people in Kenya might not exhibit the same reactions and behaviours as other people. As if the nature of the human condition (in Africa) is under exploration. To me, this is strange and feels like the original hypotheses might have been drastically distilled and reduced down to overly simplified thoughts.

I wonder how the findings would actually be useful to policy and projects. Who might need proofs from an RCT that Kenyans are like any other human being? How could such research be useful for development planning at an economic or social level? Why is the notion that proving that desperation, jealously and unhappiness occurs among very poor people is valuable? I would also wonder what long-lasting impact this type of research would have on social relationships in the communities in the future.

Globally, there is a large community of development practitioner who feel that RCTs in poverty interventions are not ethical and not useful. From my conversations with them, they make the following points:

1. In many RCTs, an assumption is made that the the groups will not be communicating with each other. However, it is actually very difficult to have demarcated and clear boundaries for the treatment groups to be adequately isolated. People talk. Information can flow through multiple channels and through multiple mechanisms (face-to-face, mobile phone, internet, etc) across groups, geographies, social hierarchies, institutions, etc. 
2. In RCTs, people might be very desperate because of the psychological and social impact of poverty and crisis. In this case all the RCT does is exacerbate that desperation and exacerbate those behaviours that present themselves when people are in desperate situations. The results are therefore naturally biased and skewed and outlying when compared to any group at any point in time. This is not adequately recognised in RCTs and thus not at all reflected when RCTs attempt to influence policy and project applications.
3. Over time, the RCT can have a lasting negative impact. Those RCTs which test the type of reactions as the one featured here in Kenya - jealousy and unhappiness - can damage social relationships between individuals and groups even after the trial has ended. Real people are not as adept to switching off their pain and trauma (and any additional feelings of betrayal, anger, envy, frustration, etc.) as machines might be able to! 

To strengthen an economic system means agents in system must explore, test boundaries. Not the consultants nor the policy makers. The entrepreneurs. - Shawn Cunningham

A video on the three dimensions of the facilitators' role

The video describes the three principal dimensions of the facilitator´s job.

Check out the website to find out! http://english.iifac.org/

----

Alternatively, watch the video here from IIFACWEB and published on 1 Apr 2013

How are MBTI frameworks used to understand behaviour and manage teams?

The source material on cognitive learning styles can be found here on Wikipedia

MBTI for cognitive learning styles

Each is not a polar opposite, but a gradual continuum.

• Extraversion to Introversion

The extraverted types learn best by talking and interacting with others. By interacting with the physical world, extraverts can process and make sense of new information. The introverted types prefer quiet reflection and privacy. Information processing occurs for introverts as they explore ideas and concepts internally.

• Sensing/Intuition

The second continuum reflects what a person focuses their attentions on. Sensing types enjoy a learning environment in which the material is presented in a detailed and sequential manner. Sensing types often attend to what is occurring in the present, and can move to the abstract after they have established a concrete experience. Intuitive types prefer a learning atmosphere in which an emphasis is placed on meaning and associations. Insight is valued higher than careful observation, and pattern recognition occurs naturally for Intuitive types.

• Thinking/Feeling

The third continuum reflects the person’s decision preferences. Thinking types desire objective truth and logical principles and are natural at deductive reasoning. Feeling types place an emphasis on issues and causes that can be personalized while they consider other people's motives.

• Judging/Perceiving

The fourth continuum reflects how the person regards complexity. Judging types will thrive when information is organized and structured, and they will be motivated to complete assignments in order to gain closure. Perceiving types will flourish in a flexible learning environment in which they are stimulated by new and exciting ideas. Judging types like to be on time, while perceiving types may be late and/or procrastinate.

What does a market system specialist like me do?

Economic Development

• Develop retail networks in developing countries to get products and services in the hands of low-income marginalised consumers
• Help aid programmes do more systemic social welfare through systemic safety net programmes
• Improve the enabling environment for MSMEs and the informal sector  

Social Business and CSR

• Look at supply chain interventions that go beyond the value chain approach and take more of a systemic perspective that actually deliver benefits to poor farmers 
• Identify different areas where CSR can be better programmed by way of a market systems approach
• Integrate the private sector into market systems approaches that have historically focused on socialist mechanisms (large State, community associations, NGOs)
• Work with system actors to identify areas where market systems development will make a difference

Behaviour Change

• Train practitioners on behaviour change and behaviour change methodologies to help projects deliver systemic solutions 
• Design behaviour change tools to improve the adoption and commitment of poor people to long terms savings and investments practices

The systems for welfare and safety net programmes

How are welfare and social safety net systems set up?

Broadly speaking and quite simply, welfare and benefits help people through poverty as well as respond and be resilient to unexpected external shocks, such as macroeconomic downturn and job loss, sickness and injury, and other disabilities. Welfare also helps people grow their financial and asset base and are used to supplement incomes that are considered below living wage. Welfare can also help pay for supplementary services to people overcome poverty, respond to shocks and/or grow their asset base, such as childcare or energy subsidies.

Conversely, tax systems are used to generate income in order to redistribute to welfare recipients. Tax can be applied to incomes (and conversely tax can be reduced on low incomes and personal allowance thresholds). Tax can be applied to goods and services deemed harmful to other people and the environment such as cigarettes. Tax incentives (or tax-free activities) can be applied to goods and services deemed beneficial to other people and the environment such as solar panels for household roofs.

Welfare budget - The welfare budget is formed through amount raised in taxes and more precisely, the proportion of tax income allocated to the welfare system. Who decides this proportion? How does this money get allocated? Does the amount reflect the needs of the benefit claimants within the system? According to Open Democracy: "Benefit levels in Britain reflect political decisions on the amount governments in Britain have been prepared to spend, not the total of claimants’ needs."

Welfare eligibility criteria - There are several different categories of eligibility criteria to be able to clam welfare, such as time in work, dependents, length of residency. There are also different categories of benefit types from job seeker support, to housing to sickness to occupational injury. The specific criteria will differ in different countries. Above all, claiming benefits is not an easy task for local claimants or those from elsewhere classified as migrants or immigrants. And certain welfare opportunities are not included in the benefits system because they are public goods (from clean air to access to a universal healthcare system that treats personal injury and illness especially those that are communicable, contigious and treatable) (BBC News)

Multi-territorial welfare system - Across integrated trade and economic zones (where integration includes policies and regulations as well as social networks, culture and learning), such as the European Union (EU), it was found that migrants from wealthier countries (like the UK) have the power to claim benefits from across the water, in other equally wealthy or even less wealthy countries. At times, the number of Britons claiming welfare in the EU can be larger than 'EU migrants to the UK claiming welfare in the UK' (IB Times and the Guardian)

Changes to the welfare system - Changes to the amount in the welfare system (taxation) and who gets them (welfare recipients) are brought about by those operating within the system itself. The Government may seem to have decision-making power but what analysis do they do to make decisions and who does the research? In some cases, the EU can put pressure on member states to make welfare system changes (Social Europe)

Factors that affect the ability of a welfare system to work

• A restriction in money inflows are more of a burden than the increase in the number of welfare recipients
• 
  

---
https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/charlotte-rachael-proudman/welfare-benefits-are-calculated-by-political-objective
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25134521
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/britons-claiming-benefits-across-eu-outnumber-immigrants-getting-welfare-uk-1484091
http://www.socialeurope.eu/2015/02/welfare-union/

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

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

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

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

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)?