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/

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).

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.

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.

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)?

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/

Article - How systems thinking can impact climate change

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

How Systems Thinking Can Impact Climate Change

By Dymphna van der Lans

Sep 19 2014

Systems thinker: a phrase that has come to define my method for problem solving, my approach to tackling the world’s greatest challenges, and most importantly, who I am today. When I was asked to serve as the CEO of the Clinton Climate Initiative, I had the opportunity to reflect on what led me to this point and how my identity as a systems thinker would ultimately shape our mission moving forward to confront the complicated threats of climate change.

I was fortunate to be raised by systems thinkers as I grew up in the Netherlands, where everything and everyone is close together. Since there is no wilderness, very little land and very little space, we have to be thoughtful about our resources and about each other, and I have carried these lessons with me to where I am today.

The world, as I see it, is made up of systems, and is the result of any interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves an outcome.

The world, as I see it, is made up of systems, and is the result of any interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves an outcome. A tree is a system. A forest is a system. I am a system. Systems are often embedded in larger systems, which are embedded in yet larger systems. The earth’s climate is a system comprised of the subsystems of our atmosphere, our oceans, the land, and human society.

The earth’s climate is a system comprised of the subsystems of our atmosphere, our oceans, the land, and human society.

“Systems Thinking” views outcomes as the result of the interactions between the various elements of a system and recognizes that systems often contain within them the causes of their own success, and — this is critical— the causes of their own failure. Similarly, “Systems Problems” are problems that have origins in the interactions of the elements of a system, characterized by a high degree of interconnection and interdependence with other variables around them.

Climate change may well be the most complex systems problem that we have ever faced. In our modern economy, almost every human activity is linked to the use of fossil fuels or other sources of climate-altering greenhouse gases. Every time we buy or download a book, every time we cook a meal, every time we travel across town, we are impacting the climate.

In our modern economy, almost every human activity is linked to the use of fossil fuels or other sources of climate-altering greenhouse gases. Every time we buy or download a book, every time we cook a meal, every time we travel across town, we are impacting the climate.

At the same time, almost everything that sustains and enriches our lives is affected, directly or indirectly, by the changing climate. At the Clinton Foundation, we realize that access to clean water, the price of our food, national security, the health of ourselves and our loved ones, economic opportunity for this generation and those to come, all are placed in jeopardy by climate change.

We must insist on solving more than one problem at a time and on tackling multiple interrelated challenges at the same time. We need the resolve to address systems rather than symptoms. A solution will not be effective or enduring if it creates new problems. And so, we need new business models, new technologies, new policy frameworks, and most importantly, new ways of engaging with each other.

We are moving away from focusing on single technologies to using a whole systems approach as we recognize that there is no single silver bullet solution to stopping climate change.

The Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) does exactly that in its unique systems thinking approach. We are moving away from focusing on single technologies to using a whole systems approach as we recognize that there is no single silver bullet solution to stopping climate change. Rather than narrowly focusing on one approach, like renewable energy as the only solution, we take a more holistic view to developing systemic solutions. We collaborate with world-class partners to increase the resiliency of communities facing climate change and to create replicable and sustainable models for others to follow.

At the core of our engagement philosophy is Systems Thinking; identifying and activating leverage points that can create significant, positive impact in climate change mitigation and energy transition for communities around the world. CCI has worked with governments and communities to build data systems to better inform decisions and policies on the management of land and natural resources. CCI has also developed waste, water, and energy strategies with our Small Islands partners to create impact from boosting the local economy to women’s empowerment. Finally, CCI has introduced innovative financing mechanisms by partnering with employers to bring energy efficiency benefits to lower home energy expenses and improve people’s lives and their living and working environments.

Through our programs, focused on landscapes and land use, energy supply and energy demand, and energy efficiency, we aim to work together to tackle these systems problems. Now we call on you to take action, to start thinking about your home, your country, your world, and your climate as a system. We ask that you join us in creating solutions that take into account the entire system and all its complexities. Together, we can work to create measurable, meaningful and lasting contributions—one system at a time.

----

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2014/09/19/how-systems-thinking-can-impact-climate-change

The dangers of of the 'cash transfer magic bullet'

Cash transfers, conditional or not, are a particularly dangerous movement in development. 

The research from Harvard, MIT, NPR on cash transfers has been often cited in the media. But, it is clear that the the cash transfer mechanism is a very limited and is a short-term stimulus that does not address systemic failures that keep people poor. Could this be another magic bullet that make donors feel good about giving money? Won't money just flood the systems but play no role in building systems? How is this sustainable or scaleable beyond any donor handout?

It is the system that causes poverty, and not, as is assumed under the cash transfer paradigm, people and people's willingness and ability to pay. To take this one step further it is the weak poorly-functioning system for goods, services, information, knowledge that causes poverty. if for example, there are medicines available for poor people to buy, the systemic problem is actually that medicines are not well-distributed and clearly branded with a system for verification so that counterfeits cannot creep in. If there are agents/traders/salespeople/distributors working for the big pharmas, the question is always: what are they incentivised to do? Is it to push products for commission? If so, what will the effect be on the quality of information that goes out to people on what they should buy? Who can poor people go to make sure their ability to spend isn’t subsumed by their inability to get a good quality product?

In weak systems, there are systemic constraints that trap poor people in a cycle of no/bad/sub-optimal investment. They also have no 'voice' to complain, protest, influence, push up quality. Poor people are ‘voiceless’. Cash transfers simple result in money in the pocket but no voice or influence.

Why employee rankings can backfire

This NY Times article talks about how employee rankings to drive up performance can actually backfire.

In the workplace, promoting competition between individuals can have several effects. Instead of driving up performance, in an context that needs people working in teams with high levels of collaboration, there can be several opposite effects. One tool for promoting competition in order to improve performance is through HR assessments and ranking. When ranked in a list, people can exhibit the following behaviour:

1. Some feel positive, and strive to do better in order to increase their rank or to stay at the top
2. Some feel demoralised at the valuation of their performance, and reduce performance and fall down the table
3. Some feel content and stick with what they are doing, thus maintaining performance and rank position
4. Some feel suspicious and have less trust in management and the company, which may result in reducing performance or even a tendency to sabotage the process or the company

As a result, in some cases, it may be better to inform each individual privately of his/her performance and not to publicise ranking tables. In others, designing multi-level performance rewards that celebrate performance at different levels may be helpful – only rewarding those at the top may create animosity, however, rewarding ‘most improved’, ‘most innovative’, ‘most supportive in a team’ will create a positive team culture.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/business/why-employee-ranking-can-backfire.html?_r=0

Has Africa outgrown aid? #bbcafricadebate

A fascinating debate! I collected many of the comments made on Twitter and reflected on my own experiences and insights. I then looked for any common messages and themes of the debate.

Addressing the dangers of aid

• Aid needs to change; but saying that Africa has outgrown aid suggests that Africa is a child that needs raising
• Aid can be a political tool of foreign donors forcing governments and people into agreements that are 'unfair' and 'unjust'
• Aid needs the support of better systems to monitor how it is being spent BUT aid can be limited in effectiveness when most time is spent time reporting and appeasing donors 
• Aid is lumped in with transparency to appease donors, but not other valuable system actors, such as the citizens
• Aid must be flexible to the changing nature of dynamic systems and economies

Making immediate changes to aid

• Aid must be better communicated to African citizens so that they are not "voiceless citizens"
• Aid must start to recognise the different roles for aid in the different economic and market systems in Africa 
• such as, from Rwanda and Ethiopia, to Kenya and South Africa, to Ghana and Nigeria, to Sierra Leone and Senegal, to Tunisia and Eqypt to Chad and Niger
• Aid must not be delivered at the mercy/desire/will of donors with demanding reporting standards; not every last penny spent can be tracked and it is more important to see broader outputs and outcomes than a tick-box of donor-driven activities

Developing a future role for aid

• Aid must be re-conceptualised towards trade, economic development, market systems and business for poverty reduction and systemic resilience
• in the social sector, this might mean applying systems thinking to public goods for better access by all 
• Aid has a role to play in security and anti-terrorism as well as in institutions building and strengthening
• Aid might eventually play a long term role in the economy as remittances and FDI - aid has been sent by African diaspora for decades and diaspora are looking for new ways to send money home and invest in local businesses
• Aid needs to be re-designed to prevent being a tool for corruption; aid needs better practice-driven local leadership, stewardship and management