What types of careers are there in international development?

Skills (What you can do!)

• All skills needed!!

Functions (What role you would play!)

You may have 1 or more of these skills!

• Fundraising - storytelling, strategy, communications, budgeting, networking, relationship building, research, project management
• Policy - research, communications, legal, institutional development, relationship building, politics
• Institutional development - research, governance, relationship building, politics
• Economic development - economic modelling, industrial development, market systems strategy, welfare 
• Social welfare - advocacy, social welfare subsidies, charity work, 
• Private sector development - business innovation, enterprise development, enabling environment, entrepreneurship, taxation and legal
• Marketing and retail - commerce, business management, sociology, psychology, policy and/or network development
• Operations - logistics, network management, project management, finance, and/or results measurement 
• HRM - sociology, psychology, training and development, and/or team building
• Finance - finance, strategy, M&E, project management, and/or legal
• Results measurement - finance, strategy, project management, and/or research

New Trends (Where you might position yourself!)

• Market-based development
• Socialist market systems
• Social welfare
• Ethical business
• Fintech
• Behaviourial sciences
• Systems change
• Resilience
• Conflict 
• Livestock
• Healthcare
• Climate and the natural environment
• Informal sector
• NGO organisational development
• Foundation funding

Things to Remember!

• Be different - If you have good ideas that seem too out-of-the-box for traditional work, this could be the right time to build a skills around it and offer that skill to the development space
• Look deeper than large institutions - If you want to learn on the job, develop tangible skills and be part of an impactful project, start at the field and work upwards
• Competences are important - teamwork, patience, time management, critical thinking, adaptability, focus and determination

What does it mean to do ethical business in apparel?

What value do ethical standards bring to the fashion industry?
What does it mean to be ethical in fashion ?
What is the business case for ethical fashion?

• Product development that sources and uses raw materials according to sustainability regulations/norms/codes/standards/values in the industry 
• Product design that reflects stories from different people and different culture (i.e. non-normative, beyond the Western beauty ideal) and in a way that respects ownership and that protects against cultural appropriation for profit
• Innovation based on participative collaboration that understands power structures and control/equality/equity issues 
• Ensuring that wage payments, work health and safety conditions and regulations are observed, external audits and inspections are supported and violence and illegal practices are addressed through a fair justice system (Guardian)
• Working with producers and suppliers in developing countries: meeting regulations and codes and respecting power imbalances in ethical management styles and monitoring systems
• A systemic approach to certification/regulations/norms/codes/standards to bring about sustainability and scale and builds on the successes of supply chain strengthening (multi-stakeholder governance, transparency, independent verification, and third party chain of custody) (Business Fights Poverty)
• Creating a demand for ethical fashion by using multi-channel retail opportunities including pop-ups to showcase the brand the product and the story
• Ensuring that the pricing model allows producers and suppliers to be paid a living/decent wage even when it means charging the retailer or consumer a few pence more. The recent example of dairy farmers in the UK removing milk from supermarket shelves in an attempt to sell it directly to the consumer to get a better price.
• Understanding that in fashion there is economic value to the 'story' in the same way that any brand builds equity - through rational, emotional and behaviourial consumer analysis
• The impact on retail pricing - what is the market willing to pay?
• Businesses that 'work in Africa' do not automatically mean social enterprise or ethical sourcing
• Making your claims of ethical business practices credible and possible to observe and verify. Consumer driven - Mintel found that half of those surveyed said they would only pay more for ethical products if they understood clearly where the extra money went, and 52 per cent said they found information about which foods are ethical confusing (Supplymanagement.com)
• Working on textile waste to minimise, recycle, reuse, upcycle, upgrade, re-configure, re-integrate, and more (The Ethical Fashion Source)

---
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/10/lithuanian-migrants-chicken-catchers-trafficked-uk-egg-farms-sue-worst-gangmaster-ever
http://source.ethicalfashionforum.com/article/recycling-on-the-high-street-3-different-approaches

A systems perspective to supply chain development

In classic economic theory, making products cheaper by reducing the cost of goods (COGS) can mean removing the intermediaries in the supply chain where margin might be absorbed. This means system actors, such as agents, middlemen/women, traders, small retailers (kiosks) are vulnerable to the disintermediation. However, in low-income countries, this has a system wide effect: this will limit the supply of goods and services to marginalized populations, such as smallholder farmers or the urban poor and this will reduce employment and revenue generation by cutting the poor out of the system. Moreover, in times of desperation, this will naturally create conflict and instability that will have even more far-reaching effects beyond the original supply chain.

Things to remember:

• For real wide-scale change, take a step back and think more systemically and less narrowly and think about the wider impact of any intervention in business operations, pricing and COGS. 
• Rather than a focus on cost, price and money, consider gains that bring about long-term growth, such as quality, value and service-driven loyalty
• Yes, eliminating supply chain actors may reduce the cost of goods along the way, but there is no guarantee that this will be passed on to the customer.  
• Intermediaries are the backbone of a system and agents, traders, kiosks are ever present in a market - work through them rather than against them or by sidelining them
• Look at where the incentives lie. For a supplier, that wants to shed certain costs, who might be willing to take them on? Who might benefit? Who might see the value in managing this transaction directly? This is essentially the origination of outsourcing.
• Consider how the market could function better. As a supplier, you may be incurring a huge cost getting products to the consumer. However, if a retailer can offer a better coordination function, then it would make more sense to switch to wholesale operations. Many retailers in developing countries do this albeit with  need for capacity building around effective management. 

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/

What are some useful indicators of systemic change?

What is systemic change?

1. A measurement  of the change in the rules that govern the system and that affect how actors/agents behave and function. From an economic perspective, this means going beyond the conception of people as 'rational individuals' and incorporating a better understanding of social constraints that lock us in to our patterns of consumption. 
2. The relationship between certain types of 'resilience finance' and the ability to confront shocks and disasters at individual level, household level, business level, industry level and across social networks and political positions 
3. A measurement of 'subjective resilience' at household level to better understand the ability to "anticipate, buffer and adapt to disturbance and change"
4. Developed by looking at synergies between the development, business and economics fields of study to better frame measurements of systemic change. Bringing together traditional nonprofit measurements around poverty and impact with typical business and social enterprise measurements of efficiency and effectiveness with typical economic measurements, such as tax revenues, job creation, labour income, for deeper systemic measurement, such as increase in business-to-business services, change in investment patterns towards long-term customer relationships and emergence of new market-based products and services that respond to pro-poor needs. 
5. A recalibration of the equilibrium. Moving systems from unjust to just, marginalisation to inclusion, structural disadvantages to systemic advantages (gender), traders to value creators, short-term transactions to long-term relationships and incremental shifts [in markets] to transformations and revolutions, 

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

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).

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) 

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