Shifting institutional biases: implications for systemic change

While we recognise markets as systems, we still lack sufficient tools to recognise and successfully change the structure of these systems.

I recently wrote a brief think piece (with help on the thinking from Mike Field and other generous souls) exploring one practical way of filling this gap and, going a step further, looking at four mini-cases that used this approach to frame intervention strategy. If you can’t finish the paper by the time your plane leaves the gate or before you’re through your first morning cup of coffee, then I've missed my mark. 

In essence, the paper examines:

• Value chain governance, an already familiar way of characterising inter-firm relations that deal with the rules and mechanisms that firms use to coordinate production through the value chain to meet end-market requirements.
• How different patterns of value chain governance reflect larger systemic, or institutional, biases that result in less or more inclusive behaviours in the market system.
• Leverage points for market development interventions to strengthen more inclusive governance patterns and disrupt less inclusive ones.

The thinking and examples were borne out of concern that without practical ways of characterising and discerning systemic structures and changes, we will not know for sure if the changes we've generated are lasting. Or, more importantly, we will not know if unforeseen outcomes have actually made the system less healthy than it was before.

Read the think piece: Shifting institutional biases: using value chain governance to address a market’s underlying systemic structures