great feedback from both Sadruddin bhai and equally well explained by James

Thank you very much for these observations. To answer/expand on your points: 1. Our view is that programmes should talk about their results (direct and indirect) at a sector/market level as a whole. 2. It is helpful to think of programme investment in two categories, 1) indirect pre-investment in planning and preparation, and 2) investment in direct support to a business model. The indirect investment is a function of the condition of the market and the partner(s) - the lower the functionality, the higher the indirect investment likely to be required. The direct investment is a function of the risks and returns of a specific investment project. The indirect investment is a strategic programming decision for the programme funder and manager, while the direct investment is decided through intervention planning. 3. I would treat people costs in the same way as 3. above (direct and indirect investment). 4. Please could you give specific examples of some non-financial considerations?

Hi James, there are a few issues related to the research. 1. In the portfolio approach, there will be some dependent interventions that will rely on the success of other interventions. In the case of the failure of independent interventions, the whole portfolio might show poor results, although impressive business models can be developed for the dependent interventions. 2. In many cases, pre-work/investment is required before you actually go for making a business model for an intervention. If you take that cost into consideration, the whole intervention might have much less RoI. 3. The time of the people from the project is a significant cost, and if that is not considered, the RoI is artificially high. 4. There are non-financial considerations for a company to go for a partnership with a development project/specific intervention. The research does not highlight on this.

Omar - Thank you for your comment. The simple response is that private enterprise (intervention partner firm(s), intermediaries and target beneficiaries) plays two specific roles: 1) as the means of investment in a new business model; and 2) as the means by which all market players and especially the target beneficiaries derive income from new or improved market opportunities. If we talk about the intervention partner firm(s), our view is that they should be seen as the lead investor in the new business model. While the MSD programme provides some combination of financial and non-financial support, it is the intervention partner who has to be in the lead. For the target beneficiaries, they will also no doubt be required to invest in one way or another (or take new business risks, which amounts to the same thing). And we must not forget that there will be other market players involved (e.g. wholesalers or retailers) and they too may be required to invest.

Role of private enterprise is not explained