IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v176y2019ics0308521x18314392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scaling – from “reaching many” to sustainable systems change at scale: A critical shift in mindset

Author

Listed:
  • Woltering, L.
  • Fehlenberg, K.
  • Gerard, B.
  • Ubels, J.
  • Cooley, L.

Abstract

Countless development projects have piloted solutions that could make a difference if only applied at scale. The reality is that these pilot projects hardly ever reach the intended scale to contribute significantly to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In this paper, we argue that two major problems undermine efforts to achieve scale in development projects. First, pilot projects are usually set up and managed in very controlled environments that make it very difficult to transition to the real world at scale. Second, poor conceptual and methodological clarity on what scaling is and how it can be pursued often results in a narrow focus on reaching numbers. Counting household adoption at the end of a grant project is a poor metric of whether these people can and will sustain adoption after the project closes, let alone if adoption will reach others and actually contributes to improved livelihoods. We advocate for a broader view on scaling that more accurately reflects the transformational change agenda of the SDGs: from reaching many to a process aiming to achieve sustainable systems change at scale. Sustainable systems change alters a sufficient number of key drivers (incentives, rules, etc.) such that the system that once perpetuated a “problem” now instead perpetuates a “solution.” This has implications on the way projects are designed and implemented. Rather than focusing on changing conditions within the project context, projects should serve as vehicles for societal change. This means that projects make most sense if designed as part of a multisector, long-term programmatic approach. Treating scaling as a transformation process helps deal with the necessary coevolution of organizational and institutional arrangements, along with the innovations in a technology or practice. To help address scaling, we present a number of frameworks that guide users to assess the scalability of innovations, design for scale from the onset of projects, and systematically think through key elements, ingredients, or success factors. We conclude that scaling requires different skills, approaches, and ways of collaborating than those required for successful implementation of pilot projects. It calls for development actors to have a mindset that allows them to creatively navigate multiple overlapping systems; likewise, they must develop a clear vision about which elements in the system the actors can and cannot address, and about where they need to collaborate strategically to exert influence. Although it is tempting to hope for the silver bullet solution that changes the world, we argue for an approach that takes scaling serious in its own right and recognizes the complexities involved in facilitating a transition to a new “normal.”

Suggested Citation

  • Woltering, L. & Fehlenberg, K. & Gerard, B. & Ubels, J. & Cooley, L., 2019. "Scaling – from “reaching many” to sustainable systems change at scale: A critical shift in mindset," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:176:y:2019:i:c:s0308521x18314392
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X18314392
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102652?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Angus Deaton, 2010. "Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(2), pages 424-455, June.
    2. William Easterly & Tobias Pfutze, 2008. "Where Does the Money Go? Best and Worst Practices in Foreign Aid," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(2), pages 29-52, Spring.
    3. April N. Frake & Joseph P. Messina, 2018. "Toward a Common Ontology of Scaling Up in Development," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(3), pages 1-11, March.
    4. Ton, Giel & Klerkx, Laurens & de Grip, Karin & Rau, Marie-Luise, 2015. "Innovation grants to smallholder farmers: Revisiting the key assumptions in the impact pathways," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 9-23.
    5. Spicer, Neil & Bhattacharya, Dipankar & Dimka, Ritgak & Fanta, Feleke & Mangham-Jefferies, Lindsay & Schellenberg, Joanna & Tamire-Woldemariam, Addis & Walt, Gill & Wickremasinghe, Deepthi, 2014. "‘Scaling-up is a craft not a science’: Catalysing scale-up of health innovations in Ethiopia, India and Nigeria," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 30-38.
    6. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    7. Maru, Yiheyis Taddele & Sparrow, Ashley & Butler, James R.A. & Banerjee, Onil & Ison, Ray & Hall, Andy & Carberry, Peter, 2018. "Towards appropriate mainstreaming of “Theory of Change” approaches into agricultural research for development: Challenges and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 344-353.
    8. Willem van Winden & Daniel van den Buuse, 2017. "Smart City Pilot Projects: Exploring the Dimensions and Conditions of Scaling Up," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 51-72, October.
    9. Dieuwke Lamers & Marc Schut & Laurens Klerkx & Piet van Asten, 2017. "Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(6), pages 739-752.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kai Mausch & Dave Harris & Luke Dilley & Mary Crossland & Tim Pagella & Jules Yim & Emma Jones, 2021. "Not All About Farming: Understanding Aspirations Can Challenge Assumptions About Rural Development," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 33(4), pages 861-884, August.
    2. Low, Jan W. & Thiele, Graham, 2020. "Understanding innovation: The development and scaling of orange-fleshed sweetpotato in major African food systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Calvo, Thomas & Razafindrakoto, Mireille & Roubaud, François, 2019. "Fear of the state in governance surveys? Empirical evidence from African countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Hausman, William J. & Neufeld, John L. & Schreiber, Till, 2014. "Multilateral and bilateral aid policies and trends in the allocation of electrification aid, 1970–2001," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 54-62.
    3. Hao Bo & Sebastian Galiani, 2019. "Assessing External Validity," NBER Working Papers 26422, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Schlör, Holger & Venghaus, Sandra & Hake, Jürgen-Friedrich, 2018. "The FEW-Nexus city index – Measuring urban resilience," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 382-392.
    5. Ashish Arora & Michelle Gittelman & Sarah Kaplan & John Lynch & Will Mitchell & Nicolaj Siggelkow & Aaron K. Chatterji & Michael Findley & Nathan M. Jensen & Stephan Meier & Daniel Nielson, 2016. "Field experiments in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 116-132, January.
    6. Sharri Byron, 2012. "Examining Foreign Aid Fungibility in Small Open Economies," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 675-712, September.
    7. Johan Eyckmans & Sam Fankhauser & Snorre Kverndokk, 2016. "Development Aid and Climate Finance," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(2), pages 429-450, February.
    8. Timothy Powell‐Jackson & Winnie Chi‐Man Yip & Wei Han, 2015. "Realigning Demand and Supply Side Incentives to Improve Primary Health Care Seeking in Rural China," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(6), pages 755-772, June.
    9. Martin Huber, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," Papers 1910.00641, arXiv.org.
    10. Gonzales Mariella & Gianmarco León-Ciliotta & Luis R. Martinez, 2018. "How effective are monetary incentives to vote? Evidence from a nationwide policy," Economics Working Papers 1667, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jul 2019.
    11. Susannah Pickering-Saqqa, 2019. "Places of Poverty and Powerlessness: INGOs Working ‘At Home’," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(5), pages 1371-1388, December.
    12. Sagarika Dey & Priyanka Devi, 2019. "Impact of TVET on Labour Market Outcomes and Women’s Empowerment in Rural Areas: A Case Study from Cachar District, Assam," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 13(3), pages 357-371, December.
    13. Kuhmonen, Tuomas, 2017. "Exposing the attractors of evolving complex adaptive systems by utilising futures images: Milestones of the food sustainability journey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 214-225.
    14. António da Silva Gonçalves, Vítor & Mil-Homens dos Santos, Feliz José, 2019. "Energy management system ISO 50001:2011 and energy management for sustainable development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    15. Alberto Abadie & Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2020. "Sampling‐Based versus Design‐Based Uncertainty in Regression Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(1), pages 265-296, January.
    16. Howe, Paul, 2019. "The triple nexus: A potential approach to supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Lorenzo Chelleri & Harn Wei Kua & Juan Pablo Rodríguez Sánchez & Kh Md Nahiduzzaman & Gladman Thondhlana, 2016. "Are People Responsive to a More Sustainable, Decentralized, and User-Driven Management of Urban Metabolism?," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 8(3), pages 1-12, March.
    18. Sylvain Chassang & Gerard Padro I Miquel & Erik Snowberg, 2012. "Selective Trials: A Principal-Agent Approach to Randomized Controlled Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1279-1309, June.
    19. Jones, Lindsey & d'Errico, Marco, 2019. "Whose resilience matters? Like-for-like comparison of objective and subjective evaluations of resilience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    20. W. Bentley MacLeod, 2017. "Viewpoint: The human capital approach to inference," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 50(1), pages 5-39, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:176:y:2019:i:c:s0308521x18314392. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.