Taking responsibility for complexity
21 June 2011
Implementers of development policies and programmes must deal with interdependent problems, navigating nonlinear and often unpredictable change processes, involving a diverse range of stakeholders. The point of departure of this ODI discussion paper published in June 2011 is that the main problem is not (necessarily) intractable problems, or poor application of the right tools, but rather use of the wrong tools for the job. Rather than specify what problems should be considered ‘complex’, the paper aims to give readers the tools to decide for themselves whether an issue faced is complex, and to provide guidance on what to do if it is.
The first half of the paper sets out the central reasons why complex problems present big
challenges for traditional approaches to implementation:
1. Firstly,
the capacities to tackle complex problems are often distributed among actors: problems
manifest themselves in different ways and at different levels, and rather than one organisation or
hierarchy being fully in control of meeting a particular objective, action may rely on differing
degrees of collaboration from a variety of actors.
2. Secondly,
complex problems are difficult to predict: many social, political and economic problems are
not amenable to detailed forecasting. Where causality is not well understood success may rely on
adaptation and flexibility to emerging insights, rather than trying to completely fix the shape of
policy responses in advance.
3. Thirdly, complex problems often involve
conflicting goals: there may be many divergent but equally plausible interpretations of a
policy issue, with different groups approaching it from different starting points or assumptions.
Implementation cannot be technocratic, but requires a negotiated understanding and synthesis
through communicative processes.
Traditional tools tend to be based on inappropriate assumptions for complex problems, and as such, when they are applied in the wrong context, a number of negative side-effects can arise. Formal implementation tools may decrease in relevance, key aspects of problems are hidden from sight, and managers may be presented with perverse incentives. The problem, however, is not (necessarily) intractable problems, or poor application of the right tools, but rather use of the wrong tools for the job. In recent years, the complexity sciences have improved our understanding of complex problems, and have provided concepts and ideas which incorporate both old and new insights to present alternative theories for change, greater understandings of underlying processes and, crucially, better approaches for tackling them in a strategic and direct manner.
Furthermore, the ways in which policy draws on available knowledge becomes one of the central determinants of its success. The difference is that, rather than working in a linear fashion, policy-makers must be mindful of constraints and opportunities as to where, when and how knowledge and decision-making can best be linked. The rest of the paper offers some ideas on how to organise these principles and priorities.
Search Terms analytical frameworks policy
