Comments on: Lant Pritchett on why we struggle to think in systems (and look for heroes and villains instead)

By: Duncan Green

Duncan Green — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:39:47 +0000

Hi Amanda, On systems thinking, donella meadows, on complexity and aid Ben Ramalingam. Both reviewed on this blog!

By: Amanda Jones

Amanda Jones — Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:45:11 +0000

Hi Duncan,

Please could you recommend a good book for an introduction to systems/complexity theory? A ‘complexity theory for dummies’ type thing would be perfect – although I suppose the very title negates the doctrine?!

Many thanks,

Amanda

By: Cornelius Chipoma

Cornelius Chipoma — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 21:31:48 +0000

Duncan,
Thank you for the post. System equals complexity (read messy), big, difficult to change, and outside our comfort zone particularly as development practitioners. As you know, we often want to work in areas where we can clearly exercise control. There, however, is no dichotomy between systems and agents. We see the system through the actions of agents. To change a system, one needs to work with each part leveraging the influence and convening authority of agents (often the leaders). Systems are relational as well as political.

The 2010 Mckinsey Report (How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better) gives a good account of a system imperative in education. These days, I am strongly of the opinion that to change a system (I work in education), one needs to catalyze change one person at a time.

By: Gabrielle Liddy

Gabrielle Liddy — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 23:51:35 +0000

I believe that the glazed look comes because of the failure of the look provoker to convey the idea that something complex is infinitely more interesting than something simple. One of the basic understandings of systems thinking is that there are situations to be managed, rather than problems to be solved. A second is that structure determines strategy, so unless you understand the building blocks you can’t understand why agents do what they do, particularly if what they do seems inefficient. A third is that if you have tried everything you believe is rational without success, then you are going to have to become irrational.

With these understandings, every family and all relationships can benefit from taking a systems perspective. Maybe a better systems question to ask the spouse is ‘how can I best be of assistence?’ And then just do it without arguing.

By: Lucy Dawson

Lucy Dawson — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:35:10 +0000

Last month, BBC Radio 4 aired an episode of ‘In Our Time’ on Complexity – http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/iot
and scroll down to 19 Dec 2013.
It’s my current podcast of choice as a cure for insomnia, but it’s still a handy intro.

By: Maya Forstater

Maya Forstater — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:17:52 +0000

Yes! Exactly.

Although, as the passage says you can get along relatively well in everyday life without thinking about systems. I do think that more people should and could think ‘get it’ (just like reading has gone from being a skill for the few to the many) Not seeing systems is like being an ant on a wire – stuck in two dimensions, and ignoring the third.

I agree with Kate Raworth, that systems thinking should be part of education. It seems like such a gap, that most people’s education (even a good education) doesn’t give them a real ‘lightbulb moment’ of understanding from engagement with the two disciplines (or maybe they are part of the same one…) that get people thinking in systems – economics and evolutionary biology.

By: Kevin Cook

Kevin Cook — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 13:12:21 +0000

Another set of excellent blogs. Thanks Duncan. They really do help me, a semi-retired development practitioner, to keep up to date. The systems ideas are exspecially useful as they give some justification for my use of the now somewhat dated but still useful DfID Framework model (system?) to help my undergraduates structure one of their assignments. I get them to treat an aspect of current African development such as land grabs as an aspect of vulnerability, a shock to the system, and to deal with each of the six capitals (I add political capital to the mix). They have to determine how individuals working at different scales attempt to overcome the worst aspects of the shock. They are also encouraged to treat the shock as both an opportunity as well as a threat. Many of them find this approach very challenging but they are encouraged to persevere and the results are usually very rewarding.

By: Florencia Guerzovich

Florencia Guerzovich — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:59:28 +0000

Thanks for the post. I agree re: glazed eyes. I’ll add a point: the need to think and express ourselves in abstract terms, probably doesn’t help either. I often draw on Political Economy Systems Maps (PEASMs)to describe and encourage thinking about complex contexts and interventions in a more attractive way. These maps help to solve some challenges by transforming the abstract into a set of simple, strategic
insights about the underlying political landscape (actors, flows and processes) upon which a system is based – they help transform abstraction into a more attractive and graspable story.
For those interested here are some examples, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1780935
http://www.transparency-initiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Strategic-Dilemmas-Context-FG-SR.pdf

By: Kaare M. Bilden

Kaare M. Bilden — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:48:40 +0000

Duncan, did you watch The Wire?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ogxZxu6cjM

By: Kate Raworth

Kate Raworth — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 09:37:03 +0000

Great passage from the book. Systems get a glazed look from adults, yes, but what if thinking in systems were as familiar to us as adding in base ten or writing in the latin alphabet? MIT’s Jay Forrester has worked with teachers pioneering systems thinking in primary schools, to impressive effect. As one teacher in New Jersey said,

“We are introducing kindergartners to the concepts of stocks and flows and the idea that behaviors can be graphed over time. Beginning in first grade students (age 6) are mapping larger sets of information and working with causal loops to explain cycles in nature and everyday events. Students continue working across the curriculum, strengthening their understandings of behaviors over time, causal loops, and simulations mediated through a systems approach. By fifth grade (age 10), students are manipulating simple computer models that integrate into their curriculum.”

I’d love to sign my kids up for learning that kind of 21st century mindset.
Here’s the article it is cited from:
http://mitsloan.mit.edu/alumni/convocation2008/pdf/D-4665-6.SD&K-12Teachers.pdf