What We're Reading Part One
David Jacobstein
Hi all,
It’s once again the end of three months, and it’s been a tumultuous period. I know news tends to skew negative, but there have been a huge number of terrible events globally that feel both awful and like they could have been avoided. Plus we crossed the one-year anniversary of USAID’s dismantling, and it still feels both raw and wrong that so many committed people striving for so much good were discarded and abandoned.
At least the weather has improved and here in the DC area it feels like spring, things are blooming and it’s a good time to be outside. If you’re looking for an excuse to recline under a cherry tree and spend a couple of hours, you could do worse than having some good reads to catch up on, and luckily I’ve got a number for you!
I read a number of good articles on systems thinking this quarter, so I thought we’d start there (also, there’s so much on democracy, I’m a bit daunted trying to organize it). Finds this quarter include:
Drew Koleros’ great article, reminiscent of writings I’ve shared from Jess Dagger, on moving from valuing to developing value. It has long been understood that it is inefficient to isolate learning and evaluation from programming, but instead of silo-busting, Drew highlights how learning and producing public goods of knowledge can serve as a direct systems input. This is a logical way to finish framing of positionality, of seeing ourselves as part of the system, and capitalizing on an often-scarce resource - the ability to see across a breadth of the system, and the time to reflect and learn - that philanthropic actors or donors often have, and contribute it directly to the system.
UNDP Sandbox’s update on shifting from portfolios to stacks I found both very interesting and worryingly full of technical language that is hard to access. I think the core premise - not investing in a suite of systemic interventions, but instead fostering the systems capabilities and conditions to encourage positive change - is very exciting, and resonates with the Pando Funding idea and other deep systems efforts. In effect it is a deeper application of the shift from fixing a point-in-time problem to working to encourage systemic health. Their example on air pollution and how a synthesis improvement (like a walkable streets demo) can unlock more progress is very practical and inspiring, and I hope folks will apply similar creativity to growing support for broad and rooted solution design.
Perhaps relatedly, this article on new capabilities idea for cities feels both related and a few years behind the Sandbox concept. The idea of considering performance on both a short-term and longer-term capability creation angle is well trodden ground for CSOs, having been core to tools like the OPI, albeit with a different political economy than mayors face. Sticking to a single KPI, even of long-term capability development, is still probably a bit short of a full systems approach, but it’s welcome to see the domain drawing attention.
My former colleague Tara Thwing published a great paper on TWP and tech that articulates how lessons around political economy and systems thinking can converge in the space of AI regulation and tech governance.
I also enjoyed this excellent use of futures thinking in governance work (requires email entry, but well worth it)! It’s hard to resist as it exists at the bullseye of all my own interests, but essentially, it is a walkthrough of using futures thinking and foresight in philanthropy, especially for democracy assistance. Their examples illustrating scenario planning, wind tunneling, horizon scanning, backcasting (sounds like Future Search to me), and ethnographic foresight are all delivered in simple and practical ways that any funder or large organization could apply quite easily.