How MSD practitioners make the Rich Richer
These businesspeople have learned development language and know exactly what to say and how to present themselves, so we can have them as partners in our interventions.
They have become extremely efficient to the point that they sometimes collaborate with the same implementing organization in the same location, for a program funded by the same donor. This means that during their collaboration with development programs, they operate on a zero-cost basis. These programs cover all the costs associated with operations, entering new markets, and expanding in current markets. As a result, this collaboration model makes them financially richer.
Why and how does this happen?
I have two main possible reasons for this –
1. MSD professionals do not understand why we work with private-sector partners
2. Weak institutional memories of our donors make it easy for the same partners to be put forward for the same intervention multiple
The first reason is caused by a combination of laziness and lack of knowledge.
It seems that some MSD professionals are not putting in the required effort to create a value proposition that will encourage the private sector to invest in their intervention without any assistance. It's important for these professionals to realize that they are representing the long-term interests of their participants. The more convinced their partner is to create an inclusive business model, the longer the transactional relationship with the participants will last, resulting in a more sustainable approach from the very beginning.
MSD practitioners' success relies on their ability to understand the language of the private sector, conduct thorough market analysis, develop a market entry strategy for the private sector, and present a compelling case that conveys the potential costs of missing out on this opportunity.
However, this requires hard work, time, and creative thinking, which some practitioners may shy away from.
Instead, it may be simpler to offer the private sector partner a sum of money in exchange for implementing inclusiveness measures. MAKING THE POOR POORER!
Donor’s Memory
It's not entirely the fault of the practitioners. The donors continue to fund the same program in the same location with the same implementing program and private sector partners doing exactly what they did in the previous program. The reason for this could be attributed to institutional memory.
It cannot be that donors will fund the same partner if the previous intervention did not achieve the result.
It seems that keeping track of the programs being funded is quite challenging. My guess is that there is a lack of knowledge and lessons being passed on from previous programs to the newly funded ones. Whatever the reason, donors should be more vigilant to ensure that funds are not wasted.
We all have the responsibility to ensure donor funding is as effective as possible. We need to think more about the implications of laziness and incompetence in our ranks. We need to focus on building each other's capacity and learning from each other, so mistakes are not repeated.
