Systemic change – What are we even talking about?

The second post in this sequence explores our definition of systemic change. We invite you to critically engage with it. Additionally, we offer a breakdown of our definition of systemic change into a checklist, with key insights into what we want to see in organisations that aim to work systemically.

“Systemic change”, “system dynamics”, and “systemic issues” can be defined in diverse ways. To increase clarity and progress in conversations about systemic change, we believe it’s important to get to some shared understanding of what each side means when using these terms. Below, we offer a definition that we settled on within our group. We use this definition as a basis for this project; however, we don’t mean to suggest that the definition we chose is the only sensible one.

Proposed definition of Systemic change: A transformation of an entire system, rather than just an incremental improvement of its constituent parts. Change happens by addressing the root cause of an issue through changing the system or levers that cause it.

Building on this definition, an organisation working on systemic issues should pay attention to three dimensions of systemic change, which we explain in more detail below: 

1. root causes
2. systems thinking
3. power dynamics 

Root causes 

The first dimension of our definition focuses on identifying the root causes of a problem. 

We chose to highlight this aspect because it is important to not only alleviate the symptoms of a problem. It’s equally important to tackle the root cause and solve the problem for good. When an intervention only addresses the symptoms of a problem, the solutions might only be short term. They may fail to solve the underlying issues permanently. Identifying the root cause of a problem will help to find long-term solutions that may have additional positive effects on the entire system. For example, an organisation fighting malaria might identify the lack of a fair distribution of resources to afford medicine and protective equipment as one root cause of the problem.

If an organisation aims to work systemically, they should consider the following aspects:

• Systemic problem: The organisation explicitly describes a systemic problem it is treating at large. This can be any problem in our current economic, governmental, institutional or cultural systems.
• Root cause: The organisation explicitly describes what it believes to be a root cause of the problem it is tackling.^[1]
• Larger systemic structures: The organisation mentions one or more of these larger systemic structures when discussing its focal problems and interventions:
  • Economic (e.g. labor protections, trade rules, access to financial resources)
  • Governmental (e.g. suffrage rights; other civic rights; bodies of representation for certain groups, or laws that enforce that the interests of voiceless groups are considered)
  • Institutional (any non-governmental systems, e.g. educational institutions, religious institutions, international organisations, etc.)
  • Cultural (e.g. caste systems, gender norms) 

Systems thinking and risk awareness 

The second dimension of our systemic change definition is systems thinking and risk awareness. Thinking systemically requires that complex dynamics like positive and negative feedback loops or second-order effects are taken seriously in evaluating strategies for action. 

We think paying attention to the systemic effects of an intervention is important. It forces us to look beyond the direct effects of an action, and to extend expected value estimates and risk calculations beyond a narrow frame. Such a systemic approach implies trying to account for potential side effects, positive or negative, and paying attention to feedback mechanisms and chain reactions that could be triggered by an intervention.

For example, in global health and development, there has been a decade-long critique of the tendency to treat development interventions as neutral technical fixes. The argument against this stance examines how development aid reshapes local power relations and depoliticizes structural problems. The resulting erosion of trust and power of local institutions have unintended consequences across the wider system. Such side effects which can cause serious long-term problems, even if the target audience of the intervention benefits in the short-term (Ferguson, 1990). Such perspectives are rarely seriously considered by EA.

A systemic organisation should consider the following aspects:

• Consider indirect effects: The organisation describes indirect effects of its interventions, feedback loops and flow-through effects and is mindful of possible negative consequences.
• Multi-stakeholder approach: The organisation works with relevant stakeholders (groups that are somehow affected by the problem and/or involved in potential interventions to address it).
• Impact on public discourse, laws, regulations and/or policies: The organisation considers its intervention’s impact on the public discourse and/or laws, regulations, and policies.

Power dynamics 

This third dimension focuses on paying attention to systems of power. This entails the careful analysis and awareness of existing power structures. It also includes the transformation of structures, customs, mindsets, power dynamics and policies at the root of a given problem. Depending on the goal of a systemic intervention, its influence on power structures can lead to a higher concentration of power in fewer hands or institutions, or it can increase the dispersion of power. In our empirical investigation, we chose to give higher systemic-change ratings for organisations that support the dispersion of power.

We think this dimension is important to uncover how isolated interventions might neglect addressing power dynamics. Such interventions can have strong measurable impact on core performance indicators. But they might miss the much less tangible impact of, for instance, creating a culture that intersectionally and holistically moves forward values like moral circle expansion. In addition, we believe that power imbalances can have negative indirect effects on our ability to address the problems EA cares about. To name just two examples: Concentrations of power in our economic systems make it possible for a few actors to block/slow down action on things like fossil fuel taxation or effective AI regulation. Discrimination and power imbalances within organisations make it harder for affected people to speak up and share their local knowledge, which would be a key source for making interventions more effective. 

Following through from these values, we think that an organisation which aims to work systematically should reflect on the following questions: Who are their beneficiaries? To what extent do their interventions distribute power to these beneficiaries, rather than just solving problems for them? How do they challenge established power structures that contribute to the root problem they’re trying to solve? And how do they empower their staff and volunteers? 

We split these questions into five categories: 

• Discriminated groups as beneficiaries: The intervention addresses at least one or more of these marginalised groups: Future generations, non-human species, women & queers, BIPoC (people affected by racism), global poor, and other marginalised groups (described as such by the organisation).
• Empowerment within the workforce: The organisation supports disempowered groups within their workforce or volunteers.
• Intersectionality: The organisation considers issues of intersectionality, i.e. pays attention to how the combination of different forms of marginalisation results in unique experiences and challenges.
• Empowerment within intervention: The organisation strives to help disempowered groups to gain agency for themselves.
• Challenge power structures: The organisation calls for fundamental change and challenges established groups and practices.

The list above may be used as an orientation for organisations that want to improve or evaluate their interventions with regard to a systemic approach. While it might not fully function as a checklist with items that can be fulfilled completely or at all. Still, we would like more organisations to engage in an open discussion surrounding the dimensions and individual aspects of systemic change in their work. 

We are aware that this list is built on a few assumptions: our definition of systemic change, the different dimensions identified to contribute to systemic change and the individual aspects listed here. We welcome feedback on our definition and assumptions. In the next part of this sequence, we will more deeply delve into our questionnaire’s data and results. In the last post, we will zoom in on our uncertainties. There, we will explicitly invite you to discuss with us. 

But if you already have thoughts, questions, or critical remarks to share with us now, please do leave them as comments below this post!

1. ^{^}

   A root cause is something that, if solved, would remove the problem indefinitely, rather than merely removing some or all of the problem's symptoms for a certain length of time.