In search of evidence

One concern that was voiced loud and clear at the recent M4P Hub Brighton conference was over the lack of evidence that this M4P thing actually works as well as it should. After 10 years or so of trying, it seems that while some interventions are working (and every case study at the conference was a success story of one kind or another), there are lingering doubts.

Ironically, it may be the ubiquitous development success-stories that have been published over the years (typically called "case studies" to maintain a fig leaf of credibility) that feed these doubts... or perhaps they are a symptom rather than a cause? Either way it seems they aren't quite working.

M4P is built around a wonderfully plausible idea. Who can argue with the assertion that through functioning markets poor people can transact a way out of poverty that is otherwise denied to them? Surely with this sound underlying theory, which has been nurtured with plenty of time and donor money, and allowed huge latitude to present its achievements in the most flattering light, these questions should have disappeared long ago.

So why were some people at Brighton still looking for evidence of actual success to match the M4P promotional hype? There are three parts to the answer. In summary it boils down to the fact that over the last few years M4P has seen an excess of:

1. Over-engineered theory;
2. Purist application; and
3. Distorted reporting.

The market-based incentives that have created this heady cocktail of confusion (among donors, implementers and observers) are obvious. If you can take any plausible idea, brand it and create an orthodoxy around your interpretation, you can promote yourself as a kind of high-priest uniquely positioned as the owner or gatekeeper of the truth. If you can then make the branded idea sound much more complicated than it really is, you can create alliances with those in power whose own interests are that development should be a complex and protected preserve, and you can advise and train novices based on your perceived wisdom. And finally, if you can define how the success of your idea is measured and get away with dressing it up with words like "robust" and "rigorous", then you place yourself beyond any effective accountability.

This is a pretty fair summary of a large part of what has happened in the world of M4P over the past 10 years. This explains the sense of dissatisfaction with how things are going and underlies the questioning about evidence.

In the same way that many other very sensible (and not-so-sensible) ideas have grown up and withered away with time, there is a risk that this will happen with M4P. This is certainly not because M4P is flawed in itself or even because it is rather fad-ish in its presentation. Rather it is because time is catching up with those who have allowed their own commercial interests to take precedence over development learning.

Evidence suggests that the development world has a pretty high nonsense tolerance level and it shouldn't be forgotten that donors have also invested a hefty amount in M4P, so it isn't a question of M4P falling off a cliff. However, if M4P is to survive and grow as it should, now is the time for a fairly rapid rethinking, based on theoretical simplicity, practical common sense and serious scrutiny. If we can get these ingredients in place, more consistent success and more robust evidence will follow a lot more easily...

Over the next few weeks, I will be posting blogs on these three themes and how they should be applied to M4P so that the practice can deliver and report the theoretical promise much more consistently and convincingly than has been the case until now.