Embracing Systems Practice: Reflections on USAID's Local Systems Position Paper

March 2025 Update: Just a few weeks after I wrote this post, USAID was brutally and chaotically dismantled by Trump/Musk. One of the many results of that was the loss of the USAID website, which meant that all of the links to USAID documents were broken. In February 2025, I collated and shared in this post all of the documents referenced below that I could find, along with a couple of other things. In March, I updated all of the links below.

Introduction

In late October, USAID published a position paper on Local Systems. Replacing the initial Local Systems: A framework for supporting sustainable development paper from 2014, this position paper provides an update on the agency's thinking about how change happens, how change can be understood, and how USAID can support processes of locally-led change. USAID has been a leading player in bringing systems thinking and practice into the global development agenda, with the agency's approach refined on the basis of many years of experience across the diversity of countries and contexts in which it works.

Alongside the position paper and a video of the launch event, USAID published a wealth of additional information, including an annotated systems practice literature review and a summary of feedback received through the drafting process. USAID also published, back in April 2024, David Jacobstein's insightful reflections on the 10th anniversary of the Local Systems Framework. The eager reader may also wish to review the 2021 Policy Implementation Assessment of the Local Systems Framework, which in some ways laid the groundwork of reflection and learning which led to the new position paper.

After a brief summary of the Local Systems Position Paper, this piece shares my reflections on: "local" systems; learning and outcomes; and identifying entry points, or sites, for engagement and learning.

USAID's Local Systems Position Paper

For USAID, a "system" is the interconnected set of actors, elements, relationships, rules and resources that jointly produce and sustain a particular outcome", with "systems thinking" a mindset and set of tools that can be used to understand the dynamics of systems and the ways in which outcomes emerge from these dynamics.

The promise of systems thinking, when it is applied through systems practice, is described by USAID as follows:

"When we understand challenges as complex systems – where outcomes emerge from the interactions and relationships between actors and elements in that system – we can leverage and help strengthen the local capacities and relationships that will ultimately drive sustainable progress."

The position paper explains that a systems practice for effective engagement in complex systems has two key elements; firstly, understanding the system, and secondly, engaging the system, with three principles for each of these elements. The Local Systems Position Paper provides clear and concise summaries of these six principles, and helpfully explains how USAID is putting these principles into practice.

My Reflections: "Local", learning, and sites for engagement

Exploring the ways in which people and organizations can effectively engage in complex social systems has been the primary focus of my work in recent years (collated articles here), so I was excited to review the Local Systems Position Paper, and found lots to like. The champions of systems thinking and practice at USAID have done an amazing job, over the years, encouraging and enabling the agency to take the bold, creative and experimental steps needed to develop the systemic practices that can support effective engagement in complex social systems.

The journey that USAID has taken has been a rich and rewarding one, as reflected in the position paper, the supporting materials, and the plans for next steps (see in particular USAID’s responses in the summary of feedback document). However, there were a number of creative tensions which I felt might merit further exploration, with these tensions reflecting the inherent challenges of operationalizing systems thinking and practice in complex development contexts.

"Local" systems for global development

I am uneasy about the use of "local" as a shorthand for systems and associated causal dynamics that in many cases - think climate change, corruption, and conflict - will extend beyond the geographically local. I applaud USAID's commitment to more locally-led development, appreciate the value of shifting power for addressing complex challenges, and recognize that the language of "local" can provide a useful signal in that regard, rebalancing attention away from external actors. But there is a risk that a "local systems" framing may draw the boundaries of the system in ways that unhelpfully obscure the cross-context and cross-border dynamics that often shape the challenges and opportunities that emerge in specific local contexts.

To be fair to USAID and the authors of the paper, the slightly longer formulation, "Systems practice ... to better understand challenges and strengthen the capacity of local systems to unlock locally led, sustained progress" is great. And moving to a more precise language of "causally proximate" may not be a win for accessibility! So, perhaps it's simply a case of emphasizing that cross-border connections are an important part of systems' dynamics, and that understanding and engaging with these dynamics - and having external actors take responsibility for their role, for instance, emitting greenhouse gases, facilitating money laundering, and fueling conflict - is an important part of enabling locally-led development.

Learning, outcomes and rethinking rigor

I very much appreciated not just the emphasis on learning from the system (I might have gone with "in" or "with" to emphasize that USAID is part of the picture), but also the fact that the position paper presents learning as an integral part of engagement. This is so much better than treating learning as an after-the-fact add-on which comes too late to support the adaptive approaches that are needed to engage effectively in complex, dynamic and uncertain systems and contexts.

I was also pleased to see that the process of drafting and revising the position paper shifted the framing of learning from "measure what matters" to "learning from the system", with other language nuanced, "to not discredit the development outcomes we measure but rather make it clear that the process (the 'how') is also important" (see p.7 of Summary of Feedback). I share the concerns outlined on page ten of the position paper about an "overemphasis on outputs, targets and attributable results", appreciate that outcomes emerge from complex systems rather than being delivered by particular actors, and value relationships, learning and capacity as important aspects of a system's health and resilience, and its constituents' ability to collectively address complex social challenges (see Toby Lowe's piece on explode on impact, and Jessica Kiessel's recent piece on holding outcomes lightly, for a flavor of such discussions).

However, I think it is important to also pay attention not only to process outcomes, crucial as those are, but also to whether and how those processes and the apparent health of systems, support the emergence of outcomes, or results - for instance as regards poverty, hunger, health, education and gender equality, or whatever outcomes are valued by local actors - that make a meaningful difference in people's lives. One can move beyond simplistic understandings of causality and attribution, and engage with the world as a complex social system, while continuing to pay attention, in a suitably nuanced way, to results and the difference that actors' engagement in a system makes to the outcomes that emerge.

Relatedly, I noted the continuing commitment to "rigorous causal analysis to ensure effective use of resources". This is no surprise, and I have no problem with this, as long as the notion of rigor is one that includes approaches that are suited for the complex and contextually-embedded causal dynamics of social systems. When it comes to understanding these sorts of systems, and addressing complex social challenges, RCTs - as many USAID colleagues are clearly aware - are very far from being a gold standard for evidence, evaluation, learning or accountability. (See the inclusive rigour co-lab, for excellent resources). All that glitters is not gold.

Entry points and portfolios for engagement and learning

One absence from the position paper was guidance about how to identify points in the system at which to engage, perhaps - to use the language of the 2014 Local Systems Framework (see also The 5 R's Framework) - as regards the roles, relationships, rules, and resources which, along with results, constitute the system. This is something which is always on my mind in conversations about systems change strategies.

As Rachel Leeds, the lead author of the Local Systems Position Paper, noted in recent correspondence with me, we need more examples of how systems change initiatives have gone about identifying leverage points and potential sites for engagement. Collating and comparing such examples, to support collaborative learning about how people have gone about selecting where and how to engage, and how that has worked out, could be a very useful contribution to the field, and is something I would be happy to help with.

My thinking on entry points and sites for engagement has been informed in particular by the approach that the SOAS Anti-Corruption Evidence team have developed over many years to understand the dynamics of systems of corruption and identify sites in those systems where policy can encourage sustainable changes in behavior that have the potential to shift the dynamics of the system and the outcomes that emerge (draft executive summary of forthcoming how-to guide, here).

Indeed, the SOAS-ACE approach - along with others such as the Actor-Based Change framework, recently highlighted by USAID, and Yuen Yuen Ang's work on adaptive political economy - helpfully draws attention to an issue where further exploration would be valuable. That is, how does the interplay of actors' behaviors and interactions, and the emergence of patterns and institutions from those behaviors and interactions, shape the evolution of the system, and what are the implications of the co-evolutionary process for efforts to shift the dynamics of complex social systems? (See also my piece, with Kathy Bain, on systems of corruption). This too is an area that I am keen to contribute to, in collaboration with a growing network of behavior-focused systems change colleagues.

It might also be helpful to make connections with the portfolio-based approaches being pioneered by organizations including the Chôra Foundation, UNDP, Climate-KIC, Dark Matter Labs, and the TransCap Initiative (see in particular Ivana Gazibara's recent piece on transition mapping to identify strategic intervention spaces). For references and links, see my collation of resources on complexity, systems and portfolios for innovation and learning.

This isn't about portfolios as aggregations of projects, or about portfolios for traditional risk management and resource allocation. Rather, it's about engaging across multiple sites in a system, to support engagement which is thereby aligned with the structure of complex social systems, provides multiple perspectives, generates richer emergent learning, and informs innovative and effective practice.

Conclusions: Alignment and coherence

The Local Systems Position Paper is an important milestone for USAID and an inspiring example for other donors and organizations - and even individuals, like me - who are exploring how they might best contribute to shifting the power and moving the needle towards more locally-led, sustainable and effective development. It is clear, concise, jargon-free, engaging, and sets out what for me is a compelling vision of "intentional, relational and learning-oriented systems practice" that will "help foster more resilient and inclusive systems and positively contribute to the broader, locally led systems change that ultimately drive sustainable progress."

The strength of the Local Systems Position Paper, and the actions that it informs, comes in my view from the alignment between a view of how change happens (ontology), how change can be understood (epistemology), and how change can be supported (methodology, or praxis), with embedded and emergent learning providing the space for reflection and adaptation on these various elements in the manner of single, double and triple loop learning. In this way, the Local Systems Position Paper provides the conceptual foundation for an emergent and adaptive learning system that can inform USAID's actions and engagement in the wider systems with which the agency engages. (For more on this notion of alignment see my August 2024 piece on ecosystems, emergence and social change, and the recent piece on mental models of systems change by Jewlya Lynn and Julia Coffman).

This alignment is complemented by what seems to be a good degree of coherence, with various USAID policies - including policies on local systems, collaboration/learning/adapting, locally-led development, local capacity strengthening, applied political economy analysis, adaptive management, and more - forming a coherent set (a system?) of policies, which, one hopes, encourage coherence in terms of the agency's actions. There is no doubt much more to do to translate the vision of local systems and locally-led development into practice, but as David Jacobstein put it in his reflections on the predecessor to the Local Systems Position Paper, "much of what the Local Systems Framework outlined has become simply part of how we discuss development". That is quite some achievement.

I look forward to seeing how other bilateral and multilateral donors - and other organizations besides - continue their journeys, finding their niche and their role in supporting locally-led development, shifting the power and the dynamics of complex social systems. (See here for a recent OECD peer learning synthesis review of the pathways donors are taking towards locally-led development cooperation). I look forward to doing my bit, making connections, supporting collaborative learning, and sharing resources, to nurture systems and relationships that enable people and communities around the world to embrace complexity, and to address the challenges that they prioritize, in ways that work for them.

______________________________________________________________________________

Readers may also be interested to listen to episodes 3 and 4 of the podcast series Systems Practice in International Development. Hosted by Ankeeta Shrestha and and Alexandra Nastase from Abt Global, these two episodes focus on USAID's Local Systems Position Paper and systems practice, and feature Rachel Leeds and David Jacobstein from USAID.