Scaling Up An Introduction

1. Scaling Up An Introduction Presentation in Washington, DC on May 8, 2013 Johannes F. Linn Emerging Markets Forum and Brookings jlinn@brookings.edu jlinn@brookings.edu 1

2. Preamble:What’s in a word…? Two meanings of “scaling up”: • “increasing the amount of money” • “taking successful programs to scale” Today we’re concerned with 2. jlinn@brookings.edu

3. What’s the problem? Ambitious global development goals (MDGs, 1m rural poor, etc.), but… • Fragmentation of government and aid programs • Difficulties of coordination • Failure to “connect the dots”, i.e., to reap the benefits of scale through learning, replication and partnership  need to scale up successful interventions jlinn@brookings.edu

4. Scaling up: a general approach • Define scaling up: • “Scaling up means expanding, replicating, adapting and sustaining successful policies, programs or projects in different places and over time to reach a greater number of people.” (Hartmann and Linn, 2008) • The key question: If some intervention works as a pilot, how do we take it to scale? • Or: How do we develop pathways from innovation to learning and scaling up beyond individual project? jlinn@brookings.edu

5. The pathway from innovation to learning and scaling up Internal knowledge Scale up New idea, model, approach Pilot, Project M&E, Learning & KM Outside knowledge Multiple Impact Limited Impact jlinn@brookings.edu

6. The cycle of innovation, learning and scaling up • Innovation, learning and scaling up are separate, albeit linked processes. • They are generally complementary, but compete for resources. • Not every innovation can or should be scaled up. • Not every scaling up needs to involve an innovation. • The innovation-learning-scaling up cycle has no blue-print, is not linear or fixed – • but context-specific, iterative and flexible • but it helps having a framework and being systematic jlinn@brookings.edu

7. How to define pathways for scaling up Need to go beyond individual projects and develop scaling up pathways over time: • Define the desired scale and time horizon (“beyond project”) • Define the intermediate steps and results (“for the project”) • Focus on “drivers” and “spaces” for scaling up (next slide) • Select the operational instruments/approaches • With own resources, or with partners (co-financing, hand-off, etc.) • Financing mechanisms • Institutional approaches • Implementation/management modalities • Monitor and evaluate jlinn@brookings.edu

8. “Drivers” and “spaces” define the pathways for scaling up Drivers • Innovative ideas • Vision of scale • Leadership/champions • Stake holders • Market demand • External catalysts • Incentives and accountability Spaces (Constraints) • Fiscal and financial resources • Organizational (institutional and human) resources • Policy • Political • Cultural • Partnerships • Learning (incl. M&E) jlinn@brookings.edu 8

9. Risks of inadequate consideration of key scaling up factors • Opportunities for scaling up may be missed (“Type 1 error”) or scaling up may be done badly (“Type 2 error”). • Failure to identify financial/policy/capacity/political constraints may limit the potential for scaling up later. • Not paying attention to costs may create “boutique” approaches that only work on a small scale. • Setting up special purpose entities (e.g., PIUs), rather than working through ministries, may limit institutional options later. • Lack of effective, timely M&E may lead to poor decisions in scaling up • Failure to work with partners early may limit their buy-in later (esp. important with PPPs) jlinn@brookings.edu

10. Towards a new scaling up model with PPP: Status quo Source, Chandy et al. 2013 jlinn@brookings.edu

11. Hybrid scaling up model jlinn@brookings.edu Source, Chandy et al. 2013

12. M-PESA: A Hybrid Model of Mobile Money Service in Kenya • Initially developed as micro-credit payment mechanism, then scaled up as mobile money service • Key actors: Vodafone and DFID challenge fund; Kenyan microfinance institution (Faulu); government • Exemplary customer driven design, management, execution • Regulation followed innovation jlinn@brookings.edu

13. Overall conclusion:5 gaps and 5 recommendations • Partnership gap: public/private actors should explore joint/complementary approaches and instruments with joint/hybrid funding of programs designed to bring partners together so they can scale up successful interventions; • Incentives gap: governments/donors/COSs need to provide incentives to their partners and their own managers/staff to pursue scaling up; • Evaluation gap: evaluations of government/donor/CSO projects should include an assessment of the scaling up practices; • Institutional information gap: Governments/donors /CSOs should review and develop their institutional approaches to scaling up; • Mindset gap: We need to move from a focus on “making the project work” to a focus on “how do we move beyond the project if it works”? jlinn@brookings.edu

14. Some references • A. Hartmann and J. Linn. 2008. “Scaling Up: A Framework and Lessons for Development Effectiveness from Literature and Practice.” Wolfensohn Center Working Paper No. 5. Brookings. • J. Linn, A. Hartmann, H. Kharas, R. Kohl, and B. Massler. 2010. “Scaling Up the Fight Against Rural Poverty: An Institutional Review of IFAD’s Approach”, Global Working Paper No. 39 , Brookings. • L. Chandy, A. Hosono, H. Kharas and J. Linn, 2013 Getting to Scale: How to Bring Developmnt Solutions to Millions of Poor People. Washington, DC. Brookings Press. jlinn@brookings.edu

15. Thank you! jlinn@brookings.edu 15