Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Research Backgrounders
Oxfam Americas Research Backgrounders are designed to inform and foster discussion
about topics critical to poverty reduction. The series explores a range of issues on which
Oxfam America worksall within the broader context of international development and
humanitarian relief. The series was designed to share Oxfam Americas rich research
with a wide audience in hopes of fostering thoughtful debate and discussion. All
Backgrounders are available as downloadable PDFs on our website,
oxfamamerica.org/research, and may be distributed and cited with proper attribution
(please see following page).
Recent Backgrounders:
Climate Change and Violent Conflict: A critical literature review, by Ellen Messer
(2010).
In need of a better WASH: Water, sanitation, and hygiene policy issues in post-
earthquake Haiti, by Figaro Joseph (2011).
This paper was prepared with support from the Rockefeller Foundation. Oxfam America is grateful
to Mara Bolis and Julia Fischer-Mackey for extensive reviews and research and to Catherine Miller,
David Satterthwaite, Gabrielle Watson, Kerry Scanlon, Kimberly Pfeifer, Kristi Kienholz, Marjorie
Victor Brans, Steve Stanton, and Tara Gingerich for reviews and revisions. Additionally, Oxfam
would like to thank all of those individuals and organizations consulted in the process of developing
this paper.
Jochnick, Chris, Systems, power, and agency in market-based approaches to poverty, Oxfam
America Research Backgrounder series (2012): www.oxfamamerica.org/market-based-
approaches-to-poverty.
This paper reviews some of the shortcomings of these various approaches and
describes the search for more holistic, systemic approaches. Specifically, the
paper argues that MBAs continue to fall short of their potential because of a
failure to: (i) employ systems thinking, (ii) address power and agency, and (iii)
implement interventions with adequate political, social, and economic dexterity.
A market systems approach (MSA) integrating these three essential elements
(systems thinking, power/agency, and dexterity) offers the best prospect for
ensuring significant and lasting change through market engagement.
1 A market can be defined as a set of arrangements by which buyers and sellers exchange goods or services. People living in poverty
engage with markets as workers, producers, entrepreneurs, and consumers. MBAs are aimed at bringing market benefits to any of these
groups.
2 Allen Hammond, Taking BoP Strategies to Scale Pts. 1-5, Next Billion: Development Through Enterprise (blog), May 2008,
http://www.nextbillion.net/blog/.
3 See Bill Drayton and Valeria Budinich, A New Alliance for Global Change, Harvard Business Review (September 2010), and John Kania
and Mark Kramer, Collective Impact: Large-Scale Social Change Requires Broad Cross-Sector Coordination Yet the Social Sector
Remains Focused on the Isolated Intervention of Individual Organizations, Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter 2011): 36-41.
This paper is divided into the following sections: Section I provides an overview
of the three main types of MBAs and their weaknesses, Section II looks at the key
elements for high-impact market approaches, Section III describes the challenges
of implementing MSAs, and Section IV describes opportunities and prospects for
moving the field of MSAs forward.
This paper draws on the experience of Oxfam America and other Oxfam
affiliates, a review of recent literature, and interviews about market system work
with representatives from government, private sector, and development agencies
in the US and Europe, and practitioners in Latin America, West Africa, India,
China, and Southeast Asia.
4 See Alexandra O. Miehlbradt and Mary McVay, The 2005 Reader: From BDS [Business Development Services] to Making Markets Work
for the Poor, International Labor Organization (ILO), 2005; and Arneel Karnani, Fighting Poverty Together: Rethinking Strategies for
Business, Governments, and Civil Society to Reduce Poverty (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2011).
Background
Various trends are driving increasing attention to private sector actors. A more
globalized world has freed private capital and corporations to cross borders in
search of new markets and resources. As a result, private investment now far
outstrips foreign assistance across the developing world,5 and private sector
actors exert increasing impact on the lives of poor people and on the policies and
markets that drive development.
5 Lotte Thomsen, Shifting Financial Flows to Low-Income Countries: From Official Aid to Private Finance? (Danish Institute for
International Studies (DIIS) Working Paper, no. 2008/22, 2008).
6 See Creating Inclusive Business Opportunities: Linking Local Communities with Big Business, World Business Council for Sustainable
Development and SNV, April 2011), http://www.inclusivebusiness.org/.
7 William Easterly, The White Mans Burden: Why the Wests Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good (New York:
Penguin Press, 2006), 4; and Dambisa Moyo, Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa (New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009), 28.
9 The move away from the Washington Consensus has been less a clean break than a shift in emphasis from liberalized trade and
privatization, to good governance and business climate. See Doing Business 2011: Making a Difference for Entrepreneurs (World Bank
and the International Finance Corporation [IFC], 2010).
10 BoP proponents generally target poor people as consumers (see C.K. Prahalad, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating
Poverty Through Profits [Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing, 2004]), though some BoP efforts also look to support small
enterprises (see Ashish Karamchandani, Michael Kubzansky, and Paul Frandano, Emerging Markets, Emerging Models [Monitor Group,
March 2009], and Ted London, Making Better Investments at the Base of the Pyramid, Harvard Business Review [May 2009]).
New industry standards that are adopted without any significant changes in
conduct or accountability to stakeholders on the ground.
12 See Michael E. Conroy, Branded!: How the Certification Revolution Is Transforming Global Corporations (Gabriola Island, Canada: New
Society Publishers, 2007).
Successful interventions to help build a small enterprise that fail to scale for
lack of input markets, predatory government actors, oligopolistic actors, or
burdensome regulations.
Connecting poor producers with MNCs and cutting out middlemen that can
leave already vulnerable communities more dependent and potentially more
at risk.
13 See Alexandra O. Miehlbradt and Mary McVay, The 2006 Reader: Implementing Sustainable Private Sector Development: Striving for
Tangible Results for the Poor (International Labor Organization [ILO], 2006); and Michael Edwards, Small Change: Why Business Wont
Save the World (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2010).
14 See Rob Hitchins, Making Business Service Markets Work for the Poor in Rural Areas: A Review of Experience (London: Department for
International Development [DFID], 2004).
The most important collaborative initiatives will marshal the best competencies of
business, NGOs, and the public sector. Business not only can but in fact must be part
of the solution. Businesses cant do this by themselves. They need NGOs to prod and
pull, criticize and inform. They need governments to ensure a level playing field. The
fertile ground of systemic change is in this partnership space, trying out new
organizational forms that enable practical management of the environmental commons
as well as coordinated investments in opportunities for the poor. (Hamilton, 5)
The move toward more holistic approaches is an essential step, but sustainable
and scalable progress on poverty requires additional considerations. The
development and sustainability of pro-poor markets depends largely on
whether:
Civil society groups and watchdogs have the capacity and power to influence
market rules and to innovate with the private sector to drive improved
industry practices.
16 See Doing Business 2011: Making a Difference for Entrepreneurs (World Bank and the International Finance Corporation [IFC], 2010).
Systems thinking
The complexity of markets makes a systems approach indispensible. Market
complexity is a product of the following:
In the BoP marketplacein which skills develop and word-of-mouth influences are
strongthe human dimension and issues of fairness and trust simply overwhelm
abstract notions of markets and competition. Intuitive and interdependent relationships
that are viewed as fair and trustworthyand therefore likely to lead to individual and
community welfareprevail. (Viswanathan, 129)
Further complicating this systems approach is the nature of impacts due to any
market change:
Cause and effect are often not immediately discernible: Market change can
take years and is rarely linear. Change will be intensified by feedback loops
that can expedite or undermine reforms.
17 A market map is a visual representation of value chain actors and processes, enabling environment, and business and extension service
providers in a particular market, aimed at identifying market constraints, bottlenecks, and interventions. See Mike Albu and Alison Griffith,
Mapping the Market: Participatory Market-Chain Development in Practice, Small Enterprise Development 17, no. 2 (2006): 12-22.
The work of Peter Senge and others has underscored the importance of
understanding the deeper structure that conditions relationships and behaviors
in any complex system.
18 Marcus Jenal, Zoom Out! Why a Systemic Perspective Matters in Economic DevelopmentMore Than Ever, posted to The SEEP
Network (blog), November 21, 2011, http://www.seepnetwork.org/blog/zoom-out-systemic-perspective-matters-economic-development.
Even holistic MBA efforts often betray a lack of systems thinking. Contemplating
all relevant actors within a system is important, but addressing the deeper
dynamics and incentives driving the behavior of those actors is equally
important to ensure that superficial reforms are not undermined by the
superstructure.
19 Dani Rodrik, Goodbye Washington Consensus, Hello Washington Confusion? A Review of the World Banks Economic Growth in the
1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform, Journal of Economic Literature 44 (December 2006): 969-983, and William Easterly, Can the
West Save Africa? Journal of Economic Literature 47, no. 2 (June 2009): 373-447. In reviewing the record of recent multilateral donor
efforts, World Bank Vice President Gobind Nankani declared, There is no unique universal set of rules. [W]e need to get away from
formulae and the search for elusive best practices. World Bank, Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005), xiii.
20 Ricardo Hausmann, Dani Rodrik, and Andres Velasco, Getting the Diagnotics Right, Finance and Development 43, no. 1 (March 2006).
21 See footnote 6; the push for more rigorous evaluations has spawned new institutions like the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab at MIT
and Innovations for Poverty Action. See Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight
Global Poverty (New York: PublicAffairs, 2011) and Dean Karlan and Jacob Appel, More Than Good Intentions: How a New Economics
,
Is Helping to Solve Global Poverty (New York: Penguin Group, 2011).
RBAs at their core are about shifting power relations between marginalized
groups and decision makers, with a specific and intentional focus on gender
equity. Empowerment is commonly defined as the expansion of individual
and collective assets and capabilities of people required to participate in,
negotiate with, influence, control and/or hold accountable the institutions that
affect their lives.23 The World Bank describes empowerment as follows:
22 The sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) approximates an RBA by focusing on empowerment and working with communities to build on
their opportunities. It emphasizes poor peoples voices and the multitude of strategies they use to support their households. SLAs will
often consider MBAs to leverage additional opportunities. See Mona Haidar, Sustainable Livelihood Approaches: The Framework,
Lessons Learnt from Practice and Policy Recommendations (UN Economic and Social Council, December 2009).
23 According to Amartya Sen, greater freedom comes with greater agency, which implies greater individual and social contribution and
participation, and makes development efforts more effective. See Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (New York: Anchor Books,
1999).
Social barriers can reduce market opportunities by limiting mobility, as in the case of
home-based women embroiderers in Pakistan. Power asymmetries between older
male leaders and younger women producers affect the transfer of learning and
information flows available through horizontal cooperation. Gender barriers in access
to training can limit womens ability to acquire knowledge and skills required to
upgrade and reduce upgrading risks. (Dunn et al., v)
Despite the obvious merits of the RBA, most MBAs do not consider agency or
power relations in their analysis. While Watchdogs will often try to leverage
power and influence through advocacy to effect corporate or policy change,
many global campaigns are disengaged from poor communities or social
movements and may do little to increase agency or empowerment.25 Some
Leveragers are fully invested in an RBAfor them, the limitation has more to do
with market engagement. More often, Leveragers, particularly those coming
from government, corporate, or investment sides, are not out to change
structures or rules and may not be comfortable with ideas of empowerment or
agency. Finally, Enablers fall the shortest in terms of incorporating an RBA into
their interventions. Although economic growth can bring jobs and improved
income, it wont address the roots of poverty if it leaves intact (or worse,
exacerbates) power imbalances and marginalization.
25 David W. Kennedy, The International Human Rights Movement: Part of the Problem? Harvard Human Rights Journal (Spring 2002): 102-
126.
Growing and scaling businesses in the informal and challenging markets that
serve poor people requires sensitivities and tools that are not traditionally
nurtured in the development community or first-world business circles, and
especially not in any single actor. For instance, development experts will often
seek to intervene, to fix problems,26 or to subsidize business services that might
ultimately be more aptly provided by markets; foreign investors, donors, and
corporate executives will often presume that poor customers and suppliers are
motivated by the same drivers as those from their own circles; and community
groups and farmers will tend to distrust and find it difficult to engage with large
multinationals.
26 This is not to overlook the many situations that demand greater intervention to save lives (as in emergency response situations) or
address poverty (such as relief for the extreme poor) where lighter interventions and market forces wont suffice.
Agency to shape the institutions that can make markets work for the poor can be at
least as important as agency to get products into a value chain. [T]he majority and
poorest of producers are not organised in markets, and elites and cartels continue to
prevent markets from working in a pro-poor manner. ... It was clear that some of the
agenda to link small-scale farmers to markets is undermining the very structures that
support producer agency. These problems can be easily missed when we set out to
make markets that work for the poor rather than with the poor. (Producer Agency,
5)
Marrying a systems approach to markets with an RBA offers the dual potential of
sustainable, scalable market growth that addresses the roots of poverty. The two
approaches have much in common. Both recognize the importance of systems
thinking and put a premium on understanding the relationships and institutions
that inhibit or enable reforms. Both place much weight on the accountability of
interveners, warn against dependency, and demand culturally, socially, and
politically nuanced interventions. Both look to holistic engagement of
stakeholders and powerful actors and call for emotional intelligence. Bringing an
additional market awareness and dexterity to RBAs on the one hand and
For its part, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) moved from
enterprise development to a value chain approach (VCA) that addresses both the
supply and demand sides of market interactions in order to ensure that market
growth is sustainable.30 This work has evolved to look beyond single value
27 Christina Gradl and Beth Jenkins, Tackling Barriers to Scale: From Inclusive Business Models to Inclusive Business Ecosystems (CSR
Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School, 2011).
28 Market facilitation has developed as a formal approach to driving pro-poor market change through a limited, catalytic role for organizations
to build relationships among market actors and encourage them to drive systems change through collective actions to drive. See Robbie
Blake and Katherine Pasteur, Learning from Practice: Empowering Community Organizations: A Light Touch Approach for Long-term
Impact (Practical Action, August 2010).
30 Value chain approaches have grown in importance as MNCs move away from tightly integrated structures to sprawling global networks of
suppliers. The approach has been influenced greatly by Gary Gereffis work on value chain governance models. See Gary Gereffi, John
Humphrey, and Timothy Sturgeon, The Governance of Global Value Chains, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Review of
International Political Economy 12, no.1 (February 2005): 78-104.
31 USAIDs Policy, Planning and Learning group hosted its first event on complexity theory in October 2011.
32 Trade, Micro and Small Enterprises and Global Value Chains, microREPORT #25, US Agency for International Development (USAID),
2005.
33 At the margins, M4P has contemplated issues of power and accountability by, for example, strengthening media markets (see
Perspectives on the Making Markets Work for the Poor [M4P] Approach (Department for International Development [DFID] and Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation [SDC], October 2008), 7.
34 Implementations under M4P generally have greater flexibility than under USAIDs value chain approach. M4P practitioners assert that
DFID and other European donors provide relatively more space to try, fail, adapt, change, or quit sectors and tactics as a result of
experience on the ground, versus more presubscribed solutions under USAID. Respective timelinestypically five-year programs with
DFID versus three-year programs with USAIDalso provide M4P programs with more latitude.
Source: Authors illustration based on USAID Microenterprise Development Program Conference Call Minutes,
April 21, 2009, 11 a.m.-12 p.m.; USAID and Microenterprise Development, June 2006.
Source: Authors illustration based on Prashant Rana, Making Markets Work for the Poor: Experience, Results
and Lessons from Katalyst, Microlinks Breakfast Seminar (March 24, 2011), and Mike Albu, Making Markets
Work for Poor: International Development Cooperation; Seeking Common Principles that Underpin a Coherent
Approach to Poverty Reduction (The Springfield Centre, June 2008).
[W]here the cutting edge of philanthropic innovation over the last decade
was mostly about improving organizational effectiveness, efficiency, and
responsiveness, we believe that the work of the next 10 years will have to
include an additional focus on coordination and adaptation. Coordination,
because given the scale and social complexity of the challenges they face,
funders will increasingly look to other actors. And adaptation, because
given the pace of change today, funders will need to get smarter more
quickly, incorporating the best available data and knowledge about what is
working and regularly adjusting what they do.38
35 Matthew Bishop and Michael Green, Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save the World (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009).
37 This trend is attributed to the increasing complexity of global challenges, disappointing results with narrower approaches, and the
entrepreneurial roots of the new philanthropists. See Leslie Crutchfield, John V. Kania, and Mark R. Kramer, Do More than Give: The Six
Practices of Donors Who Change the World (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011); Bishop and Green, Philanthrocapitalism; Katherine
Fulton et al., Executive Summary: Whats Next for Philanthropy (Monitor Institute, July 2010); Mark Kramer, Catalytic Philanthropy,
Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) (2009), http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/catalytic_philanthropy/#.
38 Katherine Fulton et al., Executive Summary: Whats Next for Philanthropy (Monitor Institute, July 2010).
Extreme poor. MBAs struggle to reach those living in extreme poverty, who
tend to be by necessity risk-adverse and who lack basic means, assets, and power
to engage effectively with markets. VCA and M4P proponents are reluctant to
target the most vulnerable sectors; instead, they view their work as
complementary to more interventionist or subsidized strategies to support these
sectors.39 It is an open question how far down the income ladder these
approaches are, in fact, able to go and whether they risk exacerbating inequality
to the extent that they fail to reach the most vulnerable.
Ideology and capacity. It is a rare organization that can work effectively and
simultaneously with grassroots organizations, poor farmers, MNCs, and
governments, one that can bridge the ideological support for markets with a
commitment to addressing power imbalances and inequality. The field lacks
bridging or catalytic organizations that can bring the necessary depth of
analysis and convene the necessary actors to work across market systems
coherently.
39 Nissa Felton, Early Lessons Targeting Populations with a Value Chain Approach (US Agency for International Development [USAID]), 6.
40 Andrew Natsios, The Clash of the Counter-Bureaucracy and Development (Center for Global Development, 2010), 3.
Having inherited their wealth or made it very quickly, the philanthrocapitalists are not
in the mood to wait around for their results, and the metrics they use to evaluate
success focus on short-term material gains not long-term structural shifts in values,
relationships and power. (Edwards, Philanthrocapitalism)
Time and flexibility. Systems change requires patience and flexibility, with a
nimble ability to change direction and to adapt to failure or changing
41 Tjip Walker, Practical Applications of Complexity in Market Systems Development (paper, 2011 SEEP Conference, Arlington, Virginia,
October-November 2011).
Making the case: Much has been written about the failings of past market-
based initiatives and the need for more systemic, rights-based approaches,
and a number of tools and frameworks have been developed, but the
empirical case for MSAs is still lacking. There is a need for innovative
projects and well-documented successes.
Framing pieces
Banerjee, Abhijit, and Esther Duflo. Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the
Way to Fight Global Poverty. New York: PublicAffairs, 2011.
Birdsall, Nancy, and Francis Fukuyama. The Post-Washington Consensus:
Development after the Crisis. Foreign Affairs (March/April 2011): 45-53.
Bishop, Matthew, and Michael Green. Philanthrocapitalism: How Giving Can Save
the World. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009.
Conroy, Michael E. Branded! How the Certification Revolution Is Transforming
Global Corporations. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers,
2007.
Crutchfield, Leslie, John V. Kania, and Mark R. Kramer. Do More than Give: The
Six Practices of Donors Who Change the World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
2011.
Easterly, William. Can the West Save Africa? Journal of Economic Literature 47,
no. 2 (2009): 373-447.
Easterly, William. The White Mans Burden: Why the Wests Efforts to Aid the Rest
Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: Penguin Press, 2006.
Edwards, Michael. Philanthrocapitalism: After the Gold Rush.
openDemocracy, March 20, 2008.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/globalisation/visions_reflectio
ns/philanthrocapitalism_after_the_goldrush. (2011)
Edwards, Michael. Just Another Emperor? The Myths and Realities of
Philanthrocapitalism. New York: Demos, 2008.
Edwards, Michael. Small Change: Why Business Wont Save the World. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2010.
Elliott, Kimberly. Opening Markets for Poor Countries: Are We There Yet?
October 2009. Center for Global Development.
Ellis, Karen. The Private Sector and Development. Overseas Development
Institute (ODI), 2010.
Fulton, Katherine, Gabriel Kasper, and Barbara Kibbe. Executive Summary:
Whats Next for Philanthropy. Monitor Institute, July 2010.
Hausmann, Ricardo, Dani Rodrik, and Andres Velasco. Getting the Diagnostics
Right. Finance and Development 43, no. 1 (March 2006).
Impact investing
Chilver, Alwyn, Peter Van Diermen, and Wendy Jones. Using Enterprise
Challenge Funds to Promote a More Enabling Environment for Business:
Challenges and Opportunities. AusAID, November 2006.
http://www.businessenvironment.org/dyn/be/docs/126/Session4.2Pa
per4.2.2Chilver.pdf. (March 2011)
Freireich, Jessica, and Katherine Fulton. Investing for Social & Environmental
Impact: A Design for Catalyzing an Emerging Industry. Monitor
Institute, January 2009.
Impact Investments: An Emerging Asset Class. J.P. Morgan Global Research,
Rockefeller Foundation, November 2010.
Value chains
Altenburg, Tilman. Donor Approaches to Supporting Pro-Poor Value Chains
Executive Summary. The Donor Committee for Enterprise Development,
July 2006.
Ashley, Caroline. Supply and Distribution Chains of Multinationals: Harnessing
Their Potential for Development. Background Note, Overseas
Development Institute (ODI), April 2009.
Coles, Christopher. Trust and Value through Long-Term Market Relationships:
Better than a Short-Term Focus on Price. Opinion 146 (2010).
Doing Business 2011: Making a Difference for Entrepreneurs. World Bank and
the International Finance Corporation (IFC), 2010.
Public-private partnerships
Dewar, Tom. Evaluating Global Development Alliances: An Analysis of
USAIDs Public-Private Partnerships for Development. US Agency for
International Development (USAID), May 2008.
Hartwich, Frank, and Jaime Tola. Public-Private Partnerships for Agricultural
Innovation: Concepts and Experiences from 124 Cases in Latin America.
Subsector analysis
Boomgard, James J., Stephen P. Davies, Steven Haggblade, and Donald C. Mead.
Subsector Analysis: Its Nature, Conduct and Potential Contribution to
Small Enterprise Development. Working Paper no. 26, Department of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, 1986.
Boomgard, James J., et al. A Subsector Approach to Small Enterprise Promotion
and Research: Cost-Effective Intervention to Improve MSEs by
Understanding the Interaction within Single Product Groups. US
Agency for International Development (USAID), 1991.
Boomgard, James J., et al. A Subsector Approach to Small Enterprise Promotion
and Research. Working Paper no. 10, Growth and Equity through
Microenterprise Investments and Institutions, January 1991.
Miscellaneous
Africa from the Bottom Up: Cities, Economic Growth and Prosperity in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Monitor Group, December 2009.
Bright, David. Leveraging Business Linkages for Poverty Reduction.
International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD), October
2010.
Creating Inclusive Business Opportunities: Linking Local Communities with
Big Business. World Business Council for Sustainable Development and
SNV, 2011. http://www.inclusivebusiness.org/. (April 2011)
Hart, Maura. Congress Passes Law to End Secrecy in Oil, Gas, and Mining
Industry. Oxfam America, July 15, 2010.
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/pressreleases/congress-passes-
law-to-end-secrecy-in-oil-gas-and-mining-
industry/?searchterm=lugar%20cardin%20oil. (April 2011)
Horton, D., G. Prain, and G. Thiele. Perspectives on Partnership: A Literature
Review. International Potato Center (CIP), 2009.
International Labor Organization. LED Knowledge: The Global Resource Site for
Local Economic Development. http://www.ledknowledge.org/. (March
2011)
Meyer-Stamer, Jorg. Making Market Systems Work? For the Poor? Small
Enterprise Development 17, no. 4 (2006): 21-32.
Organizational Research Services. Theory of Change: A Practical Tool for Action,
Results and Learning. Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2004.
http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/cc2977k440.pdf. (March
2011)
Porter, Michael E. Location, Competition and Economic Development: Local
Clusters in a Global Economy. Economic Development Quarterly 14, no. 1
(2000): 15-34.
Readings in Human Development: Concepts, Measures and Policies for a Development
Paradigm. Edited by Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and A. K. Shiva Kumar. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
oxfamamerica.org
2012 Oxfam America Inc. All Rights Reserved. Oxfam America is a registered trademark of
Oxfam America Inc., and the Oxfam logo is a registered trademark of Stichting Oxfam International.