{"id":71238,"date":"2026-04-10T15:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-10T09:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/idronline.org\/?post_type=article&p=71238"},"modified":"2026-04-10T13:04:41","modified_gmt":"2026-04-10T07:34:41","slug":"the-myth-of-systems-change","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/idronline.org\/kn-in\/article\/perspectives\/the-myth-of-systems-change\/","title":{"rendered":"The myth of systems change"},"content":{"rendered":"

There are three illusions that people like us often hold. The first has to do with scale—the idea that everything must ‘scale’ to be worthwhile. The second is about sustainability—the notion that we will undertake a programme, some amount of change will happen, people will be ‘empowered’, and they will ensure that this change sticks. The third is around systems change, where we believe that it is possible to change deeply entrenched systems in fairly short time frames by working with governments.<\/p>

To me, all three ideas often reflect an unrealistic understanding of the world and of our own place in it. <\/p>

The idea of systems change<\/h3>

In India, systems change is increasingly equated with working with governments, and leveraging their scale and influence on policy to embed solutions within the public system. This includes ‘co-creating’ methods, and strengthening institutional capacity within government structures to achieve ‘impact at scale’. <\/p>

\"What<\/a><\/div>
\n

To think that we can drive population scale impact is plain hubris.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>

The truth is that many, if not all, of us in civil society contribute to systems change in small ways. The system is the sum of its parts, and it requires each of us in our different capacities as funders, nonprofits, communities, and frontline teams to change or improve parts of it. And we should continue to do this.<\/p>

However, to think that we can drive population scale impact is plain hubris. The idea of systems change should be reframed as one where each actor—funder, government, nonprofit, community—identifies for themselves the manner in which they can contribute to improving a part of the system that is proportionate to their resources, capabilities, and capacities. Because this is what most of civil society aims to do. <\/p>

For instance, if you work at a block level, you need to understand the capacity of the system at the block level, and within that identify what you can work with and aim to change. But if you say that you’re going to change the system at the state and the national level, within a defined time period, with maybe a 13-member team in the state capital (often called a ‘project management unit’) and one odd person in some districts of the state, then this is a self-serving delusion. Self-serving because it may give you the satisfaction of doing something significant, delusional because in reality this does not contribute to systemic change.<\/p>

The fallacy of systems change being the primary way to scale <\/h3>

The issue today is that there are quite a few funders, nonprofits, and intermediaries who are evangelising the narrative of such ‘large-scale systems change’. They have the power, influence, and networks and, as a result, they are redirecting large sums of money to this model of working within governments and ‘fixing broken systems’ as the primary way of creating large-scale impact. <\/p>

Their pitch is simple. Here’s an example: We are working with 17,000 anganwadis in a state, so we are changing the ICDS system in that state. But their teams are small, barely a few dozen people. How can we expect a system to change with such limited human resources, with this kind of surface-level engagement? Similarly, redesigning a government teacher training programme in a state capital is touted as systems change even though we have no visibility on the change it results in at a systemic level, in classrooms, and with students. <\/p>

\"donate<\/a><\/div>

It has therefore become shorthand to say that if you work with government, you are driving systems change. No one questions the nature of the work, or what the actual impact of this approach is. <\/p>

The players might tell themselves that they have changed the system. But a system is built over several decades, and its meaning cannot be separated from its actual ground level manifestation and experience. When one says education system, one is talking about the education of a country’s population. One cannot just say “we changed this”. And yet, many of these entities are pulling in the money and controlling the flow of philanthropic and CSR funds. <\/p>

\"a<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/a>
It has become shorthand to say that if you work with government, you are driving systems change. | Picture courtesy: Pexels<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>

There is a more insidious impact of all this talk of systems change<\/h3>

As I traverse the country, many nonprofit leaders tell me that they are being asked to work on systems change in order to have impact. “Aapko systems change pe kaam karna chahiye<\/em>”—when they repeatedly hear this from people with the ‘right credentials’, the ‘right kind of education and background’, even leaders who know better begin to think that if this is what they are telling us, maybe we should consider it. Maybe we will be able to raise money too if we speak this language and change our model.<\/p>

\n

As grassroots leaders see funders lining up to support what they call systems change, an increasing number are asking themselves if their model is dated.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>

The more harmful effect of this narrative however is that grassroots leaders are beginning to second-guess themselves and their work. These are leaders who have immersed themselves in communities for decades, chipping away at deeply entrenched practices, working on difficult issues such as gender-based violence, forest rights, climate resilience, education, and so on. As they see funding dry up for this kind of work and funders lining up to support what they call systems change, an increasing number are asking themselves if their model is dated and if what they do doesn’t matter any more. <\/p>

Many of them are friends, many are leaders whose work I’ve seen closely over the last 30 years. And they are beginning to question if they have wasted their life pursuing deep work with communities because of this unfolding dynamic, even if they have managed to keep pace with and serve the needs of their communities over the years. <\/p>

As a result, some of them are now saying, “If this is what it takes for the work to survive, I will speak this language in funder meetings, at conferences, at events.” But it’s tragic because they are moving away from what has worked for their communities and society for an idea that at best only gives the doer the illusion of having ‘done something great’, while contributing little to real changes and improvement of systems.<\/p>

The impact on young people is even more alarming<\/h3>

Equally damaging is the effect of this systems change narrative on young people who are joining the sector—the well-intentioned, deeply passionate, highly energised young people coming into civil society. When they hear about this approach from people they respect, they start believing that if they are to contribute, they must work on systems change and scale. <\/p>

What does this mean for the choices they make about the kind of work they want to do? If this is all they hear, they are likely to opt for these systems change organisations or programmes. Not because they think this is where they will earn money, but because they are led to believe that this is the only way to create long-term and deep change. <\/p>

Because they hear the leaders they look up to speaking about systems change at forums; they see grassroots stalwarts change their programme strategies to this model; they watch their peers sign up for this. And importantly, instead of opting for immersion in deep work that has real impact and helps them learn, they might begin their careers doing this kind of work. <\/p>

Like much else in life, we need to ask the simple, common-sense questions, again and again, such as, has anything actually changed on the ground, in the lives of people? Can one claim changes in the system by writing up a few documents? Can one change systems by allocating small teams, when even the heads of systems (or states) struggle to make changes? We must stand this ground unrelentingly, most of all for the young people joining the social sector.<\/p>

—<\/p>

Know more <\/h3>