[Stoves] Do "market-based", "results-based" distribution strategies get in the way of the poor.? (Taken from Re: GACC Webinar (that was, Paul, Ron))

[Nikhil Desai]

Paul:

I have had some experience with the use and abuse of terms "market-based"
and "results-based" in the aid business. "Market-based" does not exclude
taxes and subsidies; in fact, it is a code word for using taxes and
subsidies rather than command-and-control.  Sometimes the costs are hidden;
e.g., it takes money and skills to administer taxes and subsidies.  Hence
my distress.

"Results" have become quite a fad in the last 20 years -- output, outcome,
and identification of "benefits" are all buzzwords on which a small cottage
industry burns inferior data fuel in inefficient models to produce
intellectual smoke. So long as the donor and the donnee agree which expert
to put in charge of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) and get the desired
ratings on the project, career promotions are guaranteed all around. Those
who ask questions are thrown out.

1. Reliable, efficient last mile distribution chains to poor households are
difficult to develop. I can write many personal stories on these.
Micro-finance for the users is not the answer; too high-cost. Supplier
finance is critical from manufacturing to distribution/after-sales service,
and that is not easy. Several things have to just "go right" in the
procurement, inventory, and human resources chains.

2. Massive free or near-free distribution is indeed a good idea, provided
the upper and middle classes are taken care of first and weaned off
subsidies. This is being done with the Indian LPG scheme. though I am
skeptical that Kirk Smith's dream of "complete and permanent transition".
Not only are the costs too high, I support a Woman's Right to Choose
(stacking). And even then the subsidy burden is high and not transparent.
(There is GOI subsidy under Direct Benefit Transfer L(?) or DBTL and on top
of it there is a product-based "unrecovered loss" for public sector oil
companies. It is complicated) Distribution to the poorest who don't have
permanent homes, and/or collect woodwaste and such, or don't even have food
to cook or time to cook, is a serious problem.

Yes, these two problems limit effective, quick action to reach the poor
(esp. those who are remote and whose income/cooking is not regular).

Please do keep at these questions. I haven't yet found a sure-fire
alternative, or rather, it takes enormous knowledge-base and TLC to foster
entrepreneurship among the poor that leverages local knowledge and capital
(financial, human, physical) in order to develop successful technology
innovators. (I would be happy to converse about this on the phone.)

Like many others in such business, I have some fantasies on how small-scale
local businesses can be fostered with a combination of subsidies, knowledge
intermediation, to build transformative biomass supply and use industries.
But I haven't yet figured out how to do this on a large enough scale for
the "stoves" projects. Definition of economic and agro/animal/forest
contexts is key.

Nikhil



------------------------
Nikhil Desai
(US +1) 202 568 5831 <(202)%20568-5831>
*Skype: nikhildesai888*

On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Paul Anderson <psanders at ilstu.edu> wrote:

>
> On 9/8/2017 10:58 AM, Nikhil Desai wrote:
> ..... snipped....
>
>>  If you recall Kirk Smith's second epiphany, one strong prevalent wind
>> has been - "Biomass stoves are better but not good enough and in any case
>> they don't command a delivery chain like LPG or electricity." If not the
>> technology, then the insistence on "market-based", "results-based"
>> distribution strategies will get in the way of the poor.
>>
> I can certainly see how such commercial distribution strategies do not
> favor the poor population (concerning stoves and other needs). But Nikhil's
> above statement bothers me.
>
> In our 21st Century world, is there any other way to reach 500 million
> households (or significant numbers of them) that need better stoves?
>
> ?? Rely on a cadre of itinerant tinsmiths to wonder the world into the
> last mile???
> ??  Rely on a massive free distribution of better stoves???
>
> Wait!!   The Indian  government IS giving away 50 million free set ups for
> LPG.    Maybe the answer IS the NOT-Market-based approach.??
>
> Correction:  The free stoves come with strings attached, specifically that
> if refills of LPG fuel are not purchased (market approach), the stoves
> will  not give any heat.
>
> Just asking questions.   I am not against market-based distribution.   But
> does it get in the way of serving the poor? What are the alternatives?
>
> Paul
>
> Doc  /  Dr TLUD  /  Prof. Paul S. Anderson, PhD
> Email:  psanders at ilstu.edu
> Skype:   paultlud    Phone: +1-309-452-7072
> Website:  www.drtlud.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170909/aff263a8/attachment.html>