The case for systems thinking in tackling malnutrition

Once again, the global spotlight is on malnutrition in India, a country celebrating its achievement of the fifth-largest GDP in the world. Twenty years ago, with 'India Shining' and the celebration of becoming 'the fastest-growing free market democracy in the world', the same question was asked. “Why are there more malnourished children in India (as a percentage of its population) than in poorer African and South Asian countries, even though India’s per capita income is higher, and India has a wealth of economists and scientists?”

This raises two fundamental questions. First, what is wrong with the shape of India’s growth? Second, what needs to change in the approach India is taking to solve chronic problems such as malnutrition?

The flaw in the shape of India’s growth is obvious. Inequalities within the country are only increasing with the faster growth of GDP. In a 2022 report titled, "Earth for All: A Survival Guide for Humanity", international economists, ecologists and social scientists predict that the present approach of pursuing GDP with insufficient action to rectify societal inequities, if adopted globally, would lead to environmental and social collapse later this century. The research also forecasts that by 2050, on its present trajectory, India will be the most unequal society in the world.

Also Read | The pangs of India's food production, policy

Twenty years ago, a multi-sectoral coalition was formed to examine why the country was not reducing child malnutrition faster. Its members were from the government, non-governmental organisations, corporations, and the international development sector. Their project was called 'Bhavishya' (future) because the health and education of India’s children, who are expected to produce a 'democratic dividend', are determinants of India’s future. The coalition was assisted by international consultants, who provided tools of “systems thinking”. Why, they asked, is India not progressing as fast as poorer countries in reducing child malnutrition, even with the largest funded program in the world — the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS)?

The project revealed three fundamental flaws in the approach to solving child malnutrition, which also pervade other areas of policymaking.

Thinking in silos

Systemic problems like the persistence of malnutrition, increasing inequality, and accelerating climate change do not take the same forms in different places. Therefore, solutions must be local. 'One shape and size' solutions cannot fit all. 'Systems thinking' is required to solve such problems.

Working in silos

Systems thinking must translate into 'systems action' too. Cooperation is essential, between government departments in their silos, and NGOs which tend to focus only on their own area of work — whether children, women, or climate change issues. Solutions must be supported by collaboration among experts in many disciplines.

Mismeasuring progress

Policymakers sometimes evaluate complex conditions with single metrics. For example, GDP or the poverty line. Experts claim this enables objective comparisons of the performance of countries and states, as well as comparisons over time. However, single, quantitative measures hide more than they reveal about real conditions on the ground. In their drive for ‘objectivity’, they strip out factors that are not easy to quantify, which, nevertheless, are often the root causes of problems.

A new theory of change

Top-down solutions are not working. Systemic change must be bottom-up. Local systems solutions collaboratively implemented with communities are the way to solve the global systemic problems summarised in the 17 global Sustainable Development Goals. None of these goals can be achieved separately. They require wider systems thinking combining many scientific disciplines, and collaborative action amongst diverse stakeholders.

(Arun Maira is a former member of the Planning Commission and the author of Transforming Systems: Why the World Needs a New Ethical Toolkit)