For example, an organisation fighting malaria might identify the lack of a fair distribution of resources to afford medicine and protective equipment as one root cause of the problem.
The most plausible, to me, root cause solution for this problem is a gene drive, which is not systemic change.
The biggest historical example of a huge problem being solved via root cause is likely smallpox eradication, which was a technical intervention. (It of course also required a a lot of systems-level work.)
Do you have an example of a huge problem that’s been solved at its root cause through systemic change? Best I can think of is the Montreal Protocol. But may not count according your definition of “remov[ing] the problem indefinitely”, because the success depends on the protocol remaining in place.
I see a tension between addressing root causes (needs to be targeted on a very specific pathway – virus, chemical, mosquito, etc.) and your account of systemic change (needs to treat a problem “at large” and should look “beyond a narrow frame”).
“For example, an organisation fighting malaria might identify the lack of a fair distribution of resources to afford medicine and protective equipment as one root cause of the problem.”
The most plausible, to me, root cause solution for this problem is a gene drive, which is not systemic change.
This is a good example to show that problems can have more than one root cause. Children dying of malaria is both caused by Aedes aegypti existing and by the children’s parents not being able to access or afford treatment.
I just looked up the definition of root cause and Wikipedia says “A factor is considered the root cause of a problem if removing it prevents the problem from recurring.” With that definition I can think of even more root causes for children dying of malaria. In fact most problems in the world probably have multiple root causes.
And as your example shows, different root causes can vary a lot in cost-effectiveness. In this case the gene drive seems more cost-effective. On the other hand, getting rid of poverty or having better healthcare infrastructure doesn’t only solve malaria deaths but also does a lot more good in other ways.
Hi Tobias! Thanks for that comment, I hadn’t thought about things in the way you laid out but it feels like a useful way to challenge our—maybe somewhat inconsistent? - understanding of systemic change.
A quick response (I will at least try to find/make time to consider your point in more depth in the weeks to come):
The first thing that comes to mind in response to your question for a concrete example is women’s sufferage. That feels to me like a systemic intervention that worked on a root cause of the suffering/decreased wellbeing of women in European societies (probably also other, but I don’t know those others well enough to make any meaningful statements). It created a change that permanently improved the situation for many women in those societies … but I realise while writing that I have a somewhat hard time pinning down how exactly it did so, i.e. to state the measurable changes this caused to “the problem”.
And maybe that points to a larger insight from your remark: “addressing a root cause” is ill-defined, especially when considered from the systemic perspective we advocate here. The interventions you mention do, in fact permanently remove a specific problem, thus tackling that problem at its root in some sense. Systemic interventions that I can come up with (and that might also just be a problem in my knowledge) rarely seem to pinpoint a root cause that can actually be addressed fully; it seems more a matter of “the more we address this root cause, the more we can prevent recurring problems from occurring”.
In the case of women’s suffrage: it seems to address some root cause that could be labeled “oppression of women”, or maybe “political inequality (which translates to worse outcomes for the politically disenfrachised)”. But it neither fully eliminates that root cause, nor does it fully eliminate the specific problem (women’s situation improved after being granted the vote, but it didn’t immediately switch to “no more disadvantageous outcomes for women in society”); nor can I now come up with a more comprehensive systemic intervention that would achieve these outcomes in this example.
What are the implications? Maybe it means we need a better/fuller specification of “addressing root causes”? Maybe it does mean that our definition is inconsistent and we have to give up on, or reformulate, the claim that systemic changes can always (/often?/ever?) remove a given problem indefinitely by addressing its root causes? (Or maybe it just means that I myself am insufficiently knowledgeable about systemic change and should work harder learning about concrete examples ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
Either way, thanks for prompting me (and everyone on the forum stumbling across this post) to take our references to “root causes” apart and to figure out more concretely how systemic interventions do or don’t address them!
Thanks Sarah for the thoughtful response! I agree that women’s suffrage is an interesting case to consider.
But it neither fully eliminates that root cause, nor does it fully eliminate the specific problem (women’s situation improved after being granted the vote, but it didn’t immediately switch to “no more disadvantageous outcomes for women in society”); nor can I now come up with a more comprehensive systemic intervention that would achieve these outcomes in this example.
This is a good point. Of course, an intervention can do a huge amount of good without fully eliminating the root cause or the specific problem.
Part of what prompted my comment was that I got the impression that the claim was that people working on systemic change are interested in permanent solutions, whereas many EA interventions merely fight symptoms. I don’t think you explicitly claim this, on a reread. I’d probably disagree with this framing :)
The most plausible, to me, root cause solution for this problem is a gene drive, which is not systemic change.
The biggest historical example of a huge problem being solved via root cause is likely smallpox eradication, which was a technical intervention. (It of course also required a a lot of systems-level work.)
Do you have an example of a huge problem that’s been solved at its root cause through systemic change? Best I can think of is the Montreal Protocol. But may not count according your definition of “remov[ing] the problem indefinitely”, because the success depends on the protocol remaining in place.
I see a tension between addressing root causes (needs to be targeted on a very specific pathway – virus, chemical, mosquito, etc.) and your account of systemic change (needs to treat a problem “at large” and should look “beyond a narrow frame”).
Interested to hear your thoughts :)
This is a good example to show that problems can have more than one root cause. Children dying of malaria is both caused by Aedes aegypti existing and by the children’s parents not being able to access or afford treatment.
I just looked up the definition of root cause and Wikipedia says “A factor is considered the root cause of a problem if removing it prevents the problem from recurring.” With that definition I can think of even more root causes for children dying of malaria. In fact most problems in the world probably have multiple root causes.
And as your example shows, different root causes can vary a lot in cost-effectiveness. In this case the gene drive seems more cost-effective. On the other hand, getting rid of poverty or having better healthcare infrastructure doesn’t only solve malaria deaths but also does a lot more good in other ways.
Hi Tobias! Thanks for that comment, I hadn’t thought about things in the way you laid out but it feels like a useful way to challenge our—maybe somewhat inconsistent? - understanding of systemic change.
A quick response (I will at least try to find/make time to consider your point in more depth in the weeks to come):
The first thing that comes to mind in response to your question for a concrete example is women’s sufferage. That feels to me like a systemic intervention that worked on a root cause of the suffering/decreased wellbeing of women in European societies (probably also other, but I don’t know those others well enough to make any meaningful statements). It created a change that permanently improved the situation for many women in those societies … but I realise while writing that I have a somewhat hard time pinning down how exactly it did so, i.e. to state the measurable changes this caused to “the problem”.
And maybe that points to a larger insight from your remark: “addressing a root cause” is ill-defined, especially when considered from the systemic perspective we advocate here. The interventions you mention do, in fact permanently remove a specific problem, thus tackling that problem at its root in some sense. Systemic interventions that I can come up with (and that might also just be a problem in my knowledge) rarely seem to pinpoint a root cause that can actually be addressed fully; it seems more a matter of “the more we address this root cause, the more we can prevent recurring problems from occurring”.
In the case of women’s suffrage: it seems to address some root cause that could be labeled “oppression of women”, or maybe “political inequality (which translates to worse outcomes for the politically disenfrachised)”. But it neither fully eliminates that root cause, nor does it fully eliminate the specific problem (women’s situation improved after being granted the vote, but it didn’t immediately switch to “no more disadvantageous outcomes for women in society”); nor can I now come up with a more comprehensive systemic intervention that would achieve these outcomes in this example.
What are the implications? Maybe it means we need a better/fuller specification of “addressing root causes”? Maybe it does mean that our definition is inconsistent and we have to give up on, or reformulate, the claim that systemic changes can always (/often?/ever?) remove a given problem indefinitely by addressing its root causes? (Or maybe it just means that I myself am insufficiently knowledgeable about systemic change and should work harder learning about concrete examples ¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
Either way, thanks for prompting me (and everyone on the forum stumbling across this post) to take our references to “root causes” apart and to figure out more concretely how systemic interventions do or don’t address them!
Thanks Sarah for the thoughtful response! I agree that women’s suffrage is an interesting case to consider.
This is a good point. Of course, an intervention can do a huge amount of good without fully eliminating the root cause or the specific problem.
Part of what prompted my comment was that I got the impression that the claim was that people working on systemic change are interested in permanent solutions, whereas many EA interventions merely fight symptoms. I don’t think you explicitly claim this, on a reread. I’d probably disagree with this framing :)