Exclusion and Inequality are Driven by Systemic Failure

To build inclusive and lasting societal change, we must move beyond filling gaps. We must transform the structures that create them. We must shift from poverty reduction for certain people and groups to addressing structural, societal and intersectional causes of inequality. We must shift from victimizing the minority as having a disadvantage and move toward holding the majority accountable for the poverty, lack of services, unequal opportunities and inequitable benefits that exist as part of a system that continues to underserve, marginalize and fail certain groups.   

We are living through a polycrisis: It’s a perfect storm of climate instability, social inequality, human vulnerability, democratic fragility, economic volatility and geopolitical insecurity. In this fragile global disorder, development and humanitarian aid are being questioned and challenged, for better and worse.

The traditional aid model was often linear, relying on time and project-bound technical approaches and parachuted in solutions. While well-intentioned, it frequently creates silos of short-lived, albeit noteworthy, success stories. These are likely to survive only as long as funds flow and/or the emergency lasts. When the project or emergency ends, the tendency is to revert to the status quo. This is why locally led development, which is anchored in good governance, integrates gender and social equity, and applies rights-based and do no harm approaches is key to the inclusive systems approach.

From technical to systemic solutions

The inclusive systems approach framework anchors inclusion as a prerequisite for individual and societal well-being, productivity and resilience. To achieve this, we analyze issues through a multi-level and interlinked perspective. If we approach development in silos, projects will remain well-intended experiments and niche examples of what positive change could look like, versus change that is integral and lived. The goal is to embed the attitude, behavior, norm, practice and/or policy changes of the project into the cultural and societal fabric, as well as in the sectoral and political systems where the project is located, and beyond.

What does this look like in practice? It is not enough to provide water; one must improve the governance of water resources. What does that mean? Policymakers, local authorities, public and private sector service providers, users and clients of water resources and services, academics and researchers jointly identify and prioritize problems. They in turn jointly identify solutions that are mutually accountable, inclusively accessible and equitably beneficial. They then co-manage the implementation and quality assurance of those jointly agreed solutions, considering gender, cultural, social, economic, environmental and political dimensions. This is the inclusive systems approach.

Equality and equity at the center

At the heart of systemic failure is exclusion. A system that systematically excludes large demographic groups based on gender, culture, class, caste, religion, language or migration status is inherently unstable and insecure. Such a system becomes vulnerable to social, economic, environmental, and political shocks and crises, whether they’re national, regional or global. 

People aren't poor simply because they are undereducated or lack resources; they are poor because systems (health, education, transport, markets, finance, justice) ignore or discriminate against them. The inclusive systems approach tackles this by placing gender and social equity at the center. We apply the “nothing about them without them” principle. This means we do not label nor treat underserved or marginalized groups as passive or helpless beneficiaries of aid, but as key stakeholders and active agents of change. They must ultimately live with the outcomes of the interventions we support, so it’s best that they have a say, a role, and a stake.

A case in point is the Aparajita program in Bangladesh, where the government introduced quotas for women in local councils, but the old guard system remained intact. Women in the councils were often undercut and treated as tokens with little to no voice or agency. Helvetas supported the Aparajitas, a network of over 9,000 women, to self-organize, self-empower and self-advocate collectively. They shifted their identity from isolated individual women to a powerful political constituency with support from the communities they served as well as their male elected counterparts and local authorities. The true test of this system came during the COVID-19 pandemic. On their own initiative, without direct project support, the Aparajitas activated their network and directly ensured over 2,500 at-risk people received social safety net support. They also handled at least 132 cases of violence against women.

Justice systems often fail the underserved and marginalized due to high costs and complexity. In Tajikistan, the Access to Justice project treated justice as a service that needed supply and demand fixes. By introducing mediation — a faster, more affordable alternative to formal courts — and establishing state-run Legal Aid Centers, the country’s “exclusive” justice system was disrupted. These changes to the system shifted it from one accessible mostly to the wealthy to one that now also serves the most remote populations. Crucially, it afforded women a mechanism to self-advocate and exercise their land and other rights that were previously compromised or ignored.

Win-win partnerships: Good for society, good for business

In market-driven systems, moral arguments for equality and equity are often insufficient. To make change stick, we must demonstrate that inclusion is in the private (and public) sector’s business and economic interests.

This is illustrated through projects like the Enhancing Youth Employment (EYE) project, which supported digital jobs matching in the Balkans, where youth unemployment drives societal instability. We further enhanced our affirmative actions for inclusion by analyzing the untapped potential of unemployed youth from ethnic minorities who face bias and marginalization, like the Roma and Ashkali. The EYE project partnered with a private company in Kosovo to add a job-matching feature to the Fermeri mobile app. We framed this as a solution to the labor shortage faced by agriculture sector businesses. By using a trainer from the Roma community to build trust, the app successfully matched over 400 Roma and Ashkali youth with jobs. The result? Struggling agri-businesses got the labor they needed, at-risk youth got jobs, and the private digital app company found a profitable business model that continues today without donor funding or project support.

Partnering with the private sector can also be of strategic added value for both civil society and business. Civil society organizations are facing shrinking space, compounded with new policies that on one hand increase control over access to funding; on the other hand, these same policies scrutinize activities that if deemed a threat to national security or unlawful can result in arbitrary arrest or closure under new “foreign agent” laws, among others.

Traditional advocacy is increasingly riskier and can be counterproductive. Businesses need an enabling environment to thrive. This includes the rule of law, reliable services and transparent processes — basically the same things civil society organizations want. By allying with a responsible and responsive private sector, civil society organizations can advocate for good governance as a "business interest" rather than a "human rights" issue, achieving the same goal with less political risk. Authoritarian regimes may ignore or attempt to silence activists’ interests, but they tend not to ignore or be as confrontational with business interests.

Government is not the enemy

In an era of geopolitical fragility, treating and labelling government as the “enemy” can be expected, but ignores its complexity and diversity. Applying a Political Economy and Power Analysis to inform our inclusive systems approach reveals and unpacks underlying structures, relationships and dynamics, providing evidence that governments are not homogenous entities.

Viewing the state solely as an adversary compromises opportunities to understand interests, incentives and push-pull factors that can shift power and influence change. Even within authoritarian regimes there exist champions and allies who support and collaborate with civil society, at their own risk, rather than merely oppress it. We must distinguish between specific authoritarian actors and actions, and the fundamental requirements to deliver public goods and services and respond to emergencies. Human desperation and insecurity are not good for anyone, even an authoritarian government. Ultimately, maintaining an interface between people and state, against all odds, is key. In more oppressive contexts, this interface is often informal and mostly with local authorities. But it is sometimes the only way to navigate volatility and ensure that some form and degree of governance remains or can be returned. 

Resilience in the face of conflict

Can an inclusive systems approach work in fragile states or under authoritarian regimes? Evidence suggests it can act as a bridge and stabilizer during uncertain and insecure times.

In Myanmar, the Gulf of Mottama was suffering from illegal and overfishing and resource conflict. Rather than just teach about the law and how to fish more responsibly, Helvetas helped build a co-management governance system that included local authorities, the private sector and the Coastal Area Farmers Development Association. When the political situation deteriorated following the 2021 coup, these local institutions remained functional. They even became channels for humanitarian aid and food systems because the social contract held firm. This is systemic resilience: Local actors solving local problems together, despite adversity, risks and conflict.

The future is inclusive and systemic

We cannot afford development or humanitarian aid models that create or exacerbate fragile dependencies.

The evidence from the coastlines of Myanmar to the municipal courts of Tajikistan is clear: Inclusive systems are resilient systems that work toward the benefit of all. They withstand crises by mitigating the negative impacts of social, economic, environmental and/or political insecurity. They bridge differences and gaps for more social equity, cohesion and protection. They prevent dependencies that thrive on unequal power relations and access to resources, services and benefits.

In a fragile world, the most resilient system is not the most rigid. It’s the one that leverages and strengthens the potential of everyone to contribute to it and to benefit from it. That system can do more than just withstand instability and insecurity — it can also mitigate it.