![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Prize giving has grown exponentially, with agencies like the World Bank and USAID using them to help solve critical development challenges in low-income countries. This paper draws on findings from a DFID programme that has been experimenting with a suite of global prizes, including in Ghana, Kenya, and Nepal. The paper reflects on prizes used to deliver social change: where they work, why, and for whom. We find that development impact can be enhanced when prizes are not implemented alone. Complementary support is often necessary to help innovators participate, overcome barriers, and support innovation that leads to social change.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 The 17 SDGs were adopted by all member states of the United Nations in 2015, and provide a shared agenda to end poverty, fight inequality, and address the urgency of climate change. Source: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/.
2 An inducement prize is defined for the purpose of this paper as, “a financial reward, or sometimes other assistance, that is given to whoever can first or most effectively meets a predefined challenge” (adapted from Ballantyne Citation2014). This type of prize incentivises innovation rather than rewards past achievement (the latter commonly referred to as a recognition prize).
4 Brown (Citation2017); Brown (Citation2020); Brown, Gould, and Stott (Citation2020); Gould and Brown (Citation2019); Gould and Brown (Citation2020); Stott (Citation2020); Stott and Brown (Citation2019); and Stott and Brown (Citation2020).
5 The Equator Prize, organised by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), is awarded biennially to recognise community efforts to reduce poverty through the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
6 We define innovation as, “a new process, technology or service, and often a blend of all three, that is either: new to the world (novel), new to the location or firm (imitative) or new to the field of endeavour (i.e. repurposed, or adaptive)”. Source: Roberts, Brown, and Stott (Citation2019).
7 US General Services Administration. Source: https://www.challenge.gov/about/ accessed on 25th November 2019.
8 Example based on Conrad et al. ibid.
9 There are examples of Return on Investment analysis (e.g. Bishop Citation2010), comparing the costs and returns of prizes with traditional Research and Development investments. These do not however capture social benefits.
10 Participants go beyond solvers (i.e. those focused on addressing a particular problem), and include those that are also stimulated to change their behaviour and implement the solutions.
11 The comparison programme was the Weather and Climate Information Services for Africa (WISER) programme.
12 These numbers have not been fully verified but indicate an estimate of the scale of the impact.
14 The “enabling environment” is defined as the external conditions necessary for an innovation to lead to social benefits, including the policy environment, innovation, and market systems.
15 Bottom of the Pyramid refers to the lowest socio-economic segment of consumers in the world.
16 Although this did pick up towards the end of the prize period, when KMD representatives became involved in the judging process for CIP.
17 InnoCentive is an online marketplace for open innovation. It aims to help organisations solve technology, science, business, and data challenges by connecting them to a global network of problem solvers. See: https://www.innocentive.com/.
18 The first stage recognised existing initiatives and induced ideas on how they could scale them.
19 Results-based finance incentivises the achievement of desired outcomes and payment is based on results. While this is similar to prizes, the financial reward of a prize (the prize purse) is not a function of the expected cost to the winner.
20 Some of the climate change prizes, like A@S, opened up the second stage to new participants (i.e. not restricting access to those from stage 1).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Christopher Paul Barnett
Dr Christopher Barnett is a Partner at Itad, and an Honorary Associate at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), based at the University of Sussex. He was the founding Director of the Centre for Development Impact, a collaboration between Itad, IDS, and the University of East Anglia. Chris is a leader in research, evaluation, and international development, with over 20 years' experience. He has worked in over 20 countries across Africa and Asia, and led several high-profile evaluations: the five-year impact evaluation of the Millennium Villages project in Ghana; the verification of DFID's two global water supply and sanitation programmes; the ten-year study of CDC Group plc's mobilisation of private capital; and the five-year evaluation of the UK's Global Challenges Research Fund. He has published on innovative ways to evaluate impact and causality, power imbalances, and evaluation ethics, plus the social impact of private investment in international development.
Cheryl Brown
Cheryl Brown is an evaluation and learning consultant with more than 15 years' experience working for development research institutes and consultancies, donor agencies, non-governmental organisations, research portals, and networks. Cheryl specialises in supporting organisations to adapt their practices and programming by facilitating the gathering, exchange, and reflection on learning and evidence. She is learning and dissemination lead for several projects where Itad plays an evaluation, monitoring, or verification role and was Evaluation and Learning Co-ordinator for the Ideas to Impact programme.