Subscribe to Our Newsletter

The science of unintended consequences

When change grows faster and leads to more change, it has the power to touch lives in unprecedented ways. A simple idea – easy access to finance, a free bus ride, extended parental leaves, universal education – can create ripples of change, create new possibilities for many and reshape their world forever. 

At the same time, without careful design, that same simple idea has the potential to accelerate harm. At the Centre for Exponential Change (C4EC), we believe that true progress is measured not just by the number of people reached, but in the idea of ensuring agency, dignity, and choice for all. This is what makes exponential change positive. Without anchoring our efforts in agency, dignity, choice, we may endanger opportunities for some or put the historically marginalised at greater risk. 

Take, for example, India’s policy of free bus rides for women. 

Free bus rides can unlock an “economic revolution” for women, said the Chief Minister of the Indian State of Tamil Nadu. 

In India, state after state has been announcing free bus rides for women, hoping that removing mobility barriers may boost economic participation. The logic is simple: reduced mobility barrier equals more access to workplaces which leads to more contribution by women and eventually a shift in societal norms – creating dominoes of empowerment.  In the national capital Delhi alone, more than 1 billion rides have been used by women since the launch of the scheme in 2019. Prima facie, it looks like the idea of free bus rides is great for women.

But, there is a flip side to this story – the loss of dignity in many cases. In Tamil Nadu, many women have reported how fellow male passengers and bus staff look down on them because they are travelling free. In Bengaluru, hordes of women banging on the door of an empty bus requesting to be let in while the driver rides away is a common sight at bus stops near garment factories with a large women workforce. Did the policy that was meant to bring more access to women lead to more marginalisation? Access without dignity undermines agency. 

“Free travel does not mean we have to lose our dignity in the process of availing a free ticket”.
Anonymous

There are other examples of initiatives that have begun with good intentions and while, have had positive outcomes, have also led to unplanned negative adjacencies.  Policies like extending maternity leave in India from 12 to 26 weeks in 2017 or introducing paid menstrual leave in the Indian state of Karnataka in 2025, seek to enhance the wellbeing of women, but do they make it more unappealing to employ women? Longitudinal data, not just from India but other countries such as Germany, Sweden, Canada etc, has shown that longer legislated leaves can lead to slow promotions, lower wages and reduced access to leadership roles.

Sociologist Robert K. Merton’s The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action, identified five causes of unintended consequences – error, basic values, short-term vs long-term interests, ignorance, and the self-defeating prophecy. 

In the free bus case, the policy gave free rides to women, but the state continued to put pressure on the bus drivers to keep up the revenue numbers with the same fleet size. In the maternity leave case, the financial burden of the extended leaves in India is borne solely by the employers, leading to gender discrimination against women of childbearing age. 

In our work of enabling exponential change, how do we learn to consider the interconnectedness of different systems and how an action in one area could have ripple effects throughout the system at large? 

How do we design feedback loops that help us in predicting and managing unintended consequences? 

How do we find ways to see, sense and make sense of the impact of policies to identify harm early and course correct? 

How do we make it a norm to identify and involve those most affected as co-designers, not just beneficiaries? 

How do we scale solutions in ways that grow opportunity without shrinking dignity, agency, or choice?