“How do you think a donor-dependent model affect farmers?” I ask my Zambian colleague. “Are you really asking me that question?” We’re rolling down another potholed road in the direction of our next activation site east of Kabwe. The route is bare, save for the passing cattle farmers and their herds. “You know the parable of teaching a man to fish?” he continues. “Sure, but what if the man doesn’t know what a fish is?” I rebut. I’ve always given this response, borrowed from a teacher in Ghana who I greatly admire. "Fine," he responds. "So the fish -- imagine it's everything that prevents us from doing what makes sense." -- It's true. We do what is simple, fast, and affordable. We value the now more than the future. It's a universalism, but it takes a curious form when it comes to farmers. In Zambia, we see non-profits in markets without market-based incentives. Ag-loans are backed by donors, which all but eliminates the risk taken by farmers. Defaults are common, but such organizations loosen parameters on repayments because in their “results chain,” profits do not equal impacts. This is fine for the farmer (great even!), until the organization on the whim of its donors decides to leave in a few years and farmers are back in the same position. Our program, meanwhile, has all the incentive to build a sustainable business endeavor into which all stakeholders – farmers, agri-businesses, and ministries – pay into and benefit from over the long-term. Such an approach minimizes the risk of failure because the users themselves (by deciding to pass or purchase goods) determine the rate at which the program can scale. Farmers will continue to purchase so long as the products boost their yields. That’s ownership, I'd say. Thinking this week about dependencies in disguise – organizations that don’t need to follow-up on their investment returns, and users that don’t feel the pressure to follow-through.