Justice for all

Recently, through a particularly enlightening conversation with a friend, I realized that there are, essentially, two pathways or methods of thinking about social change and development approaches. There is the “capitalistic” mode of thinking, and the “social justice” mode of thinking. While this is, essentially, the split that so starkly separates the Democrats from the Republicans, the same two viewpoints shape the actions of humanitarians, altruists, philanthropists, entrepreneurs, and everyone else involved in the aid and social change business.

The first, the “capitalistic” mode, fixates on the idea that by harnessing capitalism and economic growth, we can made progress in the developing world. More importantly, this viewpoint emphasizes the belief that people are motivated by profit – and so, by trying to make “doing good” seem profitable, it becomes possible to “exploit” people’s inherent motivations (to better themselves and maximize profit or utility) for the greater good. Here is where the entire idea of social entrepreneurship comes in. Social enterprise and social business centers around the idea that you can make money and do good at the same time, and that in fact, you don’t have to give up making money or financial sustainability to contribute positively to the world. Corporate social responsibility comes with the same idea; that by being environmentally sustainable and by contributing to development projects, a company can improve its own image (and profits) by presenting itself as more socially responsible. Additionally, there is the ideology propounded by many aid critics such as Dambisa Moyo, the author of “Dead Aid” — the idea that we need capitalism to cause economic growth, and that we need to harness foreign direct investment and international trade to help low-income countries hop onto the train of development. Finally, and most importantly (I think), at the more micro- and individualized level of development and NGO approaches to poverty eradication, there are approaches focusing on income generation; these approaches include micro-finance, helping individuals start and grow their own small businesses, helping farmers increase their yields through low-cost and innovative agricultural technologies. Basically, the idea here is that by increasing their income, people will be able to pull themselves out of poverty. Icons like Muhammad Yunus and Paul Polak have emphasized that the best way for individuals to get out of poverty fast is by increasing their incomes. This is a more “capitalistic” method of thinking because it emphasizes the individual and what they can do to get ahead in life. And for the donors/the well-off classes in society, the emphasis is on proving to them that they don’t have to give up their lifestyle if they want to make a positive difference. There’s usually not as much talk of personal sacrifice, or what we have to give up for social change. For instance, by buying books from Better World Books, we can not only get the books we want, but also contribute to literacy projects! This perspective caters to the benefits that social business provides to both the donors/contributors & the beneficiaries.

The second mode is focused more on “social justice” and equality. The idea here is that we (here I’m talking about us — the well off, the privileged) should not simply have capitalistic, profit maximizing motives. Instead, this mode of thinking strives to change and shape the incentives that motivate people in the first place. Those who share this view believe that we have to actually CHANGE people’s minds to focus less on themselves and to focus more on the community and the world they live in. The idea is to emphasize equality, fairness, and to make people feel they have an obligation to give back. This viewpoint leads to an emphasis on higher taxes, increased social services and programs, more government spending, and international aid. By emphasizing that we, the privileged echelons of society, have an obligation to give back, contribute positively to the world, and help those who are worse off than us, this way of thinking emphasizes providing free services to the poor. Instead of trying to focus on increasing a person’s income as the primary way of getting them out of poverty, people and organizations with this perspective might try to provide free health services, free legal services, free infrastructure like wells, free access to education including building schools and providing scholarships to children, and much more. International donors fund many such projects because of the obligation to give back, but the ultimate goal is to have each country’s government providing such services to its own people. The emphasis here is on improving the quality of living through, primarily, the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor — whether this is domestically or internationally. This is very different from the previous “capitalistic” mode, in which each person is encouraged to maximize their own wealth and well-being.

Of course, in reality, many aid programs mix the two — they might provide microfinance and skills training along with health services or educational scholarships. But ultimately, there are definitely two divergent “modes of thinking” or perspectives at play when it comes to social change and international development.

What do you think? Is there one better way of going about social change & development, or are the two approaches best combined? Should we try to cater to people’s “innate” incentive to maximize their own profit & well-being, or should we try to change people’s minds to make them feel an obligation to sacrifice for the greater good?

In the past decade, as we all know, social enterprise and business has become incredibly popular. The idea is incredibly compelling: utilize business practices while also bettering the world. Unleash the power of the market to solve social problems. We can make money and do good.

Along with its increasing popularity, the demand for learning about social enterprise has shot up. Many top universities are beginning to teach social enterprise, either through individual classes or even through majors and concentrations. Here are some examples:

• Duke’s Fuqua School of Business actually has an MBA Concentration in Social Entrepreneurship!
• Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management has an MBA Social Enterprise (SEEK) Major, a very comprehensive program
• NYU’s Wagner School has a Social Entrepreneurship undergraduate minor
• Stanford’s School of Business has an Executive Program in Social Entrepreneurship
• Yale’s School of Management also has a Program on Social Enterprise

And there are many, many more examples of cutting edge social enterprise programs.

But here’s where I question this approach: can we actually teach social enterprise? A while ago, I read the excellent book “How to Change the World” by David Bornstein, and the book discusses Ashoka’s original methodology of discovering social entrepreneurs. The social entrepreneurs they found were people who understood a gap in their society or community, and then found some way - often an innovative way - of addressing that gap and ultimately benefiting society and individuals. These social entrepeneurs are incredibly hard working, often laboring in obscurity and with low pay to solve social issues. They are driven by their unwavering passion and grand vision of how the world should be. From the website:

Perhaps our most important criterion, entrepreneurial quality is the defining characteristic of first class entrepreneurs. It defines leaders who see opportunities for change and innovation and devote themselves entirely to making that change happen. These leaders often have little interest in anything beyond their mission, and they are willing to spend the next ten to fifteen years making a historical development take place.

It seems to me that social entrepreneurs are people who are incredibly passionate about a new or better way of solving a social problem.

It also seems to me that many of the highly successful Ashoka fellows don’t have MBA’s or advanced degrees that teach them about social enterprise. Instead, they succeed because of their deep understanding of a social issue and of the needs of their beneficiaries, or those they ultimately hope to help. This strong understanding does not come about through an MBA, but is the result of being part of the society or communities you are aiming to help or reach. It comes from going into the field and speaking extensively with rural farmers, women lacking access to credit, or refugees trying to make a living in IDP camps. It comes from immersing yourself into these communities and learning so much about the needs of those you want to help that the solution crystallizes before your very eyes. Read Paul Polak’s book, “Out of Poverty” to understand how simple and powerful solutions can be found by simply going into the field and understanding local needs.

The most important thing for a social entrepreneur’s success is a vision of how precisely to solve a problem. If you have a strong vision and a good method of achieving that vision, success is possible. Second is resilience, determination, passion. Social entrepreneurs have to be highly driven to follow their vision above all else, despite innumerable obstacles in their way.

Surely an MBA in social enterprise can teach you about the workings of the market, or how to write a business plan, but aren’t these things you can pick up eventually? On the contrary, you can’t teach someone through school how to gain a vision, or how to be relentless and passionate.

Wouldn’t it be more worth it for aspiring social entrepreneurs to pursue graduate studies in the specific field they want to affect change in, to understand the needs of their clients or beneficiaries better?

Do those who study social entrepreneurship in the classroom eventually become social entrepreneurs? Or are social entrepreneurs those who have a vision and the passion to see it through, regardless of educational background?

Ultimately, there are certain business principles that can be taught to make the lives of social entrepreneurs easier and more efficient. However, social entrepreneurship itself cannot be taught; such success ultimately depends on qualities gained outside the classroom - vision, issue understanding, and passion.

I’ve been attempting to find time and contribute to this awesome blog series “Be the change” thanks to Akhila, and of course, I am writing this instead of working on a paper that’s due in a few days .

Prior to attending school at UC Berkeley, all I knew was that I was interested in “business” and “changing the world” (or more specifically, I used to say “starting a revolution”). Little did I know that individuals such as Muhammad Yunus were already doing so! My friend introduced me to the concept of “social business” and “social entrepreneurship” around second semester of my freshman year, and that was when it all began.

I embarked on a Google-ing, internet-searching quest to learn more about this concept, and ended up first reading Yunus’ book, Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism. From then on, I’d continue to read articles, books, and scour the Internet for more about social entrepreneurship and social business.

I often stop and reflect on why it is I seem to have this insatiable need and want to help others and improve the lives of the less fortunate. For the most part, I think it’s because I have grown up with so much opportunity laid in front of me, the privilege of living in a nice community and have the comfort and support of my parents. Maybe I was too comfortable that I became uncomfortable with my comfort. Does that make sense?

Perhaps it’s why I want to pursue a career in poverty alleviation through the power of social business and entrepreneurship. I happened to be born into a family that gave me the opportunity to obtain a good education. It was chance that I was born in Taiwan to parents who wanted to pursue a better life in the United States and brought my sister and I here. What about others who live in poverty and are not presented with the opportunity of obtaining an education, of living a privileged life? How is it their fault?

It’s not, and it’s a thought that resounds in me and propels me forward. I joined a student grassroots organization CalPIRG my freshman year, and by the second semester my friend and I started the Hunger and Homelessness Campaign, where we tried to tackle food insecurity in West Oakland. I then proceeded to help plan, in collaboration with two other student groups on campus, a conference on hunger and homelessness in the Bay Area. On the side, I worked with a local homeless shelter to establish and implement recycling and composting programs through another student organization BEACN. These experiences have helped me improve my skills and have provided me more insight in ways of addressing poverty. However, the models and methods of social business and social entrepreneurship are what really motivate me.

I’ve found it difficult to advance much in attempting to be more “in” the field (I am so inspired by social businesses such as the one I interned with this past summer World of Good, and projects such as the Allyu Initiative), because I often find myself constrained in my schoolwork and the fact that I am still in school. I’m often impatient in my demands, and too much of the time I’d rather be out there and immerse myself in a community and area to learn about the issues and critically evaluate ways to tackle them. I have to stop and remind myself that my getting an education is an important aspect: I need to focus on learning as much as I can in school so that I can apply it later on.

In the meantime, I have found the Twitterverse and the blogosphere to be of great company. It’s been absolutely inspiring and just plain awesome to be connected to other Gen Y-ers such as Akhila, Dwight, and Leslie and know that there are so many who are interested in similar topics and care about issues other than the best way to maximize profits and how to make the most money. So, I’d like to conclude by thanking Akhila once again for encouraging others to engage in social change and bringing together awesome individuals in this blog series!

The Changemaker

Rosalind Chu is a 20-year-old student attending school at University of California, Berkeley. She is majoring in Business Administration and Chinese (so as not to forget her Taiwanese roots and remain connected to Chinese culture). When she’s not worrying about everything there is to be worried about, she reads books (currently she’s reading Atlas Shrugged), blogs, goes home to visit her family and four amazing dogs, enjoys traveling, and has a fabulous time doing ridiculous things with her friends!

Check out her blog, Pointlessly.org, and say hi to her on Twitter @rosalindchu.

When Akhila asked me to write about a social cause I was passionate about I was eager to join in. I consider myself a philanthropist, but I often spread myself thin. I carry the weight of the world on my shoulders and am sometimes (too) empathetic to the point where it hurts every piece of my body.

I digress: I’m an animal rights activist and long-time horseback rider, so I’ve volunteered with Colorado Horse Rescue, United States Pony Club and with sea turtles in a science program in Costa Rica. I’ve volunteered at local soup kitchens, donated to cancer research, spent time weekly with children in an after-school program for African resettlement refugees, volunteer with Ladies Who Launch to help women entrepreneurs launch their business idea and worked at a non-profit for environmental studies and local sustainability.

Alas, when I try to focus my efforts and dive deep to find a beating pulse of my passion for social change it reverts to women and the lack of opportunity and inequality they’re faced with worldwide.

I see a large part of the solution toward empowering women through microfinance and socially responsible business.

The empowerment and combination of entrepreneurship is a piece of why it inspires me so much. Although I continually give time and effort toward a cause, I like the “teach them how to fish,” analogy and microfinance does just that.

What is Microfinance?

Microfinance is the “extension of very small loans to those in poverty designed to spur entrepreneurship.”

Non-Government organizations (NGOs), community-based development institutions, credit unions, commercial/state banks and microfinance institutions offer possibilities for financial services to the poor.

Bangladeshi banker and Grameen Bank founder and recent Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Muhammad Yunus is largely known as the pioneer of microfinance.

Poverty’s Greatest Victim: Women

Recently, at Clinton Global Initiative, Bill Clinton pronounced: “Women do 66% of world’s work, produce 50% of world’s food, earn 10% of world’s income & own 1% of the world’s property.”

More than 2/3 of the world’s unpaid work is done by women-the equivalent of $11 trillion or almost 50% of the world GDP, according to a global UNFP study.

Half the world’s population lives on less than $2 a day. 1.8 billion of these people live on less than $1 a day…70% of them are women. Around the world, 340 million women are not expected to live to the age of 40.

Microfinance As A Solution

Comprehensive impact studies have demonstrated that:

• Microfinance helps very poor households meet basic needs and protect against risks;
• The use of financial services by low-income households is associated with improvements in household economic welfare and enterprise stability or growth;
• By supporting women’s economic participation, microfinance helps to empower women, thus promoting gender-equity and improving household well-being;
• For almost all significant impacts, the magnitude of impact is positively related to the length of time that clients have been in the programe.” (UNCDF Microfinance)

My friend Ali worked at Pro Mujer (“for women,” in Spanish) for over two years at a Financial Analyst for the microfinance, Spanish nonprofit that supported women in Latin-America. I’ve written about microfinance a few times before on my blog, maybe now you can see why. Their historical loan repayment rate in 18 years was 99%. Women want to succeed and create a better life for the family; they just needed access to credit and a lending hand; someone to invest in their dreams.

Ali told me a story about Angela Narváez. She is pottery maker and a client with Pro Mujer Nicaragua. Angela’s first loan was $80. Today, almost nine years later, her loan is $670. Angela uses her loans to buy clay, pieces of wood, paint and cement and to travel to larger markets where she can get a better price for her pieces. Angela said her family has also benefited. Her daughters attend school, everyone is eating better, and they bought furniture and appliances that have raised their quality of life.

So my “teach them to fish” theory comes to rest. I like to think about paying it forward, but in this case, you’re investing in the future, that will benefit beyond the ‘one-time donation.’ It’s like you’re a social venture capitalist, helping women with their own startup, worldwide.

Action

If you’re interested in learning more or even donating a loan for a specific woman in a specific country here are some great organizations (I’ve donated with) to get started: Pro Mujer, Kiva, and The International Alliance For Women.

“Poverty is not created by the poor. It is created by the structures of society and the policies pursued by society. Change the structure as we are doing in Bangladesh, and you will see that the poor change their own lives. Grameen’s experience demonstrates that, given the support of financial capital, however small, the poor are fully capable of improving their lives.”- Banker to the Poor - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank, Founder

The Changemaker

Grace Boyle is a 20-something adventurista. She lives in Boulder, CO and does Business Development for startup called Lijit. She blogs at Small Hands, Big Ideas where she writes about the startup world, technology and daily inspirations. She loves to travel, meet new people, laugh and she aspires to be an entrepreneur.

Connect with her over at her blog, Small Hands, Big Ideas, or on her Twitter at @Gracekboyle!

Learn more about the ethics of today’s economy by studying microfinance and business development at Axia College.

I first heard about Hagar International over a year ago while reading the book “Not for Sale,” about human trafficking. Human trafficking is a tough issue to combat, especially since the solutions aren’t exactly clear, and require investment in long-term assistance and systemic change. But Hagar International has a really innovative and effective model, and is doing great work to attack the roots of human trafficking.

Hagar International is committed to individualized and long-term assistance for its beneficiaries, and they use the social enterprise model as a tool for social rehabilitation and economic empowerment. Hagar works with women and children from devastating backgrounds of violence, abuse and trafficking and supports them in their recovery, rehabilitation, job readiness and ultimately community reintegration.

Hagar International first began working in Cambodia, where about 80% of their beneficiaries have been successfully reintegrated into society. Hagar first provides shelter, accommodation, trauma recovery, therapy, education, literacy classes, and skills-training for women who need it, and then slowly helps them reintegrate into society. And what makes Hagar most unique is their development of social businesses; Hagar has begun several self-sustaining businesses which provide funds for the organization and meaningful employment for women who come from difficult backgrounds. For instance, in Cambodia Hagar runs Hagar Catering and Hydrologic - which provide jobs, the opportunity to learn new skills, and the chance to reintegrate into society for many of the women from Hagar’s programs.

I’d encourage you to visit their website to learn more about the innovative ways they are making a difference and combating human trafficking.

Picture Credit: Hagar Cambodia