The debate around social enterprises, much like that around many other market based approaches to development tends to see-saw between two extremes.
On the one hand, the initial advocates of social enterprise models 'bottom of the pyramid approach - Prahalad' and 'social businesss - Muhammad Yunus' were championing what they saw as the unfulfilled potential for business to reach out to new markets and in doing so champion a social good in reaching the poor with services from which they had previously been excluded. It was argued that poverty alleviation would be brought about by the expansion of markets to the poorest communities, by providing services that suited their smaller needs and enabling them to climb the market ladder of consumerism in order to join the ranks of a more affluent society as a whole.
These practical actions were wrapped in ideals of restoring dignity to the poor by removing their reliance on handouts. By providing them with the capacity to 'bring themselves out of poverty' through self help mechanisms which harnessed the resources they already had with a little help from those who were previously held responsible for delivering aid from the top down. The process carried the hallmarks of something new, something more socially and culturally sensitive, relying on the organic capacities of local people to provide for themselves in the way they knew best.
On the other hand came the argument that the extension of the market was exactly that, and that its claims of poverty alleviation were false, and in fact detracted from the traditional development approaches which were well versed in the language of poverty, the need for subsidy and recognised the levels of inequality that existed between Western donors and their characteristically African recipients.
These are all broad brush comments and in order to make sense of the arguments, we need to make a more refined set of definitions and combat the arguments with a more nuanced understanding of what a social enterprise is, can be and how it can operate both as a market driven and as a development driven entity which delivers for both parties in equal measure. Throughout a series of blog posts, I intend to address these issues, question where social enterprises and business based approaches can help, and where they instead detract from poverty alleviation. I hope to touch on the role of the media in exaggerating and sometimes therefore confusing realities as I see them. I also intend to write from an informed a perspective as possible, drawing on my own experiences where possible.
On the one hand, the initial advocates of social enterprise models 'bottom of the pyramid approach - Prahalad' and 'social businesss - Muhammad Yunus' were championing what they saw as the unfulfilled potential for business to reach out to new markets and in doing so champion a social good in reaching the poor with services from which they had previously been excluded. It was argued that poverty alleviation would be brought about by the expansion of markets to the poorest communities, by providing services that suited their smaller needs and enabling them to climb the market ladder of consumerism in order to join the ranks of a more affluent society as a whole.
These practical actions were wrapped in ideals of restoring dignity to the poor by removing their reliance on handouts. By providing them with the capacity to 'bring themselves out of poverty' through self help mechanisms which harnessed the resources they already had with a little help from those who were previously held responsible for delivering aid from the top down. The process carried the hallmarks of something new, something more socially and culturally sensitive, relying on the organic capacities of local people to provide for themselves in the way they knew best.
On the other hand came the argument that the extension of the market was exactly that, and that its claims of poverty alleviation were false, and in fact detracted from the traditional development approaches which were well versed in the language of poverty, the need for subsidy and recognised the levels of inequality that existed between Western donors and their characteristically African recipients.
These are all broad brush comments and in order to make sense of the arguments, we need to make a more refined set of definitions and combat the arguments with a more nuanced understanding of what a social enterprise is, can be and how it can operate both as a market driven and as a development driven entity which delivers for both parties in equal measure. Throughout a series of blog posts, I intend to address these issues, question where social enterprises and business based approaches can help, and where they instead detract from poverty alleviation. I hope to touch on the role of the media in exaggerating and sometimes therefore confusing realities as I see them. I also intend to write from an informed a perspective as possible, drawing on my own experiences where possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment