Questioning Builds A Way

In the recent past, I have been increasingly interested in exploring alternative models to initiate, trigger, promote self-sustaining socio-economic change.

Sometimes, I feel that, in the world of international non-governmental and multilateral organizations, we have become so established in our own ways that we may be lacking a sense of self-critique. Some refer to us as being an industry; an industry that may be sustaining itself, having become its own raison d'être.

When engaging in a discourse on development and its practices, one quickly realizes how social and economic change dwells at the intersection of different domains: i.e., availability (or lack of) external opportunities and resources; communal histories, traditions and customs; and most importantly the personal conviction that change is innate and individuals could become something different from what they are at the present time. In other words, we partake in a historical process of co-creation.

We are incarnate beings, after all. We belong to history (and traditions) before history belongs to us. And that is the platform on which we exist and relate to each other. This is our window into the world. Yet, our needed finitude (in whatever form and shape it may manifest itself) does not completely and permanently define who we are (our being and aspirations) and what we do (our actions).

Ultimately, the question that I am entertaining lately is whether the established paradigm for international development, as practiced by most INGOs and Multilateral Organizations (i.e., the World Bank and its sister organizations, the United Nation constellation, etc.) provides an efficient and cost-effective platform to trigger and support long-term local change.

In the previous entry on this blog, I shared an insightful article from the Financial Times that suggested the need to perhaps ground social change in individual entrepreneurship, which is, in turn, the manifestation of personal agency.

This opens the door to a current and different domain of practices (which I will discuss and analyze further in subsequent postings) referred to as social entrepreneurship. For the time being, I would like to simply set the ground of this future conversation, by defining the terms and concepts.

Social entrepreneurship is the work of a social entrepreneur. A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change. Whereas a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur assesses success in terms of individual and societal change.

While social entrepreneurs often work through nonprofits and citizen groups, many work in the private and governmental sectors. The main aim of a social entrepreneurship as well as social enterprise is to further social and environmental goals. Although social entrepreneurs are often non-profits, this need not be incompatible with making a profit. Social enterprises are for ‘more-than-profit,’ using blended value business models that combine a revenue-generating business with a social-value-generating structure or component.