Wed 2 Jan 2008
Social Enterprises: The Role of the Free Market in Sustainable Development
Posted by Amer under Grassroots activism , Social EntrepreneurshipThe global failure of communism in the twilight of the 20th century seemed to vindicate the champions of the free market – be they Chicago libertarians or Washington Consensus neoclassicists. However, even as command economies fell, the world came to witness new crises in the fledgling free markets. From the disastrous privatization of Bolivia’s natural resources to the violent upheavals in the former Soviet Union, capitalism and the free market failed time and time again to provide sufficient conditions for sustainable growth. The promised virtuous cycle of economic and social development often did not come to pass.
Moving past blind faith, economists have now come to realize that liberalization, deregulation and privatization by themselves cannot guarantee that a market will truly be functioning, free, and able to provide the social services necessary for sustainable development. A key ingredient for functioning markets to be able to deliver an environment conducive to development is a strong institutional framework, which many developing countries like Bangladesh lack. Into this abyss of institutional failure enters a new player – distinct from both the state and the traditional profit-seeking businessman – that provides the social services that governments currently may not be. This player is the social entrepreneur.
When governments fail to provide key public services, the business community - guided by the invisible hand of the market - often steps in to fill this void. However, as recognized by economic theory, the traditional entrepreneur is primarily motivated by private profit. Indeed, executive officers of limited companies are responsible, by law, to maximize the returns to their shareholders. That’s their bottom line.
What may differentiate the social entrepreneur from the traditional entrepreneur is the idea of a triple bottom line. While the traditional entrepreneur has only the objective of private profit to pursue, the social entrepreneur’s mandate is broader and includes the pursuit of private profit, social, and environmental objectives. Instead being beholden to just the interests of the shareholder, the social entrepreneur’s responsibility is towards stakeholders in the firm’s activities. Early last year, the UN’s International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives recognized the triple bottom line as the primary standard for full cost accounting in the public sector.
While Bangladesh can boast many virtues, a strong public sector delivering quality social services and a development-friendly institutional environment are not among them. In response, individual citizens and organizations – our social entrepreneurs – have stepped forward to create opportunities that promote sustainable development. Even though BRAC and the Grameen name are well recognized as massive social entrepreneurs, each with millions of stakeholders, there is a multitude of smaller initiatives throughout the country that are much lower profile and with smaller budgets, but doing equally important work. For example, since the 1990s, the Dhaka based organization Phulki has been active in the protection of the rights of female migrant workers, predominantly those employed by the garments industry. Among its many accomplishments has been the development of community-based daycares for the children of working women. Parallel to its advocacy and social work, Phulki provides paid services such as monitoring services for the Fair Labor Association and consulting for management of factory-based childcare services. It is safe to say that Phulki, as a lower profile organization, has done well, certainly achieving the dual objectives of profit and social development that define a social enterprise.
However, there are countless other small social enterprises in Bangladesh that have not been able to grow as much as BRAC, Grameen, or even Phulki. One commonly occurring constraint to their growth has been a lack of access to commercial sources of finance. Recognizing social entrepreneurs as valuable partners in sustainable development and aware of their financial needs, private organizations are in turn responding. Drishtipat has even broadened its activities to now sponsor an annual program – soon to be in its second year – called the Drishtipat Challenge. This program (formerly known as the DP 20K Challenge, among others) funds or supplements the funding of budding social entrepreneurs. The Challenge invites the general public to submit innovative proposals for social enterprises. After an initial screening, the successful proposals receive seed financing loans of up to US$5000. While it may seem a modest amount, small injections of funds like this may be all that are needed to kick-start the next great idea.
Social enterprises are by no means a silver bullet for the myriad developmental challenges that a country may face. However, in Bangladesh, where the institutional framework is not robust enough to provide the necessary social services needed for balanced socio-economic growth, the power of the free market can be an important ally in the struggle for sustainable development, providing positive benefits to the rest of society through advocacy, training, education, empowerment, and conservation among other things. Our country cannot afford to turn down any help it can get.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Bangladesh has silos to store enough foodgrains to take us through crises of the current magnitude. But donors especially WB/IMF had argued in favour of free market economy to discourage storage.
The former Awami League and BNP governments had been more successful in this regard. Motia Choudhury and Hafizuddin clearly spelled out their way of management to handle the crises which had fallen on deaf ears of these useless unconstitutional government.
This caretaker government which is basically run by expatriates employed in international lendng agencies had either deliberately or at the instruction of their former employers have not listened to national experts and media to do so.
Maybe now our foreign currency reserve will be heavily haemorrhaged to buy the items now which could have been bought at a far cheaper price long time back.
This government should not have taken this long to hold elections. In Thailand the army gave in to peoples’ will in a year. But this failed government at the bidding of their sustenance providers is doing things that it is not authorised to do so. I think the same is true in case of fertiliser scarcity handled by a thoroughly incompetent bunch of fools.
It is stupid to see that ci[E]vil society Debapriya (sold out to foreign interests)has come to Dhaka to take his friend Fakruddin to Davos at a time when the country is reeling under pressure of sheer economic and governance mismanagement.
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 am
This is getting off topic here, but I don’t think social enterprises were made relevant in Bangladesh simply because of the current administration, or recent governance issues. They have been active since the early 1970s, and have continued to be relevant through all our various military dictatorships, democratically elected governments, and even the current unelected government - indicative of deep-rooted issues that we have not ever addressed. It may be thus be a dangerous oversimplification to say that our current government alone has failed to provide all the public services that Bangladesh needs - dangerous because it encourages finger pointing instead of constructively looking for solutions.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:20 am
Amer, First, I find the use of the term “social enterprise” a tad bit curious–what’s wrong with calling BRAC for what it is, an NGO?
Second, I don’t think our experiment with NGOs has been without its own share of unintended negative consequences.
These intermediate institutions were created and boosted by the donor agencies since the 1970s to bypass the government machinery in delivering aid for their pet developmental projects. Instead of being a temporary measure, they were allowed to grow beyond their gap-filling and complimentary role to become a substitute to the public sector. The disparity in level of compensations have completely destroyed the ability of the civil service to bring in badly needed fresh talent and grow new leadership from within, whereby it had no choice but to fill its ranks with people who are not employable elsewhere.
Being shielded from pure market competition, NGOs have stifled the growth of a healthy private sector.
On the other hand, because of its social service cover, NGOs have also slowed the growth of an indigenous voluntary grass-roots based non-profit sector.
Hence, I will not use the social enterprise label to group the DP 20K like effort, which I strongly endorse, with the continued growth of the unaccountable NGO sector, which I strongly oppose.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Thanks for the comments #3. You make some interesting points.
I am not going to dispute the fact that BRAC is an NGO. I will also not disagree with your assertion that perhaps the mushrooming of NGOs and their activities in Bangladesh did not have their share of negative externalities. However, I don’t think we can say uneqiovocally that on the balance, the bonafide NGOs (as opposed to the hucksters) have done more harm than good.
What you are saying about NGO’s competing with the public sector for the services of skilled/competent workers is also supported by some ex post evidence. However, I have trouble believing that the weakness of our current bureaucracy is the primary cause of our governance woes. From my professional experiences with the bureaucracy and personal experiences with bureaucrats, it is my impression that the quality of governance in Bangladesh has been driven by poor political leadership. Certainly, our PSC and other bureaucratic institutions are a disaster now. But was this true in the ’70s, when we had elite bureaucrats of the CSP and ICS systems? Our governance, while not as bad now, was still crappy back then because our bureaucracy has - and still is - hostage to ill advised policies dictated by a less than competent political leadership, and through the unethical exercising of political will on bureaucratic operations.
Also, it may be a bitter pill to swallow, but even some of the unaccountable, inefficient, market-distorting NGOs are social enterprises by definition, since they may generate revenue and use parts of that revenue for funding social welfare projects. Running with the BRAC example: profits for Aarong, which is affiliated with BRAC, are funneled into BRAC healthcare and education - which as a I understand, run below operating costs in many cases.
I should also mention that despite all this back and forth about NGOs and social enterprises, it is my understanding that the DP Challenge is geared towards individuals and small businesses and not NGOs. That looks consistent with your own feelings about NGOs and the DP Challenge.
January 6th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Has the ACC seen the constitution of the BRAC heirarchy besides Fazle Hasan Abed family? You have to be from Sylhet to get coveted posts there. Jamilur Reza Choudhury, though originally from Assam (and a nephew of Razzaak Lashkar, the heinous creator of Razaakar force of Jamaat-e-Islami during 1971)got the VC’s job because of his fake claim as a native of Sylhet. Same about Mueed Choudhury who not only helped Abed grab government owned lands in Mohakhali and also gave him tax breaks during his tenure as NBR chairman.
NGOs like BRAC and Grameen Bank are the most corrupt organisations in Bangladesh that are cheating poor people in the name of microcredit lending. Younus of Grameen Bank had done the same favor for Grameen Phone what Morshed Khan of Citycell had done by monopolising the cell phone market for a decade or so. Younus and Abed can get away with their crimes because they have the backing of donors and a global consortium. They also employ sons and daughters of former high officials including former chief justices,chief advisors, bureaucrats, military officials that make them immune from prosecution.
If a warrant is issued against Morshed Khan by the ACC then there’s no reason why the same cannot be done for Younus and Abed.These people too should be tried for corruption.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:36 am
Zeeshan (#5),
Only a govt. - elected through an election, with ‘level playing field’ - can cut people like Yunus and Abed to size, not a de facto military govt. as the ruling Bangladesh govt. Isn’t it asking too much, at this stage, for ACC to go after these NGO-wallahs? Particularly, when ACC is even not being able to file charge-sheet against Saifur Rahman, Mannan Bhuiyan, Nizami, Sadat Hossain etc., as per the Investigative Report and the concerned lawyers’ advice, in the GATCO case - a litmus test for proving its neutrality and credibility??
January 9th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Amer:
I find very little to disagree with your response (#4). I agree fully that the positive benefits from the overall NGO experiment have been overwhelmingly good and far outweigh the harms that I have alluded to in (#3). In the areas of population control, basic education, women empowerment etc., the returns have been simply spectacular.
I would even venture to say hadn’t it been for the NGOs, given the colossal failure of our public sector, Bangladesh could easily have allowed the rise of Taliban and Hamas like militancy, both of which made their initial inroads into the power structure by offering social services the government failed to provide.
Having said that, I think one of the reasons it is critical to differentiate between BRAC-like and DP Challenge-like social enterprises is because it affords us the opportunity to reduce some of the negative externalities that we know of ex post. If you grant me the premise that NGOs were necessary to correct for government failures, our collective intellect is better utilized by designing the next generation of social enterprises to correct for NGO-failures. The inherent danger here is that since the source of funding for DP-like challenge is also originating outside of Bangladesh, there is the possibility that very well intentioned efforts, if not carefully designed, could easily become a substitute, rather than a compliment to the NGOs, thereby repeating and not correcting some of the same mistakes.
I think there is a real opportunity here, which I believe have existed for quite some time. Here’s link to an article I wrote about nine years ago:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/message/997
January 15th, 2008 at 8:13 am
The NRBO idea in Mahmood bhai’s nine year old writeup on Alochona (oh how we all miss Alochona) actually has come true in many respects. I have trouble, however, having to burden social entrepreneurship or NRB investments in Bangladesh with simultaneously having to cure the ills of NGOs. Sounds a bit overwhelming and out of scope, does it not?
I can think of a 100 reasons why a program like DP Challenge will not work. We can spend another couple of years carefully designing around the failures of the NGO system. Or we can go fund a business. Hire some people. Sell some stuff. Put the profits back into the business. Sell more stuff, hire more people. Sounds too simple? Need more analysis? Just watch….
January 15th, 2008 at 10:47 am
“we can go fund a business. Hire some people. Sell some stuff. Put the profits back into the business. Sell more stuff, hire more people. Sounds too simple?”
Yes, it does sound simple. But it is also probably very right. Enterprise (social or otherwise) Zindabad.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I’ll contradict myself by also saying it is not that simple.
For example, some of my friends who are in Bangladesh and actively engaged in both business and philanthropy say that the $5000 level of investment is the “most risky”. At micro-credit’s $100 level, you have accountability at several levels: individual, group, community, etc. At the crore-level investment, you have much more structure and checks/balances built in (although that has done nothing to stop loan default by the wealthy).
It’s at smaller-but-not-loose-change level that $5000 represents where it’s easy for the entrepreneur to pull stunts like simply disappearing with the cash. We will likely never go after them in court, it’s cost prohibitive and goes against the principle of at least the DP initiative.
Rather than a shotgun approach to funding business all over the country, it may be more prudent for DP Challenge to find a community to fund several business in. Leverage the village or town fabric, similar to what many microcredit programs have done, to create a system of accountability and control.
Maybe this is one aspect of the “design” of these new programs which needs to be carefully considered. But we can’t take forever, and have to be willing to take risks and pull the trigger, and be willing to learn from the inevitable mistakes.