THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN KENYA

"What isn't working today? Why is mainstream development not working?"
For the last 50 years we have had community-based projects being driven by
governments and it hasn't worked particularly well in Kenya. We have had a
lot of problems with corruption, undemocratic governments, political
interference, mismanagement, overbearing bureaucracy. We have a
centralized and top-down approach to pushing development through which is
failing miserably.
There are frequent changes in power which, May good from a democratic
perspective, but from a policy perspective does not always work very well.
We have a very poorly motivated civil service and for all these reasons
social innovation and entrepreneurship has not thrived very well in Kenya
and its future is not that bright at all.

Kenya established the "Kenya Vision 2030" in 2008 which aims to transform
the nation into a newly industrializing middle-income country providing a
high quality life to all its citizens by the year 2030." This is a very
ambitious goal considering the political and economic burdens the country
is facing at the moment.
"The government has lost millions in yet another corruption scandal" has
been a familiar headline in the newspapers over the years. According to
Transparency International, Kenya is one of the most corrupt nations in
the world. Clearly our government has let us down in so many ways.
So what is the alternative vision? I think we have to look at social
enterprise models as a key driver for sustainable development in terms of
poverty reduction in Kenya.
Business entrepreneurs need to realize that "Development in Africa is not
dependent on the quality and drive of its governments. Neither on aid
projects, nor on the work of volunteers from the west. The future and the
well-being of this continent depends largely on the power of its own,
local entrepreneurs", Professor Walter Baets (Director of UCT Graduate
School of business in Cape Town South Africa). Governments try hard, but
sometimes lack the expertise to plan the building of local wealth, to
alleviate unemployment and to face social challenges. Their best bet is to
support the development of small business enterprises SME's that are the
real backbone of economy.

PATNERING WITH NGO's?
Social entrepreneurs bring ideas to the market that may otherwise not have
occurred to mainstream businesses that have very narrow, profit driven
priorities. And in the case of Kenya, as with most of Sub-Saharan Africa
(SSA), social investment can clearly ensure that economic development will
continue to grow over the years.
NGO's play a crucial role in fostering social innovation by working in
partnership with small businesses to help drive and strengthen
development, by sharing their knowledge, skills, processes and resources
that foster social change.
It is crucial that entrepreneurs partner with NGO's to create new market
based systems and financial vehicles that pursue social, environmental
and economic returns.
And of course, entrepreneurs as well as NGO's need the support of our
government to reform and simplify new and existing regulatory laws and
make the business climate more hospitable to formal enterprise. In
addition to this, the government needs to design opportunities to extract
bribes out of the process as well as organize and reform its taxation
system.
The future of social entrepreneurship in Kenya highly depends on its
partnership with NGO's and in some ways support from its government to
accelerate and to create a better environment for doing business.

Posted by Caroline Kiriga.

Assignment 5

--
Bahar Forghani

The value of the Not for Profit Sector in Mexico and its potential for Social Innovation

Long time ago I subscribed to the Centro Mexicano para Filantropia's
newsletter, which is a Mexican NGO that supports other NGO's to upscale
operations, staff and human capital. Two weeks ago I received a very
interesting one that surprised me very much. It was about the results of
the account of Non for Profit Organizations the Mexican government
included for the first time in history into the National Accounting
System.

The results are calculated based upon the 2008 economic census carried
out by the Mexican National Institute for Statistics and Geography. They
provide a very good panorama of the potential for social innovation a
country like Mexico has. Let's get to the facts.

The total number of Not for Profit Organizations in Mexico for 2008 was
40 089 with a gross production value equivalent to 23.9 billion dollars
a year, which represented the 1.96% of the country's GDP and its share
was bigger than what the whole agriculture sector produced during the
same period. From this amount, volunteer labor dollar value was about 2
billion dollars and was offered by close to 560 thousand people.

Among NFPO's 45.1% were dedicated to educational services while only
11.3% were in the health and social assistance sector.

To be honest I did not expect at all this sector could be that important
in a country like Mexico, and it made me wonder whether my impression
was biased or if there was something more about it.

After reflecting a little bit two questions remained to be answered: Is
it that what all this organizations were doing gets done in traditional
ways which oversee opportunities to use resources in more impact
effective ways or it is just that their work and efforts were not being
fairly recognized?

My intuition tells me that no matter what the answers to these questions
are, huge opportunities for social innovators and entrepreneurs are
still waiting to be found.

--
Ruben Fernandez <rfernand@andrew.cmu.edu>

Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next ten years

I read this paper and wanted to share it with the class. This paper gives a good review about social innovation, where it stands, and how will it shape up in coming years. This paper also focuses on the role of the government in social enterprise sector and how public policy should be formulated for this sector.

It talks about the basis of social enterprises. Their existence signifies the fact that market won't come up with the required innovative solutions. They are established to meet the needs in those areas that government services do not have the capacity to reach. States now prefer to fund those enterprises that can provide public goods and services in a more efficient way. Its also the realization that government finds it difficult to cater to the diverse needs of the population. Social enterprises are aware of these distinct needs and can give a more focused and a personalized solution to the people. Public services provided by the government are independent departments with no integration between these services. Social enterprises provide more integrated services. Services provided by the government, sometimes do not involve the people compared to social enterprises who measure their impact from the level of community involvement in their project.

In mid 1990s, the policy goals were more focused on how to increase the amount of social enterprises and social entrepreneurs. The paper states that as this field becomes more populated and complex, this policy goal is no longer sufficient. In coming years the focus needs to shift on what social enterprises can achieve together, measuring their impact more accurately.

Since policy goals initially placed importance on increasing the supply of social entrepreneurs, they were heavily influenced by the concept of venture capitalism to fund enterprises. In coming years, public policy would seek outcomes such as social impact and sustainability. The important question is that if public policy has the right tools to measure the impact of social enterprises. Governments need to formulate a public policy platform that provides the much needed connection between government enterprises and social enterprises. The focus should be more on increasing interaction between social enterprises and between social enterprises and public institutions that have the assets and networks to apply social innovation at scale.

The paper states the following ingredients for a social enterprise policy

1. Expanding the Giving Economy. This means facilitating and spreading the culture of giving and volunteerism among the populace. People should not only donate their money. They should also donate their time to the causes of social enterprises.
2. Strengthen Social Enterprise: By building large scale solutions that can inspire others to do the same.
3. Social Enterprise State: maintain social sector as the major supplier of services and use social enterprises strategically to bring innovation in public services.
4. Socially Responsible Business : The biggest impact of social innovation would be the change in how businesses and markets operate in the future.It will show how social responsibility can be a new source of competitive advantage and innovation for companies.

• Government funding in social enterprises that are considered too risky may set new standards in business practices.
• Government can also promote creation of new metrics for social value creation or damage which existing shareholders or investors can use to pressure companies to improve their social performance.
• Government can expand and improve the scope of social investment funds such as social impact bonds in UK.

Its a very good paper. I hope everyone spares their time to read it.

Here is the link

http://www.charlesleadbeater.net/cms/xstandard/social_enterprise_innovation.pdf

Public Policy to Encourage Social Innovation

In this blog, I'm going to write based on what I have learned from the class about how public policy can be created to foster social innovations. There are several factors that I think they are important for social innovations. First, the government need to clearly define the term "social innovation" for funding and tax purposes. According to our class definition, social ventures need to be relieved of tax burdens so that they can focus more on delivering social solutions. Therefore, the first goal of public policy should be directed at this tax issue in a way that does not create loopholes for exploitations.

Second, social innovations rely upon creative ideas and a trial-error basis. This is financially adventurous and risky in the business sense. Not many private investors would be comfortable with this level of risk tolerance that is embodied in the nature of social ventures. Therefore, the government can play a role in creating public agencies or foundations that focus on funding these kinds of adventurous innovations. Of course, clear criteria and standards have to be setup to avoid unnecessary waste of public funds. However, these funding filters cannot be too stringent and have to be relaxed enough to accomodate the trail-and-error nature of social innvoations.

Third, social innovators can benefit from the "public goods" of open-source type technology/idea sharing. Public policy can help in creating a framework for this kind of open-source innovations. Past failures can be learnt from. Parts that didn't work can be thrown out, and parts that could work can be recycled. Different teams can work together across time and space on resolving a specific issues. Best practices can be shared. This open-source problem might look simple, but it can be quite complicated, especially when it comes to patenting issue. Public policy should be engineered to address that early on.

Last but not least, the government can help in financing more research into the field of social innvoations. This is not funding ventures, but funding social researchers on the subject matter as a whole science. Questions can be what public policy/government interventions can foster social innovations from the grassroots level; what skills are needed as a pre-requisite for innovations; what types of incentive structures can promote the field and so on.

The field of social innovations deserve more attention from our governments (I'm speaking from the Cambodia context). Social innovators need more advocacy groups to lobby this to the decision-makers at the national level. To be successful, every stakeholder must be engaged, and the efforts must be coordinated.

Reaching the Real Bottom of the Pyramid.

An article from the Stanford social Innovation Review discusses the concerns of market based solutions that focus on targeting consumers at the bottom part of the social pyramid. Such ideas had been advocated in Prahalad’s book and writings on serving the poor profitably. Concern related to the potential success of such strategies is based on new thinking in the field of the endogenous growth models of new economic growth theories.

A research working paper article written by Jean-Louis Warnholz, investigates the validity behind the initial assumptions made about the amount of purchasing power commanded by the so-called dormant market of societies at the bottom of the pyramid. The finding of the article was that the assumptions of large amounts of monies commanded by BoP communities, was in fact based on flawed surveys on the distribution of income within less developed countries. Thus, attempts to penetrate these markets have not been successful.

An emerging alternative for reaching those at the BoP more meaningfully was covered in article published in the Economist on August 12 2010. The article discusses the hope by British and American Governments that partnerships with social entrepreneurs can help societies at the bottom of the bottom of the pyramid out of underdevelopment traps. The partnerships envisage crucial collaboration between civic society, the public sector and the private sector. A recent development has been based on providing social venture capital for improving education opportunities in less developed countries.

This raises the question, how can venture capital begin to develop a sustainable demand through creating employment for those at the bottom of the Pyramid?

Social Innovation development

This week's readings lead me to further reflections on developing and sustaining social innovations. It seems to me that the field is facing a number of challenges to growth: Firstly - Innovation development How to ensure a steady stream of social innovations? Currently it seems to be the lot of governments to do the heavy lifting of backing nascent developments. Secondly - how to grow innovations Or, perhaps, whether they should grow at all: the strength of some innovations is that they are local solutions to local problems. How does anyone know how to back winners? Thirdly - overcoming bureaucratic inertia The reality is that government activity is essential to grow innovations currently. Yet governments can be highly risk averse organisations If these are the challenges, the big picture context is one of governments looking to limit their exposure to social challenges, of the limit of resources. For example, it is a commonplace of policy discussions that health costs of most Australian states are expected to exceed their ability to pay the bills over the next few decades. These challenges have called forth some innovative administrative responses. For example, Mayor Bloomberg decided to bypass city administration entirely when he created the Centre for Economic Opportunity (which seemed to serve as the model for the Administration's Social Innovation Fund). It seems to me that the policy objective is to create an environment that can attract private capital to solve social problems, such as the highly innovative social impact bonds currently being trialled in the UK and Australia. However, the biggest challenge of all is surely going to be: how does one measure social change accurately enough to permit private capital enough information to measure it's return? Social Impact Bonds guarantee a return of 7 - 13% (approx). Whilst it is easy to identify a 0% return - i.e. no social change at all (for example, the UK example is a reduced recidivism trial. Where there is no reduction, the government will return 0% on the SIB), how would a capitalist know where their return sits. At 7%, or at 13%. Such information is highly likely to influence investment decisions. I presume the answer to such problems lies in skilled data analysis techniques such as linear programming and in empirical methods

Trends in developing social innovation in Australia

It transipres that there is quite a lot of development work going on in Australia, just a google search away. On the one hand, there are a number of NGO think tanks (or rather do tanks, with a focus on action): TACSI here in Adelaide, the Australian Social Innovator Exchange in Melbourne and the Centre for Social Impact at the UniversityofNSW. Hurrah! This means that there is quite a lot of debate and experimenation going on addressing issues of social innovation establishment and maintenance. As well as the NGO sector, federal and state goverments have various investments in this space, in the guise of grants and departments. The Australian Senate has referred the question of financing the not-for-profit (NFP) sector to a Senate Committee, which itself refers to a Productivity Commission report, focussing heavily on social impact bonds. WA and NSW in particular seem to be following the SA lead. The NSW government has made AU$25m available for a pilot scheme of social impact bonds. All of this, it seems to me, makes Australia an exciting laboratory for social innovation at the moment: I think we can expect some big learnings to emerge from all this activity. The starting point seems to involve picking up on UK ideas of social impact bonds (SIBs). The UNSW Centre for Social Impact believes that economic conditions are right in NSW to pilot SIBs:

• Incorporated not-for-profits have the legal structure to issue bonds to local markets, and the ability to 'wear' the risk of a venture.
• NFPs get to set their own outcome criteria, free of government contractual obligations.
• Government gets to divorce itself from service delivery.
• Government get to reward success through payment of a return, called a social return on investment.

There are myriad challenges to the success of these watershed initiatives. Perhaps the most basic is how to measure social return, how to measure success? In this context, the Young Foundation has some brilliant contributions to make, particularly with its Wellbeing and Resilience Measurement tool, which seeks to measure a community's innate strengths. An additional issue is how to find the right balance regarding risk? The Young Foundation points to a historic mismatch, where the agencies tasked with delivering a particular service, don't get to own the social outcome they deliver. It seems to me SIBs redress that particular imbalance. However, issues of financial risk remain, and the task facing the NSW trial at the moment is to find the right balance of risk between government, not-for-profit bond issuers and social innovators. It will be fascinating watching these experiments unfold over time.

New Times Demand New Ways of Learning

New Times Demand New Ways of Learning

---

Recent research builds a powerful case against what used to be accepted "truths" about learning and technology. First, there is strong evidence that traditional models of learning, traditional definitions of technology effectiveness, and traditional models of the cost effectiveness of technology don't work. In place of these old assumptions, researchers are positing new ways of looking at learning that promote:

• engaged, meaningful learning and collaboration involving challenging and real-life tasks; and
• technology as a tool for learning, communication, and collaboration.

This section details the indicators that educators and policymakers can use to measure the effectiveness of technology in learning.

The traditional learning model is not relevant to real student needs

Today's workplaces and communities - and tomorrow's - have tougher requirements than ever before. They need citizens who can think critically and strategically to solve problems. These individuals must learn in a rapidly changing environment, and build knowledge taken from numerous sources and different perspectives. They must understand systems in diverse contexts, and collaborate locally and around the globe.

These attributes contrast sharply with the discrete, low-level skills, content, and assessment methods that traditional ways of learning favor. The new workplace requirements for learning are incompatible with instruction that assumes the teacher is the information giver and the student a passive recipient. The new requirements are at odds with testing programs that assess skills that are useful only in school.

The traditional mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of technology programs don't work

Traditionally, we have determined the effectiveness of a technology program vis-a-vis a "regular" program by comparing student outcomes on standardized tests. Numerous researchers, however, question the utility of this method. When the North Central Regional Education Laboratory (NCREL) surveyed experts about traditional models of technology effectiveness, respondents said:

• "Effectiveness is not a function of the technology, but rather of the learning environment and the capability to do things one could not do otherwise."
• "Technology in support of outmoded educational systems is counterproductive."
• "[The reliance on] standardized tests is ludicrous... Technology works in a school not because test scores increase, but because technology empowers new solutions."

Similarly, the typical way to determine a technology's cost effectiveness is to compare the costs of the technology-enhanced program against the costs of the traditional program. Some researchers decry this approach, pointing out that such cost analyses assume that we should continue teaching the same things, rather than change with changing times. Additionally, cost-effectiveness data could constrain development of innovative applications of technology.

---

Why Keep Asking the Same Questions When They Are Not the Right Questions?

There are no definitive answers to questions about the effectiveness of technology in boosting student learning, student readiness for workforce skills, teacher productivity, and cost effectiveness. True, some examples of technology have shown strong and consistent positive results. But even powerful programs might show no effects due to myriad methodological flaws. It would be most unfortunate to reject these because standardized tests showed no significant differences. Instead, measures should evaluate individual technologies against specific learning, collaboration, and communication goals.

---

Where do we go from here?

What we have learned from these reactions to traditional ways of learning and evaluating technology is that we must change the questions and the processes. Specifically, we must establish a clear vision of learning and goals for a school, district, or other unit. Without this vision, there can be no criteria for evaluating technology effectiveness or costs.

What is effective learning and how can it be measured?

Our framework builds upon a framework developed by Barbara Means of SRI International. Means identified seven variables that, when present in the classroom, indicate that effective teaching and learning are occurring.

These classroom variables are:

• children are engaged in authentic and multidisciplinary tasks
• assessments are based on students' performance of real tasks
• students participate in interactive modes of instruction
• students work collaboratively
• students are grouped heterogeneously
• the teacher is a facilitator in learning
• students learn through exploration

We took these variables and reorganized them into a set of eight categories of learning and instruction: vision of learning, tasks, assessment, instruction, learning context, grouping, teacher roles, and student roles. We then expanded the definitions of Means' variables with information from recent research on learning and instruction and added many new variables. In all, there are 26 variables or 26 indicators of engaged learning. ... (Article cited from http://www.netc.org/cdrom/plug_in/html/newtimes.htm).

---------------------------------------------

What's interesting about this article is the new shift from standardized assessments to a more collaborative focus of learning and the role of technology in helping students learn better. The question for further consideration is: Learning-aid technology is quite expensive, and cutting-edge techno-rich schools (like the CMU) are usually very unaffordable to the poor. Can we model cheaper tech with similiar functions and make them available to the poor?

Public Policy in Action: Sindh Devolved Social Services Program

Public Policy is becoming increasingly important to support Social Entrepreneurial Initiatives and providing critical funding for their growth. Many social organizations, who are achieving concrete results and impact, simply do not get the right environment and supplementary support from the public sector in order to grow and tackle social problems at a large scale. Recognizing this need the Government of Pakistan has established the Sindh Devolved Social Service Program (SDSSP) as an effort to create a favourable environment for the social sector growth.

Sindh is one of the poorest and least developed provinces of Pakistan. The low social indicators of the province are having a serious negative impact on the regional economy and political stability. In response, the provincial Government of Sindh has put a policy framework in the shape of the Sindh Devolved Social Services Program. The program, which is administered by the Provincial Department of Finance, supports greater involvement of community-based organizations (CBOs), nongovernment organizations (NGOs), and the private sector. The objectives of the program are:

1. Further administrative devolution of social services

2. Improve social sector financing and flow of funds

3. Promote participation, linkages, and public accountability

4. Rationalize services and set minimum standards

5. Encourage public-private partnership

For further information about the scope of work, reform process and ongoing activities please visit the following website:

http://www.sdssp.gov.pk/index.htm

The Sindh Devolved Social Services Program made me think about the following questions:

1. Provided the widespread corruption and lack of transparency in the government departments in Pakistan, will this program deliver?

2. What are the accountability and evaluation measures, if any?

3. Will other Provincial Governments follow suit? Especially in Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where social conditions are in dire straits.

4. Should the Federal Government recognize the need and establish a central policy framework to achieve the same objectives, as the SDSSP, at the countrywide level?