In this week’s series of readings
I took issue with the many critiques of social innovations that have a
for-profit focus or business model. It is at times disheartening to read
articles that highlight new technological advancements that provide services to
millions of people since being introduced, that then critiques these same innovations
for not reaching billions of people. An example of this is found in the article,
Energy in the developing world: Power to the people.
In this article it is explained
that 1.5 billion people or more in the world have no access to electricity and
that there has been some improvements in providing the “energy poor”[i]
with reliable and sustainable energy, but then criticizes these same inventors
like d.light design for not pricing their product at $5 instead of $10. While a
reduction in price may allow for the casting of a wider net, we have to think
about at what cost we are widening these nets. Do we wish to sacrifice the
integrity and capabilities of the product to increase the number of homes a
product or service may reach. Do we want to continue operating in a society where
quantity is more important than quality or are we ready to shake things up?
I view this article’s critique to
be one of the reasons as to why societal ills such as a lack of electricity
still plague billions of people around the globe. As a society we tend to look for one solution
to everyone’s problems and negatively critique or discredit the impact of
social innovators that do not touch all people that make up the base of the
pyramid. Also as a society we tend to perpetuate this notion that capitalism is
always bad, and in the same breathe fail to acknowledge that poverty reduction
at its basic level is a product of capitalist interactions. While it is always important to have a
critical eye, in order for there to be great social change we must allow for
difference in approaches that give innovators and the use of capitalism for
social good a chance.
When it comes to the amazing
wonders of social innovations and their impacts, one cannot forget about the
issue of access. The six letter word that sheds a light on the haves and the
have nots, and the fortunate and the
disenfranchised. And while we all socially give off the impression that we want
everyone to have the same level of access, it is important to ask the question;
is universal access the “correct pathway” for social innovators, and is this a fair standard to hold innovators
who are creating and distributing viable and life changing social innovations
to? Why can’t a for-profit business approach to social innovation be adopted
and regarded as not the be all end all, but as a source for further
restructuring of social services and eradicating inequalities?
.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.