Private Sector Solutions: Pull out the Red Tape or the Roll out Red Carpet?

Ikea’s Better Shelters concept is a creatively designed alternative to the standard tents used to house millions of refugees at camps across the world.  These smart, flat-packed shelters not only provide a more dignified, comfortable way of living for displaced populations (including more privacy and nearly double the living space) they are include advanced technology such as solar-panel roofs and USB ports. At first glance, Ikea’s Better Shelters seems ingenious: they are inexpensive and easy to transport and build. In reality, Ikea simply readjusted its current retail model and partnered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to turn a simple design into a innovative solution to an urgent global crisis.

The message the UNHCR is sending by partnering with private sector organizations like the Ikea Foundation is that the current refugee crisis requires research and insight beyond traditional forms of relief. The UNHCR did not partner with Ikea in order to solve global refugee crises, but to improve the lives of refugees at camps and create an environment in which displaced individuals and families can become more self-reliant. Refugee camps are designed to be temporary, but the reality is that the average length of stay in a camp is more than 17 years. 

In his article, “A New Ingeniously Designed Shelter for Refugees—Made by Ikea,” author Shane Snow praises the durability of the new design: “up to this point, the beset elemental protection relief workers could often provide refugees have been cheap, canvas UN tents that start to disintegrate after about six months. The new Ikea-inspired shelters are built to last 10 times that long.”  

In another article on Better Shelters titled, “Better Than a Tent, Worse Than a House,” Slate Magazine journalist Elizabeth Cullen Dunn address this limbo space between temporary and permanent. Dunn highlights that although camps are becoming less temporary, they do not have the infrastructure for permanent residents and how Ikea's Better Shelters is one example of how to bridge this divide.

“To avoid the refugee crisis turning into a refugee catastrophe, the U.S. and the EU must plan now to permanently resettle millions of displaced people, either in Europe or in countries in the developing world. Obviously, the EU will have to grant asylum to more the 160,000 people it plans to. Even Germany will have to accept more than the 800,000 refugees it has pledged to take. This isn’t just charity, though: Many European countries face a severe demographic crisis because of rapidly aging populations. With proper supports, young, hardworking, entrepreneurial immigrants may provide a much-needed renewal for European economies.”

And now that IKEA is the largest private sector funder of the UNCHR, it is likely they will play a large role in re-designing the way refugee camps operate and exist. But what will their role be, exactly? What will be the long-term impact?

This idea of government-private sector partnership came up in a New York Times article I read over the weekend about Uber using Pittsburgh as a test site for its self-driving car. The article explains that Pittsburgh is the ideal spot for such bold experiments because of its "hands-off" approach to experimental companies like Google and Uber.  Mayor Peduto is quoted in the article as saying, "It's not our role to throw up regulations or limit companies like Uber. You either pull out the red tape or roll out the red carpet. If you want to be a 21st century laboratory for technology, you put out the carpet."

What does this mean for the future of private sector involvement in foreign aid? Is it better to roll out the red carpet or pull out the red tape, or somewhere between? Does this warrant enough public scrutiny? Does clever design often detract from real solutions?