Economic Doesn’t Automatically Mean Progress

Recently a new alternative has been proposed. Harvard Business professor Michael Porter is on a mission to turn current thinking on its head. Porter has designed the Social Progress Index (SPI) with the help of the Social Progress Imperative. SPI is a new way to measure social progress that goes beyond the dominant metric of development- gross domestic product.[i]

For many years the powers that be thought that economic indicators were able to tell the whole story. However, the general happiness of a country doesn’t always correlate with its wealth.[ii] Porter explains that it is quite ridiculous to be measuring success purely on the idea of growth at a time when countries are facing massive social upheavals, and the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of the national income.[iii] Michael Green, the head of Social Progress Imperative, agrees with Porter’s sentiment. Green explains that GDP is simply too one-dimensional to provide a complete measure to a nation’s progress. He also takes it a step further by highlighting that while Nigeria has a higher GDP than Ghana, Nigeria has had a slower social progress while Ghana ranks higher on the SPI.[iv]

Currently as the index stands, it includes 52 indicators in three dimensions: 1) Basic human needs, which looks at nutrition, air, water, sanitation, shelter, and personal safety, 2) Foundations of well-being which focuses on access to basic knowledge, health and wellness, and ecosystem sustainability, 3) Opportunity which targets personal rights, access to higher education, equity, and inclusion.[v]  Porter has tested out SPI in 50 countries within the confines of the 52 indicators related to the three dimensions of the index. Based on this examination of 50 countries many of the wealthiest countries apart of the sample were some of the lowest ranked while some of the small and medium size countries, in terms of GDP, were among the higher ranking. This ultimately highlights three overarching findings; 1) economic development is necessary but not necessarily sufficient for social progress or indicating social progress, 2) a country’s development masks social and environmental strengths and challenges, and 3) SPI shows areas of underperformance and

success for countries at all income levels.[vi]

Based on the findings from the SPI, it is evident that there is some ability to provide policy makers and businesses a better assessment of countries and the improvement of their overall well-being. The SPI is very interesting as it provides a spin and a shaking up of the ways in which we process social well-being in this society. But this has left me wondering what now should happen to the current system, while yes it does have flaws there are systems that currently operate based on this process. Would this index best serve as a component of the GDP process in order to develop a mutually beneficial situation where the countries that are wealthy but perform poorly can develop ways to become better at providing services and have the reverse impact on countries that perform well on the index, have them develop ways to use their well-being status to improve their GDP.

I think it is important that as different indices and metrics start to appear we cannot just do away with the foundations that have kept what little part of our society left together. We must get into the habit of absorbing no innovations into the already current structures in order to create strong impact and reform.

---

[i] Social Progress: Beyond GDP. The Economist. 

[ii] Forget GDP: The Social Progress Index Measures National Well-Being. www.fastcompany.com

[iii] Michael Porter Presents New Alternative to GDP: The Social Progress Index (SPI). Godelnik, Raz.

[iv] Social Progress: Beyond GDP. The Economist. 

[v] Michael Porter Presents New Alternative to GDP: The Social Progress Index (SPI). Godelnik, Raz.

[vi] Michael Porter Presents New Alternative to GDP: The Social Progress Index (SPI). Godelnik, Raz.

Predictions for the Future...of Social Entrepreneurship

As we conclude this class, the final week’s readings are focused on the future of social innovation and enterprise.  Moving away from looking at the policy or funding of social innovation and enterprise, the articles looked at what next steps are, ranging from discussing ways to measure the impact, to looking at what new or future innovations are succeeding or failing, and why.  On one hand there is the 3D Printing being used to help people with disabilities, while on the other there is the probable failure of the internet-balloons in Kenya.  These articles show us that one thing is clear: the future of social innovation and enterprise is uncertain.

To dive deeper into this topic, the always trusty Forbes website provided a great article titled “Five Predictions for the Future of Social Entrepreneurship,” which goes through a list of likely predictions on the topic.  The first prediction is that social entrepreneurship will fold as an independent sector and be incorporated into the existing sectors.  This should be seen as a positive movement, as the tenants of social innovation will emerge in large corporations.  The second prediction is that innovators and investors will need to rethink the ability to post high profit margins while remaining aligned to their organizational mission. The third prediction holds that “the greatest social change will be unleashed by moving the corporate needle” (http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2012/11/19/five-predictions-for-the-future-of-social-entrepreneurship/).  This means that, much as suggested by the first prediction, primary change will come through the adoption of socially-minded policies within the existing for-profit corporate realm, as opposed to small yet revolutionary start-ups.  The fourth prediction is that social impact assessment will become both more sophisticated and more integrated into sector-wide analysis.  This will help to measure the impacts of enterprises across the board.  The final prediction says that, in line with other job sectors, social innovators will be prone to continual career change, as the new normal is for constant career changes throughout an individual’s working-life. 

Given the uncertain nature of social innovation, it is a hard call as to whether or not any or all of these will come true.  I do think that the first and third are likely to come true, as they seem to be the natural progression that would be expected.  As social enterprises become more and more common, it is expected that more companies will start to incorporate the innovations and social-impacts into their existing models.  This will be beneficial to society at large, for instead of rely on small-time innovators and venture funding, social change will be aided by the large corporations that receive large profits.  These 2 changes are almost incongruent with change #2, stating that agents of change will need to recalibrate their goals of social change and large profit margins.  With this incongruence, I am unsure as to which theory will win out.  Of course, it would be better if profits and missions can both thrive.  What do you think will happen with these predictions?  Do any stand out as more or less likely to occur? Are any more or less beneficial to society?  It will be important to track these changes to see the direction everything goes. 

Big Capital for Big Innovation

I find the concept of a sustainable city like Masdar intriguing, but it certainly isn’t a fresh idea. It reminds me of many of the displays at the World’s Fairs of old. A project of such scope brings up many questions of urban planning, waste and energy management, and adopting new technologies to make it all plausible. There is new technology on display, but mostly there are an array of old technologies that haven’t received the kind of research and funding that could have brought them to maturity years ago. I think that would be the crowning achievement of Masdar. As the article said, the gulf has more sunshine than oil, and if it were possible to capture even a fraction more than is being done already, it would revolutionize habitability and energy security in the region. That is the kind of social innovation that leads to major progress.

These kinds of experiments take the kind of capital accumulation and the concentration of resources and manpower that only governments can manage. There has been a focus throughout the course on start-ups and social entrepreneurship, but let’s not forget that many of the private corporations that pioneer new social and technological ventures had their beginnings winning government contracts to commercialize high-technology. A classic example would be the aerospace industry: research and experimentation through government initiatives made commercial flight, space flight, and now commercial space flight possible. Think of how that has revolutionized the world. We even commercialized things like teflon for non-stick pans from the materials science research done for shuttles reentering the atmosphere.

Masdar isn’t NASA, but it is a step in the right direction for coalescing different technologies and methods of thinking to expand our range of habitable land. The gulf states know that oil won’t last forever, and it makes sense to diversify their interests and capabilities while they can still afford to do so. I remember a picture shown to us near the beginning of the semester that displayed the rapidly decreasing cost of solar power. If the trend continues, Masdar may not look so much like the Jetsons in even 10 years. And that brings me to my final thoughts for this post: with the way that technology is so rapidly advancing, who knows where we will be in 10 years. It’s a dizzying thought, especially considering now how archaic life seemed just ten years ago. Maybe what we’ve been discussing will be old news.


Source:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/city-light?page=0%2C0

On Spaghetti Sauce and Story-Centered Systems

In 2004, author and researcher Malcolm Gladwell gave a TED Talk entitled "Choice, happiness, and spaghetti sauce" which he closed with this insight: "That in embracing the diversity of human beings we will find a sure way to true happiness."

The full lecture focuses primarily on the story of Howard Moskowitz, a man who was, among many things, a brand researcher. Gladwell recounts how Moskowitz came to the conclusion after years of frustration over not being able to find "the perfect Pepsi" formula (by way of spaghetti sauce research oddly enough) that there were in fact many perfect Pepsis...and many perfect spaghetti sauces, vinegars, olive oils, mustards, and the list goes on. It is the closing statement from Gladwell shown above that is the final lesson learned from the tale of Howard Moskowitz.

It is this same insight that has shaped much of what I have written about in these entries over the past several weeks. By insisting on a silver bullet solution to the problems we identify, by mapping and scaling a single narrative for how to create desired change, we in fact hold ourselves back from greater happiness, from bigger success, from more innovation, and from seeing and seeking a world we hadn't before even known we wanted.

I've spent enough time on these blogs critiquing, what is it really that I want to create?

Those solutions that should be scaled should be ones that provide a platform for people and communities to interrogate themselves, to explore their own problems, to be the primary designers of metrics for success, to share those stories, and to change over time. The organization Enabled By Design, particularly its provision of access to 3D printing, is a beautiful example of how such a story-centered system would work on the ground. Persons with disabilities working with this organization are by and large limited only by their own experiences and vision of a changed life. But as we have been shown again and again in this course, the combination of those two things in the hands of enabled people can be wildly powerful.

An important element of such systems would be not only the story-seeking but the story-telling as well. One of the strongest critiques against the ever-widening use of production capabilities around the world, for example, is the concern about inequitably sharing finite resources (though the current system isn't doing such a bang-up job of that either) and increased waste and pollution. But the think about Wikipedia. By most measures it is as accurate and far more up-to-date than most published encyclopedias (no joke, check it out). Wikipedia didn't achieve this by relying on select experts. Rather it trusts the collective, mutually-sharpening, and ever-evolving knowledge of the world at large. Just such a paradigm should underpin the kinds of story-centered systems we seek to implement. 

As capital becomes increasingly fluid and democratized and personalization becomes the standard, it is not for this elite club of "social innovators" to harness and shape the movement in a particular way but rather to see, encourage, and enable social innovation to become a part of daily human behavior and activity. We all have stories, and those stories contain within them a multiplicity of lessons and opportunities. The very systems that structure our daily lives can learn from and adapt to these, and most importantly, we should feel empowered to consciously tell our stories and contribute to their continuous improvement.

SPI – A NEW KIND OF SPY

Social Progress Index (SPI) seems to be very effective and true measure of evaluating social development as it covers almost the whole of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs - starting from nutrition it goes to inclusion, giving weight to almost every shade of a society’s development.

Social Progress Index categorizes its evaluation criteria as Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing and Opportunity, and I think these three areas could be matched broadly with the hierarchy of needs in the following manner:

SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX	HIERARCHY OF NEEDS
Basic Human Needs	Physiological
	Safety
Wellbeing	Belonging
	Esteem
Opportunity	Self-Actualization

Such measures bring us closer to the solution of evaluating effects of a social venture; if any of the strings of this whole index is moved by introduction and implementation of a social venture then we can safely say that the venture did contribute towards the social development.

   

One of the important most aspects of using this index is that it brings us interesting trends in various areas of social development, like the one we have seen in case of “ecosystem sustainability”. The comparison of overall top three countries on the Social Progress Index with that of top three on Ecosystem Sustainability is given here:

We can clearly observe interesting trend-mix here – the countries ranking highest on the overall index of social progress are actually very low on some specific measures. Therefore, SPI is not only a better way to evaluate the overall social progress but can be used as a tool to measure the impact of social ventures and products. This will help evaluate the difference a social intervention has brought to a specific area of the over-all social well being, enabling matching results with the defined objectives, and the specific set of needs the project has addressed to.

Masdar City: Futuristic Utopia, minus the Future part.

Masdar City is what you would envision a real-life Jetson’s Orbit city would look like though take away the flying cars and replace them with a ground transportation Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) system powered by renewable energy. In fact everything in Masdar City is powered by renewables. Located in Abu Dhabi, Masdar is the world’s first carbon-neutral city being built, an “$18-Billion experiment.” In terms of green urban development, this “experiment” is very exciting news!

Today, Masdar is home only to 119 Masdar Institute students, a Caribou Coffee, Organics Food and Café grocery mart, and Sumo Sushi Restaurant but by completion in 2025 it will hold 40,000 permanent residents, 50,000 commuters and 1,500 businesses. Masdar City is a business “free-zone”, entrepreneurial and innovation hub, all in the most sustainable community on the globe.

Masdar, which means “the source”, is taking their name literally – pioneering renewable technology, sustainable urban development, cleantech research and development, and business development. The city’s vision is to “provide the highest quality of life and work environment with the lowest environment footprint.”  Masdar also aims to prove their city model can not only be good for the planet but can also be affordable, robust, and “commercially viable.”  Final goal is to be the model city for all future urban development.  

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), currently 50% of the world’s population lives in urban areas.  WHO states the trend to move to urban areas continues to rise. By 2030 it expected 6 out of 10 people will live in a city, and 7 out of 10 by 2050. With more population more pollution follows and the need for cleantech innovation and sustainable increases. If Masdar proves that clean-city living is possible (and I do believe it will), what does this mean for current and future urban development? This is a game changer.

Masdar city is open to the public. Per the city website, you can visit Masdar city 8:30 am to 10:00pm.

For more information on Masdar City visit: http://masdarcity.ae/

Last Week Blog Post

If you have been keeping up with my blog posts then you know I have tried to incorporate the relevant themes and issues discussed in course lecture and readings. My posts have talked about local start ups, like Project AURA, and have also questioned the validity of the creation of government agencies to spur and fund social innovation. For the last and final blog post I wanted to blog about 3D printing because it really is an example of the future of social innovation and enterprise.

During the first lecture, we were shown examples of innovations that improved over time. One example that comes to mind are the innovations of flight from sketches to space crafts. This directly correlates to the reading for this week, "The Next Frontier For 3-D Printing" (Fast Company), shows that a vision and imagination is needed to impart some impact on innovation.

The story behind 3D printing is starts in 1984 when Charles Hull created the first 3D printer which prints tangible objects from digital data. The impact: companies were able to produce prototypes and discern how to adjust for manufacturing costs.

Fast forward to the present day and London-based 3D printing company, Enabled by Design, uses 3D printing to help improve the lives of disabled people who have been adversely affected by health ailments, accidents, and other events that have impaired them in comparison to the general population.

I was fascinated because this was a whole new population that, in my opinion (save for a few ventures), was overlooked. When discussing social ventures and enterprises, the motives discussed are often those that involve access to quality water, air, education, and health...but it usually does not account for populations that seem to fly under the radar, like the disabled community.

The reason why Enabled by Design works, is that it creates devices that are easily manufactured and are cheaper in comparison to industry rates.

If you were on Enabled by Design's executive team, how do you think they should scale its product to continue to be competitive?

Update: Enabled by Design communicates very well with its customers and followers: https://twitter.com/enabledby



Sources: http://individual.troweprice.com/public/Retail/Planning-&-Research/Connections/3D-Printing/Infographic

How do we value a social venture? Part 2

As we continue to think about how to value social impact one thing becomes clear. These elements are interrelated. It is an intricate web of problems that creates a child who is malnourished, a parent that cannot support their family, a spouse suffering from domestic violence. There are many ways to go about solving those problems. If you choose to solve the problem in one way, you are not choosing to solve it in another. You have to look at the problem the way Geoffrey Canada and the creators of Masdar look at their problems.

What do Masdar and the Harlem Children's Zone have in common? The solution to the problems they wish to address require many solutions functioning together - entire ecosystems of solutions. Masdar uses solar power, a mass transit system, wind catchers, a smart grid, a recycling plant, walkable design, and more. Geoffrey Canada uses charter schools, tutoring, parenting classes, health initiatives, family support centers, violence prevention, and more.

The world of the future allows for more holistic approaches, blurs more lines, and therefore makes categorization of initiatives like the ones listed above more complicated. Money - the great equalizer - is not the only nor the best measure for understanding how these initiatives are faring.

The Social Progress Index (SPI) provides an interesting way to measure social good for a nation, but the question remains which measures matter most when looking at an initiative. The SPI has selected some measures; would they translate to the realm of a social venture?

It Takes a Village, Masdar's Isolation Problem

On the surface the City of Masdar looks like an incredible city poised to be a key innovator in renewable energy sources and sustainable living. However I fear that until the City is able to attract citizens outside of the scientists at the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, it will be unable to develop practical solutions for the world as we know it. Already some of Masdar City's innovations are either self-described as obsolete (solar panel), or impractical.

One of the first compromised projects mentioned in the article Inside the World's Most Ambitious Eco-City is the underground Personal Rapid Transit pods, which required the city be elevated, but due to cost concerns have been removed, and will now only work to transport commuters to Masdar Institute. This highlights some of the design problems the city will continue to face.

Masdar is different from other cities in that it's planning has been mostly from one source. However cities are built by it's citizens. They evolve only to meet the needs of the population. However a city pre-designed is going to be much more resistant to altering it's design once citizens begin living in the city. Sure Masdar may be incredibly efficient with no wasted in it's design, but this is done sacrificing the ability for it's citizenry to make Masdar their own. And without an involved citizenry Masdar will be unable to have a human centered design.

In the Popular Science Article this issue is addressed, "Until other residents beyond the students and faculty at the institute begin to call Masdar home, the place and its inhabitants will remain pretty isolated." Without a citizenry to test it's design and innovations it will be hard for Masdar's model to be exported to existing cities. As the title of this post suggests, it takes a village, and right now Masdar's village is filled with only one kind of citizen.

In our class we have often spoken with caution about a top down only approach to solving Social issues. This is Masdar's biggest challenge, and it is creating it for itself. Without involving others outside of academic institutions and technology fields Masdar cannot test it's major innovations. Instead the city is being built on a grand scale, saying that it will hold 40,000 citizens and have another 50,000 commute. While this is by no means a bustling metropolis, it may be too much too soon. While it is understandable that the designers of Masdar want to ensure the city is innovative and green, sacrificing input from citizens may make it difficult to ensure Masdar is able to meet it's population goal.

Social Progress Index - An Effective Tool for Social Entrepreneurship?

The Social Progress Index (SPI) is designed to measure national well-being.  In the field of social entrepreneurship, is using this tool the way to guarantee success in pursuing social ventures?  I think it’s an effective way to find the true areas that need improvement in each country in order to raise the overall well-being.  While the results of the index cannot be completely comprehensive, taking a sample of the population and surveying basic human needs, nutrition, foundations of wellbeing, and opportunity provide a broad base to come as close to accurately assessing true well-being.  Each of these categories go further in looking at specific components that would contribute to that area of life.  What I think is successful about the social progress index, is that it does not factor into economics, which can easily lead us astray in determining well-being or happiness. Instead it looks at areas such as: personal rights, access to basic knowledge, shelter and others –which provides the opportunity to survey each area using qualitative means.

Yes, there is still a lot of room for the immeasurable and the SPI cannot provide all of the information it sets out to collect, but it is a good start.  What does it mean for the social entrepreneurs?  To create a product or policy that will benefit the society, the SPI can lead innovators and entrepreneurs to the direct areas that would be of most benefit to the well-being of the country –as determined by the SPI.  This could create a more systematic and possibly more effective way for innovations to accomplish the positive change that they are created for. 

Is this the best tool available today for social entrepreneurs?

Will this serve as a more effective way to address the needs of societies today?

Sources:

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1681830/forget-gdp-the-social-progress-index-measures-national-well-being

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/data/spi#data_table/countries/spi/sub1,com1,sub2,sub3

Which leading group is better for the social innovation

The industrial revolution leaded the rapid social change and economical dynamic around the western civilization from 18 to 19C. In the period, many European countries adopted the new technologies and ideas from the Great Britain and developed new economical structure by their own speciality such as a geographical position, climate and political situation.  

At this stage, one of interesting points of this period is that leading group of revolution was varied too. For example, the leading group of Great Britain were the capitalist and merchant class because these class had enough asset to build new factories. However, German case was different in that the german bank was leading this revolution since they had enough money instead of merchant class. Nevertheless, Russia's industrial revolution was quite special because the government could only lead this change acceding to 'Kicking Away the Ladder' by Ha-Joon Chang. 

Like industrial revolution cases, the leading group of social innovation are different around the world because of the difference of social and cultural background. Specially, in western side, civil society has taken the very important role instead of the government because the problem they has faced is given after recognizing the government's incompetence. 

However, for developing countries, the government has taken the leading role for the social innovation many times. For example, the Brazil government is doing really great job to adopt many good social innovative ideas from other countries and customize these ideas. As a result, the economy of Brazil is getting significantly better and the degree of happiness of Brazilians also too. 

Here is another case, In South Korea, the mayor of capital city : Seoul has changed the situation of city people's life totally. Before becoming the mayor, he was the leader of the social movement and civil society and learned about many great successful cases from outside of Korea. And then, he has adopted this ideas aggressively with new technology based on a great IT infra. As result, if someone has a problem like having a broken street ramp near by their home, he can tweet this problem to the mayor directly and the mayor retweet this problem to the officer who is in charge. After little while, the someone who argued about this problem would receive the notice about fixing the problem. 

Here is pros and cons. When the government has the right motivation and purpose, people could see more a fast result and wide effect because the government has abundant resources than civil side. However, this kinds of cases are very rare, so many time, the government lose the focus to solve problems and concentrates on the maintain their organization by a bureacratism. As result, it's hard to make a decision which leader is better.

References :

http://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279/ref=la_B001HOFPKS_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381216953&sr=1-3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Won-soon

How We Measure

After reading Forget GDP: The Social Progress Index Measures National Well-being, I immediately connected this article with evaluating student achievement in classrooms. Noting the GDP of a country may be a traditional way to measure a nation's well being, just as administering standardized tests is a traditional way of measuring student learning. But does GDP and standardized tests accurately reflect how well or poorly a nation or student is doing? What about other factors and other approaches to solving the same problem?

Future implications of social innovation and education reform will challenge us to measure progress in nontraditional ways. We will see more conversations build around a "social impact index" and socially-minded private sectors. In education, there will be a growing push back against those who only want to use standardized test metrics to evaluate student learning. 

The Da Vinci Schools in Los Angeles, California is one group that believes in measuring student success by alternative means than just testing. For students at Da Vinci, they can expect to immerse themselves in project-based learning and find creative ways to demonstrate knowledge. 

The tricky thing about measuring "success" is that it is relative to who defines what that success looks like. Do we know if a country is doing well if they have a high GDP? Is that because that probably means they have a strong economy? Or can we say that country is doing well if the number of individuals who work to increase social impact in their workplaces is high?

The future of complex topics like social innovation and education will truly be contingent on the way measurement is accepted. As advocates of social innovation and education, it is imperative to challenge the status quo of the way things are currently measured and begin looking at things in a different perspective. 

Local governments and innovation labs

In one of the readings for this week, Fast Company cited an organization called FutureGov (http://wearefuturegov.com/). Based in the UK, FutureGov works with local governments to create various solutions based on design, technology and change skills. Starting two years ago, FutureGov worked with the Surrey City Council to create Shift, an innovation lab (http://shiftsurrey.org/). This lab is built to serve the county’s priorities through design and technology solutions. Shift is a lab to support local innovators who can meet the needs and problems of Surrey.

The philosophy at Shift promotes four stages: discover, design & develop, decide, and deliver. The design & develop stage consists of designing, prototyping, visualizing, building and testing, similar to the human-centered design methodologies at IDEO. After the initial concepts have been developed, Shift decides whether to move forward and devote resources to the project. FutureGov worked with Shift to create two initial and quick projects. One of these, Casserole, meets the hunger needs of the county by encouraging local families to cook an extra meal per day.

Bogota has also created a bottom-up style project called My Ideal City (http://www.miciudadideal.com/en). Here, residents have the opportunity to create their future city. Questions such as ‘What journeys would you share with strangers?’ and ‘What would be the perfect place to do concerts in Bogota?’ are posted to the website where residents can respond. The city wants direct ideas from residents on how they view a positive future.

By working from the bottom-up, local governments have the opportunity to generate creative solutions to meet their needs. By working with local governments, innovators may develop partnerships to help their ideas implement successfully. Shift Surrey’s lab reminds me of a tech incubator. Perhaps local governments should look into creating a type of social incubator?

What to do for a Successful Conditional Cash Transfer Program?

As all known, conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs intends to reduce poverty by making welfare programs conditional upon the receivers' actions. The money is transferred by the government only to the persons who meet certain criteria such as enrolling children into public schools, getting regular check-ups at the doctor's office, receiving vaccinations, etc.[1]

Elizabeth Fitzgerald from Harvard University brought up her concerns about CCT programs. To her, in order to make a healthy evaluation of CCT programs, one should consider the ways in which cash transfers impact health.

One proposal is that, the additional income of the cash transfers allows participating families to purchase higher quality food, health care services, and etc. Investing in household improvements, assets, and entrepreneurial activities, or buying books and toys to stimulate child development would lead to a positive impact on the health of children in these families.

Additionally, since cost is seen as a barrier to utilization of nutrition and health care, monetary assistance is believed to improve poor families’ health. However, there are other barriers which may limit the successes of some conditional cash transfer programs.

CCT programs do not say anything about the quality of care. Higher school enrollment rates and attendance do not necessarily translate into higher earnings or increased learning. According to the report conducted by World Bank in 2009 on CTT programs around the world, improved education has very small effect on living wage earnings. If the health care and education provided with beneficiaries are not high quality, future health outcomes are quite limited. If increased use and access are not enough for improved child health outcomes, the issue may lie with supply-side infrastructure and inefficiencies. Studies conducted around the world found that supply-side issues have a strong effect in many countries. The most conspicuous supply-side issues identified include inadequate supplies, a limited capacity for management, financing, and expansion of health and education services, geographical inaccessibility to services, scarcity of teachers and health professionals especially in rural areas. Constructing roads and health centers in rural areas, better monetary incentives for rural workers, and performance based incentives for healthcare professionals for improved healthcare quality may be some potential solutions.

Conditional cash transfer programs can be customized for different countries to fit their needs. Governments and aid organizations evaluate the health care and educational infrastructure of a country before they design conditional cash transfer programs for it. In many low-income and developing countries, initial investments to improve underlying systems would result in increased impacts on the overall health of the country in the long run.

The key thing here is, governments and aid agencies should consider the underlying system and infrastructure of a country and supply-side improvements in order to design successful conditional transfer programs. Otherwise, it would make no sense to allocate money for these Programs.

Source: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/hghr/online/the-future-of-conditional-cash-transfer-programs/

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_cash_transfer

If you want to help them, empower them

When thinking about the future of social innovation, one has to go back to the core question of" what's the ultimate goal of social innovation?" From my point of view, the crucial goal of social innovation should finally come back to human dignity and independent development. As illustrated in my tile, if you want to help them, empower them. 

Apart from thinking about "what can we do to help them?",we have to keep in mind that social innovation in the long-term should mobilize and empower people to help themselves, instead of letting people receive outside resources passively and rely on good will of others forever. After addressing the basic need of local areas, social innovations should step back to be incubators for local people to develop their abilities,creativity, and imaginations.

Erick Njenga is a 21-year-old senior college student who is going to receive his business IT degree. In 2011, Njenga and his 3 classmates developed a program called "Integrated Disease Surveillance and response system", which has enabled thousands of health workers to use mobile phones to report and track the spread of diseases instantly. For Kenya, where one in 25 people is HIV-positive (10 times the U.S. rate) and AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria are among the leading killers, what Njenga and his classmates did was truly efficient and life-saving.

Their successful creation happened in the building of Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) in Kenya, where the four students talking with health staff about traditional ways of gathering information and discussed about designing an APP in mobile phones. This example is indicating that sometimes, with enough resources and social conditions, people in desperate situations can devise solutions to solve problems themselves which can be more direct and effective than governments and nonprofits.

In fact, there are already some social and business incubators in Africa, like the "iHub" in Kenya. Because these incubators are made of local skilled people in the local area, they have deeper understanding about the urgent problems and people there are more motivated and dedicated to solve the problems.

 

Interestingly, there are something similar happening in digital education technology area. It is called gamification. Simply speaking, it's a kind of techniques that put education into games to make learning more fun and engaging. Paul Anderson, who gave a ted talk called "Classroom Game Design" stated that gamification has unleashed students' self-motivation and curiosity to learn knowledge, try something new and explore the world. In the learning games, students become the big boss, and they can learn at their own time and pace and develop their interests without boundaries. 

An amazing example of gamification in education is the "Team Drill Head" directed by Mr.Pai, who is offering third grade class in White Bear Lake, Minnesota. In his classrooms, there are 7 laptops, 2 desktops,and dozens of PSPs.  Mr. Pai has adopted 18 games for teaching students about Math, Reading, Vocabulary and Geography. And those games include Flower Power, Timez Attack, Tutpup.com, etc, which are really fun to play and learn at the same time. 

Empowering people can create enormous energy for society, however, empowering people can be really difficult. When should we solve the problem for the local area and when should we let the people there get the stuff done by themselves? How can we motivate those people who are already in a desperate condition? What kind of specific conditions should we provide for them? 


SOURCE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4qlYGX0H6Ec 

http://gamification.org/wiki/Gamification_of_Education

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/426983/kenyas-startup-boom/