Can the Poor be Saved from Poverty...and Corruption?

I had no idea that within India’s food system “70 percent of a roughly $12 billion budget is wasted, stolen or absorbed by bureaucratic costs,” as was stated in Jim Yardley’s article, “India Asks, Should Food Be a Right for the Poor”. Although, I realize corruption exists everywhere, it made me think is social innovation more vulnerable to corruption? After discussing SKS Finance briefly in class last week, I started to see a pattern of corruption and greed take over the citizen sector. What once began as a service to lift people out of poverty has now potentially caused a microcredit crisis, as was reported in The New York Times last week. So, how can corruption be curbed?

This week’s articles centered around government, and how federal policy and actions need to be readjusted to support the scaling and growth of innovation, such as investing in high-impact non-profit solutions, supporting startups and new innovation, supporting efforts to develop human capital and creating a favorable tax and regulatory environment. While I feel that the government, through the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation, has demonstrated increased momentum toward innovation, specifically through its Race to the Top grant program, the issue of corruption still exists. Whose responsibility is it to prevent corruption? Government? Individuals? Organizations?

I came across an interesting social venture, The Broccoli Project, while browsing my daily twitter feed. The Broccoli Project uses biometric and mobile technology to measure the impact of social programs in South Africa. More simply, fingerprints are used to identify individuals who exhibit positive social behaviors, and are then rewarded with aid money. This technology helps to reduce corruption through the fingerprint-clad security system. However, although the fingerprints are used to monitor positive social behaviors, and are then used to reward individuals, the payment is still in the form of a bar-coded voucher, which could open the door to possible corruption. Nevertheless, the Broccoli Project has developed an innovative technological means of not only reducing corruption, but also encouraging positive social behaviors, and allowing for tracking and measurement of monetary aid.

(Source: http://www.broccoliproject.org/About.aspx)

While it seems like the Broccoli Project is on the right track to helping the poor, is this just another innovation that is taking advantage of an unknowing and irrational “consumer”? In the “Romanticizing the Poor” article, Aneel Karnani argues that bottom of the pyramid “consumers” are in fact not able to make rational and smart choices. Therefore, is something like the Broccoli Project taking advantage of individual privacy rights? Would you be willing to give your fingerprint as a means of receiving payment? Fingerprint ATMs? Does social innovation sometimes blur the line of what is ethical?