Create jobs, not an illusion of prosperity

Aneel Karnani accurately addressed and expanded on the concerns I expressed in class last week about imposing social innovations on the poor. In his article, "Romanticizing the Poor," he identifies the roots of poverty: lack of education, no access to economic capital or valuable information.  His sentiments make me think of the malnutrition problem in Africa.  The root problems are fertility rates and a poor economic structure, which is ultimately causing children to die.  It seems that social advocates need to address these concerns first (although easier said than done) before implementing a market-based approach.

Karnani strongly suggests that job creation will help to alleviate poverty. I agree that giving the poor employment opportunities is an effective approach, as it gives them the choice to take control of their own lives and better their situation. If more people are working, this may also decrease the amount of people abusing drugs and alcohol.  Working also gives people of sense of purpose and provides more opportunities for future spending and the ability to provide for their families, if they choose to do so.  In a previous blog, I reflected on La Fageda, which employed mentally ill patients to work at the dairy. Same is true for the poor; they are PEOPLE who should have the opportunity to productively contribute to their own livelihood, not be exploited or controlled by others.  

In another Stanford article entitled "Microfinance Misses its Mark", Karnani gives various reasons why microfinance is not the solution to poverty.  One reason in particular is about how it allegedly empowers women, although men almost always control the money in the household, so women have a false sense of empowerment.  How does this affect the family structure? I imagine this creates more problems that microfinance advocates don't think about. 

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/microfinance_misses_its_mark/

Karnani's solution is more government involvement and oversight.  This is a scary thought, considering the statistics we read about in the NY Times article about the corrupted Indian government. Government involvement would have to depend on the country and how stable it is.  One would love to believe that the government has its people's best interest in mind, although that's hard to come by these days! 

How can social innovators assist governments with employment-focused initiatives to help tackle poverty?  Hopefully the Center of American Progress and the White House Office of Social Innovation and Impact will consider Karnani's work.