Hey everyone. For the most part, I agreed with most of what Bornstein and Davis had to say about social entrepreneurship and will highlight some of the issues that were most persuasive to me. See you in class.
Social entrepreneurship is promising because it enfranchises citizens to take action to help solve social problems. A large number of social entrepreneurs trying to solve social problems are exponentially more likely to come up with solutions, than just one government agency. Decentralization of the solution process would allow for more adaptability to specific social issues as well, particularly cultural and economic adaptability. The cliché, “two heads are better than one,” comes to mind when one is thinking about social entrepreneurship. Unleashing the minds of millions of people worldwide would have a profound impact on the human race’s ability to come up with solutions to our vast array of social problems.
Currently, social entrepreneurs are making a difference across the globe, even in our own communities. Organizations such as
Although government is able to take responsibility for trying to solve social problems, I believe, like Bornstein and Davis, that social entrepreneurship is the future. I believe that the government should have a greater role in funding and investing in social entrepreneurial enterprises in order to help solve social issues such as global warming or poverty. Governments, particularly the United States, have vast financial resources to invest in social entrepreneurial endeavors, but instead spend a huge amount of these resources on the military. This is problematic due to the fact that boundaries are continuously being blurred in our globalizing world, and I believe that it is infinitely more beneficial to invest in solving social issues that could cause war, famine, hunger, and displacement, than to invest in ways to combat these issues through weapons or war. Bornstein and Davis do contend that philanthropy and business investment could also help the growth of social entrepreneurs, but I believe this will remain insignificant due to the financial returns that chiefly motivate business, and the limited amount of money a philanthropist can give. (Bornstein, Davis, 2010) Government subsidies to organizations like Ashoka, a social entrepreneurial start-up organization, can drastically improve the means to solve social problems. (Bornstein, Davis, 2010) But I do believe that the government and agencies like Ashoka should come up with a means to measure the ‘social impact’ of organizations and if these organizations are not creating social impact, they should be cut from funding. This would prevent much of the wasteful spending that haunts government programs, and would allow promising new social entrepreneurial programs a chance to get off the ground.
All in all, social problems around the world have become so numerous and international that the free market and government cannot possibly tackle them individually. By enlisting the help of social entrepreneurs, the human race has the potential to solve many social issues. These social entrepreneurial enterprises are innovative in the sense that they are coming up with new and relevant ways to solve social issues. In essence, I believe that social entrepreneurial endeavors can significantly combat social problems in a more beneficial and globalized way through adaptability and the enfranchisement of millions of minds.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job highlighting the need for organizations to work together to achieve their goals, particularly in today's globalized society. I have noticed that many of the largest organizations do not appear to collaborate and often appear to work against each other (look at those fighting cancer, Stand Up to Cancer, The American Cancer Society, and even the Lance Armstrong Foundation/Livestrong do little to support one another, no less work together.) Clearly, this is one of the topics discussed in the book that needs to be transition into a “real-life” management technique sooner rather than later.
I also found it interesting that Bornstein and Davis argued that more organizations should be allowed to "die," if they are unsuccessful or others are accomplishing the same mission in a more effective and efficient manner. I think the idea of allowing this type of organization to die is foreign to many people.
I agree with Dan that more money should be put towards funding the missions of social entrepeneurs. Because in the end government alone cannot solve all of the problems in today's diverse, complex, and dynamic society.
ReplyDeleteMultiple actors must interact and collaborate to bring different perspectives in order to solve global issues such as poverty, malnutrition, etc. Therefore, it's important for government, social entreprenuers, non-profit organization, etc to collaborate and address the causes of social inequalities before we can look at other aspects. Social entrepreneurs are capable of making a social impact so why not utilize it?
Good observations Dan.I will say that the government no longer has the endless funds that it used to have,therefore SE may be more difficult in the future. One thing that I mentioned in class and will repeat is the need for evaluation of the goals and mission of SE organizations. Are they doing what they are supposed to be doing? Are their programs effective? How do we evaluate social outcomes etc. I hope this posts.
ReplyDeleteSocial Entrepreneurs truly is the future. There is already evidence of its influence on government. As noted by classmate Kristen, City Year is a prime example of this. It was founded in the late 80s. It produced phenomenal results to the point that it inspired former President Clinton to create a government program called AmeriCorps. The successes of Harlem Children's Zone and Teach For America have received plenty of acknowledgement from President Obama. However, only time can tell if the government replicates the nonprofits. But what is known for sure that social entrepreneurship will persevere regardless of politics.
ReplyDelete