Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Shift Away from Govenment As Source of Change

David Bornstein, author on social change and social entrepreneurship
The article below "The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur" touches an important paradigm shift: movement away from dependency on government as a vehicle for social change. Western governments, from being firmly entrenched in the status quo and dominated mostly by the rule of large, established political parties, have become a source of rigidity rather than productive, innovative change. Individuals and groups in western society now increasingly turn to themselves and each other for meaningful and necessary change, including sources of ideas. To illustrate, the 2012 FDA American electoral fairness audit measured clear bias in the American electoral system to special and minority interests over the interests of the people as a whole. Consequently based on these measurements, the American system via the political establishment itself is incapable of revolutionary social change because it is beholden and tied to special and minority interests. The American civil rights movement, as an example, stemmed not from politicians wanting to do the right thing, but from Americans like Dr. King and other social entrepreneurs creating the change themselves.

Overall, this pattern of independence from governments supports a reduction in the size of governments, and reform in the way government operates and the way politicians are elected. In the case of the United States, there are obvious and necessary reforms in electoral finance and media legislation that are quietly ignored by the Republican and Democratic political establishments. One way forward is for social entrepreneurs to connect with the common person and through mass support encourage and bring about reform and change.






Mr. Stephen Garvey, Foundation for Democratic Advancement Executive Director








Commentary:

Excerpts from The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur
By David Bornstein (Source: NY Times)

...."Individuals with great ideas can often accomplish what government or large organizations can’t."

Today, I’m focusing on a key innovation that underlies much of these gains: the recognition of the role played by entrepreneurs in advancing positive social changes. I don’t mean businesspeople solving social ills, but people spreading new approaches — through nonprofits and businesses, or within government — to address problems more successfully than in the past

At times, it can be hard to believe that progress is happening. Most of our news focuses on problems, not creative responses to them. Moreover, in the wake of the presidential campaign, we are acutely aware of the bitter divisions that hamstring efforts to work together

But the rhetoric of a political campaign is misleading. It makes us think we have to choose between government and business — as if those are the only tools in the box. We don’t. One of the most interesting stories in social change today is how much creative problem-solving is emerging from citizens scattered far and wide who are taking it upon themselves to fix things and who, in many cases, are outperforming traditional organizations or making systems work better. At Fixes, we’ve reported on dozens of creative efforts in education, health care, vocational training, prison reform, foster care — many of which have been initiated by citizens.

Is this something new? And, if so, why is it happening?

There have always been people who build organizations that demonstrate new possibilities and spark change. In business, they were given the name “entrepreneurs” some 200 years ago. As their role came to be understood, societies instituted a wide array of supports to help them — legal innovations like limited liability and joint stock ownership, financial innovations like I.P.O.’s, bonds and venture capital, and intellectual innovations like management consulting and business schools.

In the social sector, until recently, we called their counterparts — people like Dorothea Dix, Gifford Pinchot or Asa Philip Randolph — humanitarians or revolutionaries. It’s only in the past 30 years — and primarily in the past 10 — as the number of social entrepreneurs has multiplied, that we’ve come to appreciate their role in social change — and begun to study their methods.

What happened to spark these changes around the world

Over the past generation — because of historic shifts like the women’s movement, the spread of political freedoms and access to education, and the growth of middle classes in many developing countries — the world has seen a marked increase in the number of people who have the capacity to be change-makers.

At the same time, because of the pace of change and the information revolution, more people are aware that institutions — especially governments and businesses — are failing to address big problems in the environment, the economy and education. As Peter Drucker, the management expert, has written: “In a world buffeted by change, faced daily with new threats to survival, the only way to conserve is by innovating

.... Bill Drayton, the founder of Ashoka, the global network of social entrepreneurs, says that this is the vision we should set our sights on if we hope to keep up with the need for ever faster responses to an ever growing array of problems (pdf).

It represents a radical departure from a world in which, for millenniums, tiny minorities of elites have been telling most everyone else what to do

It was almost three decades ago when Drayton began identifying the proliferation of self-appointed change agents in places like India, Indonesia and Brazil. What was different about them, he saw, was that they were moving beyond traditional political engagement and activism to building organizations that could implement solutions and spread them: new educational methods, new poverty alleviation tools (like the Grameen Bank), new ways of protecting the environment. Those who were successful often managed to change government policies and standard practices in their fields — much like the organization City Year inspired the federal government’s national service program, AmeriCorps.

Since then, social entrepreneurship has established itself as a global field, and the term has gained widespread usage, particularly in the past decade. (A Nexis search for “social entrepreneur” yielded 389 English news stories in 2001 and more than 3,000 in 2011.) In 2002, there were only a handful of courses on the subject, reports Debbi D. Brock, author of a handbook for educators. In 2008, she found 350 professors or researchers focusing on the topic in more than 35 countries. Social entrepreneurship clubs or conferences have become popular on many campuses. As was the case with business, new financing mechanisms are being developed for this version of entrepreneurship. Governments are taking steps to harness citizen-led innovations. Much of this activity is less than five years old.

With the new attention has come confusion about what social entrepreneurs do, however. One problem stems from the word “entrepreneur,” which, to many, is synonymous with “businessperson,” and therefore implies that social entrepreneurs simply redeploy business skills and tools to build enterprises to solve social problems. However, some of those who track this work most closely say that the greatest strength of social entrepreneurs isn’t in the way they build ventures to deliver products or services, but in the way they connect people in new configurations and, in so doing, help people work together more effectively, influencing their career or life pathways Social entrepreneurs excel at togetherness,” says Sally Osberg, president and chief executive of the Skoll Foundation. For a long time, Osberg said, she viewed social entrepreneurs as “individual actors” whose ideas led to the “creative destruction” necessary to “replace a societal status quo” with systems that were more just. “But over recent years,” she added, “I’ve come to see how the ‘social’ that characterizes their purpose also characterizes their way of working. In other words, social entrepreneurs don’t just pursue a social end, they pursue that end in a fundamentally communal way.” This approach is badly needed at a time of extreme factionalism, she adds: “Regardless of whether you call it teamwork, collaboration or consensus-building, we need it, and we need it now.”

Cheryl Dorsey, president of Echoing Green, which supports early stage social entrepreneurs, made a similar observation: “Social entrepreneurship has captured the attention of many because of its inherently hopeful message, a message of individual engagement and efficacy.” While the “narrative lends itself to heroics and hagiography,” she added, “underneath it all is a clear-eyed understanding that the job of the social entrepreneur is large-scale enrollment,” the enrollment of many people and organizations in addressing problems in new ways.

.... “Every social entrepreneur is a mass recruiter and facilitator of local change-makers,” says Drayton. “Because they are role models, other people say, ‘If they can do that, maybe I can do something like it, too,’ and most of the time the way they get their work done is to create a movement

Today, as problems have grown increasingly complex, a big question is how can we reorganize the problem-solving work of society so it is more responsive to needs. Three generations ago, the federal government could address many forms of injustice through legislation — mandating a 40-hour workweek, instituting a minimum wage, establishing housing codes. Today, our societal challenges — in education, health, or the environment — demand innovation from many directions...


Question for Readers:

How far will social entrepreneurs go in replacing traditional forms of government?

No comments:

Leave a Comment

Thank you for sharing your perspective.