This is a great question, and whatever is learned should be saved in some webliography where it becomes a body of knowledge others can draw from.

I know Social Edge discussions are archived, so any responses that are posted will be available to future users. However, if anyone has a web site devoted to this type of information, I hope you'll share the link with the group, and that you'll add any new information this conversation discovers to your own library.

In the groups at http://tutormentorconnection.ning.com/groups one group is from Africa. If you browse the comments and links posted, you'll see evidence of some organizations innovating social benefits to youth in Africa.

On the Ned.com site, David Bale has been building a valuable list of non profits working in developing countries. I'm sure some of these would be non "Anglo Saxon" but I've not reviewed the list myself. Here's the link: http://www.ned.com/group/wwc/ws/nonprofitslist/#list-of-non-profits-charities-ngos-and-community-based-organisations-actively-operating-in-developing-countries

Daniel

Thanks for the reply and for the info--I will definitely look at the sites you recommend. We have a site called ClerlySo, which is primarily an online markeplace for social business, enterprise and investment. We have a blogs page with links to others as well--it is at: http://www.clearlyso.com/blogs.jsf. Also, you might find the recomemnded reading list at http://www.clearlyso.com/recommended-reading.jsf to be orthwhile.

We did this as we could not find one like it out there. Many are of course Anglo--Saxon, far too many in fact, I have heard about, in Europe, the EMES (Emergence de L'Economie Socliale) but the website is still under construction. Anybody with other ideas, please let me know

regards, rod

Aloha Rod,

Oh my…you’ve opened up a can of worms with this one. Will be interesting to see if it attracts anyone and, if so, what the discussion will be like. Anyway, for an opener…

…while language itself can effect one’s mindset in ways which inhibit innovation, that may be only a minor aspect of a larger problem. How do you even conceive of doing the kind of work Social Edge discusses in cultures where words like growth, progress, entrepreneurship, enterprise and finance, tho they may possibly translate, have no underlying substantive meaning or value? Watch, for example:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/wade_davis_on_endangered_cultures.html

Does this discussion still make sense, or does it need to be reframed? If reframed, how?

m

Mike

Thanks very much for your reply I am as amazed as you are about the level of response--and grateful, and a bit relieved! It does seem to be an issue people care about, but you are right, it is a can of worms.

You are right on the point that how we use words will differ dramatically Its one of the reasons I am keen for people of different nationalities to get involved in the debate If it means we have difficulty understanding each other than thats just as well--better to have the discussion than not I am just a bit bored hearing only voices like mine!

Thanks for the TED link will certainly listen to it

regards, rod

Yes!! I'm glad that the topic has been broached. There is a disproportion in the current diversity of voices in Social Entrepreneurship (i.e. at the Skoll World Forum). This is a detriment to a field that is hungry for new ideas and that recognizes that true social innovations come from the humility of those with power or the empowerment of those from humble backgrounds. With this understanding, it is foolish to ignore existing power dynamics created by colonialist Anglo-Saxons generations ago, that still manifest today. Instead, we must seize the opportunity to redefine these social and political infrastructures - much like the "banker to the poor" - by maximizing the diversity of the people in the conversation.

As Rod suggests, this existing disparity may be due to a lack of activity from non-Anglo-Saxon people, to not knowing where to look, or to language barriers. I think that all three reasons are valid. Language is not THE major barrier, but rather the lack of cultural mixing inherent in our systems of employment, socializing and education. The challenge is to create as much of this mixing in the general population so that more social innovators have their "voices" included in this conversation.

Suggestion: What if the 2010 Skoll World Forum lowered the barrier to participation by featuring facilitated small-group video-conferencing discussions? For example, a conference "registrant" would dial-in to a topic-based discussion between 4-6 people (all remotely dialing-in). An official conference-wide facilitator could interrupt every 5-min or so to help keep conversation focused..."If your group hasn't yet moved to discussion towards a group resolution, please do so now." While not a catch-all solution, this might at least lower the barrier for many non-Anglo-Saxons that lack resources or might be new to the field, and provide for the more immediate diversity that the Skoll World Forum should be looking for!

Dear Marcel

Thanks very much for your reply

Things are, as you say, out of proportion, and we must redress the balance--your suggestion to mix people up a bit more is excellent and cuts right to the heart of my initial post. Language is a factor but here the ubiquity of English is useful. I only would prefer to hear a greater variety of "voices" whatever the language!

An excellent suggestion regarding the Skoll World Forum It is highly Anglo-Saxon and particularly American, but this has been improving over the years, I think Your suggestion is intereting--I have another Skoll World Forum could allow simultaneous meetings in many countries, with people feeding in (by Twitter) to sessions all over the world on the same subject simultaneously This would be fascinating and also allow more to attend the SWF which is essentially closed to many excellent people A tribute to its success but.......

regards, rod

I found really tempting this article. Being a Colombian I guess that I'm not included in the Anglo-Saxon definition, however I like to think of myself as somebody that someday could be considered a social entrepreneur.

To answer the question, I don't really think that the majority of social entrepreneurs are from US or UK, contrary to this I think that the truly social entrepreneurs come from countries in development like mine. Why there aren't shown in the numbers? why can't you count them? see them?, because for them be an social entrepreneur isn't a hobby (like many times I've found in US), they make it because their life is a surviving situation. They aren't looking to clean their soul by helping somebody else, they need to change their local reality, because if they don't do it, they couldn't survive.

That's the big difference, people in US and UK want to be nice, they want to help the starving kid that the media show them, they want to be more green because they like it. What I've found is that people in here are looking for problems to solve. In our countries the problems looks us.

I'm living in US in this moment because I came to study. I love the social entrepreneurism but doesn't consider myself worty of being called a social entrepreneur. However I've been working for it for more than six years now (http://www.duto.org) and I have had the opportunity to participate in some events of social entreneurism. And my conclusion is this: the true social entrepreneurs are ghosts that never claim the glory for themselves, that work for their goal like if their lives depend on it (because acutally, it depends on it). They don't work to be counted, you don't find them in the congresses, seminars and forums. They don't read literature about social entrepreneurism, they don't study for it..... They just are social entrepreneurs, because they need to be it, they life for it and by it.

If this doesn't nail it, I don't know what does!

"That's the big difference, people in US and UK want to be nice, they want to help the starving kid that the media show them, they want to be more green because they like it. What I've found is that people in here are looking for problems to solve. In our countries the problems looks us."

AND

..."the true social entrepreneurs are ghosts that never claim the glory for themselves, that work for their goal like if their lives depend on it (because acutally, it depends on it). They don't work to be counted, you don't find them in the congresses, seminars and forums. They don't read literature about social entrepreneurism, they don't study for it..... They just are social entrepreneurs, because they need to be it, they life for it and by it."

This is the crux of the problem exactly, in my opinion. So, now, how do we go about equipping these people? How do we support them? How do we give them a voice?

Dear Leanne

Thanks for your comment and excessively kind words We give these folks a voice when people like us, like me, make sure to include them!

regards, rod

John

Thanks for your comment

Your point is vital and touches on exactly what I am saying In your country, social entrepreneurship is a must have In Anglosaxonia, it has been a nice to have, something cool and trendy to be part of--this raises two points:

1) i think our discussion benefits from your perspective, so thanks for sharing it 2) maybe the need for soc ent will soar in the US and UK given the extent to which we have ruined our goivernmental budgets

and you are right, probably about another thing the great social entreps probably do not have the time to write about it--well, I guess that's me done!

thank you rod

As one who is working to level the playing field re. access to training and innovation in the non-profit sector, I can tell you that I've yet to see an Anglo-Saxon willing to take "second chair". The only organizations I know of that comes close to this is FORGE, Action Aid International and The Stromme Foundation.

Unfortunately, for all our work toward affecting change and empowering others, I still see the clinging to of self-promotion/preservation. How great it will be when we Anglo-Saxon's actually invest ourselves in equipping others and then stand back and watch them shine.

I fear we are too fearful. We simply cannot fathom not being the "leaders" or allowing others ALL the seats at the table while we relegate ourselves to the side-lines to await THEIR lead/direction.

Leanne

Ah.......now we are getting to the crux of it It does feel like we (me, let's say) Anglo-Saxons have become very accustomed to leading, as you say This has been our world and our era At conferences we tend to dominate (unsurprisingly, as they are normally in English) and we always sound so clever (OK, some of us, sometimes?)

My contention is that we talk too much! We need to do a better job of listening This is especially true as the world ahead is unlikely to be "ours" We had our era, now we enter a global one Let Social Entrepreneurs lead the way!

Regards, rod

I've come to find tgat even 'second chair' is too good of a seat and view that many 'anglo-saxons (not just exclusive to men) to give away. Look at the nature of giving in the U.S. and who makes those decisions? I will use my city as an example.

Millions are raised for the United Way but it is the epitome of a traditional organizations that is not addressing the real elements that produce and keep socioeconomic dysfunction alive and well. The largest companies (all headed up by A-S) have diversity/heritage panels that they give a few thousand dollars to divy up between all the minority organizations in the city. Then you have those minorities who work for the company and are in a position to help their organizations, so at best they seek to get the limited support for event being held by a group they belong to, have friends that belong to; and most of these are for scholarships or banquet tables at a onece-a-year event.

To really make a difference, there needs to be support of the so-called 'grassroot organizations' that have programming to address the elements, all year round. Anything less is more of an ego building to see ones company name on the program or to give the few African Americans that work for the company a chance to be seen as 'important' when they deliver the scholarship sponsored by their company. After watching over 15 years of this action I conclude Black kids in my city don't lack access of financial help for college, but they do not have access to the type of programs that can keep a majority of them from dropping out of high school, being involved with the juvenile justice system, and having children out of wedlock. The very agencies that do get the contributions are those that do not create and/or promote workforce training in a place where element number 1 is high unemployment!

In small circles we talk about those who want to be seen as leaders, but are misleading the money they can direct to the wrong initiatives, organizations and programs. How many food pantries, clothing banks, alcohol/drug counselors can you fund until you realize many could be moved ahead with just giving them 1) a skill that can lead to gainful employment and 2) a job using a skill they feel is meaningful. In my city Black unemployment has remained over 14 percent for the last eight years. No one said a word (the 'leaders') because the only news publicized is that unemployment for the state was around 5/6 percent and around 5 percent for our city. Low numbers; no need for alarm. Now with unemployment at close to 8 percent in our city and 9 percent in our state the alarm, bells and everything else has gone off and legislation can be crafted and passed in a week. Unfortunately, not to address the elements; but to give more money to the traditional agencies so they can effectively handle more that fall into the ranks of 'poor'.

Companies shouldn't give because they want to be seen as a big giver, they should seek to direct their giving where it can do the most good for those at most in need, to agency programs that have an innate ability to succeed. People should not give simply because they have friends in a group and people (all people) really need to re-examine their own reasons for giving and see if they can give outside the box for awhile to really address a number that can be gauged; like unemployment and drop-out rates for targeted populations. There is no reason some elements that got a people in the position they find themselves should exist in the United States, in this 21st century. We see the sign-on bonuses for rappers and athletes and ask ourselves is this what we want to show as our legacy to making the world a better place? The exorbiant wages paid out to the many executives, that spend more on lavish yachts, cars and numerous homes has clouded many to the real opportunity missed to change the world with their riches they have gained in life.

The litmus test of who receives what, when and how has not changed, but the problems left unabated has grown into a bigger problems than they needed to be.

*this is not to say that the United Way and their member agencies are not good agencies to support, but when we do the math, it baffles the mind that that much annual giving leaves in its wake a worse problem on the local level than necessary.

I look forward to your comments, thoughts and suggestions.

What a lovely conversation to be part of!

As an African social entrepreneur, this one got my attention. We get straight into the real core of this issue: inclusion, dominance, and real representation.

Where does dominance show itself? Representation in a conversation is always skewed to the people who: a) speak the language of the conversation b) who are(physically or virtually)there! c) who are not occupied elsewhere, with day-to-day survival and priority actions.

I have been thinking of the sensitive issue of inclusion and exclusion, and want to note my own experiences in this element:

Those "included" always seem to have that conversation with each other, about the people not there - (for example like a teacher who discusses witht the present learners, about the absentees, whose lack of presence is then remarked on, found a cause for their absenteeism, and then they are analysed, judged, and sentenced in absentia!)

Same thing applies to any group who are there to discuss/help others. Groups of men who discuss women's issues, without their presence, input or reflection. Adults who make content for children - without their involvement. Northern countries who "help" southern, developing countries, decide on the problem, its cause, the aid package and rate of repayment, and they monitor the project, its effects, failures or successes and report this bck to themselves with no nod in the direction of the real problem, or a workable solution in that community.

Here we are, online, in English, and in a field where it is easy to fall into the "Charitable trap" - "helping" the people who are absent, with no real understanding of the true effect of the exclusion of the correct people from the conversation. This is where charities make themselves, as the power group, into a structure that is inaccessible to the "victim" or receiver of charity. (Imagine if the chairlady of the charitable trust were also a victim of domestic abuse - unthinkable!) Yet in reality, the giver and the receiver have more in common than you would think. And it is better when there is no power divide that keeps the two groups theoretically apart from each other. There is no uninvolved observer!

I have been in many situations where there are two worlds, unconnected from each other. In one group during apartheid, that was literally, intentionally disconnected from other groups. I have been the minority in a large group, where I do not share the language, the culture, where i am the "other". I have also played "teacher". (It is useful to be aware of the power role you have in any conversation).

Many of us have daily experience of the unconnected world, on the other side of the divide - where social entrepreneurship is still the daily activity of people and organisations who are unrepresented by this conversation. They may not even use the label "social entrepreneur". They certainly spend more time un-web-connected than in the forums referred to. But they may well be doing innovative work, and finding innovative solutions to funding models, and living a life that would be considered key and startling to the anglo-saxon convesations about social entrepreneurship.

These are the old issues of power, dominance and exclusion. Those in power talk to each other, and exlude the "victims" "grantees" "users" and the otherwise dis-enfranchised. And by their choice of language, of location, of issue, they have defined the result they will get. They have not acknowledged the set up they have made, and cannot see how they have enlarged the divides they measure.

Many other "bridges" are needed to connect the unconnected, to give voice to the voiceless, and represent the unrepresented. In attitude - if you see yourself as other to the group you are "helping" you will do the wrong thing. In knowledge - you will neek to seek to understand, not to be understood. To speak the other language! In skill - you will need to be skillful in the methods, context and content of the "other". You must construct bridges over the divides.

Bridges means making access a real thing, not a token. It is the humility to know that there may be other answers, there may be other questions, there may be other places, languages and contexts that are not understood by those with the most power.

How to make bridges between these worlds? First, shed the assumption that your words define the thing itself. You may call it social entreprenuership, but not everyone does. Your may speak English (well noted!!) but not everyone does. You may be in a "room" that others cant access! So your conversation is limited.

Then, understand access from the point that you really want to be in the experiences of the person you are wishing to include. No token inclusion. This is the unconfortable thing (for the perosn usually in control and speaking) of bringing the "other" into the room, not for the purpose of speaking to them, but listeningto them. Even going into the rooms where th "other" usually is. Being. Understanding that all your powerful knowledge is as nothing if you cannot hear them.

As a minority of a minority, who has been in positions of both power and total exclusion, the issues you touch are emotive, and the start of a real conversation. Not the conversation you may have started, because, when you truly open a conversation, you do not determine the topic, or the conclusions you may reach.

Progress for who? Real change changes the observer and the subject, and progress may need to measure your own shifts too.

What if you did not look for representation by the tokens in your conversation, but sought to be a listener, an observer, a bridge builder who wants to be in "their" world, as much as you want some of "them" in yours... When we find ourselves in others, we are really conversing.

Thank you!

Ingrid Bruynse South Africa.

Ingrid,

This statement of yours, in particular, just really stands out as one I would like to see embraced.

"Bridges means making access a real thing, not a token. It is the humility to know that there may be other answers, there may be other questions, there may be other places, languages and contexts that are not understood by those with the most power."

Thank you for sharing this!

Wow, what a reply!

With such high quality comment like that it is makes my job of replying very difficult. Your points are excellent, insightful and profound--I wish I had made them myself! There is little to add.

Your ability to link "exclusion", "the charity trap" and education as part of the same theme is remarkable and very interesting. It reminded me of the book "The White Man's Burden" by William Easterly, who disects our approach to international aid brilliantly. We did a post on our blog last year, see: http://www.clearlyso.com/sbblog/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=88

Lastly, let me just be clear on one thing--which applies to other comments as well. I am unabashedly critical of the current setup where the English speaking, or Anglo-Saxon world appears to be lecturing as opposed to listening, or conversing and sharing. When I speak about there only being Anglo-Saxon innovation, I am being sarcastic--of course, this is not what I think. That's my point.

Regards, rod

ENGLISH
Completely agree with the post by the person from Colombia studying in the U.S. and with Ingrid's post. Just to emphasize one aspect of access: I assume that, since the Skoll *World* Forum is in the UK, the forum's language is English. I'm Mexican and I just happen to speak English, but working in Mexico with Spanish-speaking people from Mexico and Latin America, I know that most social entrepeneurs, especially those the first post I make a reference to talks about, will most likely not speak English and, therefore, will most likely be automatically excluded from participating in the forum.
Excellent article that invites introspection. Thank you.

ESPAÑOL
Estoy en completo acuerdo con la participación de la persona de Colombia que estudia en E.U. y con la participación de Ingrid. Sólo para enfatizar un aspecto del acceso: Supongo que, ya que el Skoll *World* Forum es en Reino Unido, el idioma del foro es el inglés. Soy mexicano y por casualidad hablo inglés pero, trabajando en México con gente de habla hispana de México y América Latina, sé que la mayoría de los emprendedores sociales, y especialmente aquellos a los que se refiere la participación de la persona de Colombia, seguramente no hablarán inglés y, por lo tanto, seguramente estarán automáticamente excluidos de participar en el foro.
Excelente artículo que invita a la reflexión. Gracias.

I feel the most interesting and one of the largest projects in social entrepreneurship are the Gaviotas and Marandua projects in Colombia, South America. Gaviotans have planted millions of pine trees (Pinus caribaea), under which an indigenous rainforest has regenerated spontaneously. In addition, Gaviotans have invented 50% of the technology listed by the United Nations' "Appropriate Technologies" list.

See http://www.la-tc.com/.web/Entusiasmo/Files/TheVillage.htm

Also see “The village that could save the planet” at http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/26/technology/village_saving_planet.biz2/index2.htm

and the UNEP and Club of Rome report at http://www.zeri.org/Report_from_Las_Gaviotas_October_20064.pdf

Paul Thanks for your comment and for your links regards, rod

Rod, Other above have mentioned those disenfranchised in the developing world. It's certainly true that the greatest attention, the news and publicity goes to the Anglo-Saxon foundations but it's also possible to be Anglo-Saxon and disenfranchised.

This point was made by my colleague and founder when he fasted as a homeless man for economic rights in the US, from a tent in Chapel Hill, in the winter of 2003. My Meet John Doe pastiche delivered to ABC News failed to make a mark because it drew attention to disenfranchised Americans, which would not have been palatable to wealthy ABC sponsors.

His pitch to Clinton had been a critique of traditional Western or Anglo-Saxon capitalism, with a proposal for a business model serving social purpose as an alternative. Shortly after he became homeless but eventually found himself in Russia, leveraging funding for a development initiative and microfinance bank, one based on Eastern principles of moral collateral lending, as pioneered by Grameen. It came right behind the collapse of traditional capitalism preceded by intervention led by the foremost American business school.

We brought the concept to the UK in 2004 to establish the profit for social purpose model as a UK guarantee company, soon to be rejected as a return visitor due to his being disenfranchised and thus considered a potential economic migrant.

The concept continued nevertheless, as successful ideas tend to. Meanwhile he was in Ukraine immersing in local social issues to eventually produce reports in two languages involving locals who wanted their own social change. As one result, we now have a USAID foundation engaging to promote CSR with local corporations and supporting sustainable community enterprise (by native residents). This was the very essence of the concept, to get locals engaged in social enterprise, by conviction from within rather than external imposition.

What transfers from traditional capitalism to social enterprise, in my experience of the UK, is exclusion. Businessmen and politicians want their brand on it, refusing to collaborate and dismissing the efforts of those previously encouraged to "be the change".

For illustration let me offer the example of our International Business Leaders Forum, an advocacy funded by traditional capitalists who ask for "new models of engagement", advocate collaboration with social enterprise and engagement with human rights issues. They have had responses from me on each of the above, based upon what we've been doing over a decade - yet all are disregarded.

As illustrated by my experience with ABC News, traditional capitalism owns mass media and will paint itself into a leadership role. As a result we get tokenism and the real problems, those where locals struggle against mafia organisations which establish themselves in the absence of law enforcement, democratic governance and human rights, are far more challenging than do-good business is prepared to contemplate.

When businessmen and politicians are on one hand engaging with asset rendering oligarchs and at the same time claiming to help those disenfranchised by what is done by the other hand, it's only self-deception. This transcends into obscenity when those disenfranchised ans most vulnerable are rendered into child-sized graves, due to there being no resources to provide their needs.

Finally, as evidence of disenfranchisement I offer one local man's efforts to save a child disowned by a system which treats the vulnerable as a cash crop, for business. I offer a picture of his resting place, ready dug for him and others and ask why Anglo-Saxon business has been so helpful in efforts of denial.

http://www.deti.zp.ua/eng/show_article.php?a_id=5219

http://www.deti.zp.ua/eng/show_article.php?a_id=5218

Jeff

Jeff Thanks as ever for your thorough and considered reply Regards, rod

Thanks to all of you for your many comments--I am utterly overwhelmed. The technology has also overwhelmed me as I have taken quite awhile to log on. It seems there is some "password" trouble on the site. Allow me to address comments in the order in which they appear on the site. I pormise to reply to everyone in due course.

Daniel

Thanks for the reply and for the info--I will definitely look at the sites you recommend. We have a site called ClerlySo, which is primarily an online markeplace for social business, enterprise and investment. We have a blogs page with links to others as well--it is at: http://www.clearlyso.com/blogs.jsf. Also, you might find the recomemnded reading list at http://www.clearlyso.com/recommended-reading.jsf to be orthwhile.

We did this as we could not find one like it out there. Many are of course Anglo--Saxon, far too many in fact, I have heard about, in Europe, the EMES (Emergence de L'Economie Socliale) but the website is still under construction. Anybody with other ideas, please let me know

regards, rod

Before I start, I should say that my last post has a typo For the EMES, "S" stands for Sociale--sorry

Mike

Thanks very much for your reply I am as amazed as you are about the level of response--and grateful, and a bit relieved! It does seem to be an issue people care about, but you are right, it is a can of worms.

You are right on the point that how we use words will differ dramatically Its one of the reasons I am keen for people of different nationalities to get involved in the debate If it means we have difficulty understanding each other than thats just as well--better to have the discussion than not I am just a bit bored hearing only voices like mine!

Thanks for the TED link will certainly listen to it

regards, rod

Dear Marcel

Thanks very much for your reply

Things are, as you say, out of proportion, and we must redress the balance--your suggestion to mix people up a bit more is excellent and cuts right to the heart of my initial post. Language is a factor but here the ubiquity of English is useful. I only would prefer to hear a greater variety of "voices" whatever the language!

An excellent suggestion regarding the Skoll World Forum It is highly Anglo-Saxon and particularly American, but this has been improving over the years, I think Your suggestion is intereting--I have another Skoll World Forum could allow simultaneous meetings in many countries, with people feeding in (by Twitter) to sessions all over the world on the same subject simultaneously This would be fascinating and also allow more to attend the SWF which is essentially closed to many excellent people A tribute to its success but.......

regards, rod

for those who want to contact me separately and "take it offline"

regards, rod

Hi Rod - great to see you hosting a discussion on here, and raising a real issue with some substance to it. It's interesting on a number of levels for SSE. Firstly, because we've long argued for a more diverse, empowering version of social entrepreneurship. Just the fact that John from Colombia believes that social entrepreneurs in the UK and US are people who want "to do nice things" demonstrates how the perception has grown. But SSE works to support long-term unemployed, refugees, diverse individuals in the most deprived communities in the UK to become social entrepreneurs (who, as John puts it, know the problems, because they suffer it directly, or are embedded in it). Social entrepreneurship should be about transforming "beneficiaries" into leaders, not a flow of solutions from rich at poor.

Secondly, SSE has a proven model in the UK, and we are replicating internationally. I hope that our franchise model will allow us to learn from overseas as well as vice versa (certainly that has been the case in the UK, where an innovation from our Liverpool or Fife SSE has now become established practice), and it will be interesting to see how our international pilots pan out.

Thirdly, though, we have had tremendous interest from overseas in our model....and not just from Australia, Canada and the US, but from Finland, Poland, Ghana, India, China, Korea (lots) and Japan. There are good initiatives in those countries already (see ETIC in Japan, for example, or FISE in Poland), and our models will only be useful where they can add value, or can be tailored and owned locally. But we also can't let neo-colonial guilt get in the way of, say, giving 1500 Indian social entrepreneurs the opportunity to get support to be more effective, confident and networked; I think.

But we do need to go in with an open mind, and in the spirit of dialogue and conversation and learning, rather than "we know it all". Given recent economic events, the developed world quite evidently doesn't.

Nick, I found your reference to franchising the model rather interesting. It's something our foundr made a conscious decision not to do when releasing the P-CED model as free to use on the web. That was intended to seed an idea virus of business with social purpose.

Later as we discovered in specific application through business plan, notably the proposal for Crimean Tatars, it proved a wise precaution in defending our efforts from predatory business interests. When corrupt influences attempted to hijack the project, they were fended off by means of the project copyright. The objective was to empower thousands of Tatars to build social enterprises.

There's (in my view) a rather interesting interview on corruption in the field of social enterprise soon after we launched the model as a UK business.

http://www.iccrimea.org/scholarly/economicdev.html

Nick

Thanks for your comment and for elaborating on how the SSE breaks down some cultural and geographical barriers. Key will be how much you guys back at base learn from, and allow yourselves to learn from your franchisees, if i may call them that

regards, rod

Rod Thanks for launching and moderating this great discussion. I'm not going to dive into every angle and nuance of this subject, largely because I am still pre-coffee here in Austin TX. But I thought I'd mention one "low-hanging fruit" that is an old chestnut of mine: Why is the Skoll World Forum, the presumed epicenter of social entrepreneurship, held in Oxford every year? A truly grassroots social entrepreneur from, say, Kibera, Mumbai, or Caracas will have a near-impossible time affording the airfare, bus from LHR to Oxford, registration fees, and steep hotel prices that are the norm in Oxford. Maybe s/he won't even have heard about the forum. Bursaries and discounts only scratch the surface, leaving the majority of real social entrepreneurs out of the "club". Instead slots get filled by (fantastic and passionate) NGO professionals and Anglo-Saxon social entrepreneurs who can afford the price tag. Oxford makes an impressive and beautiful backdrop to SWF, but I believe that holding the forum there only reinforces the hegemony and shifts the conversation from practitioners to supporters and thinkers. (Both are valuable conversation to have.) What I'd love to see is a decentralized SWF (and similar conferences) that occurs globally and virtually. An SWF appearing in Mumbai, Vancouver, Cuzco, Calcutta, Bangkok, Canberra, and Maputo. And an academic and research node in Oxford.

The will of the crowd is already there - note the entirely Twitter-based #SWF09 that took place alongside the "real" conference, with social innovators at the conference and around the world participating spontaneously. If you didn't follow the Twitter feed, I can tell you people around the world expressed real thirst to share in what was being discussed and learned in Oxford.

I know a decentralized forum sounds more expensive, but there are cost savings to be had, too. Social entrepreneur conferences don't need fancy backdrops, delegate nametags, or canape receptions - that's not what social entrepreneurship looks like on the ground, anyway. And the cost of defining-by-default social entrepreneurship through the people and conversations that happen at SWF in Oxford will have its own kind of costs in the long run.

Thanks again for the conversation.

Jessica

I will break protocol and reply to you: 1) as an old friend 2) as you were willing to do this pre-coffe

I really like your idea so much about the SWF So much in fact that i made a similar proposal overnight in my reply to Marcel Tam you will see it below and above because it took me awhile to figure out that reply meant "reply"--bloody typical of me anyway, great minds....... Skoll World Forum--over to you!!

Jessica,

I'm about an hour away from Oxford and no more able to afford the visit to SWF than you, leat alone my overseas colleague who'd been unable even to return home at a time of bereavement.

Yet there was a virtual forum, perhaps not by design, which was accessible through the timetable of events shown here.

http://www.socialedge.org/features/skoll-world-forum

As you may deduce from one or two contributions I made, I was probably the only one who thought I'd joined a forum.

Jeff

Jeff it certainly is a forum I am enjoying it immensely and find that the discussion is of an exceptionally high quality--i am grateful to all the commentators for that regards, rod

Astonishingly arrogant to even suggest that the UK and US are the leading thinkers in social entrepreneurship. I agree with John, the real social entrepreneurs are too busy working and surviving to spend time talking about it.

Have we forgotten Prof Mohammed Yunus, a Bangladeshi and the father of microcredit, who looking out of his University office window at the slum below took $27 from his pocket and loaned it to the residents below.

What started as a great concept has several decades later turned into a huge industry. Then BRAC, the largest NGO in the world reaches an estimated 100 million people in Bangladesh, a country of 140 million people. Along with a further 45,000 registered NGOs there isn't a corner of the country that isn't touched by microcredit. With an estimated $2 billion outstanding in loans at the moment the sector is in desperate need of regulation to protect the poor. There are no claims of a shortage of inflows.

So what does the wise West do? Oh joy of ebay microfinance and kiva. They market it, they brand it, and they give their friends in the developed West a chance to satisfy their social consciences without leaving their computers.

Its at the grassroots where the great ideas come from. Its the anglo-saxons and anglo-saxon government donors who then take the ideas and play with them moulding them more to their own needs and then take them back to the originators with a fancy packaging telling them now this is what you really need..

Dear Samantha

I completely agree The reason I wrote this post was to alert people to what I thought was this spreading arrogance!

Congrats to what you (through Hathay Bunano) and Prof Yunus have done in Bangladesh It proves, as you say, that innovation takes place at the grass roots This is the very essence of what we are about with ClearlySo (www.clearlyso.com)

all the best, rod

Your characterization of the US as an Anglo-Saxon country is off the mark. In fact, by 2042 (and probably sooner), the US will be a majority people of color country. I am aware of several examples of social enterprises started and run by people of color in the U.S., one of which I am working to expand. Verde (www.verdenw.org) is a social enterprise designed and run by people of color to serve communities of color in Portland, Oregon.

Dear Tony

Thanks very much for your reply

You are absolutely right It is a conceit we Biritish have to bring the US into our "group" I should have called it "American and British Imperialism" In this way all Americans, including people of color, can be part of the "imperialism" Thanks for bringing Verde to our attention With a name like that, and with a base in Portland, Oregon, I am assuming you are of the "green" color :-)

Regards, rod

I think that opens up a whole new, valid conversation. I certainly recognize my Americaness as a factor in everything I do. And I think I'm often curious as to why I as a black-American am left out of the discussion of the greater problem of American paternalism. Usually I find that it's because people want want to support diversity within their country (in this case America) as well as throughout the world. It's tricky but we certainly won't get anywhere by ignoring the people who really want to be agents of change in the countries and continents of their ancestors.

Good point, Egret.

Jon

Thanks for that helpful and thoughtful comment It rather seems to me that as a black-American you have quite alot to contribute to discussion on American paternalism, for many obvious reasons and, of course, the fact that we all have some contribution to make (you should know I was borne in the USA--as the song goes--though I live in the UK now)

At ClearlySo we try to give voice to people from all over the world and support their innovations. Please have a look at http://www.clearlyso.com/blogs.jsf and check out the bottom of the page in particular

Regards, rod

I agree with the points you raise in the post, but I also really chafed at the term "Anglo-Saxon" being used to describe the US. Certainly if you used the term "Anglo" as in English-speaking (which is perhaps what you meant), that would have been correct. But as Tony notes, the majority of Americans are not Anglo-Saxon. Even among whites in the US, a large percentage are not Anglo-Saxon. The term has definite patrician connotations in the US that are not flattering nor descriptive of most of us.

Specifically created a login to respond to this ... It's quite illuminating reading comments in this discussion thread on a rather complex topic. Here are several observations from a non-western/non-Anglo-Saxon perspective:

1. As correctly pointed out, English is the common language (lingua franca) and hence any debate on this topic is limited to those who possess a command for the language (again as pointed out in previous threads this disenfranchises a majority of populace from the South region). However, as I note below, there are numerous "informal forums" which are not highlighted in mainstream media but are present in grassroots level. Therefore, ironically, the "learners" are active participants in their environment (and the "educators" are the passive subjects which brings me to ...

II. As noted in previous comments, there is a tendency to view through a prism the passive involvement of the "learner" (from developing countries) from the "educator" (industrialized nations) whereas, there are limitless heterogeneous perspectives from both ends. That said, I think there are astonishing resources and resourceful individuals in these other parts of the world that have been neglected to be mentioned. I was in Kenya recently and some of the creative ideas and startups by young Kenyans, in the face of insurmountable odds, is to be greatly admired. But these success stories rarely garner national or international attention.

Very few success stories capture western attention: Mohammed Yunus of Grameen Bank and Wangari Maathai of the Green Belt Movement - both Nobel laureates are some of the exceptions to the rule. For the vast silent majority, as aptly observed by John from Columbia in previous thread, entrepreneurism in its many forms is a mode of survival (cases of ordinary rural people making extraordinary achievements in remote villages in Uganda, or Rwanda or South Africa is astounding). David Bornstein's, "How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas," is one of the few publications that documents in specific detail social leadership emanating from non-Western countries:

(http://www.amazon.com/How-Change-World-Entrepreneurs-Updated/dp/0195334760/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241626250&sr=8-1

What I may clarify though to John's point is not that social entreprenuers in the western world are per se being, "nice" rather I'd postulate that its conscience and a need in to do and be better as a driving force. Altruism after all is another form of survival.

III. There is however a gradual tectonic shift happening. With the digital age revolution, younger generations in the south (and North) region have become savvy creators and consumers in a fast-evolving global culture. There's a pronounced change in the societal interaction within this millenium generation who are self-aware, deeply skeptical of established institutions & mediums and frown on anything that smacks of imperialism. They are ingeniously creating their own cultural mediums (and language); in the social enterprise field, the platform is a sponge for this conscientious generation who possess formidable talent and thrive in disruption.

I personally think that part of the solutions to some of the comments raised here lie with this generation

IV. Finally and possibly most significantly, learning, is and never, has been a one-way street; historically, even the most long-lived empire, ancient Rome, assimilated with other cultures. George Siemens, a professor at the University of Manitoba and an innovative thinker in ICT has this to say about learning and transference knowledge:

http://www.elearning-africa.com/newsportal/english/news139.php

This part especially gives me hope, if it is truly becoming reality:

"III. There is however a gradual tectonic shift happening. With the digital age revolution, younger generations in the south (and North) region have become savvy creators and consumers in a fast-evolving global culture. There's a pronounced change in the societal interaction within this millenium generation who are self-aware, deeply skeptical of established institutions & mediums and frown on anything that smacks of imperialism. They are ingeniously creating their own cultural mediums (and language); in the social enterprise field, the platform is a sponge for this conscientious generation who possess formidable talent and thrive in disruption."

My fear is that a new era of power-hungry politics will replace the old, and even a more education and "aware" general population will not shake this cycle. That's the pessimist in me though, and I certainly am hopeful at the same time that this new age of broader access to information will break down political/economic walls and allow the invisible (read: social entrepreneurs in non-anglo countries) to both be recognized and have their models scaled.

I would say that we try to empower social entrepreneurs at the Grameen Foundation, and as we think through new solutions for microfinance and technology, we always come back to the question of "Can this be sustained without our help". So whether an anglo social entrepreneur is motivated by guilt, inspiration, conscience, etc..., as long as they seek to create sustainable solutions that can be replicated, I think there is value to the effort. Perhaps even a non-scalable solution has a purpose as well, for the specific context, but if the intent is to have a larger impact.

Scott,

Thanks for your feedback. I'll elaborate on some of your comments:

Last year, the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame gave an eloquent, thoughtful lecture at MIT on science and technology in driving innovation (ICT4D) in Sub Sahara Africa (SSA); the Q&A session afterwards was particularly enlightening (see link)

http://techtv.mit.edu/tags/198-rwanda/videos/51-president-paul-kagame-of-rwanda---compton-lecture

With regard to "empowering the Grameen Foundation, I think you have this incorrectly ... the Grameen system is the standard in micro-enterprise/financing and has been emulated globally. If you haven't already, you may want to read "Banker to the Poor," by Prof. Mohammed Yunus.

As for the younger generation, I still do firmly believe that they are the seeds of change if the presidential US elections can be used as a corollary so please don't despair

from an African experience:

• Africaonline, the first African owned ISP founded by Kenyan entrepreneurs over a decade ago and acquired by Telkom, a South African network group, is one of many innovations: the Economist had a profile on one of the co-founders Ayisi Makatiani, an MIT graduate, couple of years ago. http://www.africaonline.com/
• Collaboration between academic institutions in the North and South region are exemplary of transference of knowledge and hence breaking down information and knowledge barriers & speeding up cultural exchanges and innovation. For example Harvard, MIT, Carnegie Mellon have myriad programs of exchanges and pilot studies and I imagine there are dozens of other public and private institutions from other parts of the world who collaborate and share knowledge. In MIT, for example there is an initiative called AITI founded by two Kenyan students that is building capacity and scaling in science and development in the local communities:

http://aiti.mit.edu/impact.html http://aiti.mit.edu/people.html

• In addition, the fastest growth in mobile technology is occurring in SSA - and there have been remarkable strides in some of the mobile marketing concepts spawned (including wiring currency through sms ... so to reiterate, solutions lie with the people who intrinsically understand their own problems:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d1218c8-3b35-11de-ba91-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ee4dd76-3676-11de-af40-00144feabdc0.html

cheers, Karen

Hi Karen,

Thank you for these links and your insight. I wanted to respond to a few of your points briefly:

“With regard to "empowering the Grameen Foundation, I think you have this incorrectly ... the Grameen system is the standard in micro-enterprise/financing and has been emulated globally. If you haven't already, you may want to read "Banker to the Poor," by Prof. Mohammed Yunus. “

I apologize for the confusion. I work at The Grameen Foundation, and my point was somewhat addressing what John Alexis Guerra Gómez had posted earlier about the intention of the social entrepreneur, whether they be Anglo or other. I agree with your statement about it being OK if the intention is altruistic, so long as the big picture and culturally specific needs of the intended social beneficiary are taken into account.

“Collaboration between academic institutions in the North and South region are exemplary of transference of knowledge and hence breaking down information and knowledge barriers & speeding up cultural exchanges and innovation. For example Harvard, MIT, Carnegie Mellon have myriad programs of exchanges and pilot studies and I imagine there are dozens of other public and private institutions from other parts of the world who collaborate and share knowledge. In MIT, for example there is an initiative called AITI founded by two Kenyan students that is building capacity and scaling in science and development in the local communities”

Yes, I am very excited about the innovation happening with ICT4D in general. We have been having good initial success with our Community Knowledge Workers Project in Uganda. You can read about the program here if you are not already familiar:

http://www.grameenfoundation.org/what_we_do/technology_programs/ict_innovation/ckw_project/

To this end, your statement “to reiterate, solutions lie with the people who intrinsically understand their own problems” couldn’t be more accurate. Thanks for stating it so eloquently in your initial post as well. :)

Scott,

I work in Uganda and I'm directly working with the CKW program with my project Questionbox.org and my company Appfrica. I think a lot of what's going on with the CKW program is great. It's an interesting intiative that finds local community leaders or volunteers and empowers them by making them the brokers of knowledge solutions like the one we're piloting with them through Applab. Why is this effective? Because rather than using a western voice as the proxy, they find the local people who are capable and willing to support their own communities. It's also something that people here on the ground really get behind because they feel like they can have a voice. It's also empowering to women. The two Ugandan women I deal with on a daily basis, both value their roles at Grameen as they do their role in their communities. Are there still Western voices involved, yes, I'm one of them, but at least Grameen is open to not always being the only people leading the discussion.

Jon

Thanks again for another comment Agree completely, we need to hear more diverse voices I have looked at Question Box and it seems really great Have taken the liberty of tweeting about it on @rodneyschwartz

Scott

Thanks very much for your comment I am less pessimistic than you and you would not be in this game anyway if you were a pessimist! You are doing great things at the Grameen Foundation! Keep it up

Regards, rod

Dear Karen

Thank you for your excellent commmentIt is incredibly kind of you to have said you signed up only as a result of this piece--makes me feel the whole exercise has served a very useful purpose!

I support fully your points in I+II above Mathai and Yunus are too rare, as exceptions As I pointed out to a prior commentator, we are trying to give a voice to more of these at http://www.clearlyso.com/blogs.jsf Check out, in particular, the bottom of the page

Thanks also for your link in point IV. I have already tweeted on it--have a look at @rodneyschwartz

Personally, I found your point in III most profound I think two gigantic chasms are developing The first is between the North and South Whereas in the past we (in the North) felt we had the right (or duty, according to some) to tell the South how to live, now, the South, backed up with a growing body of evidence, feels that the North maybe does not have that much to teach, or at least not as much as it thinks! Also, that given the North's recent performance, perhaps it should do leass preaching and more listening!

I think the second is between the young and the old (or course, here and above I am grotesquely over-generalizing). We old (I am 51) have been preaching for too long--we should shut up and listen more. Especially as we have done a very poor job in managing what has been bequeated to us by our ancestors--especially in the North! The young ar rightly angry at our-oversonsumption and our neglect of the planet.

I think we all have something to learn from each other!

Regards, rod

It's too bad this forum does not enable the use of graphics because we might find more ways of communicating ideas if we used pictures instead of words. I incorporate graphics and maps in my blog articles at http://tutormentor.blogspot.com/search/label/complex%20problems because I'm trying to communicate and idea and sometimes words don't do this well.

When we're talking about language and ideas, this is really important. There are innovators in all countries, and a few are very visible and the rest are at various degrees of isolation.

The challenge is helping those who don't have a voice to find ways to express their ideas in ways that others might find them, help them, or adopt their thinking to solve similar problems in different places. A bigger challenge is getting, and keeping, the attention of those who have wealth and power, so they use that wealth and power to help create a better world (what ever that means) for those who live with life-treatening challenges every day.

Dear Daniel

Thanks for another comment I quite agree--a picture is worth 1000 words and on YouTube, a video is worth a million

regards, rod

Appearances can be deceiving. In my experience, there are many other countries with very rich and diverse landscapes of social innovation. Brazil, India and Thailand come immediately to mind. But there are many others. Innovation looks different in societies with different cultures of philanthropy, more social stratification, lower education levels, weaker public systems, larger rural populations, stronger communal ties, different role of religion in daily life, and recent histories of conflict or foreign or authoritarian rule, etc. The comment about the US and UK leading the world doesn't really make sense when you pull back and take in a larger picture. It's like saying that the US & UK lead the world in music making.

Dear David

Thanks for your comment I think you are right--the comment about the US and the UK makes no sense, thats why I wrote the initial post You are correct to point out how differences in innovation match contexts

regards, rod

Great comment, David: I think the music metaphor is a great one.

One other thought is that it is more nuanced, also, than simply the country where something happens. It may also be about educational background and opportunities that affect who is recognised as a credible model.

Clearly Muhammad Yunus is a great example of an amazing social entrepreneur who devised a successful solution that's empowered and changed the lives of many. But he's also a Fulbright Fellow, attended Vanderbilt University, became a professor of economics at Tennessee, and worked for the Bangladeshi government...all before Grameen was established.

None of which takes away from his, and Grameen's achievements. But social entrepreneurship can also be a route for the type of women Grameen supports, for people who don't thrive in education, for people who don't have a relatively privileged backgrounds, for people who are suffering the problem themselves, for people who don't have access to networks of power etc. etc.

I think it's a connected issue to the debate here, in that it's about rich, well-educated delivering solutions to poorer, disadvantaged etc.

Agreed We always seem to agree Nick--worrying for you, i would say Regards, rod

I definitely think that you make a great and valid point about the "Anglo-Saxon domination" in the social entrepreneurship field. As to tapping into a "broader range of voices by nationality," I actually think that expanding knowledge and awareness about the field of SE on college campuses could be a great way to spread the word: college campuses, for the most part (although in UC systems such as my campus, UC Berkeley, Asians tend to be the majority of the student body) the student body is more diverse.

I also think that involving SEs or those interested in SE from developing and any other country, bringing them into our discussion (or us joining their discussion) about SE would be beneficial to everyone. I wonder if those with bilingual/multiple language skills could play a part in this? I think that there probably is a linguistic barrier for wider discussion about SE, but there ARE online language translators - could this be utilized? Or are online translators not reliable or too much of a hassle to use for communication for different languages? I have a feeling it's the language barrier and the lack of easy and effective translators and possibly even a lack of a social & discussion platform to do so that is creating the gap between English-speaking and non-English speaking individuals who are SEs or are interested in SE. But maybe there already is a platform like that out there that I may be unaware of?

I'm definitely going to check out the Ned.com site that Daniel Bassill mentioned in the comments. Maybe I'll find something there that'll change my outlook on this...

Dear Rosalind

Thanks very much for your kind words and suggestions You have cut right to the heart of an important debate In fact, it is one that has great pertinence for me right now because my son want to become a trilingual translator and I am wondering if he will be replaced by computers!

As of now I am not aware of a translator that captures nuance Even still, there is the key issue of context, which David Bornstein touched on above I therefore believe that (much to the relief of my son and I!!) that a person as translator will be essential for some time to come--and this can only be done effectively by someone who understands the different languages as well as the vital subleties. But even then, this is only an approximation--for how can even a gifted translator understand the breadth of human experience which gives such diverse interpretation of the same words, in the same context, in the same culture in the same language,--utterly impossible!! People are just too different

So we can never fully understand each other--but we can try--and certainly try harder than we do in "the west" or "north" I have mentioned above our "ClearlySo in... Blogs" which try to give different people who are experimenting with social entrepreneurship a voice (see http://www.clearlyso.com/blogs.jsf as we mention above). Social Edge is also a fantastic resource. But of course, we operate in English

Regards, rod

While I wasn't able to attend SWF, I had a similar observation at SoCap08 last year. I think this excerpt from my blog post after that conference might be relevant to this discussion:

On the final morning of SoCap, facilitator Jerry Michalski asked us to look around the room and think about our experience at the conference. As I did, I noticed something: I was sitting in a sea of white people, many of us seeking to “help” communities around the globe, very few of whom seemed to be represented in the room. Earlier that morning, I had posted a note to the blog from our Tanzanian partner, education innovator "Mama Lucy" Kamptoni, explaining her thoughts on poverty. She wrote:

“[Sometimes people] think that because Africans are living in poor countries, therefore they cannot think about themselves. They think that since they don’t have money, so they can’t be able to plan, implement, monitor and supervise anything even if given chance or supported. They should know that, even if a person/community is poor, the best way to help is to listen and give chance to the beneficiaries to know what really is their problem, and what they think is their priority. You may think they need good road first but their priority is school, hospital or water. If you’ll not give them chance, you’ll end up doing their last thing at first. Poverty cannot be eradicated by just the ideas of one side. Sharing ideas of both sides can help and bring changes easily.”

It was a profound disconnect for me…and she’s right: the communities we seek to transform absolutely must have the power to participate in (and hopefully even lead) the decision-making that impacts their lives. And yet, there we were, absent their input, at an incredibly exciting conference that would benefit “them”.

Let’s face it, the people who have the most power and who reap the most significant rewards in any marketplace are the investors and entrepreneurs in the market. They have the power to determine where funds will be invested and receive the lion’s share of the income from transactions. If that power and potential profit remains concentrated in wealthy white hands, I think we’ve missed at least part of the point.

If we are, as it seemed at that conference, in the early stages of developing a socially beneficial marketplace, the market makers must be diverse. If those with power in the marketplace remain a sea of white faces, we’ve missed a key opportunity to build a system that brings benefits - and equality - to people across the social & geographical spectrum.

In short, I believe people from many communities, and especially those who would be impacted by our efforts, deserve both a voice and access to the capital they need to transform their own communities - which is a key aspect of our mission at Epic Change (http://www.EpicChange.org). To Mama Lucy’s point, many times the best ideas for healing a community come from within - or at least in partnership with those whose lives are impacted by poverty, pollution, disease and other social ills. So, my challenge for SoCap09, SWF and other social entrepreneurship conferences - would be to find ways to give a voice to entrepreneurs & people with great ideas from communities we seek to impact, and to drive capital in their direction.

At the SoCap unconference, I led a discussion on the topic of inclusivity & diversity (perhaps not my primary area of expertise, but someone needed to say it). During the conversation, we came up with two ideas for ensuring that SoCap09 is more inclusive & diverse than this year’s event. Thanks to Sergio Almarza Alamos and Sergio Almarza Grez from Chile of RedAlmarza, Uganda-based Jon Gosier of Appfrica, Steve Vitka of Blacklight Ventures, Marianne Bellotti of the Small Hands Fund, Justin Bean of Sustainable Initiatives, and consultants Jennifer Carter-Scott and Marian Doub, who participated in this conversation and helped to develop these ideas.

• Pitches from Abroad: Either pre-recorded, fed live or held onsite, the opportunity for entrepreneurs from across the globe to share their ideas with an audience of potential collaborators and investors would be both incredibly interesting for the audience, and a rewarding experience for the presenter. To ensure non-native speakers of English, and those who may be unfamiliar with the art of pitching, could participate successfully, presentation preparation may need to be supported, so I’d recommend that entrepreneurs be paired with partners who have attended the conference previously, or who have some expertise in the field. (Regardless of ethnicity or background, social entrepreneurs like Mama Lucy - and me - could use mentorship and support in this regard.)
• Fellowships: SoCap organizers explained that the price was intentionally set high to ensure that only the highly-motivated would attend. While I think the decision was likely wise in many ways, the $1,195 price tag was quite high and, with travel costs for traveling from places like Africa, Asia and South America, and hotel, the cost would be absolutely prohibitive for social entrepreneurs and, especially, potential entrepreneurs from developing countries. I’d recommend that a fellowship, including, if possible, travel expenses, be offered. To fund it, paying participants could opt-in to give an additional $25 donation to cover the cost (or an additional fee could be baked into the conference price for paying participants, as their presence would certainly improve the overall conference experience), sponsors of future events could be required to donate to fund fellowships and hotel/travel partners could be sought to defray costs.

This year’s participants would likely have access to potential candidates in their networks for either opportunity. I know I do. Even though our partner and school founder, Mama Lucy (like many similar innovators across the globe) would never self-identify as a "social entrepreneur," she certainly is one. Perhaps the self-identification issue alone is part of the problem.

I’m sure there are many other brilliant ideas for ensuring a more diverse pool of participants in social entrepreneurship discussions and conferences - what are yours?

I really enjoyed reading the words of Mama Lucy, thanks for that Stacey!

Regarding brilliant ideas to ensure a diverse pool in future discussion, we have been brainstorming on how to bring the voices of the very poor (but very entrepreneurial) to the forefront in the microfinance and poverty eradication space.

The model needs to be thought through, but think for a second about how the blogosphere has evolved, and now social media in general. One's value and worth in the online world, regardless of the industry or space, is becoming almost entirely driven by peer review. The result of this is that individual voices are being heard in a way that would not have been possible before. So we are trying to tap into this paradigm and figure out a way to allow the entrepreneur in Uganda, who may not speak English, write/speak/blog/tweet their thoughts on various topics that are important to them, and then have those thoughts accessible to the world in a way that was simply not possible before.

I would love to hear more creative ideas on how this type of dialogue becomes more and more inclusive.

Stacey, thanks for recalling that discussion! Scott, I'm glad you're thinking about these things. From the perspective of people on the ground here, the type of communication we value aren't always the same in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. For instance, last week I recorded a podcast with my staff which you can listen to here http://appfrica.net/blog/archives/1774. Before we did this podcast one of my staff members asked me what we were doing and why. And I told her, "Because there are people all around the world interested in what we're doing here." She didn't believe me. In fact, despite the success of my blog and the interest my venture gets, they're often suspicious of me when I tell them how excited people are. It's as hard to convince them why other people are interested from abroad as it is to get them to value communicating with those people. That's because here the communication they value is more personal. It's also hard for them to see how what they're doing makes them role models for the people coming up after them.

Anyways, my point is we all don't always speak the same language, both literally and figuratively. There often needs to be bridge person who can relate the values of one group to another.

Dear Stacey

An excellent post, I agree with some of those who have commented on it I feel it requires a full answer and it is 20:20 here in London and my eyes and fingers are tiring With apologies, I will get back to you tomorrow

Regards, rod

Stacey

Thanks for your post which I never replied to properly
SoCap sounds a great event which I missed as well last year

You ask for our ideas to include a more diverse pool of social entrepreneurs--good question
We have been hosting the "ClearlySo in..." series for a few years which highlights social entrepreneurs from around the worls
have a look at http://www.clearlyso.com/blogs.jsf at the bottom of the page

best regards, rod

...I have to raise the subject that it's often not that there aren't other diverse groups operating in the space, they just simply aren't recognized. I mean you look at TED, you look at the Skoll Forum you look at other conferences and think-tanks, the collective group of people even invited are often from the same places and look the same. As a Black American running a software incubator that empowers East African students and entrepreneurs I find that I'm certainly not alone in my mission as a minority. I know of a plethora of social entrepreneurs who don't fit the status quo of this sector. But when it comes down to honors, dialog and discussion, usually it's the same faces who end up at the table. Maybe we don't have enough PHD's among us, maybe we go unconventional routes, maybe we really aren't good enough to be at the table, maybe we aren't as good at talking as we are at doing but the statement that we just don't exist is absurd. Many just can't find support from the industry the way others can and do. - Jon Gos of appfrica.org

Jon
What you say is painfully true
Great innovations are often not recognised
In part, they are never even noticed--like the tree which falls in the forest, and nobody is there to see it or hear it
regards, rod

Hi - I am an anthropologist who has studied grassroots entrepreneurship for 30 years and write to say that there has been lots of social entrepreneurship going on for many years in poor countries with poor people, but they do not go to conferences in the Merry Old EU or speak English, and often have never heard of the term. One example: right after the massive political violence in Highland western Guatemala in the early 1980s, I was able to raise small amounts of money to help--but what to do? I approached my good friend, a K'iche' Maya weaver and head of the first Maya weaving cooperative in Quiche Province, Saturnino. Working together we decided the best post-violence aid targeted to widows and orphans would be seed funds or products to create stable livelihoods--some of these women were eating two tortillas a day with salt. We consulted with individuals and groups, and some received chicks to raise chickens, others sheep or goats, what ever was the desire of the person, the market conditions, and the voluntary vet services we could put together. These were offered in the form of a loan, some of them in-kind (each sheep and goat recipient owed on healthy offspring to the program to roll over to the next) and some where in terms of monetary repayment with a small interest charge. Those who were able to repay financially on time were eligible for new loans--and over the years the loans were more and more to those involved in weaving, as this was an area my friend could evaluate in terms of risk, and as the emergency waned, it became like an early Gramian bank, but both genders and based on an evaluation of the skills of the weaver. It started with 600 dollars and now the fund has 8000, and still lends regularly--as a social good. Another more recent example is within the Zapatista social movement in Chiapas Mexico, where communities able to build double stores (male and female) have the store stock provided by the Zapatista organization--with the idea that some of their profits will go to the supplying of the next store in the next community willing and able. In this way the social good of having inexpensively priced community stores in remote rain forest communities (areas that suffer from monopolistic high-priced stores, plus the social capital of learning how stores are run and managed (by gender), and the social goal of store reproduction in another needy community (in two to three year time frame). The cases I study are working GREAT!

The problem is in the text, yes we are THINKING about this but lots of people out there are DOING it without knowing what it is called by the professionals, and without professional documentation. So my suggestion is to get out there and document it; I know that it is hopping in Mexico and Guatemala where I do lots of my work, and my colleagues report from other parts of Latin America, Asia and Africa the same. Let me know if you want more details--duncanearle@gmail.com

Oh yes, almost forgot--I help run a global start-up promoting "green equitable development" where carbon credits serve as the income to fund environmental restoration and equitable community development, also providing investors a ROI. Jadora International LLC (jadorallc.com) serves environmental concerns related to global warming, carbon sequestration, reforestation, renewable energy, habitat protection, along with livelihoods, health, education development, and profit. I am also an academic, a student of the interface between planet, people, and production.

I'm really pained to read this topic and some answers about Anglo-saxon leadership in this sector. I didn't read all the answers because it was sooo long. I liked your answer though, because it's so true... that social entrepreneurship existed in developing countries way before it even erupted in your mind.

And what about the Skoll World Forum ? Is it because you called it World that it really is international ? What part of non English speaking people were represented there ? And I'm not talking about India or East Africa that sure are well integrated in the Anglo-saxon world.

I'm French. We do have a sector, even if it is really different in term of MARKETING and COMMUNICATION. Meaning, by culture, we do not have the same way of expressing things and ideas. What you call social ? We sometimes call it "solidarity" (frenglish word). We have other words for expressing other initiatives in the same field. So what ? Because you are not present in our world conference mean that we are leading the field ? Please...

I'm really sorry, because I didn't mean that answer to be an angry one, but yes, humility is the first lesson to learn from the developing world.

I can speak English (even though it's not that good). Come on take some French lessons and come have a look to our so-called "world" events...

Dear Damien
Thank you so much for your reply!
You captured exceptionally well our Anglo-Saxon arrogance, which is why I wrote what I did in the first place
....and your English is excellent
After years of French lessons and three years at Paribas, it pales in comparison, despite my efforts
Your note is not angry but hits the point well
I would love the opportunity to learn more about this field in France and elsehwere
Could you please make contact with me at rod@clearlyso.com or if more generally interesting, please post it here!
best regards, rod

Damien,

I'm french too and I share rod's point of view when it comes to developped contries.

In France, "solidarity" is almost limited to non profit / charity.

As an example, I've been recently to a responsible job exhibition. Most exposers where non profit addressing social problems in a non business/enterpreneurial way (saling stuffs/services). I've indentified only a few entities working on a saling way and none as profitable business.
To my point of view, this is due to a strong dichotomy between profitable companies and social objectives in France. Scholars have long identified this point and explain that the reinforcement of the state in the social sphere as progresively confined companies to the profit one. Having worked (in non social commpanies) in France, UK and USA, I witnessed this difference : social climate (work load, moral harassment, not been nice) is much tougher in french companies. When the endorse social responsabilities, most french companies do it apart from there core business, in specific entities or foundations.

I whiched to ear more french people declare : "here is a (social) need, I surely can make money dealing with it"

Current Anglo-Saxon leadership in this movement is not merely a perception but a reality. The key to this development is not only attributed to entrepreneurial creativity but also resources that are provided along with it in developed western countries. Even though social entrepreneurship does not receive as much support as purely for-profit entrepreneurship but it is gaining recognition of its transformational impact, funding options and foundations are still widely available to help social entrepreneurs from start-up stages onward. It is also greatly aided by the booming expertise-sharing platforms and academic research in English medium to enhance collaboration and progress.

Think about the context of native social entrepreneurs from poor or developing countries for a moment. Thriving social entrepreneurial creativity is stifled by the lack of funding mainly allocated for major economic development and for-profit private investment. Priority will only be given to business ventures with proven commercial values, and the difficulty to secure funding is compounded by multiple layers of bureaucracy due to vague understanding of operation and objectives served by those native social entrepreneurs. So social development is mostly left to limited government welfare programs, traditional NGOs that depend on public donation and the trickle-down effect from private sector development. Indeed, language barrier restricts native social entrepreneurs from meaningful participation in current networking platforms but the problem is not as serious as the lack of technology infrastructure that excludes them when they are already coping with minimal resources to fight for social causes.

But given such unfavorable condition, we still cannot deny the fact that native social entrepreneurs also make undocumented but significant social contributions. The context in which the majority of them are in explains why we cannot directly compare them to Anglo-Saxon social entrepreneurs. Apart from the lack of resources and participation in mainstream platforms, there are operational differences in which they participate in social entrepreneurship. The major reason that they do not receive much reporting is that they pay lesser attention to scale or future expansion due to inherent limitation. Their operation is mainly confined to a much smaller segment that needs help within their community so they can achieve more social impact with fewer resources. Another reason is they depend on no models or breakthrough approaches to achieve social goals. They are mostly field practitioners with rich local knowledge to deal with social issues. Take South East Asia for example, the region is rich with cultural diversity that leads to a booming craft-making business among the poor especially the indigenous tribes. Acute awareness of their entrepreneurial creativity and needs simply leads social entrepreneurs to create platforms for these poor craft makers to connect and sell directly to customers, so they can earn maximized profit instead of going through unscrupulous middle agents who reap the most profit. It is just one of the many underreported socially transformational successes based on unremarkable but effective approaches.

I think irrespective of who is leading social entrepreneurship movement or how we can improve participation of native social entrepreneurs in global discussion platforms, the most important question is how we can synergize this booming entrepreneurial creativity among Anglo-Saxon and native social entrepreneurs in terms of collaboration and achievement toward greater social transformation. Better expertise and resources can only be enhanced with in-depth local knowledge to resolve social issues more effectively.

Although many "major" innovations that are heard far and wide may be from Anglo-Saxon's, some of the best small scale innovations come from the local social entrepreneurs themselves. Its just that we hear about these innovations far less because they are less ground breaking and usually less exciting. Maybe we should be working more to seek out these smaller, less exciting, yet effective innovations and use our massive forums to spread those ideas to the world. Those who have the capacity to spread the local SE ideas quickly around the world should.

Tyler
I sometimes think the only ideas of any value occuir on the ground
As commentators, our job can only be to see them, recognise their brilliance and share it with others
Thanks for your comment
rod

First let us put the statement at the heart of this discussion in its context.

CONTEXT

Often, when leaders, (political, business, academic or religious etc...) meet, there is an a tendency to sensationalize. There is also a belief that one effective way to grab the attention of your audience is by making statements of "grandeur". If you listen to political speeches, by Gordon Brown, Sarcozi every country claims to be leading the way. Scotland will say with renewable energy, and so will china. China through its manufacturing capability in delivering the majority of actual good to the world, scotland through its naturally abundant wind and wave power and research capability particularly in at St Andrews University. Surely, there can only be one leader. Or is there room for multiple leaders? Both play a role. So is any one of them overstating it's claims? Perhaps not if we put it in the context of what leadership means to each of them and the policy context they are operating in.

In that regard, the question is this: Is the UK and America without a doubt leading the world in terms of thinking in this area? My opinion is that we can never measure this since we do not have a single repository of activities, thoughts and projects with enough information about the thought originators and their nationality to make such a judgement. What is more, such an analysis meets with more challenges. Does the country that sponsor the projects claim a right to its intellectual ownership by virtue of the fact that without the resources they provided to facilitate such a programme, the development would never have seen the light of day?

This argument will not even be held, had the statement read something like:

<< We can be proud of the contribution that the UK and the US are making to the development of ideas in this area >>

The lesson is that we all need to learn to communicate with humility and sensitivity even if we think we are amongst peers.

HISTORY
I have recently come across an NGO from Ghana that refuses to work with white volunteers despite their expertise. This was alarming to me. But then, I took a step back and asked myself why? what are we doing so wrong? The subject of this discussion captures it exceedingly well. What we are doing so wrong is what we have always historically done so wrong. Hand over help to the needy, and brag about it in our corridors and pretend that the condescending conditions in which this assistance is provided does no harm, or that we are exonerated from the responsibilities since we went out of our way to help.

It is both a question of political arrogance and Anglo-Saxon self agrandisation. This tradition of condescendence towards other nations is now so engrained in our psychology in the west that Leaders do not realise the impact it has on relationships with the south as well as with other potential partners in the west such as our French, German Italian (etc...) Counterparts. Our own sense of superiority blinds us often from our dependence on other for our success. What is more, we have also become very good at denying the contribution of others.

REALITY - CURRENT SITUATION AND RISKS WE FACE

As Rod Schewartz said, the pace of progress is quickened when inputs are diverse. I will go as far as saying that << the pace of progress is quickened when diverse inputs are listened to and taken on board>>. Input is diverse: in fact today, there is a lot of it. However, many of us are here today because of the closed or club nature of the public sector where innovative ideas fall on infertile ground. We are running the risk of creating a club culture along languages this time. When we become arrogant, we stop to listen, and when we do, the other person no longer matters.

English is the preferred medium because it is the most widely used and therefore best medium if one wants to reach as wide an audience as possible. That means that event French, Spanish and Italian contributors will most likely write in English. That does not make the ideas an Anglo-Saxon contribution although as in the case of the resources the Anglo-Saxon asset (in this case the English Language) facilitates the achievement of the objective, (In this case the distribution).

I am a case in hand. My first Language is French. English is my fourth Language. Most my publications, writings etc... are in English since most French speakers speak English, and less the other way round. Until one identifies oneself, it is simply assumed that a contribution in English is from an English Contributor. Since I live in Scotland, I consider myself as much British as French and Togolese. Yet, I really do not care which nationality is leading the field as long as it is doing some good out there.

Rod is right in his last paragraph when he talks about the contribution of other nations. I believe there is much more potential to harness. But statements such as those at the heart of this debate are not exactly the best way to engage and secure the commitment of the nations contributing less to the field.


A lot has been said already. Suffice to say that good ideas are not the monopoly of Anglo-Saxons, and we will do well not to alienate our ideas partners around the world. This is not about us, it about those we are meant to be reaching out to. We should take ourself and our own self importance out of the equation.

Joel De Messan

Founder, http://wwww.realdevelopment.org

Joel

Thanks very much for your thoughtful reply
You are right, we could have phrased it differently but then we would not have caused any (or much) controversy--and that is the point of pieces like this, no?
And the discuission above has been extremely interesting with some excellent points being made in a constructive fashion
I partiuclarly agree with your point about how we Anglo-Saxons have made our "partners" in the North sometimes feel. I have seen the grimaces of my French, Dutch and German colleagues--among others

good luck with all your endeavours

rod

Hi Joel

Loved your contribution. Like you, English is my third language, and although I am Portuguese by birth, I view myself as a global citizen, because irrespective of where you are born, any actions anywhere in the world have global consequences and affects every single human being to some extent or other.

Personally, I think the the focus on "culture" and "language" are divisive instead of promoting coheesivness. It also feeds the EGO in individuals, organisations and goverments. And feeding the EGO is what it is all about.

Looking at this discussion within the EGO context, one realises that we still have a lot to learn.

To feed the EGO humans think they "need" to identify with "things", "places", etc. as a diferentiator, and that by doing that they will receive some form or another of "recognition" again feeding the personal EGO. When you have thousands or millions of individuals that have bought into the universal concept, you now have all of them promoting the concept of "unity" by feeding an orgnisational or country ego ... I can go on ...

In this context, the NGO (individual within) that is not prepared to accept a white volunteer is doing nothing else than feeding the ego of that organisation ... very much like a group that states that only anglo-saxons are the leaders ... there is no difference in those two scenarios.

Once you start analysing the ego concept, you start being aware of what it does, and how and where it impacts. and in the process you start to BE.

Hope I am making sense.

Take care
Laurinda Seabra

Hi, interesting topic and you have opened a can of worms.

Currently, at Empowerment Gateway we have build a network of social entrepreneurs and civic representatives worlwide that is in excess of 200000. I did a quick study of our database ... and want to share the findings with all of you.

18% are anglo saxon (USA and UK)
22% are from North America (Brazil has a vast community of SEs by the way)
8% are from Germanic origin
4% latin origin (Europe)
8% asia
19% africa
12% india
9% other (pacific, etc)

If our database is ilustrative as a small sampling, the concept that only Anglo-saxons are drivers of SE, it is an incorrect perception. The major barrier is communication rather than culture, and English has been established as the language of choice ... how it come to be, I haven't a clue (maybe someone can ellaborate on this)

In fact some of the more advanced work that I have found in the field of SE is by Taiwonese intellectuals practicing in the UK, USA and Canada, followed by Brasil. SE is linked ar the hip to the field of CSR as an applicator alternative.

During my participation in the new developing ISO SR 26000, I found that every contry had fantastic representatives ... and chatting to some of them, in English, I found a paradigm shift into the SE arena.

Take care
Laurinda Seabra
Empowerment Gateway Group

North America should read South America

(but then I don't always know my right from left ... or my North from South -:)
Laurinda

Dear Laurindra
Thanks for your post and provocative figures (but puzzled by the figures on North(?) america, as distinct from the USA and UK)
I had a look at your website, which I think you left out--surely out of modesty
http://www.empowerment-gateway.com/
I would love to learn more about your group
please contact me at rod@clearlyso.com

best, rod

Hi Rod

Caught out! My geography knowhow is appaling especially at 2h00am South African time -:) North should read South. -:) and yes it is different from UK/USA.

Thanks for your kind words ...

Will add you to our mail list if it is OK by you.

Take care
Laurinda

71 comments? I hope you're compiling all of these as first suggested.

Hi Joel

Loved your contribution. Like you, English is my third language, and although I am Portuguese by birth, I view myself as a global citizen, because irrespective of where you are born,what gender, religious or race, any actions anywhere in the world have global consequences and affects every single human being to some extent or other.

Personally, I think the the focus on "culture","language" or "race" are divisive instead of promoting coheesivness. It also feeds the EGO in individuals, organisations and goverments. And feeding the EGO is what it is all about.

Looking at this discussion within the EGO context, one realises that we still have a lot to learn.

To feed the EGO humans think they "need" to identify with "things", "places", etc. as a diferentiator, and that by doing that they will receive some form or another of "recognition" again feeding the personal EGO. When you have thousands or millions of individuals that have bought into the universal concept, you now have all of them promoting the concept of "unity" by feeding an orgnisational or country ego ... I can go on ...

In this context, the NGO (individual within) that is not prepared to accept a white volunteer is doing nothing else than feeding the ego of that organisation ... very much like a group that states that only anglo-saxons are the leaders ... there is no difference in those two scenarios.

Once you start analysing the ego concept, you start being aware of what it does, and how and where it impacts. and in the process you start to BE.

At the end of the day, the most important component is "comuunication" ... and currently that is whats more important ... the ability to put on the table ideas, thoughs or actions in a manner in which your audience can relate to and comprehend. As a result, currently Englih appears to be the language of choice because it reaches a wider audience ...

I also do not beleive one group is better than another ... rather, I beleive it has more to do with availability of "comunicative" resources available to one rather than the other at specific times.

I also beleive that to much emphasis is placed often on "promotion" of ego ... marketers are exchellent at doing this ... because they appeal to the "egos" ... thus why the rise of consumerism.

I can go on and on ...

Hope I am making sense.

Take care
Laurinda Seabra

Dear Laurindra
Thanks again for another thoughtful contribution
regards, rod

Dear Leanne
I am doing nothing of the sort--but I still cannot believe the amount of feedback and I am ever so grateful to all for participating!!
Also, I imagine that our friends at Social Edge will keep this up for awhile--I think they always do
As of today, I believe, I will also be hosting a new discussion as well
It will be about "partnering with business"--or "supping with the devil"
Please have a look at it and join in there too
and we have one more coming as well!
And if you want more of our views on social business/entrepreneurship/investment please go to www.clearlyso.com/sbblog
kin regards, rod

Hi Rod

I couldn't help cracking up laughing ... you do tackle controversial issues. ... and yes, I will join the new discussion ... maybe we must invite "BUSINESSES" to participate? It would make for an interesting debate.

Take care
Laurinda

Dear Laurinda

Thanks again for your comment
I doubt the editors thought this one would run so long when I agreed to do the other!
Also, what point is there in writing in such an august site if not to challenge people's thinking and stirr up some controversy
I am an avid believer in the vigorous debate within the marketplace of ideas!

best, rod

Would be great to have some businesses there too
invite them!
rod

i don't believe innovations in social entrepreneurship is limited to the West

however, the ecosystem is much stronger in the west, so social enterprise innovations in the west are more visible and understood

there are geographic and cultural reasons tied to each country and in many cases even different issues facing different parts of the same country, so innovations in one part of the world don't necessarily translate/transfer to other parts

the ecosystem of conferences, media outlets, researchers, investors, entrepreneurs, etc that exist in the west don't exist or are only starting to get organized in developing countries (like my home, India)
it will take some time but those ecosystems will exist in the near future, but even after they become a reality I doubt that all info/ideas can be shared globally
there are too many things unique to Indian social entrepreneurs that others would not understand, that does not mean exchanges should not happen but don't be surprised if you don't see many Indian social entrepreneurs going to the West to exchange thoughts/ideas, we need those venues/conferences within country

think about innovation in social enterprises like any other industry, some information/ideas can be exchanged globally but a great deal needs to be tailored for the local context

True. The one shoe fits all syndrome does not apply anywhere ... but often some like to "capture" things in "boxes and silos" because it is easier to explain ... and them they become the "norms" thatbe MUST be applied everywhere.

What is needed is tolerance ... and often that is in short supply.

Laurinda

Deart Atish

Thanks for your post
Innovation is certainly NOT limited to the West (or especially the Anglo-Saxon West)--bt you are right, we have perhaps developed the ecosystem to a greater extent.
This is partly why we are planning to roll out www.clearlyso.com to a broader range of countries in the next few months, in both the East and West (or North and South if you prefer!)
Anyone interested in doing this--in linking up to a global ecosystem with a dominant local flavour should email me at rod@clearlyso.com

I would also be happy to work with those looking to develop conferences etc. in their own markets--to share knowledge and experiences
We have taken a nibble at this with our "ClearlySo in...." series
Have a look at http://www.clearlyso.com/blogs.jsf and see the bottom of the page for what I mean

and you are absolutely right--the local context is key
even the de3finition of what is social must adjust to local needs

Thanks again

rod

Please read @StaceyMonk 's blog entry where she details the trials and tribulations of folks trying to vote online from Tanzania. She ponders whether online voting can fairly treat social ventures based outside the Anglo Saxon sphere...

"Skoll’s Social Edge blog recently asked: Are the Only Innovations in Social Entrepreneurship Anglo-Saxon? Though you might think so sitting at social change conferences like SoCap09, the Skoll World Forum and others, the answer is: Absolutely not. Clearly, there are brilliant indigenous solutions that are simply not being seen or resourced - and we simply cannot afford to foster or tolerate systems that overlook innovators from parts of the world with limited web access - who may, because of their life experience or out of necessity, be able to imagine more effective, less expensive possibilities.
I know, people will say, “no voting mechanism is perfect.” And they’re right. But if we’re going to get it wrong, let’s at least not foster a system that’s so clearly culturally-biased in a field that so clearly shouldn’t be. For now, let’s use a cross-cultural panel of judges if we must. Or maybe there’s a smart mobile phone voting solution that just might work."

Having just returned from NetSquared and their competition for mobile solutions, I "woot!" the text voting option.

Read more (be sure to scroll down) and see pics of the ppl standing in line to vote...http://www.epicchange.org/blog/

Dear Jill

Thanks for your post
You make precisely my point
These conferences have the effect of defining "where things are", and they are very dominated by a limited point of view
I would welcome a greater recognition of this--wouldnt you?

and thanks for your link to epicchange
I have just tweeted on it @rodneyschwartz

bon weekend!
rod

Jill

I have also just seen your name in my LinkedIn "you may know" bit
do we know each other?
please make contact via rod@clearlyso.com
best, rod

Rod, I'm a little late in posting to this thread but thanks for bringing up these important questions. This thread inspired me to write a post about who's in and out of the social-e club - not just developing world entrepreneurs but also young graduates and non-MBAs. Here's a link: http://www.poptech.org/blog/index.php/archives/4121. You and forum participants might find it an interesting addition to the conversation. Do share your thoughts in the comments after the post on the PopTech blog!
Best,
Ashni Mohnot

Dear Ashni

Great post, although it is hard to get to just from the link

Here is my reply to it which I also posted on poptech

Just had a chance to read your lengthy post--outstanding!

1) MBAs should be disqualified, actually (only kidding!). Until recent time, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PARTICULARLY ENTREPRENEURIAL. Insisting on this is silly. We find entrepreneurs generally outside of business schools.

2) We in the sector need to find a way to help people gain experience--but in this regard we may have no alternative but to do this on an internship basis, and this probably mean at no/low pay. For key roles, I fear there is no substitute for experience. At ClearlySo we find a mixture works best.

3) Dead right on Skoll/Oxford, etc. I have suggested having many Skoll World Forums in a year. This would probably be a money-spinner to Skoll but also enable a broader range of people to take part in the conversation and not feel excluded, as they do now (even Anglo-Saxons!!). The reason its in Oxford is that that is where Jeff Skoll funded his Centre for Social Entrepreneurship--so at least in this regard, the reason is understandable.

kind regards, rod

I am ever so grateful for all these many comments on this post!

On the whole I hope that it stimulated debate
I fear that in certain cases it caused offence--for which I apologise

A number have written me privately to ask us to do something to make sure the conversation is not pourely Anglo-Saxon
We feel we have already taken some steps in this regard
For those of you who know our website, http://www.clearlyso.com, you may not be aware of our "ClearlySo in..." series, which looks at social entrepreneurship in other countries.

Most recently we have added Bangladesh and Argentina
We had previously written on all ten Balkan countries, Sri Lanka, Canada, Mozambique, Georgia, Armenia and Thailand--Romania, Germany and others are on the way
If you are interested, just go to http://www.clearlyso.com/blogs.jsf at the bottom of the page

I hope some of you think this does help enlarge the debate

regards, rod

I appreciate the rich mix of perspectives, experience and thoughtful reflection on aspects of culture and power in international social entrepreneurship. There are some wonderful activities and organizations growing in this area that I did not know about before following this thread. (my first time to join a thread!)

My experience comes from the area of human rights and anti-human trafficking work. It may be interesting for readers to know about additional organizations pioneering social entrepreneurship either multilaterally or bilaterally. Perhaps a question is in order: is it the reponsibility of non-English speaking and non-western social entrepreneurship organizations and leaders to make themselves known to the English speaking SE world? Perhaps we passionate committed English speaking SEs share this responsibility, even possibly to assist Rod with the collation of international best practices in SE and see if a multilingual platform of information exchange can be erected?
One more question as I am a neophyte in SE semantics: Where do you draw the line between 'SE' and creative efforts to expand the opportunities and improve conditions towards social equality and equity? By this I mean educational and income generating interventions, programs that foster new structures, new paradigms and new visions?

I believe the organizations and individuals I mention below are relevant to the field of non-Anglo social entrepreneurship because they create political, economic and cultural spaces for marginalized individuals and populations to explore their potential, reframe gendered and divisive social assumptions and peacefully seek change. These organizations include the Association for Women in Development (international NGO that although founded by Anglo Saxons, ignites the passions and voices of women from around the world through fora in French, Spanish as well as English. They meet each other every 3 years around the world. As AWID goes to different continents it is closer and more accessible to social entrepreneurs without money or the tools of social capital so they can participate and share their vision and experience.

From my work with Peace Corps in Vanuatu I learned about the Vanuatu Women's Development Scheme VanWods which partners government with women to improve their livelihood opportunities within traditional tribal cultures. I partnered with the NGO (non-governmental organization) Population and Community Development Association (PDA) www.pda.or.th/eng in Thailand which premiered an NGO corporate entrepreneurial partnership in Isan quite awhile ago. On a smaller scale I have supported a small indigenous Indonesian NGO LAWE, created by local women in Jogyakarta to preserve and curate indigenous weaving skills while providing livelihood to women and their families http://www.houseoflawe.com/profile.htm.
Thank you for such a positive and constructive forum!
Shelly

Dear Shelly

Thanks for your post and welcome to the world of "thread joining" and to the world of SE semantics. Lives have been lost (only kidding) but much time has been wasted on such definitions. I urge you, as you are, to focus on the principles, as you certainly do. "Creative efforts to expand....." is what SE is about.

I think your idea to create a multi-lingual; platform is brilliant. surely we have the means for such a tool. Social edge, ARE YOU LISTENING?
Shelly, it is such a great idea I just tweeted you at @rodneyschwartz--sorry, could not resist!

Thanks also for your mentions of the Vanuatu Women's Development Scheme. Intrigued by your mention of PDA in Thailand--have a look at some "ClearlySo in..." blogs written by my colleague, Jessica Shortall at http://www.clearlyso.com/thailand/

All the best and thanks again

rod

Rod Schwartz, thanks for the opportunity to address this timely issue you raised, but the subject should have read ‘Are the Only Innovations in Social Entrepreneurship English speaking, than Anglo-Saxon?’ for a number of reasons, including the spread of the English language is not by accident, but solely the American experience when parting from the British colonialism with the language, and the ‘free market’ system by the free sprit of individual liberty that created, and attracted millions of people in her shore.

Unfortunately the legacy of maintaining the institution of slavery continued to punish non 'Anglos', and the new comers of minority heritage from fully participating in making of the America we know more than what it could have been.
 
As an African born American who livid, and worked in Africa, Europe and North America, I can see the root problem of the disconnect, and sometime the failure of many so called ‘Anglos’ to address the institution of racism, and America's foreign policy that replicated the European model of propping up dictators in the name of American interest, still not yet addressed genuinely, and continued to be the hindrance to the full participation of the citizens of this country, and engaging the world in productive manner respectively.

The over representation of the English speaking social entrepreneur, I believe is driven strictly by the American experience never been replicated any where yet. But, the residue of racism continue to prevent many to surface, especially the ‘minority’ heritage. It is the greatest misallocation of human capital contrary to the principle of the foundation of America, and the unknown opportunties lost because of it.

Others, particularly Asians and Latin Americans countries lack the individual liberty to create the kind of social entrepreneur in western sense, as John Alexis Guerra Gómez articulated; in a sense social entrepreneurship is also not formalized, monetized and documented in most societies. As he said, it is part of life not seen as a formal institutions recognized by the central governments, and the world.
     
In that regard, the African experience is a good example, still lingering in the colonial experience, and structure (dictators propped up by the former colonialist marginalizing the cream of the population). But, yet the informal social entrepreneurship still goes on, as the informal business enterprises dominate most economic transactions.

If creative social entrepreneur who recognize the problem like Rod and others do want to do something about it, there are many opportunities to change the course of human experience for the better. One critical one comes in mind, formalizing indigenous institutions, and publicizing their activity from bottom up.

This create formal standard to measure performance, and transparency; the two most important prerequisite for growth, competition, innovation, participation, replication etc.

Though, I have to admit my bias; it can only happen in America where idea can be fermented, and spread like a wild fire, changing old habits in to new possibility. I plead guilty on the ground, in many countries I lived, ideas are buried not because they are bad, but they came from the ‘wrong’ person i.e. shaking the hierarchy of power. In fact, they would not be initiated in the first place.

Unless systems are created to allow opportunity for good ideas, and the mechanism to quickly implement them, increasingly not by choice but out of urgent necessity, I am afried our world would not be a sustainable place to live with business as the usual.

The question is, how can good ideas can be entertained in a language other than English? And, how can English speakers take others seriously to take good ideas?

Why not join forces with the British Council's social enterprise and entrepreneurship programme which has launched in China and East Asia and is starting up in South east Europe. In China there is a Foundation for Social Enterprise and I know the Council are keen on mutuality in terms of understanding concepts.

Contacts

john.yates@britishcouncil.org (UK)

Ian.Robinson@britishcouncil.org.cn (China)

Hugh.Moffatt@britishcouncil.org.id (Indonesia)

Andrew.Glass@britishcouncil.org.rs (Serbia)

Joining up forces and resources with Skoll to develop a website to promote global understanding would I think be a useful exercise

Gary
British Council, Turkey

Gary
Thanks so much for this
i have already been on to your UK colleagues
I have heard a great deal about what you do
Your prompt swung me into action
regards, rod

Rod's comments about the emergent social entrepreneur industry are right on. As the field matures, it must be careful to avoid the same pitfalls as mainstream philanthropy, which continues to struggle with inclusion of poor people, women, people of color and other under-represented groups. And the problem is not just with the over-representation of so-called "Anglo-Saxon countries" in developing nation social innovation. Although it's not politically correct to mention in this so-called "post-racial" era, the same holds true for the field in the U.S. Often the innovators who get the most attention, and funding, are those who are the most tech-savvy and socially connected to the mainstream.

But in both poor countries and in poor communities in the U.S. some of the most compelling innovations come from poor or under-represented people themselves. For example, how often is it recognized that microfinance and giving circles are ancient indigenous finance tools throughout Asia and Africa, that has been spreading through the globe through migration for centuries, before it became the most current "new" trend? Similarly, as Van Jones formerly founder of Green for All and now with the Obama Administration notes in his writings, the African American community has a longstanding environmental activism tradition although there continues to a variety of barriers to inclusion in the mainstream movement.

Such grassroots efforts often go unrecognized at best or apropriated by those with more access to power and resources, ironically perpetuating the very power imbalances and inequities that the social entrepeneurial movement is meant to address. And this is not just a matter of equity but the impact of the entire social innovation field is undermined when everyone's potential contribution, especially those most directly affected by the world's accelerating social and environmental decline, are excluded from society's efforts to resolve them.

The Institute for the Future in Palo Alto is planning a conference to address engagement and inclusion in social innovation called Community Engagement 2.0 (http://www.iftf.org/node/2680). Our hope is to convene technologists, under-represented social innovators from the North and the South, and social investors to address how technology and other tools can be used to promote inclusion in the social entrepreneur industry.

In the U.S. context, as the Obama Administration attempts to scale-up the social entrepreneurial field's impact with its Social Innovation Fund, it must be careful to recognize the industry's challenges with equity and inclusion and provide incentives to help it address them. And this is not just a domestic issue, as many of the U.S.'s social innovators exist in poor immigrant communities with Latin American, Asian and African origins that have much teach others. Social innovation has always happened in a transnational network with innovators from multiple levels of society creatively exchanging and mixing ideas from various countries. In this context, the entire assumption that innovation only trickles down from rich to poor people or nation is backward and unproductive. Innovation trickles up too and the sooner we recognize it and break down these divides, the better off the field will be.

Recognizing the multi-centric nature of innovation is particularly important in the Great Recession's aftermath. The U.S. will find that that many of the development techniques used in low-income countries will become increasingly relevant in low-income U.S. communities, as suggested by the growing use of microfinance and bartering networks. Inclusive social innovation is needed now more than ever to rebuild our global economy and promote more sustainable communities.

Jackie Copeland-Carson
Research Director, Institute for the Future
Founding Chair, Pan-African Women's Philanthropy Network

There are many reasons why there aren't more people of color who describe themselves as Social Entrepreneurs but the bigger question is what can we do about it?

When a group of Anglos sit down at the table to create the next big "social entrepreneur" organization, stop, look and listen to the cozy factor......the way in which we all look, think, react, feel, and behave the same.

Make sure that the power and ownership of your organization is not soley in your hands or the hands of people like you.

Build a pipeline for divergent thinking in your organizatio and reward new ideas and ways ot reaching your objectives.

Learn a new language.....preferably the language of the people or cusotmer you intend to serve. Life experience and world view doesn;t always translate nicely from the Anglo world view to other world views, or vice versa. So get out of your comfort zone and ask the same questions but through a different perspective.

Don;t assume that you have the best answer or way to get the job done! I have found working in the gold mining communities of West Africa that when you give a village of people the tools and resources they need to accomplish a task, they figure it out, their own way..which is usually very different from the way I would do it. Innovation starts with authenticity...if you don;t let people do find their path forward, it ain't innovation and it ain't gonna last for long.

Hope that helps! Ciao for now!

I am not Anglo, just a black American man living in West Africa.

Dear Kakrakakra
Thanks for your comment
I really like your focus on how to change things rather than on the past
Best regards, rod

The social entrepreneurship innovations are not only Anglo-Saxon. I believe the innovations for a better world come from every country, culture, and language. They are in different forms according to the people they concern.

I am from Thailand, a developing country where only a small number of people can speak English. I have seen many innovations and contributions from those people who want to create values to the society. Nevertheless, when I come to the US, nobody would know those Thai social entrepreneurs. This is not because they do not exist, in fact, they just do not have the channel to market themselves.

If those people can speak English, the dominant language, and they have the access to global media, I believe that there will be more diversity in the thoughts and practices.

i do agree, social entrepreneurship is universal and the main reason behaind this is in its own definition.
change is a universal phenominan and it can be limited to one section or other, and this spirit of social change, spirit of creation of social value is the very spirit of socail entrepreneurship. so in that sense it is a universal phenaomina and quite dominant in the societies which are thriving for development and change.
This is one aspect of the question and the otherone is about the dominance of Anglo Sexon community on the ideological front of socail entrepreneurship think..
well i say to quite extant this statement holds, the reason behind that is this vary community has provided social entrepreneurship its present structure. they established it as an deciplin and a provided it besic definition so that the confusion of social and busines can be solved.
upto that extant they can glorify themself of being the majority shareholders of ideological disiplinary science but as practice they can not claim the same. there are enough examples available worldwide which can suggest and clear the picture about the social entrepreneurial activity happing worldwide.
as for as displin is considerd world is cathing up, there are many prestigious institution worldwide which has taken this field or displin as an study progamme. like the TATA instite of Socail Sciences, Mumbai(india), its school of managment have a progamme named MA in social Entrepreneurship.
may be aftersome time (that to not far) later u'll realise that there are many asians, african, latin american and fewer anglo-saxon members in such forums and
that time u'll raise the different question?
 

Dear Naveen
Thanks for your comment
I already believe much innovation is NOT anglo-saxon
The reason I wrote this piece was to try to bring that to the fore
Thanks for your contribution
rod

Dear Chanicha
Language is a barrier, but over time its importance will diminsh
In terms of the specific case of Thailand, I agree we are generally ignorant of innovations there
As you say, this is because of language
On the other hand we are trying to break down this barrier with our "ClearlySo in..." series, highlighting social enterprises from all over the world (check the bottom of http://www.clearlyso.com/blogs.jsf )
In particular, one has been about Thailand
Have a look at http://www.clearlyso.com/thailand/ where we study PDA
Regards, rod

Hi. I'm an MBA student doing my internship for a social business based out of The Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai. From what I see working here with people who are intimately concerned with the fate of their nation and their role within that, is that they don't have a lot of time to tweet about it and hey don't necessarily know about all the new tools, networking sites and conferences, nor can they afford to go. That is definitely too bad for a lot of reasons.

There are also two main reasons I see why it appears as though there are more social innovators from the west: Our different backgrounds effect our need to talk and the scale at which we think to operate.

Different Backgrounds --> Need to talk, reach out, share
As Westerners, we are touched, shocked, knocked over by these issues because we are not accustomed to them and we know the level of awareness in our communities (which have much - with whic, potentially, to help) are low. That gives some people a desire to do something and also a need to discuss it, to get ideas from others, to show others what's going on because so many people don't know. With people here involved in these initiatives, I see a sense of obligation to the society. People grew up next to or in poverty - they know what it looks like and everyone else in their country is aware too, so they are less involved in the international discussion. I think you'll see that change more and more as local innovators realize the benefits of tapping and informing the international community.

Different backgrounds --> views of scale
Additionally, what you hear about are big scale social enterprises. People from the west, especially those in business, tend to think big. People from developing sometimes think locally. A lot of social entrepreneurs here are working on one problem in one area because that's manageable. Neither one is better or worse -- different problems need different solutions. But I think the mindset of "let's go in and SOLVE this with one massive supply chain solution" is not achievable by everyone. There are innovative ideas happening all the time around the world and they are just not big enough to be on the international radar.

I see no problem with any of this - except the idea that Anglo Saxons are the only ones doing any innovating.

And with that, I must return to work !
For more discussion, please contact me at ashmetz@gmail.com or follow me @ashleymcummings
Additionally, I'm Co-Organizing the Social Entrepreneurship Workshop at this year's Doing Good & Doing Well Conference in Barcelona. We are actively looking for social entrepreneurship and other speakers. Get in touch!

Dear Ashley
Thanks for your posting and for taking time away from work!
You are right, anglo-saxons do have some views about "Scaling" which are hardly universal
Best regards, rod

Excellent question and consideration. You may consider books on whiteness which discuss the how global the belief in white superiority is - and how pervasive whiteness is. I believe language is tied into this kind of power structure, so that English is dominant because of American imperialism, etc.
Yes, there should be more representation of different types of people. Yet without realizing it many histories, no matter how progressive, can lean toward white/male stories.

Also, I personally wonder how much we should question the white desire to assist with people of color from around the world? Often progressive, even radical movements espoused by white liberals feature happy people of color from different countries. Is this about language? Is it about a power structure need so often seen in development, where white (men) and Americans, etc. are called in to "fix" other nations who do in fact have their own ideas?

One critique: The use of Anglo-Saxon in itself is antiquated from the racial science era. Once we are able to say white without blinking we will be able to address the power issues at hand.

Thanks for your thought provoking comments.

By whiteness also I refer to the belief in white thought, history, intellectual development as superior and other countries as "underdeveloped in some way" - so that whiteness is not necessarily just white people from the United States or Europe. The world has been steeped in power structures which benefit whiteness and its attendants (like language) since the colonial era when race came into the picture.

At this point in history some people may say, "it's not all about race". But power has many faces and guises!

Dear NJ

Thanks for your comments--certainly you raise an important issue!

First, apologies for my delay in replying--was not sure people were still posting here--will check more regularly
Secondly, I hope if I meant white I would have had the courage to say so--we will never know
However, in this case I really meant Anglo-Saxon, especially referring to the UK and the USA. There are people of colour, but from those countries, whoc contribute to the debate, and I am including them in my comments

What is certainly also true is that for any group of any kind I find that the best solutions for that group come within that group--which is no surprise.

Best regards, rod

Hello ! I 'm new here . I'm 24 year old woman from Haiti and this is my first comment It is true that when you look at who's going to the conference or seminars it is incredibly white. The same can be said about the green movement and environmental movement. Lot's of social Entrepreneurs in small developing or poor countries don't have access to the media, the internet or the resources to pay a plane ticket to go to these events.Our business it is about survival of our communities. The press at it stand is not that diverse. So I'm guessing they are mostly going to cover people that look like them or speak their language.

If this a movement is to gain momentum we are going to have to start tracking what others do in respective countries and make resources more accessible to all.

Dear Barbara

Firstly, welcome to Social Edge--its a fantastic site and one of the places where conversations on social entrepreneurship take place
You are right, the conferences are largely white, and the speakers are often from the US or UK (thus making it even more Anglo-saxon)
I feklt we needed moree voices, which is why I wrote this post--it seems to have evoked strong feelings as this discussion has received many comments
I think the movement will stagnate if it does not hear more disparate voices--like yours--and the changes we seek in the economy will disproportionately benefit those who have been harmed by the old economy
Failure to broaden the debate is something we must change
 
Thanks for your comment

rod

In working with teen entrepreneurs (primary in social ventures and manufacturing) I am finding that the most innovative social entrepreneurship concepts are coming out of Central and South America and Asia-Pacific. Also, first generation young entrepreneurs in the U.S. are thinking of concepts they can take back to their home country to 'improve quality of life' or ways they can process and manuacture raw materials locally to create enconomic opportunity.

I think Anglo-Saxons appear to be more 'dominant' and 'branded' in the Social Entrepreneurship space because they are better versed on getting PR and visibility around their cause. Another challenge for most minorities is access to resources. If you have more business acumen, social clout/capital and can leverage resources to launch your idea then it is seen as more credible. And speaking of, part is also cultural. You are likely to gain more traction and awareness of your concept if people feel you are 'trustworthy' and also if you have 'perceived' credibility. As much as I wish people saw each of us as individuals, as a minority female I have to say that sadly this is not always the case.

@teenbizcoach

Dear Shonika
Thanks so much for your insightful post
I am certain you are right
Clearly we need to ensure that people are noticed based on merit, not PR
On our website, www.clearlyso.com, we are keen to publicise great example of social entrepreneurship
If you know anyone who might be willing to write about this, please let me know
thanks again
rod

Also, this concern still has a gender component. Sadly. Please see the slides I posted from a talk I just gave at the Industrial Designers Society of America [IDSA] annual conference.

"Social entrepreneurs should look no further for historical antecedents than the American design school. It is not well known that women established the first wave of American design schools for vulnerable women during the financial panics that preceded the Civil War. The second wave came in response to the long depression of 1873-1879. This history of the design school is important and should inspire us today as we face the current economic crisis. It is a moment when change is possible. I hope this conversation will be on the table as we discuss social entrepreneurship, "design thinking", and a renewed commitment to empowering women through design, today."

Nancy Austin, Austin Alchemy - writing, research, design
Nancy@AustinAlchemy.com

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK-LjWX1md0

Tags: design "social entrepreneurship" women history education "design thinking" patents timelines NancyAustinDesign

Nancy

Thanks for your comment
Also, please have a look at the latest discussion in Social Edge, which has some relevance

regards, rod

I've been in various discussions with people in the US who are emigrants or the descendants of emigrants from Europe. Those who are Anglo-Saxon or Germanic have no issue with the US being described as an 'Anglo-Saxon country' or hearing themselves described as 'Anglos', but those from other regions in Europe don't see themselves in those terms. It was interesting to read a comment on this post that referred to 'Anglo-Saxon imperialism'. While I don't see northern Europeans evilly bent on some sort of catastrophic world domination, there is a sense of their being the norm or the guide. When I object to being called an Anglo, I am seen as a racist, because to the Anglo-Saxon/Germanic people, the only differences are themselves and people who are either non-Indoeuropean or from third world countries. Many Europeans are from neither--their countries are in various stages of development and some people who live in Europe (or have emigrated) are not Indo-European or Germanic and have strong ethnic ties to what they are. They see their cultures as differing from the Anglo-Saxon culture and feel that those cultures have ways to contribute to social discussions.

Dear Elyse

Thanks for your comment--and happy new year to you!

My initial observation was not based on race but accent or citizenship
Conferences, blogs and literature on this subject is TOO dominated by folks from North America or the UK or Australia (and I am one of those)
As a result we miss out on the benfits of more diverse input

enjoy your weekend!

rod

I agree with elly51. In working with international NGOs, US (in particular) and UK NGOs are often heavily represented and sometimes too dominant at conferences, and English is often too dominant. I've also seen Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders be a part of the problem. And, at times, it's just plain anyone from the Global North, which goes beyond the English language. So I understand the basic point quiet well, and I think it's important for those of us from the too-dominant countries to address. I do, however, find the Anglo-Saxon terminology really off putting, for the reasons listed by elly51. My user name, actually, is a humorous way I identify with my Irish, Slovak, Sicilian heritage, and "Anglo-Saxon" signifies - to me - the people who often discriminated against my immigrant great grandparents.

I also take issue with posters from developing countries that UK and US social entrepreneurship do so as a choice to be "nice." I understand the point from an international perspective, but within the US we have social entrepreneurs at the community level finding ways to get out of poverty or to help others do so. I assume there are similar situations in the UK, despite the stronger social safety net. We are wealthy nations, but that does not mean everyone within is wealthy. Such narrow assumptions are unhelpful, just like the too-common assumption in rich nations that poor regions are "backwards" and incapable.

If you want a different angle on this from the usual US/West European fixation, try this BBC report broadcast yesterday and repeated tomorrow at 9.30 about a crime diversion project in Venezuela, Project Alcatraz - see this BBC radio link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pg5pj
There's a link to the BBC Radio 4 listing on the page.

Dear Nick
Thanks very much for your comment
Much appreciate the link
regards, rod

Hi Rod,

Great post on an interesting subject.

I am an American living in Norway. I founded WiHood (www.WiHood.com) two years ago in Oslo, Norway to provide all children worldwide with PC and Internet technology. WiHood is also incorporated in the US.

Since founding the company, I have had success with receiving assistance and attention from departments in the Norwegian government but all my correspondence with US organizations and foundations for social entrepreneurs have gone unanswered. Maybe it is just bad luck but there does seem to be a bias towards US based social entrepreneurship.

I have been interviewed by reporters who found it interesting to get the story of an American but when I informed them that I am based in Norway they informed me that the interview was over and that they only wanted US stories.

I don't understand why applications and initiatives from the US have a preference especially when an American living abroad is able to leverage their multicultural experience into their project that is unique and advantagious. There are many Americans like myself who are too perplexed at as your call it "Anglo-Saxon" favoritism.

In short, their are successful American social entrepreneurs outside the US but the challenge to have our voices and initiatives considered is the problem but why it is eludes us.

Thomas F. Anglero, Founder and CEO
WiHood AS/LLC

There's lots of innovation in social entrepreneurship going on in India, Singapore, Eastern Europe, Phillipines, Australia, South Africa, Norway et al.

Check out the Social Entrepreneurship Teaching Resources Handbook at the University Network for Social Entrepreneurship to see where social entrepreneurship is being taught at universities worldwide. http://www.universitynetwork.org/handbook

I believe that innovation comes from seeing problem first-hand, and coming up with solutions to meet the problem.
(Albeit that I am Anglo-Saxon myself, and have put together a non-profit distributing network hub which will support the third sector and provide a window to innovation - from everywhere...But I am unable to get a grant because my own excluded group continues to be excluded.)
My own findings are that many top decision/policy makers, are unaware of the wealth of ideas outside their own experience, and that traditionally, there is an expectancy for 'professional quality' or 2 years trading figures before a grant can be applied for.
Isolated groups across the world, and individuals, are all prevented from furthering their plans, and selling out to a commercial business defeats the object!

Hello all,

I see that this thread is a few months old but was glad to see some comments this month as well. I have independent responses to quite a few people but it will all become too long...so I have noted comments which spoke to me on a word document and will send it to people who may choose to write back or to those of you I might be able to email. I can be reached on pallavi@eyaas.com and I am on linked-in or follow eyaas.com on facebook and twitter @eyaas.

There is one important thing in all this and that is EVOLUTION. Everything evolves, companies, research, ideas, individuals and societies. Darwin was a genius even though I CAN & DO believe in Adam & Eve. Through history, colonial era, as referred here, “the white man’s burden” is a well-espoused phrase and practiced in all earnestness. It has evolved from pure race based theory to economic theory, from racial imperialism to economic imperialism. Once again as mentioned here by NJ, “power has many faces”. As time goes by this too will change. We see it in this discussion already which is started by Anglo-saxons on one end and then we hear the story of the Ghana organization on the other extreme – two perspectives of the burdened and the burden.

I believe that one cannot change a “system” from the outside. You have to be part of a system to change a system. To the Anglo-saxon community I say, good that you are taking this initiative because for this attitude (in the guise of correctness it borders on condescension and arrogance) to change only people amongst you can change it. We (from the east and the south) are outsiders and we do what we have to do but now in this process of social evolution, what the Anglo-saxons THINK does not matter that much anymore. We do what needs to be done to make a “better life for us and our communities”, the basis of social entrepreneurship with or without your help or acceptance. So as Gandhi said, “BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE” and congratulations and thank you for showing a change.

There is so much we could collaborate towards if those “bridges” that Ingrid spoke about were put in place. And that is where the initiative is needed. It is not about who is doing more innovative work, it is about how the maximum number of people can benefit from this work which may or may not be “glocalized” but which can be built upon or maybe its just about a pat on the back acknowledging a work well done. Yes stories go un-heard. Yes, most of these entrepreneurs do not look at social gratification but we are all still human. A good word can never de-motivate, it can never make anyone feel bad, it can never do harm, so why not give it when we can.

There is so much more I want to say and I will try to write a response to you all. It is wonderful to see such discussions because it makes me believe that one day we will once again have a world without borders. Maybe we are all idealists and unreasonable but George Bernard Shaw said, “ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. So all progress depends on the unreasonable man”.

Cheers
Pallavi – www.eyaas.com
India