It seems to me that the opening sentence of almost every blog entry I've written refers to a length of time – sometimes looking back, sometimes looking forward. I suppose it shouldn't shock that, on commencing this final post, I once again feel the urge to talk about time. 4 weeks; one month ago today; the end of last year; All ways of expressing the same thing – the length of time since I arrived home from Amar Sonar Bangladesh.
Naturally, as I no longer live amongst the madness, I have no stories about cockroaches, discrimination, electricity, CNG drives/near death experiences, humidity or being bullied by an elephant. Instead I guess this post should be deeper, more personal, an opportunity to come to terms with a change in me caused by my travels from Drumshanbo to Satkhira to Drumshanbo again.
And yet, I have little interest in doing so. This blog has certainly drifted at times to my ramblings about the ups and downs of being a volunteer but right now I have little to report on that level. In fact the only thing to report is the concretisation of my views about global development.
As many of you know, we in Ireland are today fully consumed by political uncertainty, economic crisis, the worst effects of capitalism and the Rubber-bandits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljPFZrRD3J8 – check this out for some special Irish pisstaking). In such a climate, it has obviously been difficult to share my experiences of development with friends, family and strangers without getting the feeling that what I was talking about was, to those worried about mortgage repayments, cuts in disability support or unemployment, somewhat irrelevent.
And yet, I am absolutely convinced that experiences from the developing world are more relevant to the developed world today than ever before. If one looks at the causes of the crisis in Ireland - laissez faire capitalism, the politics of civil war, a lack of decentralisation, the damaging effect of cultural homogeneity, the corrupt power of elites, the absence of a separation of powers, democratic deficit, waste within the public sector, the marginalisation of dissent, the stereotyping of the poor, a disregard for climate change, the crisis on the left – one can clearly see the correspondence with factors holding back development in places like Bangladesh.
And herein, lies a point which I felt before I left in January 2010 but which I am certain of today: despite being so incredibly far away from places like Bangladesh (geographically, socially, culturally and level of development) I know that we, in western societies, are much much closer to our sisters and brothers in those developing countries than we dare admit. And I don't point this out for the sake of cultural enrichment but out of necessity.
The interdependence of countries today was once and for all proven in the most recent economic and global food crisis. And yet, many states still continue to go it alone; to adopt policies and make decisions which are simply unsustainable and inequitable on a global level. The challenge for development activists and the peoples of developing countries in this regard is clear: to get the people of developed countries to realize that their futures, their successes,their liberties, their jobs, their happiness are inherently linked to the local, national and global standards and policies on trade, investments, banking, the environment, human rights and democracy. It is my honest view following a year in Bangladesh and 4weeks in Europe that true sustainable development cannot be acheived nationally without sustainable development everywhere.
So that's it. I had hoped that 'Bangladeshi Times' would give readers a window into the situation in Bangladesh from the perspective of global interdependence. I didn't always manage to stay on that track, but, in any case, I've greatly enjoyed blogging through crazy, difficult, lonely, sad reflective and wonderful,moments...thank you for sharing those moments with me.
Bhalo thaken, Stay well.
Friday, 21 January 2011
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Searching for Identity
Last week I travelled to the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), the home of the majority of Bangladesh’s Indigenous Communities. I followed this up by celebrating Cow Killing Eid with some colleagues and neighbours, i.e. members of the majority Muslim Bengali population. Both were extremely enjoyable but they also served to highlight something which I’ve been thinking for a long time: that Bangladesh as a State, is greatly confused about its raison d’etre and its identity.
The Chittagong Hill Tracts
The CHT is pretty much the only area of Bangladesh with hills (slideshow in the sidebar). From the two days I spent there, I reckon it’s also the only place here that is reasonably quiet, clean and culturally diverse (there are 12 languages spoken there). The indigenous peoples are Christian, Buddhist and (I think) Hindu. Right now, however; Muslim Bengalis make up 50% of the area’s population in large part due to a government policy resettling landless Bengalis on land which legally belonged to the indigenous peoples. This policy as well as the creation of a hydro-electo power plant which led to the flooding of hundreds of acres of indigenous community lands (round of applause for US AID), created an atmosphere of oppression and caused the local communities to fight for the autonomy required to protect their cultures and for the settling of land disputes which go back fifty years. In 1997 a peace accord was signed but with little sign of its implementation, the area remains highly militarised. Some living in the Hills spoke of the belief that the military were involved in some of the violence which kicked off last February; that their presence increases the tension between communities and that the reason behind their continued presence is political i.e. Bangladesh government (regardless of the party) desperately needs to keep the oversized and very powerful military happy and thus must keep them busy and well paid. This is not some conspiracy theory but a matter which greatly hinders the development of many post-war, post-independence states.
Killing and Eating those cows!
Returning to the plain lands, Eid fever had begun in Dhaka: temporary cattle and goat markets were established all over the city; cow shit decorated the pavements and men with goats risked their lives crossing some of Dhaka’s mental roads! Generally, each family (in Bangladeshi terms this means the wider family so about ten-twenty people) will kill a cow and/or a few goats as a sacrifice to Allah in order to have some kind of redemption. I arrived in Satkhira on Eid Morning and though I missed the hour’s prayer, at 10am I headed off with a colleague to witness the cow killing itself. In true Bangladeshi style, I had eaten three breakfasts in three different houses each consisting of different types of rice puddings and noodles, before even catching a glimpse of our soon to be main course. I don’t need to go into the details of the surprisingly quick and humane slaughter as you’ll get a fair idea from the photos, but there are a couple of important details: the person who kills the animal must be a religious leader. The family can keep 30% for themselves, offer 30% for the local poor and give 30% to their neighbours. Later that afternoon, having completed the cooking, I was invited to four more houses this time to eat beef or mutton only. Needless to say by 9 o’clock I was very must like a beached whale.
The link between both of these experiences is not that obvious and in truth it’s just a way of bringing up an issue I’ve been thinking about for a long time: identity.
From great ideas to contradictory implementation
Bangladesh came into existence in 1971 following a liberation war against Pakistan which had its roots in the language movement. The language movement itself was led by, from my limited knowledge, a more liberal community of students and professors embodied by the institution which is Dhaka University. The crux of their gripe with Pakistan was that they did not like the official status of Urdu to the detriment of Bangla nor did they accept the imposition of a theocratic system on their ‘people’ and finally they could not accept the false autonomy which Pakistan was granting them. The Liberation War therefore was a fight for self determination, for the protection of identity and also for the protection of fundamental liberties.
And yet, the war istelf and its aftermath seem to me to prove that there was and remains little common understanding on what identity it was they were fighting for. Firstly, the genocide by the Pakistani Army was carried out with the help of extremist Bangladeshi Muslims (many of whom will hopefully be convicted in the coming months) and focussed specifically on the Bangladeshi Hindu Communities. Secondly, while the peoples of the CHT certainly fought against the Pakistani army, from some conversations I’ve had, it seems unlikely that they did so united around some fundamental belief in a non-communal independent state. It is indeed more likely that they fought with whoever they felt might guarantee them a better deal. Thirdly, the naming of the country automatically promotes one people over the others as the constitution also goes on to do, namely those for whom Bangla is their mother tongue. Fourthly, the constitution fails to recognize the specific indigenous community rights. Fifthly, a reference to Allah in the Preamble as well as crazy amendments by various governments and generals thereafter, shows that there was and remains very little freedom of religion in the 95% Muslim country. Finally, the contradictions of fighting a war on the basis of cultural freedom only to impose a single culture on all are painfully obvious and yet the country’s mistreatment of its indigenous peoples has yet to be resolved.
For me, it all goes back to big ideas by a small number of people and the fight for the freedom of identity and personality in East Pakistan. The Dhaka University Elite at the time of the language movement were perhaps wonderfully liberal free thinking people, and no doubt brave human rights activists. But only fearful Bangladeshis can believe that these elite represented the entire population. There was no agreement in 1970 on the identity which a new independent state would take on and there is still no agreement today. But this is a challenge which the peoples of Bangladesh will have to face up to if they are ever to live together in harmony and discover what it is that brings them all together. Whatever that is, it’s not one religion, it’s not one culture and it’s certainly not one languag
The Chittagong Hill Tracts
The CHT is pretty much the only area of Bangladesh with hills (slideshow in the sidebar). From the two days I spent there, I reckon it’s also the only place here that is reasonably quiet, clean and culturally diverse (there are 12 languages spoken there). The indigenous peoples are Christian, Buddhist and (I think) Hindu. Right now, however; Muslim Bengalis make up 50% of the area’s population in large part due to a government policy resettling landless Bengalis on land which legally belonged to the indigenous peoples. This policy as well as the creation of a hydro-electo power plant which led to the flooding of hundreds of acres of indigenous community lands (round of applause for US AID), created an atmosphere of oppression and caused the local communities to fight for the autonomy required to protect their cultures and for the settling of land disputes which go back fifty years. In 1997 a peace accord was signed but with little sign of its implementation, the area remains highly militarised. Some living in the Hills spoke of the belief that the military were involved in some of the violence which kicked off last February; that their presence increases the tension between communities and that the reason behind their continued presence is political i.e. Bangladesh government (regardless of the party) desperately needs to keep the oversized and very powerful military happy and thus must keep them busy and well paid. This is not some conspiracy theory but a matter which greatly hinders the development of many post-war, post-independence states.
Killing and Eating those cows!
Returning to the plain lands, Eid fever had begun in Dhaka: temporary cattle and goat markets were established all over the city; cow shit decorated the pavements and men with goats risked their lives crossing some of Dhaka’s mental roads! Generally, each family (in Bangladeshi terms this means the wider family so about ten-twenty people) will kill a cow and/or a few goats as a sacrifice to Allah in order to have some kind of redemption. I arrived in Satkhira on Eid Morning and though I missed the hour’s prayer, at 10am I headed off with a colleague to witness the cow killing itself. In true Bangladeshi style, I had eaten three breakfasts in three different houses each consisting of different types of rice puddings and noodles, before even catching a glimpse of our soon to be main course. I don’t need to go into the details of the surprisingly quick and humane slaughter as you’ll get a fair idea from the photos, but there are a couple of important details: the person who kills the animal must be a religious leader. The family can keep 30% for themselves, offer 30% for the local poor and give 30% to their neighbours. Later that afternoon, having completed the cooking, I was invited to four more houses this time to eat beef or mutton only. Needless to say by 9 o’clock I was very must like a beached whale.
The link between both of these experiences is not that obvious and in truth it’s just a way of bringing up an issue I’ve been thinking about for a long time: identity.
From great ideas to contradictory implementation
Bangladesh came into existence in 1971 following a liberation war against Pakistan which had its roots in the language movement. The language movement itself was led by, from my limited knowledge, a more liberal community of students and professors embodied by the institution which is Dhaka University. The crux of their gripe with Pakistan was that they did not like the official status of Urdu to the detriment of Bangla nor did they accept the imposition of a theocratic system on their ‘people’ and finally they could not accept the false autonomy which Pakistan was granting them. The Liberation War therefore was a fight for self determination, for the protection of identity and also for the protection of fundamental liberties.
And yet, the war istelf and its aftermath seem to me to prove that there was and remains little common understanding on what identity it was they were fighting for. Firstly, the genocide by the Pakistani Army was carried out with the help of extremist Bangladeshi Muslims (many of whom will hopefully be convicted in the coming months) and focussed specifically on the Bangladeshi Hindu Communities. Secondly, while the peoples of the CHT certainly fought against the Pakistani army, from some conversations I’ve had, it seems unlikely that they did so united around some fundamental belief in a non-communal independent state. It is indeed more likely that they fought with whoever they felt might guarantee them a better deal. Thirdly, the naming of the country automatically promotes one people over the others as the constitution also goes on to do, namely those for whom Bangla is their mother tongue. Fourthly, the constitution fails to recognize the specific indigenous community rights. Fifthly, a reference to Allah in the Preamble as well as crazy amendments by various governments and generals thereafter, shows that there was and remains very little freedom of religion in the 95% Muslim country. Finally, the contradictions of fighting a war on the basis of cultural freedom only to impose a single culture on all are painfully obvious and yet the country’s mistreatment of its indigenous peoples has yet to be resolved.
For me, it all goes back to big ideas by a small number of people and the fight for the freedom of identity and personality in East Pakistan. The Dhaka University Elite at the time of the language movement were perhaps wonderfully liberal free thinking people, and no doubt brave human rights activists. But only fearful Bangladeshis can believe that these elite represented the entire population. There was no agreement in 1970 on the identity which a new independent state would take on and there is still no agreement today. But this is a challenge which the peoples of Bangladesh will have to face up to if they are ever to live together in harmony and discover what it is that brings them all together. Whatever that is, it’s not one religion, it’s not one culture and it’s certainly not one languag
Friday, 1 October 2010
Social Business: a real alternative to mainstream business or the dreams of an idealist?
It seems strange that having been living in the land of Mohammed Yunus and Microcredit for eight months, I’ve yet to really discuss either. Well, in recent weeks circumstances contrived forcing me to read up a little more about both.
Yunus, a Nobel laureate for Economics, is the father of microcredit and is referred to as the ‘banker to the poor’. Denied access to credit to purchase basic necessities or to invest in a child’s education by a banking sector which felt them unworthy borrowers, poor people instead are forced to borrow from village level loan sharks who not only demand excessive interest rates but impose numerous other conditions as well. Yunus, an economics professor at the time, felt that the bank’s discrimination was both unfair and unjustified. He set about creating a system which would grant the poor access to credit while ensuring the sustainability of the bank. Providing small loans with low interest rates overwhelmingly to poor women (more reliable than men financially, generally discriminated against and more likely to invest the money in the family) the microcredit model was born. To ensure security, Grameen Bank (Village Bank) overtime built up networks of village depositors. Security was built on trust and honour. Within three years, Grameen could show that 98% of loans were repaid on time.
Microcredit has been around for over 30years now and has spread throughout the world, not least through Bangladeshi entities like Grameen and BRAC.
Needless to say, it’s not all roses.
While micro-credit has been proven to provide poor families with an avenue out of poverty, the idea of providing credit to already impoverished people, to me, is a bit off-putting. Of course there is risk analysis involved and one gets the impression that because the bank is not-for-profit, it will be sure to protect potential customers/beneficiaries. But as microcredit has become more popular, it seems to have moved away from Yunus’ principles. It is now used by thousands of NGOs and corporations in Bangladesh alone, as a tool for poverty reduction but perhaps more commonly, as an income generating source for those entities who then claim to reinvest that income through their development programmes. There are, however; any number of reports of massive personal corruption, charging of extortionate interest rates, fraud and major violence in the microfinance sector.
Many also question the so-called empowerment effect of microcredit. The idea is that by providing loans to women and involving them in village networks, they will gain extra respect within the family, will enjoy more freedom to participate in community activities and therefore inequality between the sexes will decrease. But critics say that while this approach to tackling inequality is certainly welcome it is based on a false premise – that gender discrimination is due to financial inequalities when in fact it is predominantly about prevailing customs, traditions and attitudes towards the role of women and men. It’s not that financial equality would not improve the lot of women but that given the size of the microcredit industry, there is a risk that it could deflect the focus from the major underlying causes.
While Grameen cannot and should not be blamed for all of this, the experience shows that Microcredit, like any financial product, can be exploited to the detriment of those it should best serve. That said, if the product is well regulated and seen as just one tool for defeating gender discrimination and poverty, then Yunus can be proud of what he has created. Indeed, I’m sure that this is exactly what he would say if asked.
Yet for all the good work Microcredit has done, Yunus is off on a new crusade. He has by no means broke up with his ole sweetheart Grameen or indeed Microcredit but rather it seems that relationship is about to reach new heights. They will do this through ‘Social Business’.
What is Social Business?
A social business sells a product or service with the aim of addressing a social problem. It is ‘a non-loss non-dividend company’. In other words it doesn’t actively seek to make profit but rather to balance even and it judges its success in terms of both solvency and its impact on addressing that social problem. Indeed, even when it makes profits (or as Yunus calls them surpluses), they must be reinvested in developing or expanding the business or in the businesses trust which invests them in other development activities or social businesses.
Investors are entitled to full reimbursement in line with their agreement but without any interest or dividend. Shareholders are not entitled to any dividend but instead their dividend either unless of course, the shareholders themselves are suffering from the social ill (e.g. cancer patients, disabled persons, refugees).
Yunus sees this as a powerful alternative to ‘for profit business’. Over the past twenty years, Grameen Bank expanded to create over 10different trusts each focussing on a different social need and each linked to the core network of Grameen Bank shareholders (those who receive credit and are soon offered shares) and other customers. What makes Yunus’ idea different from those of Social Enterprise is the complete focus on social benefit and complete disregard (or even contempt) for profits.
The idea rests on a very simple belief. Though a proud capitalist he feels that economics and capitalism as they stand are incomplete. That their underlying philosophy is that man is motivated by self interest which through the capitalist system expresses itself solely in the form of profit maximization, for Yunus, is simply incorrect. Yes, we are all self-interested and we will do a shitload to earn a few extra quid, he says; but we are not ‘money-making robots’ as evidenced by people regularly carry out any number of selfless things. We have people working and volunteering for charities and not-for profit organizations, we give donations to them function, we help neighbours, we help the people of Darfur and Pakistan, we participate in community activities etc – all actions which are neither focussed on profit maximization nor motivated by self interest. For Yunus, capitalism fails to offer the selfless side of the human being an opportunity to express itself.
And even though, I feel that most so-called selfless acts actually serve the individuals interest at least in some way, what Yunus says seems to me to be pretty sound – everyone has a selfless side to his/her character and it is time that capitalism take this into account.
Does it actually work?
Yunus has big plans for Social Business. Grameen has already partnered up with some of the largest multi-nationals out there – DANONE, Otto GMBH, Adidas, Veolia, Intel, BASF etc. Each of them focus on addressing social problems: highly nutritious yoghurt for poorly nourished kids, better employment in the textile industry, affordable shoes for better health, affordable safe and clean drinking water for arsenic affected areas, reducing child and maternal mortality through accessible and suitable technology, mosquito repellent treated nets respectively. There are also many examples from around the world which have nothing to do with Grameen. I’m not going into the details now, but, yes, though difficult, they can certainly work.
What next?
Yunus envisages setting up a global social business infrastructure including University hubs, and even a stock market for buying and selling shares in social businesses. People risk seeing their share value drop and can never takes a dividend or keep the profit from selling their shares at better prices. Instead the only thing they stand to gain is satisfaction from the knowledge that they are reducing poverty or preventing the spread of malaria or helping employ 100 landless indigenous people.
His book, Building a Social Business, is an interesting read and even if at times you might get sick of Yunus’ self-confidence and optimism, it is also pretty inspiring.
As for the idea itself; I kind of like it. It doesn’t intend to replace the ‘for profit model (I would go as far as saying it will be very much dependent on it) but it does give people the freedom to decide what to do with their cash. And, for those who want to address poverty, while at the same time getting the business buzz but without scope for extra profits, it must represent a pretty decent opportunity. For that alone, Yunus should be congratulated.
On the other hand as it supports the privatisation of public goods and services, it remains development theory through the eyes of a businessman. But hey – at least it’s a social businessman.
Yunus, a Nobel laureate for Economics, is the father of microcredit and is referred to as the ‘banker to the poor’. Denied access to credit to purchase basic necessities or to invest in a child’s education by a banking sector which felt them unworthy borrowers, poor people instead are forced to borrow from village level loan sharks who not only demand excessive interest rates but impose numerous other conditions as well. Yunus, an economics professor at the time, felt that the bank’s discrimination was both unfair and unjustified. He set about creating a system which would grant the poor access to credit while ensuring the sustainability of the bank. Providing small loans with low interest rates overwhelmingly to poor women (more reliable than men financially, generally discriminated against and more likely to invest the money in the family) the microcredit model was born. To ensure security, Grameen Bank (Village Bank) overtime built up networks of village depositors. Security was built on trust and honour. Within three years, Grameen could show that 98% of loans were repaid on time.
Microcredit has been around for over 30years now and has spread throughout the world, not least through Bangladeshi entities like Grameen and BRAC.
Needless to say, it’s not all roses.
While micro-credit has been proven to provide poor families with an avenue out of poverty, the idea of providing credit to already impoverished people, to me, is a bit off-putting. Of course there is risk analysis involved and one gets the impression that because the bank is not-for-profit, it will be sure to protect potential customers/beneficiaries. But as microcredit has become more popular, it seems to have moved away from Yunus’ principles. It is now used by thousands of NGOs and corporations in Bangladesh alone, as a tool for poverty reduction but perhaps more commonly, as an income generating source for those entities who then claim to reinvest that income through their development programmes. There are, however; any number of reports of massive personal corruption, charging of extortionate interest rates, fraud and major violence in the microfinance sector.
Many also question the so-called empowerment effect of microcredit. The idea is that by providing loans to women and involving them in village networks, they will gain extra respect within the family, will enjoy more freedom to participate in community activities and therefore inequality between the sexes will decrease. But critics say that while this approach to tackling inequality is certainly welcome it is based on a false premise – that gender discrimination is due to financial inequalities when in fact it is predominantly about prevailing customs, traditions and attitudes towards the role of women and men. It’s not that financial equality would not improve the lot of women but that given the size of the microcredit industry, there is a risk that it could deflect the focus from the major underlying causes.
While Grameen cannot and should not be blamed for all of this, the experience shows that Microcredit, like any financial product, can be exploited to the detriment of those it should best serve. That said, if the product is well regulated and seen as just one tool for defeating gender discrimination and poverty, then Yunus can be proud of what he has created. Indeed, I’m sure that this is exactly what he would say if asked.
Yet for all the good work Microcredit has done, Yunus is off on a new crusade. He has by no means broke up with his ole sweetheart Grameen or indeed Microcredit but rather it seems that relationship is about to reach new heights. They will do this through ‘Social Business’.
What is Social Business?
A social business sells a product or service with the aim of addressing a social problem. It is ‘a non-loss non-dividend company’. In other words it doesn’t actively seek to make profit but rather to balance even and it judges its success in terms of both solvency and its impact on addressing that social problem. Indeed, even when it makes profits (or as Yunus calls them surpluses), they must be reinvested in developing or expanding the business or in the businesses trust which invests them in other development activities or social businesses.
Investors are entitled to full reimbursement in line with their agreement but without any interest or dividend. Shareholders are not entitled to any dividend but instead their dividend either unless of course, the shareholders themselves are suffering from the social ill (e.g. cancer patients, disabled persons, refugees).
Yunus sees this as a powerful alternative to ‘for profit business’. Over the past twenty years, Grameen Bank expanded to create over 10different trusts each focussing on a different social need and each linked to the core network of Grameen Bank shareholders (those who receive credit and are soon offered shares) and other customers. What makes Yunus’ idea different from those of Social Enterprise is the complete focus on social benefit and complete disregard (or even contempt) for profits.
The idea rests on a very simple belief. Though a proud capitalist he feels that economics and capitalism as they stand are incomplete. That their underlying philosophy is that man is motivated by self interest which through the capitalist system expresses itself solely in the form of profit maximization, for Yunus, is simply incorrect. Yes, we are all self-interested and we will do a shitload to earn a few extra quid, he says; but we are not ‘money-making robots’ as evidenced by people regularly carry out any number of selfless things. We have people working and volunteering for charities and not-for profit organizations, we give donations to them function, we help neighbours, we help the people of Darfur and Pakistan, we participate in community activities etc – all actions which are neither focussed on profit maximization nor motivated by self interest. For Yunus, capitalism fails to offer the selfless side of the human being an opportunity to express itself.
And even though, I feel that most so-called selfless acts actually serve the individuals interest at least in some way, what Yunus says seems to me to be pretty sound – everyone has a selfless side to his/her character and it is time that capitalism take this into account.
Does it actually work?
Yunus has big plans for Social Business. Grameen has already partnered up with some of the largest multi-nationals out there – DANONE, Otto GMBH, Adidas, Veolia, Intel, BASF etc. Each of them focus on addressing social problems: highly nutritious yoghurt for poorly nourished kids, better employment in the textile industry, affordable shoes for better health, affordable safe and clean drinking water for arsenic affected areas, reducing child and maternal mortality through accessible and suitable technology, mosquito repellent treated nets respectively. There are also many examples from around the world which have nothing to do with Grameen. I’m not going into the details now, but, yes, though difficult, they can certainly work.
What next?
Yunus envisages setting up a global social business infrastructure including University hubs, and even a stock market for buying and selling shares in social businesses. People risk seeing their share value drop and can never takes a dividend or keep the profit from selling their shares at better prices. Instead the only thing they stand to gain is satisfaction from the knowledge that they are reducing poverty or preventing the spread of malaria or helping employ 100 landless indigenous people.
His book, Building a Social Business, is an interesting read and even if at times you might get sick of Yunus’ self-confidence and optimism, it is also pretty inspiring.
As for the idea itself; I kind of like it. It doesn’t intend to replace the ‘for profit model (I would go as far as saying it will be very much dependent on it) but it does give people the freedom to decide what to do with their cash. And, for those who want to address poverty, while at the same time getting the business buzz but without scope for extra profits, it must represent a pretty decent opportunity. For that alone, Yunus should be congratulated.
On the other hand as it supports the privatisation of public goods and services, it remains development theory through the eyes of a businessman. But hey – at least it’s a social businessman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)