“Giving in its purest form expects nothing in return.” – Anonymous

There are a lot of confusing buzzwords being thrown around these days: ending charity, dead aid, patient capitalism, impatient optimists, and investment over aid. What does it all mean?

My initial thoughts on this subject were spurred by zyOyz founder Steve Jennings’ repost of an article titled: “Charity alone not the answer to tackling poverty”. Well I agreed with the article’s basic premise that just giving money is not the only solution or the best, I was troubled by the article’s absolute statements that business models and capitalism will save the world.

The article, reposted from the Financial Times, notes the work of the Acumen Fund founded by Jacqueline Novogratz, which invests in small businesses with a social impact termed as “patient capital.” It has become a highly successful model, however Novogratz is quoted as saying: “We need creative approaches to reinvigorate capitalism and make it more inclusive.” The most inclusive business model that I know, with high degrees of success, is the cooperative model based on needs of those involved, inclusion, and participation. Looking at history, capitalism has generated exclusion: great amounts of wealth for many people, but it has also perpetuated extremely flawed systems that create great degrees of poverty for many people. The evidence is in any major city where the consequences of capitalism lay bare the desperation of good people who are left with nothing.

At the root of the article, “Charity alone not the answer to tackling poverty,” is the long-running debate on whether investment is more effective than aid. Professor Bill Easterly made popular the fact (through his book, “White Man’s Burden”) that over $1 trillion in aid has been given to Africa over the last 50 years with limited positive results, Dambisa Moyo has termed this “dead aid” and calls for a complete end of aid to Africa. Others like Bill and Melinda Gates, who have given vast amounts of aid (which they often call “investment”) to Africa with their foundation, label themselves as “impatient optimists.” They are hopeful for the future and want more done at the present time.

However, there is a problem with their impatience that many have critiqued. Impatience tends to push solutions that are ineffective. Ian Wilhelm gets further into this topic in a blog about “irrational aid.” In the post he writes about Alanna Shaikh’s critique of ineffective aid, such as outdated pharmaceuticals and medical equipment that has no use in the field. This argument is countered by Isaac Holeman’s disagreement that well that aid may be irrational, it provides immediate personal stories of need to bring in more donors. I have to agree with Alanna in saying that this irrational, possibly impatient, aid does more harm and basically no good.

How have we now moved from decrying the failures of charity and aid to highlighting the benefits of business models and the capitalist system back again to smiling about greater benefits of monetary investment in people and ideas? Where is the line drawn between investment and aid? As far as I can tell it is mostly semantic. Isn’t aid when transparent, effective, and driven by best practices an investment? Giving an investment is essentially the same as giving aid or charity.

Investment is the buzzword used by social enterprises, microfinance, and has become the new fad in international development organizations. I think that it is important to make a distinction between what is effective and what is not. Aid can be very effective and investment can be very ineffective. The reverse is also true. Where does effective aid change from being a type of investment? When experts talk about the broken aid system do they forget that the broken aid system is merely a reflection of the broken financial system. The same interests and individuals who have run financial systems have run foreign aid systems.

The real issue in this debate need not be if businesses are better than charities or who’s money is better spent. What is most important needs to be the question of, “How?” The systems, structures, and practices that implement aid and drive investment need to be cooperative, inclusive, needs based, and people-centered – in one word: effective. If you are looking for a return on investment (ROI) or accolades for your donated or invested dollars, then maybe you should reconsider why you give?

Before you have anything else, you have your health. Hopefully if you have nothing else, at least you have your health. Unfortunately, for millions across the African continent this is not an absolute fact. Even more unfortunate is the fact that many Africans have no ability to change their health status. They are trapped in a system that is driven by Western market based, profit driven health care systems. As the failures of Western development practices come to light, alternatives to what has been are becoming increasingly visible. These alternatives will form a revolution in African health care delivery. This revolution will be fueled by health care delivery models that will give local communities agency in the provision of their own health care. Community-based models involving cooperative financing, proven para-professional training, new information technology, and social enterprise for the social good will drive the revolution in African health care. People will be able to determine for themselves, their level of health.

What does “Health” mean anyway?
This is a question often left to remain ambiguous. For the purposes of my writing I will provide a comprehensive view of “health” and all that is entailed in sustaining and maintaining health. “Health” in all instances will refer directly to the “basic needs” of a person in regards to health care.

Healing, like health, is obviously rooted in the social and cultural order. [...] To define dangerous behavior, and to define evil, is to define some causes of illness. As the definition of evil changes, so does the interpretation of illness. To understand change in healing, we must understand what it is that leads people to alter the definition of dangerous social behavior. It can easily be accepted that health and healing in Africa are shaped by broad social forces.

As Feierman and Janzen state, health (and healing for that matter) are directly linked to social forces. If a comprehensive understanding of health is to be understood, it must be studied in the context of politics, economics, and other societal structures.

Health is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as, “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” The WHO and many other international organizations recognize that this broad and encompassing definition of health. Where this definition becomes ambiguous is what qualifiers meet, “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being.” In 1978 the WHO made primary health care its number one objective with the Declaration of Alma Ata. However, even this statement had no clear definition of health or its qualifiers.

Feierman and Janzen provide a more clear definition of the qualifiers of health in the preface to their volume: The Social Basis of Health and Healing in Africa,

[…] it [health] is maintained by a cushion of adequate nutrition, social support, water supply, housing, sanitation, and continued collective defense against contagious and degenerative disease. Such a view is necessary if we are to understand those contexts in today’s Africa where health levels deteriorate, and where they improve.

These authors provide a complete set of qualifiers, or “basic needs,” of health that can be researched further to understand where political, economic, and social structures interfere with sustaining and maintaining health and where health care is inadequate.

Health care should thus be understood as the system and structure that works to provide the above defined “basic needs” to each individual. Often this role falls to governments, but sometimes is taken up by communities and organizations when government’s fail to provide these basic needs.

This blog series will cover four key areas identified that will fuel this revolution in African health care: cooperative financing, para-professional training, information technology, and social enterprise. SCOUT BANANA works to tackle social medicine (social, economic, structures) while enabling others to provide medical services. Be sure to follow closely to learn more!

(photo credit: WDI University of Michigan)

Over the years SCOUT BANANA’s work has been termed “social entrepreneurship.” Unfortunately, the definition of the social enterprise has slowly become muddled and confused with other ideas. During a discussion last month a friend said that calling someone a social entrepreneur was like “cutting the balls off of a socialist.” He may not have been as far from the truth as I once thought. As the term becomes more prevalent within aid and development we must delve deeper into the history of social enterprise and decide what it really means for the work that we do.

Jeff Trexler wrote an excellent post on the history of social enterprise. He writes that a social enterprise is essentially “a venture with a social purpose.” As many wrongly believe the ideas of social enterprise did not come from capitalism or corporate business models at all.

“In socialist jurisprudence, social enterprise was a term designed to replace the capitalist notion of businesses dedicated to the pursuit of profit. The social enterprise generated revenue in excess of the costs of production, but profit-making was not the goal of socialist business–rather, its fundamental organizational purpose was to serve collective benefit. More over, in keeping with Marxist/Leninist ideology, the social enterprise was owned & controlled not by private shareholders–a hallmark of bourgeoise capitalism–but by workers themselves, from the workers immediately connected to the enterprise to society as a whole.”

Jeff continues to write that “social enterprise” migrated to Western minds and charities much the same way that “civil society” was reborn and co-opted. Meaning “citizen’s society,” the term was used to unite individuals against centralized government power. Now the term is best understood as a descriptor of anything “non-governmental.”

It seems that “social enterprise” has drifted just as far from its original conception. As a social venture that was meant to give power back to people and allow them ownership, much like a cooperative, “social enterprise” has best come to represent corporate philanthropy and cause marketing campaigns. Both of which are focused on turning profits and not helping people. Julia Moulden asks, “is making a difference only for the rich?” She easily gives examples that it is not, but is it? As far as the foreign aid/ international development arena it appears that social enterprise is geared towards engaging wealthy Western populations in feel good campaigns, like Product (RED), that are best defined as image marketing campaigns for corporations to try and look better as a way to bring in more customers. Lucy Bernholz has termed this business model “embedded giving” where “commerce is used to generate funds for a cause.” She writes:

“Embedded giving is just one more example of the blurring of sectors and roles between commerce, philanthropy, and public good. [...] Maybe today’s teens and kids who have seen so much embedded giving will grow up to expect that every product and every service comes with a charitable affiliation.”

SCOUT BANANA’s work was first called “social entrepreneurship” in 2004 when I was selected as one of Netaid’s Global Action Awardee and was asked to contribute to a discussion on SocialEdge about young people and making a difference. Then, I was not too sure what the term meant or why it might be significant. More recently Spotlight Michigan has highlighted our work and called us a “social enterprise.” They select “innovative” companies and organizations in Michigan to feature on their website. Their criteria breaks down into three categories: creativity, risk-taking and adaptability. In the true spirit of a social enterprise we are an organization built for adaptation because we operate by members involvement and input. We have always been called creative for our fundraising tactics, use of yellow and bananas, and our ability to connect people. The risk-taking is another story. We never faced any risk in our venture to make a difference. If we failed the only people who would potentially suffer were those relying on our support to access basic health care. Alanna Shaikh wrote an excellent piece on how “global health is not about altruism.” While our actions may have been seen as risk-taking, we really work to create accountable, long-term relationships with communities developing their own sustainable solutions.

Personally I define social entrepreneurship within its original conception; a socialist structure (for social good) that is meant to give power and agency back to people as well as present an alternative to ineffective governments. Civil society still exists because honestly the government can’t do it all and often are not very good at meeting the needs of people. SCOUT BANANA sees the world’s problems as a simple equation of connecting communities; linking the necessary social capital (people and ideas) to social problems. We embrace the idea of “social enterprise” by focusing on presenting an alternative to government aid schemes and other big philanthropy and development programs that go for the quick-fix, band-aid solutions without being people-focused to produce long-term social change.

Is SCOUT BANANA a social enterprise? Yes and no, it depends how you define the term. If you are thinking of an organization cooperatively owned and operated by its members, focused on providing an alternative to what hasn’t worked, and supporting community-based solutions that do work – then, and only then are we definitely a “social enterprise.” In her Spotlight Michigan article I think Caitlin Blair put it best: “A society of entrepreneurs and innovators simply could not exist without social entrepreneurs because where business entrepreneurs typically work to enhance markets, social entrepreneurs completely transform the necessary infrastructure and attitudes of a society.”

See our features on Spotlight Michigan:
profile
article
photo essay

(photo credit: WHO)

From the UN Declaration to Amnesty International, between Paul Farmer and William Easterly it seems that everyone has a different understanding of what constitutes a basic human right and the cause of its absence. Michael Keizner has been building the discussion on health and human rights on Change.org’s Global Health blog while NYU Professor, William Easterly has recently entered the debate as a response to Amnesty International’s position on poverty related to human rights. This fueled a response from Amnesty International, which stated that Easterly was “pretty off base.” Easterly followed his Amnesty International response with an end to his “human rights trilogy” by asking Paul Farmer who should be held responsible for satisfying the right to health care?

The World Health Organization (WHO) states health as a human right as:

“the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being…”

It seems that Easterly’s human rights criteria is trapped in an old international law paradigm where there must be someone at fault or someone to blame. He also forgets that health is directly linked to food. You cannot have good health and not have food. Effective aid, not seen in today’s aid schemes, based in sustainable practices (not just buzzword reporting) that supports an individual’s right to develop themselves should look comprehensively towards the needs of a community of individuals. The ideas of human rights, foreign aid, and development should be less focused on international systems and more focused on building strong communities that meet their own human needs: health care, food, water, etc.

Within this debate of health and human rights, where does SCOUT BANANA fit. As an organization that makes and stands behind the statement that:

“global health is everyone’s responsibility and every individual’s human right”

Paul Farmer has the right idea, as Easterly quotes from his Tanner Lecture in 2005:

“only a social movement involving millions, most of us living far from these difficult settings, could allow us to change the course of history….troves of attention are required to reconfigure existing arrangements if we are to slow the steady movement of resources from poor to rich—transfers that have always been associated… with violence and epidemic disease… whether or not we can say “never again” with any conviction—will depend on our collective courage to examine and understand the roots of modern violence and the violation of a broad array of rights, including social and economic rights”

This is exactly similar to SCOUT BANANA’s understanding of health as a human right and a responsibility. It is a right where we do not attempt to place blame or hold the past accountable because those become frivolous exercises that produce no results. When we delve deeper into the root causes of issues, for example the driving forces of slavery, we must focus on a responsibility to not repeat the past and make ourselves accountable in the future.

There is no way that the entire European population and its descendants can be held accountable for the evils of the slave trade. While the same ideas of human rights did not exist in the time period of slavery, it is similarly difficult to place blame on systems (and populations) that drive the causes of poverty and lack of access to health care. Many people that I work with on development projects feel guilty that they are so privileged and wealthy compared to the communities that they work with that are so poor. SCOUT BANANA teaches its members to not feel guilty, but instead to feel responsible. Understanding personal privilege related to the oppression of certain populations within societal structures can assist in creating positive impacts. Human rights don’t necessarily have to be about placing blame, but rather developing an understanding of responsibility.

So Professor Easterly when you ask who is responsible for satisfying human rights: it is you, it is me, it is all those who dream of making a difference, and it is also those who lack the very human rights that we hold dear. Placing blame is not a concrete step forward, learning from history and recognizing where our privilege fits can be a first step towards effective actions. I too see Paul Farmer’s vision of a movement of millions, near and far, taking actions to shape a better future where human rights are everyone’s responsibility and every individual’s human right.

From the Article 25 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

Four modern-day explorers in Expedition Africa (from History Channel)

Reminiscent of the 1800s, a new History Channel show describes a team of explorers, dressed in their colonial khaki, set out to discover the perils of the African continent.

Four modern-day explorers retrace the most famous search in history through 970 miles of hell. They face countless dangers from predators and insects to disease and nature’s own fury. Check out the television event of the summer!

Miles of hell in Africa, oh my! Don’t forget the natural danger!

Between Zanzibar and Ujiji, there are 970 miles of high seas, steep hillsides, scorching plains, fast-moving rivers and mud-filled swamps. Danger lurks around every corner, and any step could be their last.
(Expedition Africa, History Channel)

The webpage for the expedition show describes how the explorers will be following in the footsteps of the great explorers, “heroes” to some of these ‘modern-day’ explorers, Sir Henry Morton Stanley and Dr. David Livingstone.

Stanley a Welsh journalist, who spent a number of years of his life in the US, is best known for finding Dr. Livingstone after he was thought lost in the African bush. Regarded as one of the premier African explorers, a little known fact about Stanley’s African exploration is that he laid the foundation, through his exploration, for the takeover of the Congo (now DRC) by King Leopold II of Belgium. The King was interested in spreading Western civilization and religion to the region as well as claim land. This has led to a still destabilized region where some of the longest running African conflicts are located. Allegedly his expeditions were marked by violence and brutality. He is quoted, “the savage only respects force, power, boldness, and decision.” On a health related note for the central African region, the spread of trypanosomiasis is attributed to the movements of Stanley’s enormous baggage train.

Livingstone’s African exploratory era was marked by the greatest European penetration of the continent. He began his African explorations as a Protestant missionary, but supposedly did not force his preaching on unwilling ears as his main interest was exploring. He was known to travel lightly and was able to negotiate with local chiefs. Livingstone was a man in love with the continent and popularized the search for the source of the Nile. After being ‘found’ by Stanley he refused to return without completing his mission. Just 50 years after his death, colonialism exploded across the continent and was able to penetrate further into the interior due to his work. However, this also allowed missionaries to provide education and health care services to more central Africans. Livingstone was also a staunch abolitionist and made many friends among the African chiefs and populations.

Both men are examples of the Western colonial mindset scarring the African continent. While Livingstone was perhaps a step forward in Western engagement of Africans, Stanley is far from a figure to emulate. The History Channel fails to take note of the important contributions these men made to the destruction of the continent. Instead they focus on the meeting of the two in a popular media tale of discovery in the African wilderness.

Four Westerners with varying experience with the African continent will be followed on their journey that will pit them against the harsh natural environments of Africa. But, this show isn’t about Africa, learning about African peoples, remembering African history or highlighting the difficulties faced in Africa. The show makes generalizations about the continent and perpetuates the myths of Africa as primarily a place of danger. It focuses on Africa as “the unknown, the interior of Tanzania.” If I’m not mistaken people have been living on the African continent longer than any other place on earth. It may be a dangerous, unknown hell full of nature to outsiders, but it is far from a mystery to those who live there. The show seems to be all about these four privileged individuals and the story of their personal journeys. The explorers are worried about mosquitos, disease, death, and surviving. Rightly so in some regards, but what if the story included the people that actually live there?

When will Africa cease to be represented solely by its nature, its dangers and its forgotten history?

What exactly is Product (RED)? According to the official website,

“Product (RED) is not a charity. It is not a cause. It is an idea.”

Launched by Bono and Bobby Shriver in 2006, the (RED) campaign defines itself as a business model which is designed to raise awareness and a sustainable flow of funds to the The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Private corporations agree to donate a portion of profit made on the sale of specific (RED) products directly to the Global Fund. These funds will then be used for the specific purpose of providing access to education, nutrition, counseling, medical services, and anti-retroviral medicine in Africa. Currently Product (RED) allocates it’s funds only to projects in Ghana, Lesotho, Rwanda and Swaziland, but there are plans to broaden their reach. Many popular businesses are already partners including American Express (UK only), Converse, Gap, Emporio Armani, Dell, Windows, Apple and Hallmark, with many more vying to get involved.

The basic idea is that for the same price of a comparable good, a consumer can purchase what they want and the company will make a contribution to the Global Fund. The percent of profit donated varies by partner and product. For example, at the Gap, 50% of sales on (RED) products, such as t-shirts that read, “Inspi(RED),” is donated. For every (RED) laptop computer sold, Dell and Windows will donate $50. Some companies are less specific about the percentage of sales that is actually donated but the philosophy remains the same throughout the stores: ‘lives can be saved through shopping.’ Buy a pair of shoes, save a life. Buy an iPod, save a life. The idea is not completely unappealing or inherently wrong. To date (RED) partners have generated more than $110 million for the Global Fund, money that would have otherwise just gone to the corporations. Still there are some unsettling aspects of this business model.

Product (RED) buys into contemporary feelings of wanting to get something for what we give and of wanting it to be convenient. It makes fighting AIDS trendy. The newest partner, Starbucks, is donating $.05 for every one of its three special seasonal beverages sold between December 1, 2008 and January 2, 2009. The Starbucks website states “It’s easy to do good”. And it is! All you have to do is spend $3.50 on a small peppermint mocha. You’ll get a sticker to place on a map of Africa to show your contribution and go on with your day feeling good about your 5 cent donation. 5 cents is nothing to scoff about. With as many drinks as Starbucks sells, it adds up, but what is the real message being sent? Who is really benefiting? Companies get to make a minimal donation and make themselves look really good. Consumers get to feel even better about their coffee and new clothes. It’s possible that a few of these consumers will be motivated to find out more about the AIDS epidemic in the developing world. They may visit a website and educate themselves, possibly making a larger donation in the future or just spreading their new knowledge to others. But how many purchasers of (RED) products will do this? How many others will feel they have done their part by purchasing their Product (RED) iPod, instead of a blue one?

Product (RED) is not necessarily a bad thing. I myself have purchased two (RED) iPods and love them. Funds are being raised to fight the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Still, I find this whole idea misses the point. Money is being donated while ignoring the root of the problem. Product (RED) uses the promotion of excessive consumerism to fight a problem that has been partially caused by excessive consumerism. It does not lead United States and European citizens to question global stratification and what their role in it might be. Instead it allows them to feel like they are doing something to help by shopping, rather than motivating them to make real changes. Money can always be given, but it’s hard to imagine any real improvements in the quality of living for everyone around the world without real changes to the economic and cultural systems we live in, including changes in how people think and act and view themselves as members of their neighborhood, country and world. A change between buying a Product (RED) t-shirt at the Gap or the plain gray shirt next to it on the shelf is not this kind of change. Product (RED) has the potential to raise awareness and make people think about global issues, but it also has the potential to make them feel satisfied with the way things are and the small part they are doing by purchasing a gingerbread latte at Starbucks. So for Product (RED) and other business models aspiring to follow it’s example, rather than a green, go for it, I give a yellow: use sparingly and with caution.

By Ruth Berger, VP MSU Chapter

This is part of a series we hope to maintain on the Watchdog blogs, specifically alerting individuals to issues affecting young men in development. We will certainly be writing extensively on gender affecting both men, women, and those in between in other blogs, but hopefully others will find these entries valuable to explore concerns affecting men that have otherwise remained invisible in international development work.

As the world has broadcast overwhelming attention to the recent US election and win of Sen. Barack Obama, little notice has been paid to status of terrorist groups that provoked the current intervention in Iraq and War on Terror. Indeed, CIA director Michael Hayden reported this week that while Osama bin-Laden may be cut off from the daily operations al-Qaeda, the organization still poses a significant threat against the United States. Furthermore, he notes that al-Qaeda’s influence has grown in the Middle East and Africa, with special attention to the surge of support in Somalia and Algeria, where extremist groups in both areas have joined with al-Qaeda.

Although gendered perspectives are often applied exclusively to women and girls (sometimes by feminists themselves), I am perplexed as I consider the possibilities facing young men around the globe today. In the aftermath of 9/11, some writers, such as Lionel Tiger, have focused on the specific role of young, Muslim males in recruitment of terrorist organizations, such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Yet questions about young men have dissipated over the past seven years, despite the fact that recruitment has increased within ‘Islamist’ terrorist organizations and that young remain important, though invisible, in all parts of the world. In his article from 2001, Tiger, a professor of anthropology, writes,

One of the most difficult tasks for any social system is figuring out what to do with its young males. These are invariably the most impressionable, energetic, socially exigent, and politically inept members of any group. They cause trouble for their elders and ruthlessly hassle each other. They pose chronic danger to public order when they drive, drink and take drugs.

Though Tiger’s article highlights the dilemmas young Muslim men face (granted, in a problematic way that seems to generalize young men while ignoring that men of many cultures also face difference challenges and influences), he is correct to recognize that young males are vital as well as vulnerable in populations.

But then why do we (as students, academics and practitioners) continuously forget young men? In development work, the focus remains on providing services and assistance to vulnerable populations such as ‘women’ and ‘children’. Don’t we see that highlight ‘women’ and ‘children’ as vulnerable creates distinctions that girls and women are forever victims while ‘men’, rather than boys, can never be victimized? While this type of thinking is problematic for too many reasons to count, at its fundamental roots, conceptualizing male identity without vulnerability is simply an inaccurate depiction. It is essential that international development projects directly incorporate the potential of young men, especially in African countries where militancy and violence can be attractive and overbearing influences. Arguably, focusing specific and directed attention on young men and boys may even be ways to stop and prevent conflicts, depending on what techniques are used.

Focusing on young men is certainly not to suggest that women and girls are not important or vulnerable populations. It is crucial, however, that academics and practitioners alike recognize that young men face their own challenges that also need targeted solutions and assistance. And as more organizations that recruit civilians into militias creep into the African continent (on top of the ones that were already there), it is truly important that international development practices create safe, sustainable spaces for young men to participate in their communities outside of violence.