Does entrepreneurial energy trump traditional development models reaching for scale? In their recent book Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide , Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn draw a distinction between the older traditional model of development that attempts to reach the greatest number of people and the entrepreneurial model that concentrates on changing one life at a time, or empowering change in a small group of participants.
They acknowledge the polarities aren’t fixed, but in general they raise up the work of individual entrepreneurs as models. They also repeat the case made by others that large scale development hasn’t been effective nor long-lasting.
This is a common analysis and it needs scrutiny. There is no question that large scale development schemes conceived top down haven’t reached into rural villages and changed life for the better. On the other hand, without a commitment to scale polio would still be leaving a toll of human suffering in its wake that would be an ongoing tragedy. There are interventions where scale is not only desirable, it’s necessary if the problem is to be adequately addressed.
This isn’t to miss the point that Kristof and WuDunn make that empowerment of oppressed women is an effective avenue to change. The model has been around for years, but it hasn’t gotten the traction it deserved for several reasons. It has been the preferred model of many mainstream development agencies such as Church World Service, Lutheran World Relief and UMCOR. However, their efforts were pioneering, occurred under the radar of the media and didn’t have the charismatic asset of an individual entrepreneur. They were institutional models operated without effective marketing by bland institutions and they were often competing for media attention with the large scale efforts of the World Bank and UN agencies.
I read Kristof’s and WuDunn’s narrative with great appreciation for their revelations of the awful oppressiveness of sex slavery. They tell the story with such effect that surely readers will sign up to provide micro loans or support other efforts they provide. And their explanations of culturally appropriate interventions at the grassroots are especially important for us to consider.
They also make a strong case for engaging in long term, sustainable development in contrast to short term one off charity. No disagreement here. The impulse to charity is positive but it, too, needs scrutiny and careful reflection. Charity can do more harm than good without this reflection.
I’m grateful for Kristof and WuDunn’s voices, commitment and willingness to enter into danger and hardship to tell us about the plight of oppressed, poor women. It’s powerfully motivating and illuminating. They lay out the practices of a new expression of humanitarian engagement, one that will surely grow and create necessary change.
But I’m not ready to give up on working to achieve scale, just yet. And I’m interested in seeing where the entrepreneurial models lead. I’ve seen entrepreneurial models that are as fragmented, duplicatory and wasteful as any other effort. The best effective example is the Grameen model and it has grown at scale and institutionally as well.
Never the less, the needs, as Kristof and WuDunn point out, are urgent and their call to action is welcome.