Saturday, October 9, 2010

Komaza, a Forestry Company

Timbuktu Chronicles
How Komaza works:
...we partner with dryland farmers to help them plant drought-resistant trees on unproductive land. They get seedlings and tools on credit plus training, post-harvest processing and access to new markets.We spend less than $1 to plant a tree. And each tree returns at least $20 to the family. That's over $6,000 from half an acre.Farmers rise out of poverty. The trees restore the environment and prevent deforestation. And each tree farm yields enough extra money to start nine new farms. KOMAZA will be able to achieve self-funded growth to more families
Watch related video:

A KOMAZA Preview from KOMAZA on Vimeo.
Sent with Reeder


 

Ethically Challenged?

SSIR Opinion & Analysis

There's been a lot said in the past year about Slacktivism—that portmanteau of the words "slacker" and "activism" that has become a derogatory term for click-and-give philanthropy. But now, a new MacArthur-funded study says many young people, when online, simply don't act very morally or ethically and need to be mentored by the social good community to play more generously (and civically) with others.

"While social media offer youth new powers, (young people) need to learn to use those powers more responsibly for good," Carrie James, the research director and principal investigator at Harvard University's Project Zero told a recent Mashable conference in New York. "Right now, our findings show that youth tend to consider their own interests above all when they're online and ignore the reality that online, they are participants in large public communities. If youth are to leverage new media for civic participation, they will need to start seeing online life as consequential and meaningful—and not simply as a joke, for fun or something that helps them pursue only their individual interests."

James shared these new findings from her team's current research:

  • Young people tend not to think that they have a responsibility towards others when they are online. James said that one young woman she interviewed told the Project Zero team the following: "I do online what I want to do online. I don't really feel like it's anybody's business to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I don't really feel responsible to people online. I definitely feel like it's more for me and not for anyone else." James said she and her team found this attitude to be "a bit unsettling, at the very least."
  • Young people don't care much about what impact their online choices have on others, including on the feelings of others and on social justice and fairness. "One of the most significant properties of new media is that they allow for interactions with groups of people beyond our known circles," James said. "I think the level of moral thinking among the youth we studied is not sufficient for participation in these new spaces. ... (Young people online) seem to ignore the reality that online, they are participants in larger communities."
  • Ethical thinking is scarce among online youth. "There is very little capacity (on the part of the youth studied) to think in the abstract" about what their actions—such as downloading music illegally, for example—might have on others, such as the musicians who created the music or on the music business that is trying to sell it. "This is the rarest way of thinking that we found about online life in our study," James said. "It's a mindset devoid of ethical considerations."
  • There is a prevailing view that online life is just for fun, and cannot be influenced. One young person told James: "Most of the time when people see something online, their main reaction is to laugh because most of the stuff on the Internet you have no sway over at all, so you just laugh and move on." James said this comment reflects two sentiments that her team found to be common among the young people they were studying. "One sentiment is that the Net is just for fun," James said, "and the other is that people feel they can't change things they find to be unsettling online." The irony? "Despite the great powers that social media give young people, these powers can often go unacknowledged."
  • There is an absence of moral and ethical supports for online life. "While many youth can name an adult mentor or role model, James says, very few youth in the Project Zero study said there was an adult present in their online decision-making. Among older youth, aged 15-25, she said, adults were "virtually absent." In her study of Tweens, adults were more present but their conversations with Tweens tended to focus mostly on Internet safety rather than on online ethics and citizenship.

To be sure, the picture is not entirely bleak, James says. Groups like dosomething.org, InvisibleChildren.org the More Than Me Foundation "do a great job of involving youth in social good projects." But for the most part, James added, the nonprofit sector "represents an untapped opportunity to leverage social media for social good" among young people.

What do you think? Do nonprofits do enough to involve young people in social causes through the use of social media? Should they do more? How much differently might adults act online compared with the youth surveyed by James' team?


image Marcia Stepanek is Founding Editor-in-Chief of Contribute Media, a New York-based magazine, Web site, and conference series covering the new mass philanthropy movement. She also is publisher of Cause Global, an acclaimed new group blog about the use of digital media for social change, and teaches social media in advocacy at New York University. An award-winning journalist and author, Ms. Stepanek's new book, Swarms, about the evolution of cause-wired groups, is due out early next year..

Sent with Reeder


 

Generous gifts vs. free samples


Seth's Blog
Free isn't always generous. Free can be a legitimate marketing strategy, an ultimately selfish way to increase sales. Once you spread your ideas (and free is the best way to do that), there are all sorts of ways to profit. But don't be confused. Free samples and free ideas and free bonuses are not necessarily generous acts.
A generous gift comes with no transaction foreseen or anticipated. A gift is a gift, not the beginning of a transaction. When you see a Picasso painting at the Met, Picasso doesn't get anything (he's dead). Even his heirs don't get anything. His art is a gift to anyone who sees it.
Giving gifts is a fairly alien endeavor. In most families, even the holidays are more about present exchange than the selfless act of actually giving a gift.
The cool part, the punchline, is that giving a gift for no reason and with no transaction contemplated is actually incredibly powerful. It changes your approach to the market, it changes your relationship with the recipient and yes, it changes you.

Sent with Reeder


Inclusive is the new black


PSD Blog - The World Bank Group
One hears less about the base of the pyramid these days. Instead, "inclusive" remains the clear buzzword of choice for now. The recent UN Millennium Development Goals Summit generated a side workshop on Inclusive Business organized by a roll call of organizations. Now IFC is hosting its own event on Inclusive Business Solutions around the IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings this week. The term is pervasive.
As reported locally, the Employers Confederation of Zimbabwe just completed its strategy workshop with... guess what?—a call for "Inclusive Business" as a means of national healing and sustainable economic development. Nor is it limited to low income country contexts: see last Friday's event on The Economic Impact of an Inclusive Business Community as reported by the Charlotte Observer, revealing persistent concerns over economic diversity amid the US economic downturn.
I take this as good news if it is translating into more options for poor consumers and producers. Encouragingly, it is not just multinationals talking this talk but a growing number of national and emerging market-based firms. The IFC Inclusive Business team is bringing together many impressive stories from IFC clients ranging from Colombia to Madagascar to India. If you want an immediate sense of what this means in practice, the discussions from the New York event are already up on the Business Fights Poverty site. I particularly recommend the video of a CEO panel discussion on how companies are "walking the walk."
Sent with Reeder


34 million jobs lost


PSD Blog - The World Bank Group
The most recent ILO estimates—from January of this year—put global job losses between 2007 and 2009 at 34 million. This, of course, is on top of the many people who continue to have a job but have seen their hours (and wages) slashed. Some persuasive research indicates that reduced hours was more of an issue than outright job losses in middle-income countries. A report last week (again from the ILO) indicates that developing countries have fortunately started to rebound. How can this rebound be put on solid footing?
That is the question that a panel of experts and officials from the Annual Meetings will be trying to answer during the Open Forum tomorrow. From 2:30pm-4:00pm on Thursday, panelists at the Jumpstarting Jobs session will look at how the financial crisis has impacted jobs, ask how developing countries can stimulate job creation, and then take a close look at issues of youth unemployment. The list of speakers is up now (full bios on the Jumpstarting Jobs page):
On-Screen Host: Femi Oke, Senior Editor, Public Radio International
Segment 1, 2:30-3:00pm, Impact of the Financial Crisis on Jobs
• Stephen Pursey, Senior Advisor and Director of Policy Integration, ILO
• Shanta Devarajan, Chief Economist, Africa Region, The World Bank
• Christian Ketels, Principal Associate, Harvard Business School Institute for Strategy & Competitiveness

Segment 2, 3:00-3:30pm, Job Creation and Industry Competitiveness
• Mahmoud Mohieldin, Managing Director, The World Bank
• Janamitra Devan, Vice President and Head of Network, Financial and Private Sector Development, The World Bank & IFC
• Ümit Boyner, Chairwoman, Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's Association (TÜSİAD) (via pre-taped interview)

Segment 3, 3:30-4:00pm, Youth Unemployment
• Tamar Atinc, Vice President, Human Development Network, The World Bank
• Mahmoud Mohieldin, Managing Director, The World Bank
• Radha Muthiah, Vice President, CARE USA
Right now, anyone who can get online can go and submit a question for the panelists. If it's a good question—and the global audience votes your question up—it'll be relayed to Femi Oke, who'll be directing questions to the speakers. Here are the questions I voted up:
  • Existing businesses are not absorbing youth into jobs/careers. Entrepreneurship is an opportunity to create novel businesses and jobs. How do we make it so, across borders, cultures and norms?
  • Why is youth unemployment highest in Sub-Saharan Africa? What can institutions like the World Bank [do] to reduce youth unemployment in Sub-saharan Africa?
  • What is the fate of fragile economies, especially in Africa in the face of the growing job crisis across the globe? Don't you think failure to stem the tide of unemployment in the continent could joepardize the current development efforts?

Sent with Reeder


A Victory for LDCs in the EU

Global Development: Views from the Center
Finally!! After years of debating changes to rules of origin to make it easier for developing countries, especially the least-developed among them, to export duty-free under preference programs, the European Union is finally set to act at the end of this month. While the particular method chosen is not what the CGD working group on [...]
Sent with Reeder


 

Teacher’s guide: 200 years that changed the world

Gapminder
Quick Links
Download PDF
Download Word
Share
Levels
Secondary school
Subjects
History, geography & social studies.

About the Lesson/Teacher's guide

This teacher guide explains how you can use Gapminder World to lecture about global development from 1800 until today. For inspiration, you can watch a brief video-lecture with Hans Rosling here.

Key messages of the lecture

  • In 1800, income per person was low and life expectancy was very short in all countries.
  • Health is better everywhere today, even in the poorest countries.
  • Income is much higher in most, but not all, countries today.
  • The income and health gaps between countries are larger today.
  • Most people today live in "middle income" countries
Sent with Reeder


 

Portrait of a social investor: An interview with Sam Moss of Gray Ghost Ventures

Financial Access Initiative Blog

 

Social finance is becoming an important new area of research for FAI. As we delve into that arena, look for blog posts on this topic by us and others. Here we're pleased to feature a guest post from impact investors Gray Ghost Ventures.


How does Gray Ghost define impact investing?

Impact investing is a pretty broad arena. The part we focus on is looking for market-based investment solutions to poverty alleviation—the merger of both societal impact and financial return. It's a broad spectrum, but within that we're probably closer to the expectation of market-like returns, whereas others would not necessarily be on that edge—there are others who are seeking social impact and a financial return, not necessarily market-like. While we respect all the different pieces, we think that unless you get a financial return, you're less likely to get to scale and replicability, because it's less sustainable and more dependent upon other sources of funding that are more fickle and erratic.

What kind of investments are in Gray Ghost's portfolio?

We have several different portfolios. We have a microfinance portfolio, the vast majority of which is invested in funds, rather than directly in microfinance institutions (MFIs), and within that, we look for market-like returns on both the equity and debt portions of our portfolio. We invest in funds because we felt that in order to more appropriately invest in MFIs directly we would have to have a much larger staff than we did, and be located in indigenous locations where the MFIs were located to better understand how to both invest and then to assist those MFIs in their performance. Being based in Atlanta, we were not likely to do that as effectively as someone based in-region. So early on we sought to find fund managers in-region whom we could help support and provide catalytic, anchor capital.
We also have a portfolio of direct investments in enterprises which also are focused on poverty alleviation and providing access to goods and services to under-served populations in the developing world. While there are a range of things we did initially just as pilots, we are increasingly focused on investing in cell phone and adapted technologies upon which you can build business platforms. So we have a portfolio of direct investments in early stage business, predominantly in India but not exclusively, and predominantly around mobile technology but not exclusively.
Another portfolio is our affordable private school financing initiative through the Indian School Finance Company (IFSC). We are directly lending to affordable private schools which are serving low-income populations where free public schools—government schools—aren't meeting the needs of that population.  Affordable private schools have sprung up, and as they are successful and need to expand, few traditional lenders will consider loans to them, and it tends to fall outside the expertise or focus of microfinance institutions, so there was this gap in financing for affordable private schools. That's why we created the IFSC, to bridge that gap and to demonstrate first a pilot and then to demonstrate that loans to these institutions would be repaid at high rates and that an investor could create a portfolio that would be attractive from a return-standpoint.
Finally, we have an incubation group that focuses on early stage enterprises in the concept phase, providing seed capital to explore their viability. These are widespread investment opportunities, particularly around incubators in Berkeley, Denver, New Orleans, and Mumbai at this stage, and providing small amounts of capital that can be invested in these companies.

How has impact investing changed since Gray Ghost entered the scene?

One, it actually has a name, "impact investing," which is relatively recent. That sense of having both high social impact and financial return was grouped under "social investing". We've also seen more and more investors beginning to be attracted to this space.  Where it was relatively lonely early on, we now find that there are increasing numbers of companies which has resulted in the creation of the Global Impact Investing Network , (the GIIN), which several early social investors, now impact investors, created a year ago.
Today, impact investors include both companies like Gray Ghost dedicated to impact investing, and companies that take impact investing as just one of their activities. Groups like the Rockefeller Foundation, which has started to look at the investing side and has been and early proponent and in the vanguard, you have large banks with dedicated social finance sectors that have funds that have been created explicitly for impact investing.  Firms and funds started by focusing on microfinance are now expanding to the broader world of investing in other kinds of companies and small and growing businesses that complement each other.

Looking forward, what are the trends in impact investing and where do you think it's headed?

I think what we're seeing is an increasing number of investors—I don't know that it's a tidal wave, but there's increasing interest in impact investing from a variety of sources— and that it has widespread interest in a variety of different financial sectors. It's inevitable that it will become an increasingly large activity, particularly as people start seeing the success of the early adopters.
Currently, impact investing is an extremely collaborative space because a number of groups have had to work closely together to share ideas and share investment opportunities. I think it will continue to be collaborative because one of the key purposes is trying to change the world and to have an impact on the quality of life for all peoples. As a consequence, I think that while there is a measure of self-interest that may creep in and erode some of that collaborative nature, because there's that sense of trying to help the condition of other people collaboration will continue to be key.

What are the biggest challenges facing impact investors?

Among the biggest challenges is, because you're talking about social impact, trying to measure what social impact is. Where there is great refinement on financial impact or financial returns, social returns are just in the embryonic stages of being measured. But there are great efforts underway to quantify impact.
The other challenge which is starting to be more easily breached is the sense that somehow impact investing, financial and social return, are contradictory concepts. So we're trying to prove that they're not mutually exclusive, which will require both data and time. We are early in the development but with time we will have the data to prove the case.

Do you think it's possible to have a standard language and standard metrics for social return the way we do for financial return?

I think it's possible to have a common language for impact investing and there are efforts underway to at least codify the language, so it means the same thing whenever someone uses a term. Trying to come up with the universal characteristics is hard. There may be some very narrow pieces of it that are applicable across sectors and across companies, but we're still delving into that. But with time and effort we'll find greater commonality and a more common language that can be used to measure and communicate out what social impact is.

Sent with Reeder


 

"Does Inequality Make People More Conservative?"

Economist's View

Rising inequality is associated with a shift toward conservatism for both the wealthy and the poor:

Does Inequality Make People More Conservative?, Monkey Cage: Yes, according to some new research (pdf) from Nathan Kelly and Peter Enns. They rely on a a yearly measure of "policy mood" from 1952-2006. This is an omnibus summary of the public's ideological leaning, liberal to conservative. (See the graph and corresponding Excel file at Jim Stimson's homepage.) They also draw on a specific measure of the public's support for welfare. The question is whether and how both measures respond to inequality.

Their first main finding: increases in inequality are associated with a conservative shift in mood and increasing opposition to welfare. (For more on why this would be true, see this paper (pdf) by Roland Benabou.)

Their second main finding: increases in inequality are associated with a conservative shift among both the wealthy and the poor.

One natural objection: perhaps some citizens, and especially poorer citizens, just do not realize that inequality has increased. But the third main finding contradicts this: over time, the poor are actually more likely to perceive increased inequality than do the wealthy.

Kelly and Enns offer some further speculation on why, in particular, the rich and poor respond in parallel to rising inequality:

Despite the fact that parallelism is not driven by lack of information about income inequality, we think it is possible that the way information about distributional outcomes is framed is important. This idea is rooted in Gilens's …argument is that during good economic times news stories focus on individualism (enhancing opposition to welfare) and during bad economic times stories emphasize people being down on their luck (enhancing support for welfare).

Given that rising inequality since the 1970s has been driven in large part by gains at the top of the income distribution, media frames over this period may have increasingly emphasized stories of individualism, thus generating a negative link between rising inequality and public opinion liberalism. The decline in inequality prior to the 1970s, by contrast, was driven primarily by increasing incomes at the bottom of the income distribution and may have generated stories emphasizing government's role in education and job creation. This could explain why declining inequality up to the 1970s pushed public opinion in a liberal direction.

See the paper for some further discussion and appropriate caveats.

That explanation doesn't ring very true to me, but I don't have anything better to offer. Any ideas?

(When you are puzzled by a regression result, the tendency is to question the statistical technique or the quality of the data. So, in that tradition, the autocorrelated error structure for the regressions in Table 2 where the results are disaggregated by income could be signaling a misspecified model. For example, citing the paper they cite to justify the correction for autocorrelation, "analysts should view autocorrelation as a potential sign of improper theoretical specifcation rather than just a narrow violation of a technical assumption." If the model is, in fact, misspecified then the results cannot be trusted. I'd also prefer to see the autocorrelation corrected by adding more lags to the error correction model rather than using the Prais-Winsten estimator as in the paper -- or at least try adding more lags as an alternative -- and see if it makes a difference for the results. That's the more usual correction to the autocorrelation problem in the applications of the error-correction models I'm familiar with.)

Sent with Reeder


 

RCTs (Randomized Controlled Tweets)


Innovations for Poverty Action Blog
A couple of articles have got me thinking lately; a recent USIP report "Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics" (authored by Sean Aday, Henry Farrel, Marc Lynch, John Sides, John Kelly and Ethan Zuckerman), and a New Yorker article by Malcolm Gladwell, "Small Change - Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted." I've been having some nerdy fun thinking about what kind of study could examine the effects of the ever-proliferating social media tools on political and economic attitudes, behavior and outcomes.
Both pieces take on popular portrayals of web-based tools like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Blogs as powerful mechanisms for social/political change, the catalyst behind the recent Iranian or Moldovan protests.
Gladwell's take is that these purported impacts are overblown and rather than transforming/empowering activism, social media:
"...shift our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability.  It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact."  
The USIP team is less pessimistic about social media's potential but does write that there is, admittedly, a lack of evidence of what the impacts have been:  
"The sobering answer is that, fundamentally, no one knows. To this point, little research has sought to estimate the causal effects of new media in a methodologically rigorous fashion, or to gather the rich data needed to establish causal influence. Without rigorous research designs or rich data, partisans of all viewpoints turn to anecdotal evidence and intuition. It seems improbable that such a massive change in political communication would not matter, even if the data to demonstrate the effects are lacking and older forms of political communication and mass media continue to shape political outcomes."
This seems to be a perfect segue to a discussion about the types of field experiments one could use to measure social media's impact.
Any ideas (in 140 characters or less :) ?)

Social enterprise to fight poverty

Social enterprise to fight poverty: "
A recent article in the NYTimes focuses on Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems. Some of the article discusses the relative lack of philanthropy among rich Indians, but most of it is about his belief in the power of capitalism to improve living conditions in developing countries — and his lack of belief in NGOs for the same purpose.

Mr. Khosla’s advocacy of the bootstrap powers of capitalism is part of an increasingly popular school of thought: businesses, not governments or nonprofit groups, should lead the effort to eradicate global poverty.



Mr. Khosla says that he is not completely opposed to charities — that his fund may even donate to some nonprofit entities. But he says he is generally skeptical that nongovernmental organizations can accomplish much because they tend to drift away from what their donors wanted them to do.

I’m sure many charities will appreciate that he isn’t completely opposed to them.

My view is that it’s strange to set this up as a dichotomy between so-called social enterprise (remember ‘double bottom line’ accounting?) and not-for-profit development. To be fair, perhaps that was the journalist going for a story, but I think people do sometimes see it as either/or rather than and. It’s clear that market forces can lift countries out of poverty (I’m thinking of, say, the USA), but it’s also clear that market forces have been at work for many decades in some countries that are still very poor. There’s every reason to think that NGOs (and even aid, although that’s obviously a charged issue nowadays) can play an important role here.