much silence on the blog front of late… my apologies. Now two big guns, Dani Rodrik (International Political Economy professor at Harvard) and Andrew Leonard (of Salon.com fame) have posted two interesting snippets.
Following a conversation I had with the most vocal critic of social entrepreneurship a couple of nights ago, I was relieved to read Leonards news that the Big Guns are joining the social investment fray. In fact, the biggest: Norway’s sovereign investment fund controlling $380bn. They are thinking about both Positive and Negative social selection of their investment, and have a track record of already doing so (they sold Wal-Mart investment!). Leonard makes the point that democratic governments are more likely to go down this route, in the name of transparency, but that there are only few democratic nations with such funds.
Link: http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/01/16/socially_responsible_norway/index.html
Rodrik strikes a more reflective tone in his note about mosquito nets. Ever since Acumen started parading its Tanzanian investment, questions have arisen over whether for-profit distribution is really the best way to go. In my eyes it has repercussions, albeit limited, on the viability of the whole sector. In this case a new case study seems to indicate that there are NO advantages in distributing the insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) for free.
Link: http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/01/jeff-sachs-vind.html
PS: The comments for Rodriks piece include an interesting entry from an economist working for the Vijayawada Municipal Council.
Happy Reading, Andre