Something that has consistently bothered me since I began exploring the "business for social good" continuum is the notion (implied, but not often stated), that the government has been usurped as the primary provider of public goods. Government has failed and private enterprise must take over. Conventional wisdom dictates that government bureaucracies aren’t facile enough to meet the dynamic needs of the populace. In the words of David Bornstein, author of How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas:

Today, many people do not believe that we can alleviate poverty, or fix the education system, or improve the government, or find better ways to deal with many social problems. Amidst this disenchantment with government, the field of social entrepreneurship has emerged…..But in order to [solve these problems] society needs to think differently about the approach.
(Source: article introducing How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas by David Bornstein)

It’s to the point at which topics like “Governments as Agents of Change,” broached at the Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) conference “Innovative Strategies – Measurable Impacts,” held last year in New York City, seem almost laughable. But are they?

Now clearly, my professional choices have demonstrated a certain degree of sympathy for this point of view. After all, I am pursuing a business degree, not a degree in public policy — not to imply that two are mutually-exclusive. But I cannot say that I have stopped to analyze this core assumption about the role of government. Not surprisingly, my examination of this question has fallen victim to a seemingly endless flurry of pre-MBA activity.

However, it came bouncing back to the surface (as these things often do) quite unexpectedly after a trip to visit a friend in New Orleans. She courageously decided to move home to NOLA from Nigeria eighteen months ago after witnessing the devastation of Hurricane Katrina via CNN. I remember anxiously tracking the progress of the storm with her and subsequently acting as a sounding board to her internal debate about how, when, and whether to return home.

More than a year later, as she took me on an impromptu tour of the city, she deftly explained some of the issues encountered by the citizens of the New Orleans after the storm. The issues: rebuilding homes and neighborhoods via the “Road Home” fund with all of its delays, the lack of support for renters, the negligence of the levee system, the inefficient and expensive use of mobile homes for temporary housing, control of federal aid disbursement, local political reform, and the practical implications of what a “market driven recovery” should look like, seemed ridiculously daunting. Nonetheless, despite all of this, the people of New Orleans are taking the initiative to set priorities, rebuild, and bring their city back.

As encouraged as I was by the determination of NOLA’s citizens, I was equally shocked and disappointed by the (arguably) apparent lack of a comprehensive recovery plan sponsored by; you guessed it, the city government. (It was still in the approval process at the time of my visit). To make matter worse, even if there had been a finalized plan, given the federal government’s ineffective response to the disaster, including the under-funding of the relief effort relative to the extent of the damage sustained in Louisiana, and the conflation of disaster relief and rebuilding funds, it might not have been financed even if it had been finished sooner.

So my question is, “Is it really okay to abdicate, implicitly or explicitly, the distribution and management of public goods to private enterprise?”

(This This post continues past the break; Click "Read More" to continue)

There has been considerable enthusiasm - including on Nextbillion.net - about Tata's much hyped Rs. 100,000 car. Nextbillion post - India's Model T: Tata's $2000 car out by 2008 - has been on the Most Popular list of posts for as long as I can remember!

While some are enthused by the project - and others are not, what cannot be denied is that the Tata project represents a paradigm shift in the automotive industry. The project has been in the news because of its agressive pricing, controversies over land acquisition and its impact on traffic congestion and pollution.

The Times of India reports:

Ironically, as Nitin posted his piece on the $3000 1-lakh car, I came across this article, Just What Overcrowded, Polluted India Didn't Need - The $3000 Car, in The Independent.

Well, we never said it wasn't controversial. In fact, the whole thing gives me pause. On the one hand, who are we - especially when "we" means Western environmentalists - to tell others that they shouldn't enjoy the same luxuries we do? In this case, environmentalists rightly point out that increasing the number of cars on the road in India will dramatically increase the amount of greenhouse gas emissions going into the atmosphere. But the West's own automotive revolution - started early last century - is a major culprit in the dramatic growth of global warming. Sounds like a case of hypocrisy.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that India's headed down an unsustainable path if it keeps this up. The road infrastructure can't handle it - traffic in New Dehli is evidently among the worst in the world - and air quality is quickly tracking from bad to worse.

Obviously, good public transport is better than putting more cars on the road, in the long run. But the social status implications of 4 wheels vs. 2/3 wheels vs. public transport is huge. As the article mentions, buying a car is an aspirational purchase, and taking the bus may soon be seen as a low-class activity.

I'm not going to weigh in here - I'm very conflicted myself. But I will reflect on a little American history by way of commentary.

(Post continues past the break; click "Read More" to continue)