 |
| Money. Money. Money. |
If solutions are known, need $$. If solutions are knowable, need evaluations. If solutions are evolving, need entrepreneurs.
This comes from the William Easterly school of thought: Aid is (mostly) bad, so let's give up on it and hand it over to the entrepreneurs, and then let the free market sort it out.
Let's look at Mama Pamba as an example. Mama Pamba is going to be Meaningful Volunteer's third fair trade project. Mama Pamba is a fair trade fashion label that will empower many women in the small rural parish of Buyaya in Eastern Uganda.
We're are doing it in a completely non-profit way. The only people who will benefit are the women who make the garments.
Here's the kicker though. Might Mama Pamba be even more successful if I (for example) has a personal stake in it? Might I work just that little bit harder to push Mama Pamba into markets so that I could personally make some money?
Furthermore, could we even sell shares in Mama Pamba to people who are socially aware? We would have further pressure on us to succeed so as to return a profit to the shareholders?
These are not rhetorical questions. I am interested in any feedback people have.
Needless to say, the women in Uganda would get first priority on any money earned. We would ensure that they would first get a living wage first and then a cut of the profit. Other stakeholders would divvy up the remaining money.
