Gender and Development

Explain the evolvement of the theories of Gender and Development from the 1970s to 2000.

'Gender' refers to the socially constructed roles of and relations between men and women, while 'Sex' refers to biological characteristics which define humans as female or male. These biological characteristics are not mutually exclusive however, as there are individuals who possess both whereas development according to Mubonjuje (1977 & 1980) is an intense concentration of activities requiring high degree of synchronization and sequential/ordering over the period of time during which social, economic fabric of the societies are transformed and the spatial structures recognised to effect the better change for majority of the people.
In this essay, I expect to see evidence that you understand how WID first entered into the discourse of development and how the explanations (theories) about women and their disadvantages worldwide and the solutions to these advantages have changed over time. Who are the people doing the explaining, which global trends have influenced the development thinking in general and GAD in particular?
During the past few years, the term "women in development" has become common currency both inside and outside academic settings. But while "women in development" or "WID", is understood to mean the integration of women into global processes of economic, political and social growth and change.

The student begins by examining the origins, meanings and assumptions embedded in "WID" and "GAD", how WID entered the conversation of development and then the extent to which differing views of the relationship between gender and development have influenced research, policymaking and international agency thinking since 1970s up to date. It is suggested that each term has been associated with a varying set of assumptions and has led to the formulation of different strategies for the participation of women in development strategies.
Firstly the term “women in development” was coined in the early 1970s by a Washington-based network of female development professionals (Tinker, 1990:30). On the basis of their own experiences in overseas missions they began to challenge trickle down theories of development, arguing that modernization was impacting differently on men and women. Instead of improving women’s rights and status, the development process appeared to be contributing to a wear and tear of their position

WID was influenced by the emerging body of research on women in developing countries; and in particular, the work of the Danish economist, Ester Boserup was most significant. From the perspective of the WID movement, the importance of Boserup’s ‘Women’s Role in Economic Development’ (1970) was that it challenged the assumptions of the welfare approach and highlighted women’s importance to the agricultural economy. Sub-Saharan Africa was characterized as the great global area of female farming systems in which women, using traditional hoe technology, assumed a substantial responsibility for food production. Moreover, Boserup posited a positive correlation/relationship between the role women played in agricultural production and their status vis-à-vis men.

The WID perspective was closely linked with the modernization paradigm which dominated mainstream thinking on international development during the 1960s and into the 1970s. In the 1950s and 160s, conventional wisdom decreed that "modernization," which was usually equated with industrialization, would improve the standards of living of the developing countries.

It was argued that through massive expansion of education systems, stocks of well-trained workers and managers would emerge; this in turn would enable the evolution of static, essentially agrarian societies into industrialized and modernized ones. With the growth of the economies of these countries, the benefits of modernization, i.e. better living conditions, wages, education, adequate health services, etc. would "trickle down" to all segments of the society.

Women rarely, if ever, were considered as a separate unit of analysis in the modernization literature of this period. It was assumed that the norm of the male experience was generalizable to females and that all would benefit equally as societies increasingly became modernized.

By the 1970s, this view of modernization was being questioned by many researchers. It was argued that the relative position of women had, in fact, improved very little over the past two decades. There was even evidence which suggested that the position of some women had declined (Boserup, 1970; Tinker and Bramson, 1976; Boulding, 1976; Kelly and Elliot, 1982). For example, in general, women were less likely to benefit from the course of educational expansion (Muchena 1982). Enrolment figures, especially at the tertiary level, tended to be lower for females.

In the formal industrial sector, women often were relegated to the lowest-paying, most monotonous and sometimes health-impairing jobs, a condition due in part to their low levels of education, but also due to the role assigned to them as supplementary rattier than principal wage earners (Lim 1981)
.
Under the rubric of WID, the position of women in various sectors of the economy for the first time was studied separate from that of men. The recognition that women's experience of development and of societal change differed from that of men and it became justifiable for research to focus specifically on women's experiences and perceptions.

Nonetheless the WID approach was based on several assumptions which were at odds with critical trends in social sciences research in the 1970s.

First, statistics were beginning to show that women had fared less well from development efforts of the 1960s therefore a new strategy was called for. By the mid-170s, donor agencies were beginning to implement intervention programs to adjust the imbalance of development "pay-off." For the most part, the solutions adopted were within the realm of the "technological fix" with attention given to the transfer of technology, the provision of extension services and credit facilities or the development of so-called appropriate technologies which would lighten women's workloads (Stamp 1989 forthcoming).

Second, and related to the point above, the WID approach began from an acceptance of existing social structures. Rather than examine why women had fared less well from development strategies during the past decade, the WID approach focused only on how women could better be integrated into ongoing development initiatives.

This non-confrontational approach avoided questioning the sources and nature of women's subordination and oppression and focused instead on advocacy for more equal participation in education, employment and other spheres of society (Mbilinyi 1984a).

Moreover, because the WID approach was rooted in modernization theory, it did not recognize the contribution of more radical or critical perspectives such as dependency theory or marxist analyses.

The WID approach also tended to be ahistorical and overlooked the impact and influence of class, race and culture ( Mbilinyi 1984b; Nijeholt 1987).

It focused on women and gender as a unit of analysis without recognizing the important divisions that exist among women and the frequent exploitation that occurs in most societies of poor women by richer ones.


Third, the wiD approach tended to focus exclusively on the productive aspects of women's work, ignoring or minimizing the reproductive side of women's lives.

Thus, WID projects typically have been income-generating activities where women are taught a particular skill or craft and sometimes are organized into marketing cooperatives. Frequently a welfare outlook is added to projects and women are taught aspects of hygiene, literacy or child care at the same time (Huvinic 1986).

Project planners and implementers often are well-intentioned volunteers with little or no previous experience. It is rare for feasibility studies to be undertaken in advance to ensure that a viable for a skill or product that will be produced and it is equally rare for project planners to take serious note of the extent to which women already are overburdened with tasks and responsibilities.

The common assumption is that access to income will be a sufficiently powerful stimulant to encourage women somehow to juggle their time in such a way as to participate in yet another activity.

When women's income-generating projects do prove to be successful and become significant sources of revenue, they often are appropriated by men.

The WID/liberal feminist approach has offered little defense against this reality because it does not challenge the basic social relations of gender.

It is based on the assumption that gender relations will change of themselves aC women become full economic partners in development.

Conclusion
Development planners have tended to impose western biases and assumptions on the south and Africa in particular and the tasks performed by women in the household, including those of social reproduction, are assigned no economic value. The labour invested in family maintenance, including childbearing and rearing, housework, care of the ill and elderly, etc. has been considered to belong to the "private" domain and outside the purview of development projects aimed at enhancing income generating activities.

Gender and Development
The gender and development approach emerged in the 1980s as an alternative to the earlier WID focus. It finds its theoretical roots in socialist feminism and has bridged the gap left by the modernization theorists, linking the relations of production to the relations of reproduction and taking into account all aspects of women's lives (Jaquette 1982).
Socialist feminists have identified the social construction of production and reproduction as the basis of women's oppression and have focused attention on the social relations of gender, questioning the validity of roles which have been ascribed to both women and men in different societies.

Kate Young (1987) has identified some of the key aspects of the GAD approach. Perhaps most significantly, the GAD approach starts from a holistic perspective, looking at "the totality of social organization, economic and political life in order to understand the shaping of particular aspects of society" (Young 1987: 2).
GAD is not concerned with women per se but with the social construction of gender and the assignment of specific roles, responsibilities and expectations to women and to men.

In contrast to the emphasis on exclusively female solidarity which is highly prized by radical feminists, the GAD approach welcomes the potential contributions of men who share a concern for issues of equity and social justice (Ben and crown 1987).

The GAD approach dues not focus singularly on productive or reproductive aspects of women's (and men's) lives to the exclusion of the other.

It analyses the nature of women's contribution within the context of work done both inside and outside the household, including non-commodity production, and rejects the public/private dichotomy which commonly has been used as a mechanism to undervalue family and household maintenance work performed by women.

Both the socialist/feminist and GAD approaches give special attention to the oppression of women in the family and enter the so-called "private sphere" to analyse the assumptions upon which conjugal relationships are based.

GAD also puts greater emphasis on the participation of the state in promoting women's emancipation, seeing it as the duty of the state to provide some of the social services which women in many countries have provided on a private and individual ba5i5r
The OAL approach sees women as, agents of change rattier than as passive recipients of development and it stresses the heed for women to organize themselves for more effective political voice.

It recognizes the importance of both class solidarities and class distinctions but it argues that the ideology of patriarchy operates within and across classes to oppress women.

Consequently, socialist feminists and researchers working within the GAD perspective are exploring both the connections among and the contradictions of gender, class, race and development (Maguire 1984).

A key focus of research being done front a GAD perspective is on the strengthening of women's legal rights, including the reform of inheritance and land laws. Research also is examining the confusions created by the co-existance of customary and statutory legal systems in many countries and the tendency for these to have been manipulated by men to the disadvantage of women.

A GAD perspective leads not only to the design of intervention and affirmative action strategies which will ensure that women are better integrated into ongoing development efforts.

It leads, inevitably, to a fundamental reexamination of social structures and institutions and, ultimately, to the loss of power of entrenched elites, which inevitably will affect some women as well as men.

Not surprisingly, a fully articulated GAD perspective is less often found in the projects and activities of international development agencies although there are some examples of partial GAD approaches.

However, it should be emphasized that just as the WID/WAD/GAD approaches are not entirely conceptually distinct it often is not possible to place a development project squarely within a single theoretical framework.

It is clear that the general notion of focussing on women separate from men in at least some projects has been accepted by a considerable number of Third World governments, national and international development agencies, and in many non-governmental organizations.

However, to some extent this is a reflection of political expediency and should not be interpreted as a sign of fundamental commitment to the liberation of women.

As will be discussed below, while the rhetoric of "integrating women into development" has been accepted by many institutions, the actual process of ensuring equity for women even within those same institutions is still far from complete.

There is no question that the majority of the projects for women which have emerged during the past two decades find their roots in the WID perspective.

In a 1984 analysis of the publications of various international development agencies which were beginning to focus of women, Patricia Maguire (1984: 13).
noted that they tended to identify the following constraints as being detrimental to the status of women in Third world societies:
- traditions, attitudes and prejudices against women's participation;
- legal barriers;
- limited access to and use of formal education, resulting in high female illiteracy;
- time-consuming nature of women's "chores";
- lacy of access to land, credit, modern agricultural equipment, techniques and extension service;
- health burden of frequent pregnancies and malnourishment;

Development Assistance committee of the OECD has emphasized the necessity for member countries to establish formal WID strategies, to put aside special funds for women-related activities, to fund research on WID, and to advocate the employment of women in multilateral organizations and in development banks (Rathgeber 1988).

Bilateral agencies like the Swedish, SIDA, the Danish DANIDA, the British ODA and the Canadian all have adopted strategies to ensure that women in developing countries benefit directly from their programs and, to varying degrees, to try to ensure that female staff are represented in positions of power within their own organizations.

However, few strategies have been developed to question or attempt to influence in a profound fashion the social relations of gender in any given society.

There have been few in-depth analyses of the actual processes of integration of women and Wofien-related concerns into the programs of donor agencies.

However, a study of US AID's WID office by Kathleen Staudt revealed that these objectives had been pursued with varying degrees of interest and commitment.

Staudt's (1982) description of the establishment of the WID office in 1974 is instructive t She notes that while each AID policy paper must have a "women impact" statement, such statements are usually no more than a paragraph and are often recycled from one document to another.

In the early 1980s, the WID office staff consisted of only five professionals, all female, in an agency that had overwhelmingly male professional and female clerical staff. Sta udt notes that "Agency personnel frequently complain that WID

Is a 'womem.n1s lib' issue being used to expert American ideas, rather than an issue grounded in development and/or equity justification" (1982: 270).

The WID office had a weak power base because of its small staff allocation, a small budget which necessitated dependency on the budgets of other bureaus within the Agency, few allies in the technical areas and a limited mandate which enabled the office to raise concerns but not to veto projects.

Moreover, Staudt notes that despite efforts to increase the number of women benefitting from AID grants, in the early 1980s the number of AID-supported international trainees who were women was 13 percent, up 4 percent from 1974 but equal to what the number had been in the early 1960s.

Staudt demonstrates quite clearly that there may exist a considerable gap between the articulation of official policy on the part of agencies and the development of support within the agencies for the implementation of such policies.

Thus the existence of official WID policies cannot be judged as an accurate indicator of commitment to gender issues within an agency.

Agencies have taken different approaches with respect to the integration of gender issues into their programs (Rathgeber 1988).

Some, such as SIDA (the Swedish International Development Authority) began to finance projects aimed specifically at women as early as the 19605.

Others, such as the British ODA (overseas
Development Administration), steadfastly refused to give special support to projects for women until the second half of the 1980Ef claiming that to do so would be to impose the cultural biases of the North on the South.

Private foundations engaged in the support of research in developing countries, such as Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie all have chosen not to establish separate women's offices or programs, arguing that to do so would bt to p?t rpetu;-att tht notion that ttworften'811 issues are somehow separate from those of men.

Despite the fact that they have not established WID offices however, each of the three foundations has supported many women-related projects within the context of existing program structures.

Ford Foundation, moreover, has required all institutions requesting support to provide evidence that women participate in their projects.

The World Bank has had an Advisor on Women in Development since the early 1970s, but in the mid-80s this office was expanded and given a higher profile within the Bank. A major fucu8 of the expanded office during the lath 1980s haLm been on "Safe motherhood" under the argument that: "Improving maternal health helps involve women more effectively in development" (Herz and Measham 1987).

The World Health Organitation similarly has made this a major focus. It can be argued that such initiatives, while of obvious and crucial importance, are based within a traditional view of women's roles. In 1987, AID carried out an evaluation of its experience with Women in Development between 1973-1985 (AID 1987).

The Agency identified three different kinds of projects:
i) integrated projects which require gender-sensitive designs to meet their objectives;

ii) women-only projects which usually are small in scope and labour-intensive for AID staff; and

iii) women's components in larger projects. It was found that those projects which had included a careful analysis of the sexual division of labour and responsibilities and were designed in such a way to realistically reflect the contexts within which men and women worked, ultimately were more efficient In meeting developmental goals.

The evaluation also revealed that income-generating projects for women rarely were successful in improving the economic positions of participants. Moreover, job training projects for women also usually failed because women lacked capital to establish small businesses where they could utilize their new skills.

Perhaps most disturbingly, however, the evaluation revealed that even In the period 1980-84, by which time the WID office had been established for several years, 40 percent of the projects evaluated, made no mention at all of women.

In the earlier period, 1972-77, 64 percent of the project analysed had trade no mention of women. The universe of projects analysed was only 98, therefore the numbers are too small for definitive conclusions, however they do reveal a trend which is in keeping with the attitudes reported by 5taudt (1982).

Towards the More Effective implementation of GAD
As already noted, it is difficult to find examples of development projects which have been designed from a GAD perspective. one might speculate that such projects would be designed to empower women, to give them an equal voice by recognizing the full spectrum of their knowledge, experience and activities, including both productive and reproductive labour.

Projects designed from a GAD perspective would question traditional views of gender roles and responsibilities and point towards a more equitable definition of the very concept of "development" and of the contributions made by women and by men to the attainment of societal goals.

The Win Unit of the international Development Research Centre (IDRG) for example currently is supporting a number of research projects in Africa which are making a concerted attempt to view women as actors in development rather than as passive recipients of change. For example, projects in Kenya, Tanzania and Nigeria are looking at women's access to land within customary and statutory the extent to which Women’s productivity has been negatively affected by legal systems which favour male ownership and indeed sometimes even fail to recognize female ownership.

The researchers have discovered that as women are forced to spend longer periods of time searching for firewood, they have less time for agriculture. This in turn leads to lower crop yields with the outcome of less food for family consumption and less surplus for sale in local markets.

Second, women are beginning to cook less, serving their families cheap store-bought foods or serving food cooked several hours earlier and which may have already become tainted.

The gender activists have placed their primary emphasis on social equality and on the development of strategies and action programs aimed at minimizing the disadvantages of women in the productive sector and ending discrimination against them.

From WID to GAD: Conceptual Shifts in the Women and Development Discourse
This paper provides an introduction to the issue of women and development by tracing the main trends in the way women’s issues have been conceptualized in the development context. The first part of the paper explains the emergence of women in development (WID), highlighting a dominant strand of thinking within WID that seeks to make women’s issues relevant to development by showing the positive synergies between investing in women and reaping benefits in terms of economic growth. In the second part the author looks at the analytical and intellectual underpinnings of the shift from WID to GAD (gender and development) and highlights two main tensions that emerge from the different conceptualizations of gender.
© 1995 United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD
Welfare approach and anti-poverty approach
While the purpose of the welfare approach is to make women better mothers through relief (handouts), the purpose of the anti-poverty approach is to increase women’s productivity through income generating products.
The welfare approach recognizes the reproductive roles of women while the anti-poverty approach recognizes the productive roles.
The welfare approach problematises women while the anti-poverty approach problemitses underdevelopment.
Both aim at meeting the practical needs of women.

Equity and anti-poverty approach:
The purpose of the equity approach is to reduce the inequality between men and women while the anti-poverty approach seeks to reduce income inequalities.
The equity approach seeks the equal involvement of women in the development process while the anti-poverty seeks to increase the productivity of women
The equity approach links women poverty to women subordination while the anti-poverty approach links women poverty to income inequalities between men and women.
Equity approach recognizes the triple roles of women while the anti-poverty approach recognizes the productive roles

Welfare and empowerment approach
Both the welfare and empowerment approaches stress the importance of women organizations. The difference is that the welfare approach recognizes the reproductive roles of women and uses a top down approach to meet the practical gender needs through delivery of services. On the other hand, the empowerment approach recognizes the triple roles of women and uses a bottom up approach to bring awareness to women and challenge subordination.

Equity and empowerment







Welfare and equity approaches compared
While the welfare approach looks at women as passive recipients of development, the equity approach looks at them as active participants.
The purpose of the welfare approach was to bring women into development as better mothers through handouts of food, nutrition and family planning contraceptives while the purpose of the equity approach was to equally engage women in development through access to employment and the market.
The Welfare approach recognizes only women’s reproductive role while the equity approach recognizes the triple roles of women thus reproductive, productive and community roles.
While the welfare approach seeks to meet the practical gender needs, the equity approach seeks to meet the strategic gender needs but seeks to meet the practical needs only for livelihood.
The welfare approach seeks to meet the practical gender needs through the handouts by aid agencies; the equity approach seeks to meet strategic gender needs through direct state intervention.
While the welfare approach maintains or widens the gap between men and women, the equity approach seeks to lessen or bridge it.
The welfare approach promotes dependency syndrome while the equity approach promotes independence (self-reliance)
The welfare approach retains the subordinate position of women. On the other hand, the equity approach challenges it.
In the equity approach motherhood is the most important role for women. In the equity approach, women can equally actively participate in development process.


The similarity that exists between welfare and equity approaches is that their mode of implementation is top down.
Both are concerned with meeting the practical gender needs.


Equity and anti-poverty approach compared.
The equity approach encourages autonomy (independence of women) while the anti-poverty approach may not necessarily lead to women autonomy.

Most frequent asked Questions on Entreprenuership by my students in class.

a)Using relevant examples make an argument for people to become entrepreneurs in Uganda
Definition of entrepreneurs (5 marks)
The word entrepreneurship is a mixed blessing. On the positive side, it connotes a special, innate ability to sense and act on opportunity, combining out-of-the-box thinking with a unique brand of determination to create or bring about something new to the world.

Entrepreneur is associated with starting a business. However this is a very loose application of a term. The term “entrepreneur” originated in French economics as early as the 17th and 18th centuries. In French, it means someone who undertakes a significant project or activity. More specifically, it came to be used to identify the venturesome individuals who stimulated economic progress by finding new and better ways of doing things. The French economist most commonly credited with giving the term this particular meaning is Jean Baptiste Say. Say put it this way,
“The entrepreneur shifts economic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield.” Entrepreneurs create value.

In the 20th century, the economist most closely associated with the term was Joseph Schumpeter.
He described entrepreneurs as the innovators who drive the “creative-destructive” process of capitalism. In his words, “the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production.”
Entrepreneurs can do this in many ways:
• “by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way,
• by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products,
• by reorganizing an industry and so on.”
Schumpeter’s entrepreneurs are the change agents in the economy. By serving new markets or creating new ways of doing things, they move the economy forward. It is true that many of the entrepreneurs that Say and Schumpeter have in mind serve their function by starting new, profit-seeking business ventures, but starting a business is not the essence of entrepreneurship. Though other economists may have used the term with various nuances, the Say-Schumpeter tradition that identifies entrepreneurs as the catalysts and innovators behind economic progress has served as the foundation for the contemporary use of this concept.

Business expert Peter Drucker (1909-2005) took this idea further, describing the entrepreneur as someone who actually searches for change, responds to it, and exploits change as an opportunity. A quick look at changes in communications - from typewriters to personal computers to the Internet - illustrates these ideas.

Discussion of reasons for the importance of entrepreneurs in Uganda ( 20 marks)Individual benefits (5 marks)
What leads a person to strike out on his own and start a business? Perhaps a person has been laid off once or more. Sometimes a person;
• Is frustrated with his or her current job and doesn't see any better career prospects on the horizon.
• Realizes that his or her job is in jeopardy.
• A firm may be contemplating cutbacks that could end a job or limit career or salary prospects.
• Perhaps a person already has been passed over for promotion.
• Perhaps a person sees no opportunities in existing businesses for someone with his or her interests and skills.
• Some people are actually repulsed by the idea of working for someone else. They object to a system where reward is often based on seniority rather than accomplishment, or where they have to conform to a corporate culture.
• Other people decide to become entrepreneurs because they are disillusioned by the bureaucracy or politics involved in getting ahead in an established business or profession.
• Some are tired of trying to promote a product, service, or way of doing business that is outside the mainstream operations of a large company.
In contrast, some people are attracted to entrepreneurship by the advantages of starting a business. These include:
• Entrepreneurs are their own bosses. They make the decisions. They choose whom to do business with and what work they will do. They decide what hours to work, as well as what to pay and whether to take vacations.
• Entrepreneurship offers a greater possibility of achieving significant financial rewards than working for someone else.
• It provides the ability to be involved in the total operation of the business, from concept to design and creation, from sales to business operations and customer response.
• It offers the prestige of being the person in charge.
• It gives an individual the opportunity to build equity, which can be kept, sold, or passed on to the next generation.
• Entrepreneurship creates an opportunity for a person to make a contribution. Most new entrepreneurs help the local economy. A few - through their innovations - contribute to society as a whole. One example is entrepreneur Steve Jobs, who co-founded Apple in 1976, and ignited the subsequent revolution in desktop computers.

Community/societal benefits (15 marks)

The Impact of Entrepreneurs
The importance of entrepreneurship in general and social entrepreneurship in particular is often overlooked. Social entrepreneurship is important to economic development policies because it can play a vital role to the progress of societies and deliver vital value to societal and economic development.
• Employment Development- The first major economic value that social entrepreneurship creates is the most obvious one because it is shared with entrepreneurs and businesses alike: job and employment creation.
A second dimension of employment development is almost unique to social enterprises; social enterprises provide employment opportunities and job training to segments of society at an employment disadvantage, such as the long-term unemployed, the disabled, the homeless, at-risk youth and gender-discriminated women Some social enterprises act as an “intermediate between unemployment and the open labor market”. Re-integration of disadvantaged groups into the labor market is both socially and financially beneficial for the community at large. In the case of the Grameen Bank, the economic situation of six million disadvantaged women micro - entrepreneurs were improved

• Innovation / New Goods and Services-Social enterprises develop and apply innovation important to social and economic development and develop new goods and services. social-purpose enterprises … bring new responses to unmet social needs can be measured as the provision of new goods and services that are complementary to those delivered by the public and private sectors and accessible to a greater number of citizens” Issues addressed include some of the biggest societal problems such as HIV /Aids, mental ill-health, illiteracy, crime and drug abuses which, importantly, are confronted in innovative ways. Some of these new approaches in some cases are transferable to the public sector e.g. home -based care model for AIDS patients which later changed government health policy. These new kinds of organizations as “hotbeds of ideas and experiments, and they are able to get innovative policies adopted at the central, regional or local government levels”
• Social Capital-Next to economic capital one of the most important values created by social entrepreneurship is social capital. Although the term social capital again is not clearly defined, it is usually understood as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition" Social capital is the most important form of capital created by social entrepreneurs because economic partnerships require shared values, trust and a culture of cooperation which is all part of social capital. Examples include the success of the German and Japanese economies, which have their roots in long-term relationships and the ethics of cooperation, in both essential innovation and industrial development. The World Bank also sees social capital as critical for poverty alleviation and sustainable human and economic development. Existent bonding social capital within groups is reinforced by bridging/linking social capital catalysed by social entrepreneurs” The “virtuous circle of social capital”, starts with the initial endowment of social capital by the social entrepreneur. Building up a network of trust and cooperation and getting more partners involved enables access to physical (e.g. buildings), financial and human capital. Organizational capital is created, and, when the social enterprise is successful, more social capital such as in the form of a re - opened hospital is created:

• Equity Promotion-Another aspect is that social entrepreneurship fosters a more equitable society which is an objective for most economic development policies. Complementing the equity promoting activities of public agencies and NGOs, social enterprises address social issues and try to achieve ongoing sustainable impact through their social mission rather than purely profit-maximization The Grameen Bank and its support for disadvantaged women is an example of how social entrepreneurs support equity-promoting policies. Other examples include reintegrating disadvantaged groups into the labor market and providing affordable goods and services to the poor. Social entrepreneur have helped thousands of low-income high-school students to get into tertiary education.


Or
b) Using Dees (1998) arguments, discuss how social entrepreneurs can play the role of change agents in Uganda
Definition of social entrepreneurs (5 marks)
• Social entrepreneurship is seen as not-for-profit initiatives in search of alternative funding strategies or management schemes to create social value (Austin, Stevenson& Wei-Skiller, 2003; Boschee, 1998)
• Social entrepreneurship understood as the socially responsible practice of commercial business engaged in cross-sector partnerships (Sagawa & Segal, 2000; Waddock, 1998)
• Social entrepreneurship as a means to alleviate social problems and catalyze social transformation ( Alvord et al.., 2004; Ashoka Innovators, 2000)

• Alvord, Brown & Letts (2004) Social entrepreneurship creates innovative solutions to immediate social problems and mobilizes the ideas, capacities, resources and social arrangements required for sustainable social transformation.

• Saiid Business School (2005) Social entrepreneurship may be defined as a professional, innovative and sustainable approach to systemic change that resolves social market failures and grasps opportunities.

• IESE Business School (2005) Social entrepreneurship is a process involving the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyze social change and /or address social needs.

• Mort, Weerawardena, & Carnegie (2002) Social entrepreneurship is a multi-dimensional construct involving the expression of entrepreneurially virtuous behaviour to achieve the social mission , a coherent unity of purpose and action in the face of moral complexity , the ability to recognize social value –creating opportunities and key decision-making characteristics of innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking.

• Social entrepreneurship can be viewed as a process of creating value by combining resources in new ways (Stevenson, Roberts & Grousbeck, 1989; Schumpeter, 1934).

• Haugh & Tracey (2004) Social enterprises are businesses that trade for social purpose. They combine innovation, entrepreneurship and social purpose to seek to be financially sustainable by generating revenue from trading. Their social mission prioritizes social benefit above financial profit and if and when a surplus is made, this is used to further the social aims of the beneficiary group or community and not distributed to those with a controlling interest in the enterprise.

• Dees (1994) social enterprises are private organizations dedicated to solving social problems serving the disadvantaged, providing socially important goods that were not in their judgment adequately provided by public agencies or private markets. These organizations have pursued goals that could not be measured simply by profit generation, market penetration and or voter support.
• According to Dees (1998), Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by:
o Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just social private value)
o Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission,
o Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation and learning,
o Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand and,
o Exhibiting heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created

Explanation of Dees (1998) argument or proposition (5 marks)

Dees (1998) -social enterprises are private organizations dedicated to solving social problems serving the disadvantaged, providing socially important goods that were not in their judgment adequately provided by public agencies or private markets. These organizations have pursued goals that could not be measured simply by profit generation, market penetration and or voter support.
Change agents in the social sector: Social entrepreneurs are the reformers and revolutionaries described by Schumpeter, but with a social mission. They make fundamental changes in the way things are done in the social sector. Their visions are bold. They attack the underlying causes of problems, rather than simply treating symptoms. They often reduce needs rather than just meeting them. They seek to create systemic changes and sustainable improvements. Though they may act locally, their actions have the potential to stimulate global improvements in their chosen arenas, whether that is education, health care, economic development, the environment, the arts, or any other social sector field.

Discussion of how social entrepreneurs can act as change agents (15 marks)
According to Dees (1998), Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by:
• Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just social private value) ( 4 marks)
• Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, (4 marks)
• Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation and learning, ( 4 marks)
• Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand and, ( 4 marks)
Exhibiting heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created
Social sector leaders will exemplify these characteristics in different ways and to different degrees.

• Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value:-This is the core of what distinguishes social entrepreneurs from business entrepreneurs even from socially responsible businesses. For a social entrepreneur, the social mission is fundamental. This is a mission of social improvement that cannot be reduced to creating private benefits (financial returns or consumption benefits) for individuals. Making a profit, creating wealth, or serving the desires of customers may be part of the model, but these are means to a social end, not the end in itself. Profit is not the gauge of value creation; nor is customer satisfaction; social impact is the gauge. Social entrepreneurs look for a long-term social return on investment. Social entrepreneurs want more than a quick hit; they want to create lasting improvements. They think about sustaining the impact.
• Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities: Where others see problems, entrepreneurs see opportunity. Social entrepreneurs are not simply driven by the perception of a social need or by their compassion, rather they have a vision of how to achieve improvement and they are determined to make their vision work. They are persistent. The models they develop and the approaches they take can, and often does, change, as the entrepreneurs learn about what works and what does not work. The key element is persistence combined with a willingness to make adjustments as one goes. Rather than giving up when an obstacle is encountered, entrepreneurs ask, “How can we surmount this obstacle? How can we make this work?”
• Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning: Entrepreneurs are innovative. They break new ground, develop new models, and pioneer new approaches. However, as Schumpeter notes, innovation can take many forms. It does not require inventing something wholly new; it can simply involve applying an existing idea in a new way or to a new situation. Entrepreneurs need not be inventors. They simply need to be creative in applying what others have invented. Their innovations may appear in how they structure their core programs or in how they assemble the resources and fund their work. On the funding side, social entrepreneurs look for innovative ways to assure that their ventures will have access to resources as long as they are creating social value. This willingness to innovate is part of the modus operandi of entrepreneurs. It is not just a one-time burst of creativity. It is a continuous process of exploring, learning, and improving. Of course, with innovation comes uncertainty and risk of failure. Entrepreneurs tend to have a high tolerance for ambiguity and learn how to manage risks for themselves and others. They treat failure of a project as a learning experience, not a personal tragedy.
• Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand: Social entrepreneurs do not let their own limited resources keep them from pursuing their visions. They are skilled at doing more with less and at attracting resources from others. They use scarce resources efficiently, and they leverage their limited resources by drawing in partners and collaborating with others. They explore all resource options, from pure philanthropy to the commercial methods of the business sector. They are not bound by sector norms or traditions. They develop resource strategies that are likely to support and reinforce their social missions. They take calculated risks and manage the downside, so as to reduce the harm that will result from failure. They understand the risk tolerances of their stakeholders and use this to spread the risk to those who are better prepared to accept it.
• Exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created: Because market discipline does not automatically weed out inefficient or ineffective social ventures, social entrepreneurs take steps to assure they are creating value. This means that they seek a sound understanding of the constituencies they are serving. They make sure they have correctly assessed the needs and values of the people they intend to serve and the communities in which they operate. In some cases, this requires close connections with those communities. They understand the expectations and values of their “investors,” including anyone who invests money, time, and/or expertise to help them. They seek to provide real social improvements to their beneficiaries and their communities, as well as attractive (social and/or financial) return to their investors. Creating a fit between investor values and community needs is an important part of the challenge. When feasible, social entrepreneurs create market-like feedback mechanisms to reinforce this accountability. They assess their progress in terms of social, financial, and managerial outcomes, not simply in terms of their size, outputs, or processes. They use this information to make course corrections as needed.

2. Either
a) Using practical examples familiar to you outline and comment on the process of social entreprise venture formation in society.

Stage 1. The Formation of Social Sentiments
Sentiments-including perceptions, motives and emotions, thinking and learning and complex combination of opinions and feeling that’s lead to action and judgment, and focus the individual on the pursuit of relativity permanents ends. They accidentally develop from a strong relationship with someone or something and are biased by the individual’s prior experiences. Once developed, their strength is manifested in the strong devotion individual develop towards, for example other people or ideas. Sentiments control individual’s behavior, energize them towards what has become their attention (e.g. a particular social issue), and guide their long-term individual actions. In social entrepreneurship context, social sentiments seem to turn individuals into citizens who are dissatisfied with the status quo, loyal to their values and philosophy and motivated to act in socially responsible manner. Social sentiments are formed from the complex combination of a key relationship (her relationship with nature), and predisposition traits (her capacity to experience and instill empathy and her high degree of moral judgment). Predisposition traits are those that naturally motivate the individual to take into consideration other people's needs or interests. The formation of social feelings does not automatically imply the creation of social venture. Individuals with strong social feelings may act in various sectors and in a wide variety of professions (e.g. doctors) and vocations (e.g. religious or educational). However, social feelings seem to be an important element in the process of formation of intentions to create a social venture. The decision to create a social venture is influenced by the early formation of social feelings, which are originated by a key relationship with someone or something (external factor), and predisposition traits (internal factors).

Stage 2: The entrepreneurial process:
Will power- defined as energetic determination and, "the most powerful force of human behaviour, is closely related to propensity to act . Willpower can be identified in an individual when he/she goals. This is described it as “a deep personal attachment to an intention". It's power is such that it moves an individual to act, despite adversity, lack of motivation, low energy levels, or alternative opportunities. Furthermore, willpower to inspire the individual in the face of difficulties. Willpower can result from the complex combination of motivation (create social impact, reach more people, financial, and desire for social change) with action- related traits (her tendency to do things her way, adaptation skills, and long term focus). In addition it can be displayed in particular action –oriented traits that make one feel capable of accomplishing the undertaking. They possess skills already attributed to traditional entrepreneurs, which increase their level of willpower. While individuals acts with willpower will not necessarily create a social venture, willpower is an important variable in understanding the process by which the intention to create a social venture develops. A social entrepreneur's propensity to act is influenced by the display of willpower and it is determined by the combination of the type of motivations that social entrepreneurs experience and action-oriented traits that make them feel capable of pursuing their initiatives.
 Development of skills that may contribute to entrepreneurial behavior
 Awareness - building interest in the option of starting an SE/SF (AIDA - awareness, interest, desire, action)
 Examining opportunities to fulfil needs or wants and t solve problems
 Generate ideas to satisfy the opportunities

Stage 3: Use available resources and resources to evaluate opportunities and ideas
 Assess the opportunities and ideas
 Support: – defined as access to human and material resources – that social entrepreneur are able to gather affects their perception of feasibility only after they have evaluated the amount and type of support available for the venture. Support must occur at two distinct levels (individual and organizational) if it is to have a positive influence on the social entrepreneur's perceptions of the feasibility of the venture. The level of support that social entrepreneurs obtain from stakeholders will depend on the stock of resources available in their social network, and on their ability to enhance that stock by influencing stakeholders' judgment of the venture and thus also their willingness to invest. Access to human social and material resources is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to develop intentions to create a social venture. The perceived feasibility of a social venture is influenced by the amount and type of support the social entrepreneur is able to gather at the individual and organizational level.

Stage 4: Plan and prepare the venture thoroughly
Opportunity Construction: Opportunities can be searched for they can be discovered. Both types of opportunity recognition require prior experience or knowledge. One does not search for what one does not know, and one cannot discover what one mind cannot perceive. A third way to recognize opportunities-- construct them: "opportunities are thus very much in the eyes of the beholder. Once the individual perceive the opportunity, he/she will experience perceptions of desirability – among other factors – if the venture meets personal preferences ( e.g. high versus low tech ) In some cases the opportunity is constructed by combining prior experience and salient events. While important, opportunity construction is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the intention to create a social venture. The perceived desirability of a social venture is influenced by the combination of a social opportunity. The construction of a social opportunity is determined by a combination of the social entrepreneur's prior experience and salient events that help him/her to recognize it.

Stage 5: Implementation



b) Discuss some of the impacts of social entrepreneurs in Ugandan society

The Impact of Social Entrepreneurs

The importance of entrepreneurship in general and social entrepreneurship in particular is often overlooked. Social entrepreneurship is important to economic development policies because it can play a vital role to the progress of societies and deliver vital value to societal and economic development.

Employment Development: The first major economic value that social entrepreneurship creates is shared with entrepreneurs and businesses alike: job and employment creation. A study from the John Hopkins University from 1998 shows that the number of people who are employed in social enterprises in a multi-country context, ranges from one to seven percent in the selected countries.

A second dimension of employment development is almost unique to social enterprises; social enterprises provide employment opportunities and job training to segments of society at an employment disadvantage, such as the long-term unemployed, the disabled, the homeless, at-risk youth and gender-discriminated women19. Some social enterprises act as an “intermediate between unemployment and the open labor market”. Re-integration of disadvantaged groups into the labor market is both socially and financially beneficial for the community at large. In the case of Prof. Yunus and the Grameen Bank, the economic situation of six million disadvantaged women micro - entrepreneurs were improved

Innovation / New Goods and Services: Social enterprises develop and apply innovation important to social and economic development and develop new goods and services. As the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) states, “social-purpose enterprises … bring new responses to unmet social needs can be measured as the provision of new goods and services that are complementary to those delivered by the public and private sectors and accessible to a greater number of citizens” Issues addressed include some of the biggest societal problems such as HIV /Aids, mental ill-health, illiteracy, crime and drug abusers which, importantly, are confronted in innovative ways. An example showing that these new approaches in some cases are transferable to the public sector is the Brazilian social entrepreneur Veronica Khosa, who developed a home -based care model for AIDS patients which later changed government health policy. The OECD sees these new kinds of organizations as “hotbeds of ideas and experiments, and they are able to get innovative policies adopted at the central,
regional or local government levels”.

A second dimension of employment development is almost unique to social enterprises; social enterprises provide employment opportunities and job training to segments of society at an employment disadvantage, such as the long-term unemployed, the disabled, the homeless, at-risk youth and gender-discriminated women. Some social enterprises act as an “intermediate between unemployment and the open labor market”. Re-integration of disadvantaged groups into the labor market is both socially and financially beneficial for the community at large. In the case of Prof. Yunus and the Grameen Bank, the economic situation of six million disadvantaged women microentrepreneurs were improved

Social Capital: The most important value created by social entrepreneurship is social capital. Although the term social capital again is not clearly defined, it is usually understood as “ the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition". To Leadbeater (1997), social capital is the most important form of capital created by social entrepreneurs because economic partnerships require shared values, trust and a culture of cooperation which is all part of social capital. As examples he mentions the success of the German and Japanese economies, which have their roots in long-term relationships and the ethics of cooperation, in both essential innovation and industrial development. The World Bank also sees social capital as critical for poverty alleviation and sustainable human and economic development. Hasan (2005) mentions the Grameen Bank again, along with several other Asian examples, and concludes with the statement that “existent bonding social capital within groups has been reinforced by bridging/linking social capital catalysed by social entrepreneurs”.

The “virtuous circle of social capital”, starts with the initial endowment of social capital by the social entrepreneur. Building up a network of trust and cooperation and getting more partners involved enables access to physical (e.g. buildings), financial and human capital. Organizational capital is created, and, when the social enterprise is successful, more social capital such as in the form of a re - opened hospital is created:


Equity Promotion: Another aspect is that social entrepreneurship fosters a more equitable society which is an objective for most economic development policies. Complementing the equity promoting activities of public agencies and NGOs, social enterprises address social issues and try to achieve ongoing sustainable impact through their social mission rather than purely profit-maximization. Again Yunus’s Grameen Bank and its support for disadvantaged women is an example of how social entrepreneurs support equity-promoting policies. Other examples include reintegrating disadvantaged groups into the labor market and providing affordable goods and services to the poor. For instance, the American social entrepreneur J.B. Schramm has helped thousands of low-income high-school students to get into tertiary education.