Abstract: Social entrepreneurship is a new and exciting topic
that holds a great promise in helping alleviate the social problems of
the world. As a new subject, the meaning of the term is too broad and
this is counterproductive in trying to build understanding around the
concept. The purpose of this study is to identify and compare the
elements of social entrepreneurship as defined by seven international
organizations leading social entrepreneurship projects: Ashoka
Foundation, Skoll Foundation, Schwab Foundation and Yunus
Center; as well as from three other institutions fostering social
entrepreneurship: Global Social Benefit Institute, BRAC University,
and Socialab. The study used document analysis from Skoll
Foundation, Schwab Foundation, Yunus Center and Ashoka
Foundation; and open ended interview to experts from the Global
Social Benefit Institute at Santa Clara University in United States,
BRAC University from Bangladesh, and Socialab from Argentina.
The study identified three clearly differentiated schools of thought,
based on their views on revenue, scalability, replicability and
geographic location. While this study is by no means exhaustive, it
provides an indication of the patterns of ideas fostered by important
players in the field. By clearly identifying the similarities and
differences in the concept of social entrepreneurship, research and
practitioners are better equipped to build on the subject, and to
promote more adequate and accurate social policies to foster the
development of social entrepreneurship.
Abstract: This paper argues nation-building theories that
prioritize democratic governance best explain the successful postindependence
development of Botswana. Three main competing
schools of thought exist regarding the sequencing of policies that
should occur to re-build weakened or failed states. The first posits
that economic development should receive foremost attention, while
democratization and a binding sense of nationalism can wait. A
second group of experts identified constructing a sense of nationalism
among a populace is necessary first, so that the state receives popular
legitimacy and obedience that are prerequisites for development.
Botswana, though, transitioned into a multi-party democracy and
prosperous open economy due to the utilization of traditional
democratic structures, enlightened and accountable leadership, and an
educated technocratic civil service. With these political foundations
already in place when the discovery of diamonds occurred, the
resulting revenues were spent wisely on projects that grew the
economy, improved basic living standards, and attracted foreign
investment. Thus democratization preceded, and therefore provided
an accountable basis for, economic development that might otherwise
have been squandered by greedy and isolated elites to the detriment
of the greater population. Botswana was one of the poorest nations in
the world at the time of its independence in 1966, with little
infrastructure, a dependence on apartheid South Africa for trade, and
a largely subsistence economy. Over the next thirty years, though, its
economy grew the fastest of any nation in the world. The transparent
and judicious use of diamond returns is only a partial explanation, as
the government also pursued economic diversification, mass
education, and rural development in response to public needs.
As nation-building has become a project undertaken by nations
and multilateral agencies such as the United Nations and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, Botswana may provide best practices
that others should follow in attempting to reconstruct economically
and politically unstable states.
Abstract: If science is supposed to gain greater social
relevance and acceptance, researchers must not only relate to
the broader public, but also promote intercourse within the
ivory tower itself. The latter process has been under way
successfully for a number of years in the form of
transdisciplinary research initiatives. What is still lacking is a
broad debate about the necessity to look around properly and
face up to opposing views on one and the same topic within
our own discipline.