Trevor writes:
Was wondering what would happen if 100% of donor funds started in the hands of the target beneficiary... instead of trickling down through any number of project managers, consultants and admin cost structures to hardly benefit the target beneficiary at all... how would that change the Social Entrepreneurial game? Is it counter-intuitive?
Here are some links to aid further thought around this off-the-wall idea:
1. Flood Up, Not Trickle Down! - some extracts:
Extensive research has shown that increasing wages actually benefits the economy and helps businesses. The idea harkens back to economist John Maynard Keynes who first wrote about the downward spiral known as “the paradox of thrift.”
Keynes and others understood the “the circular flow of money” or “multiplier effect” of new money in an economy: If workers are paid more money, they will spend it. The business that a worker spends it with will spend it with someone else who will spend it with someone else, and so on. This expansion continues until it comes back several-fold not only to the original person but to the whole economy.
2. Binary Economicsin a Nutshell
3. Social Business Entrepreneurs Are the Solution - Muhammad Yunus - Grameen Bank
Regards
Trevor Nel - 011 - 705-2790 - http://www.innercircleforum.com/
trevor@innercircleforum.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
informative
This is a challenge you have posed, one with its own risks and more. people need to be managed, that's just the truth of the matter, but then the question is to what extent?
This touches a nerve especially when it comes to donor funding, the recipient organizations and the impact on the intended projects.
Best analysis read so far....
Post a Comment