It’s still unanswered! — Social Business Vs. Charity
Around five years ago, I made a painting that got me an International Award for Best Artwork at the “Art for Economy” contest, organized by the Indian Institute of Management(IIM), Bangalore & International Consortium for Innovation & Entrepreneurship Research.
The work of art that I had presented depicted the Grameen Bank Model of Social Business. The thought behind the painting was inspired by the book “Banker to the Poor” by Dr. Muhammad Yunus.
This is the most sustainable business model that can be applied to solve social problems without depending too much on external influence. To bring it simply, Grameen Bank Model is the complete opposite of the conventional banking model. While the traditional model of banking is more goal-oriented, the Grameen bank model is process-oriented.
The model enables a process of sustainable generation of wealth and ensures help, assistance, and guidance to solve social problems. However, this help is not for free, but in exchange for responsibility and accountability for the support given.
The following part of the book — Banker to the Poor, especially got me puzzled and question the current model followed by NGOs and Altruists.
“Handing out money (to the poor) is a way of shielding ourselves from addressing the real issue. Handing out pittance is a way of making ourselves think we have done something and feel good for having shared our good fortune with the poor. But in fact, we are leaving the problem alone. We have merely thrown money at it and walked away. But for how long?
Giving alms to a beggar is not a long-term or even a short-term solution. The beggar will only go to the next car, the next tourist, and do the same. And eventually, he will come back to the donor who gave him money and on who he now depends. If we honestly want to solve the problem, we have to get involved and start a process. If the donor opened the door of the car and asked the beggar what the problem was, what his name was, how old he was, whether he had sought medical assistance, what training he had, then the donor might be of help. But handing the beggar money is only a way of telling him to buzz off and leave the donor alone.
I do not question the moral duty to help, nor the instinct to want to help the needy, only the form that help takes.
On the recipient’s side, the charity can have devastating effects. It robs the recipient of dignity, and it removes the incentive of having to generate income. It makes the recipient passive and satisfied thinking “all I have to do is sit here with my hands out, and I will earn a living.”
So are we doing more wrong than right by handing out some portion of our income to a causes we believe in blindly without introspection? How can we make altruism and philathrophy more effctive? How can we create a more process oriented system than a goal oriented one?
