Is “creative capitalism” social entrepreneurship?

Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates

recently argued that a hybrid form of business

and social or ecological entrepreneurship in

pursuit of a double or triple bottom line (profit

plus social and environmental good) is a viable

approach to meeting some of the world’s most

pressing problems. He calls this approach cre-

ative capitalism.

Bill Gates is a big deal and commands a lot of

respect, so his notion of creative capitalism

has sparked a lot of interest. Creative capital-

ism suggests that many Western multinational

corporations, by tapping into their tremendous

pools of human and other resources, can meet

the challenges of our day and still turn a profit.

Although this sounds extremely attractive, it

may not be, by definition, particularly entrepre-

neurial — especially at the local level where it

counts the most.

Why not? Because the approach basically calls

for re-allocation of already existing talents and

resources, instead of the promotion of local

entrepreneurial activity that demands the best

creative and pragmatic responses from those

directly affected. The entrepreneurial mindset

at the heart of dignity, integrity, adaptability, and

social development could be seriously compro-

mised. Unhealthy dependencies could result

from the hopes that some corporate-backed

cavalry will be riding in to save the day. A lot of

research bears out our criticism here. The his-

tory of corporate interventions is littered with

failures that lacked local entrepreneurial “fit.”

The documentary What Are We Doing Here?

provides an eyewitness account of the failures

of Western intervention in Africa, in particular.

We don’t mean to denigrate the possibilities

for large corporations, universities, and gov-

ernments to help. But if that help is to move

from just a new form of charity to real devel-

opment of broken societies, it must move from

being another fancy form of handout to being a

legitimate hand up. Tied aid — aid with strings

attached — or Western investments with

expectations of financial return are not social

entrepreneurship. In our opinion, fostering local

and autonomous entrepreneurship is the way

to go.

Local entrepreneurs may be looking for assis-

tance as they innovate. They’re not looking,

however, to have things done for them by

distant, faceless institutions, whether for or not

for profit. This is where the poor “fit” comes in.

Western corporations know little if anything of

local cultures, experiences, or dreams. The gap

between is and ought to be, which is what must

be dealt with after all, is the entrepreneur’s,

often embodied and storied in his own life and

culture.