No. That’s a dumb question to begin with, given that 75% of the population lives on less than $1.25 a day. But it can help a lot of them, which is exactly what TechnoServe’s (TNS) work over the past four years has shown. During my time here, I'm trying to paint a picture of how the effects of an emerging poultry industry are reaching everyone in the poultry industry, especially the poor. I’ll attempt to tell you a bit more about drumsticks and what I’ve seen so far.
If you’ve ever wondered how “development aid”, gets to (primarily African) countries, TNS is one of the conduits. Most people think of development aid as US tax dollars going into the black hole budgets of corrupt African governments. However, some aid is earmarked for organizations like TNS. TechnoServe is unique because it aims to make a broad-based impact across the economy using market-based approaches. It hauls in McKinsey consultants, investment bankers, and anyone else with outstanding experience and gets them to analyze the entire value chain of an industry to see what can be done. I told my friend it's the first time I've felt like the dumbest person in the room at any given time.
Rob, sounds like you're enjoying your experience at TechnoServe. I'm glad it's going pretty well. I'm still really jealous. I wish I knew about them before last summer. I'm having a great time reading your blog and am glad you posted that TV ad. It's amazing how effective they've been. I've talked to so many people in Moz, and they would randomly comment on how they started buying Moz chicken. Pretty cool stuff. It's really encouraging seeing TNS get money instead of exclusively going to the black hole. Keep me updated!
I think that's a false dichotomy, Rob-Either extend business opportunities to the poorest or don't. I'm not sure it needs to be quite that cut and dried. I'd suggest that the idea of what counts as entrepreneurship might need to be rethought. At a minimum, I think what you're finding out is that a successful entrepreneur is worth more to a community than we ever thought which in turn means that we might be willing to invest substantially more money and time into the cultivation and identification of those people.
Sorry for the long-windedness of this... First let me clarify that when I was talking about entrepreneurs and picking winners, I (and Jake) was talking about the big players in the industry, like New Horizons (NH), a poultry company that uses the poor as their chicken growers. The poor, in effect, are micro-entrepreneurs. I agree with what Josh is saying - I think defining what is an entrepreneurial activity is difficult.
There are many shades of gray in this definition. Would you consider a street seller who is peddling women's shoes and belts to be an entrepreneur? Maybe. It's his own "business", certainly. I talked to one man worked in the feed mill at a poultry farm. He used to be a street seller before this job. On the one hand, he told me how he had to stay current on the latest fashions. However, in the same sentence that he mentioned his street selling, he told me his family rejoiced when he got the poultry job because he was jobless before. To him, street selling wasn't even a job. Was it entrepreneurial? It's hard to tell. It seems that at the end of the day he was simply trying to get by.
Some of the poultry growers that NH uses are now starting to invest in a second chicken house. Now they're employing their children and even some neighbors to watch over their flocks. They are in a position where they can start to think ahead. To a certain extent, the success of these farmers isn't just due to having their heads above water, but also to education and innate ability, among other things. However, I think these are also factors that define poverty.
I think that if we expand our definition of entrepreneurship, we should also adjust our expectations of what entrepreneurship will create. When I made the post, I suppose I was thinking in a more limited scope for the definition. I was thinking of entrepreneurship in terms of sustainable approaches by NGOs and social enterprises. I think sustainability ultimately requires the beneficiary to have some personal stake in the success or failure of the approach. It's hard for me conjure up such an approach when the beneficiary has nothing to lose. I'd love to hear more thoughts...examples always help too!
Investors: Jessie & Dottie Prince, Gary & Patti Wickless, Josh & Megan Packard, David & Diane Pierce, Tom Whiting, Jes Gagnon, Kelly Moore, Mike Gallagher, Gale Tuttle, Rose Larson
Posts
Rob, sounds like you're enjoying your experience at TechnoServe. I'm glad it's going pretty well. I'm still really jealous. I wish I knew about them before last summer. I'm having a great time reading your blog and am glad you posted that TV ad. It's amazing how effective they've been. I've talked to so many people in Moz, and they would randomly comment on how they started buying Moz chicken. Pretty cool stuff. It's really encouraging seeing TNS get money instead of exclusively going to the black hole. Keep me updated!
ReplyDeleteI think that's a false dichotomy, Rob-Either extend business opportunities to the poorest or don't. I'm not sure it needs to be quite that cut and dried. I'd suggest that the idea of what counts as entrepreneurship might need to be rethought. At a minimum, I think what you're finding out is that a successful entrepreneur is worth more to a community than we ever thought which in turn means that we might be willing to invest substantially more money and time into the cultivation and identification of those people.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the long-windedness of this... First let me clarify that when I was talking about entrepreneurs and picking winners, I (and Jake) was talking about the big players in the industry, like New Horizons (NH), a poultry company that uses the poor as their chicken growers. The poor, in effect, are micro-entrepreneurs. I agree with what Josh is saying - I think defining what is an entrepreneurial activity is difficult.
ReplyDeleteThere are many shades of gray in this definition. Would you consider a street seller who is peddling women's shoes and belts to be an entrepreneur? Maybe. It's his own "business", certainly. I talked to one man worked in the feed mill at a poultry farm. He used to be a street seller before this job. On the one hand, he told me how he had to stay current on the latest fashions. However, in the same sentence that he mentioned his street selling, he told me his family rejoiced when he got the poultry job because he was jobless before. To him, street selling wasn't even a job. Was it entrepreneurial? It's hard to tell. It seems that at the end of the day he was simply trying to get by.
Some of the poultry growers that NH uses are now starting to invest in a second chicken house. Now they're employing their children and even some neighbors to watch over their flocks. They are in a position where they can start to think ahead. To a certain extent, the success of these farmers isn't just due to having their heads above water, but also to education and innate ability, among other things. However, I think these are also factors that define poverty.
I think that if we expand our definition of entrepreneurship, we should also adjust our expectations of what entrepreneurship will create. When I made the post, I suppose I was thinking in a more limited scope for the definition. I was thinking of entrepreneurship in terms of sustainable approaches by NGOs and social enterprises. I think sustainability ultimately requires the beneficiary to have some personal stake in the success or failure of the approach. It's hard for me conjure up such an approach when the beneficiary has nothing to lose. I'd love to hear more thoughts...examples always help too!